Since my last post on the most commonly used pesticide in the world - glyphosate - there have been a number of important developments. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the weed-killer or herbicide Roundup, which is manufactured by the chemical giant Monsanto. There have been more questions raised about the safety of glyphosate, and also what went on behind the scenes recently between Monsanto and some officials at the EPA, especially EPA deputy division director Jess Rowland.

Was there a downplaying of the pesticide's health effects or squashing of researchers and studies that raised health concerns? (Remember that the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, found glyphosate to be a "probable carcinogen" in 2015, but the manufacturer Monsanto has fought long and hard against that designation) Was there corruption? Or ...?

A big problem is that the EPA relies on industry-funded studies to determine if something is safe or not - which is like the fox guarding the chicken house. Also, were the so-called "independent" research articles actually ghost-written by industry (Monsanto), which is what some documents are suggesting? And why was a government review of the pesticide squashed? Tsk.... tsk.... Another problem is that the EPA can choose which studies to include when making a decision - and they can choose to disregard independent peer-reviewed research (the better research) and rely on industry studies that are not peer-reviewed (definitely bias in these studies). And yes, this happened here. For example, the EPA has ignored more than 1500 published (and peer reviewed) studies on glyphosate from the last decade and instead relied largely on less than 300 unpublished, non-peer-reviewed studies. Another tsk...tsk....

Now a published paper by noted researchers (see below) makes the case that the debate over glyphosate remains unsettled and requires further review. The researchers recommend such things as better testing of glyphosate levels and its metabolites in the human body. They pointed out that some studies with rodents found that glyphosate is a carcinogen (can "induce cancers"), and other studies find glyphosate is associated with negative health effects in humans, such as chronic kidney disease and some cancers. Some research suggests that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor. Also, chemical mixtures can be more toxic than individual chemicals - this is a concern with the chemicals in Roundup. Studies are needed examining people exposed through their occupations (e.g., pesticide applicators), and also "vulnerable populations (e.g., pregnant women, babies, children). The researchers added that current safety standards are outdated and may fail to protect public health and the environment.

I would like to add that this is why glyphosate residues need to be studied in food - we are eating the stuff unless we only eat organic food. Due to the practices of "preharvest application" of glyphosate (Roundup) and the increasing use of genetically modified crops (such as Roundup Ready crops) that allow the herbicide to be applied without killing the crop (but which means the pesticide is in the crop), the use of glyphosate is increasing rapidly. And then there is the use on school grounds, in suburban yards, and properties. Yikes! This is not a political issue - this is a health issue, and of having the right-to-know what is in our food, our bodies, and our environment (you don't think it just stays on the fields where it is used, do you?)

Excerpts from the NY Times article: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

The reputation of Roundup, whose active ingredient is the world’s most widely used weed killer, took a hit on Tuesday when a federal court unsealed documents raising questions about its safety and the research practices of its manufacturer, the chemical giant Monsanto.... A case in federal court in San Francisco has challenged that conclusion, building on the findings of an international panel that claimed Roundup’s main ingredient might cause cancer.

The court documents included Monsanto’s internal emails and email traffic between the company and federal regulators. The records suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics and indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The documents also revealed that there was some disagreement within the E.P.A. over its own safety assessment.

Excerpts from an article about the BMJ paper (see below) at Science Daily: Weedkiller chemical (glyphosate) safety standards need urgent review

But most of the science used to support the safety standards applied in the US was carried out more than 30 years ago, and relatively little of it was subject to peer review, they point out. More than 1500 studies have been published on the chemical over the past decade alone. "It is incongruous that safety assessments of the most widely used herbicide on the planet rely largely on fewer than 300 unpublished, non-peer reviewed studies while excluding the vast modern literature on glyphosate effects," say the experts. And despite the rapid increase in use there is no systematic monitoring system for tracking levels in human tissue, and few studies have looked at potential harms to human health.

But recent animal studies have suggested that glyphosate at doses lower than those used to assess risk, may be linked to heightened risks of liver, kidney, eye and cardiovascular system damage. And weed-killers, which combine glyphosate with other 'so-called inert ingredients,' may be even more potent. But these mixtures are regarded as commercially sensitive by the manufacturers and are therefore not available for public scrutiny, say the experts.

Excerpt from the BMJ Journal of Epidiomology and Community Health: Is it time to reassess current safety standards for glyphosate-based herbicides?

Use of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) increased ∼100-fold from 1974 to 2014. Additional increases are expected due to widespread emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds, increased application of GBHs, and preharvest uses of GBHs as desiccants. Current safety assessments rely heavily on studies conducted over 30 years ago. We have considered information on GBH use, exposures, mechanisms of action, toxicity and epidemiology. Human exposures to glyphosate are rising, and a number of in vitro and in vivo studies challenge the basis for the current safety assessment of glyphosate and GBHs. We conclude that current safety standards for GBHs are outdated and may fail to protect public health or the environment.

 Why is the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) dropping plans to test for glyphosate residues in food? It was supposed to start soon (April 1, 2017), in coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but now all plans to test have been dropped. Why is this worrisome? The issue is that glyphosate is currently the most widely used pesticide in the world. It is a herbicide that is the active ingredient in the herbicide commonly known as Roundup. Global use was 1.65 billion pounds in 2014 , while overall use in the US was 276.4 million pounds in 2014. Glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen and linked to various health effects, and research shows that glyphosate residues are commonly found in foods.

Even though whether glyphosate is a carcinogen is hotly debated by some groups (with Monsanto fiercely fighting against such a label), it shouldn't matter in the decision of whether to test for glyphosate residues in foods. What is going on with our food, and whether and how much glyphosate residues are in food should be monitored. Government agencies (such as USDA) test for other pesticide residues, and they should do the same for glyphosate, especially because it is so widely used.

The FDA did test for a short while last year (2016) and then stopped in the fall, and yes, they found residues in the foods they studied. Government and private testing has already found glyphosate residues in breast milk, soybeans, corn, honey, cereal, wheat flour, oatmeal, soy sauce, beer, and infant formula. It is currently unknown what the glyphosate residues in food that we eat means for human health. Several studies have linked glyphosate to human health ailments, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma and kidney and liver problems. Of special concern is that because glyphosate is so pervasive in the environment, even trace amounts might be harmful due to chronic exposure. Glyphosate is patented by its manufacturer (Monsanto) for its antibacterial properties - thus it can be viewed as an antibiotic. What is it doing to our gut microbes when ingested? Some people (including researchers) are even suggesting that much of "gluten sensitivity" or "gluten intolerance" that people complain of, may actually be sensitivity to glyphosate residues in food. There are many unanswered questions.

So....is this a case of burying the head in the sand? That there are no problems if no one looks for them? The EPA has long known that glyphosate residues are occurring in food because in 2013 the EPA raised "tolerance limits" for human exposure to glyphosate for certain foods, stating with "reasonable certainty that no harm will result" from human exposure to the chemical. This increase in tolerance levels came about from a request from Monsanto (the manufacturer of the glyphosate herbicide Roundup), and even though numerous groups protested the increase, the EPA went along with Monsanto's request. Some tolerances doubled. Pesticide residues are an important issue - because we don't know what chronic exposure to mixtures of low levels of pesticides (which includes glyphosate) in foods does to us. To babies and children, to pregnant women, to the elderly, to all of us.

But remember.... there are very strong industry pressures on the EPA and USDA, with some government officials also having ties to the industry, and so perhaps it's a case of keeping the head firmly in the sand for all sorts of pesticide issues. Maybe the motto is: see no evil...hear no evil....There have been some lawsuits from people claiming harm from the pesticide, as well as push back from scientists and environmental groups. Some influential scientists and physicians came out with a Statement of Concern in 2016 regarding their serious concerns with glyphosate.

The reason that glyphosate tolerance limits needed to be increased in the USA is because Roundup Ready crops are now so extensively planted, and this has resulted in skyrocketing use of glyphosate in the last 20 years. Roundup Ready crops are genetically modified to tolerate repeated glyphosate spraying (against weeds)  during the growing season. However, the crops take up and accumulate  glyphosate, and so glyphosate residues are increasing in crops. Another reason for increased residue of glyphosate in crops is the current practice of applying an herbicide such as Roundup right at the time of harvest to non-GMO crops such as wheat, so that the crop dies at once and dries out (pre-harvest crop dessication), and which is called a "preharvest application" by Monsanto. Glyphosate is now off-patent so many other companies are also using glyphosate in their products throughout the world.

How to lower your daily intake of glyphosate? Eat organic foods as much as possible, including wheat, corn, oats, soybeans. Glyphosate is not allowed to be used in organic food production. The following excerpts are from an article by journalist Carey Gillam, and it is well worth reading the entire article. From The Huffington Post:

USDA Drops Plan to Test for Monsanto Weed Killer in Food

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has quietly dropped a plan to start testing food for residues of glyphosate, the world’s most widely used weed killer and the key ingredient in Monsanto Co.’s branded Roundup herbicides. The agency spent the last year coordinating with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in preparation to start testing samples of corn syrup for glyphosate residues on April 1, according to internal agency documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests. Documents show that at least since January 2016 into January of this year, the glyphosate testing plan was moving forward. But when asked about the plan this week, a USDA spokesman said no glyphosate residue testing would be done at all by USDA this year.

The USDA’s plan called for the collection and testing of 315 samples of corn syrup from around the United States from April through August, according to the documents. Researchers were also supposed to test for the AMPA metabolite, the documents state. AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) is created as glyphosate breaks down. Measuring residues that include those from AMPA is important because AMPA is not a benign byproduct but carries its own set of safety concerns, scientists believe.

The USDA does not routinely test for glyphosate as it does for other pesticides used in food production. But that stance has made the USDA the subject of criticism as controversy over glyphosate safety has mounted in recent years. The discussions of testing this year come as U.S. and European regulators are wrestling with cancer concerns about the chemical, and as Monsanto, which has made billions of dollars from its glyphosate-based herbicides, is being sued by hundreds of people who claim exposures to Roundup caused them or their loved ones to suffer from non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Internal Monsanto documents obtained by plaintiffs’ attorneys in those cases indicate that Monsanto may have manipulated research regulators relied on to garner favorable safety assessments, and last week, Congressman Ted Lieu called for a probe by the Department of Justice into Monsanto’s actions.

Along with the USDA, the Food and Drug Administration also annually tests thousands of food samples for pesticide residues. Both agencies have done so for decades as a means to ensure that traces of weed killers, insecticides, fungicides and other chemicals used in farming do not persist at unsafe levels in food products commonly eaten by American families. If they find residues above the “maximum residue level” (MRL) allowed for that pesticide and that food, the agencies are supposed to inform the EPA, and actions can be taken against the supplier. The EPA is the regulator charged with establishing MRLs, also called “tolerances,” for different types of pesticides in foods, and the agency coordinates with USDA and FDA on the pesticide testing programs.

But despite the fact that glyphosate use has surged in the last 20 years alongside the marketing of glyphosate-tolerant crops, both USDA and FDA have declined to test for glyphosate residues aside from one time in 2011 when the USDA tested 300 soybean samples for glyphosate and AMPA residues. At that time the agency found 271 samples contained glyphosate, but said the levels were under the MRL - low enough not to be worrisome. The Government Accountability Office took both agencies to task in 2014 for the failure to test regularly for glyphosate.

The USDA’s most recent published report on pesticide residues in food found that for 2015 testing, only 15 percent of the 10,187 samples tested were free from any detectable pesticide residues. That’s a marked difference from 2014, when the USDA found that over 41 percent of samples were “clean” or showed no detectable pesticide residues. But the agency said the important point was that most of the samples, over 99 percent, had residues below the EPA’s established tolerances and are at levels that “do not pose risk to consumers’ health and are safe.” Many scientists take issue with using MRLs as a standard associated with safety, arguing they are based on pesticide industry data and rely on flawed analyses. Much more research is needed to understand the impact on human health of chronic dietary exposures to pesticides, many say.

  Did you know that some foods have nanoparticles added to them? Which means that you may be ingesting food nanoparticles without knowing it. There are currently hundreds of foods with nanoparticles in them, and it is estimated that people (in developed countries) consume more than 1012 nanoparticles in foods each day. The nanoparticles in foods are ingredients so small that they are measured in nanometers or billionths of one meter. The most common nanoingredients are: titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, and zinc oxide.

What, if anything, do nanoingredients do to humans? That is, are there any effects from ingesting them? Several articles in the past year raise a number of concerns, especially because so much is still unknown. Two recent studies, one done in the US. (using an intestinal model) and one in France (using rats) also raise similar health concerns.

The U. S. study found that the ability of small intestine cells to absorb nutrients and act as a barrier to pathogens is "significantly decreased" after chronic low-level exposure to nanoparticles of titanium dioxide. It affected the surface of the intestinal cells, called microvilli, of the small intestine in a negative way (it "induced a significant decrease in absorptive microvilli"). The French study found that 100 days of chronic low-level ingestion of titanium nanoparticles in food resulted in intestinal inflammation, that it crossed the intestinal barrier and passed into the bloodstream (and even to the liver), and there was development of "preneoplastic lesions" - thus leading the researchers to suggest that chronic low-level exposure plays a role in initiating and promoting early stages of colorectal cancer (colorectal carcinogenesis).

Meanwhile the use of nanoingredients is unregulated in the U.S., and the number of foods with nanoingredients is growing rapidly. About 36% of the titanium dioxide used in food is in titanium dioxide nanoparticle form. It is frequently found in processed foods such as candies, icing, and chewing gums, and is primarily used to make the food whiter or brighter. In the European Union titanium dioxide nanoparticles used as a food additive is known as E171.

Nanoparticles are typically used in foods as additives, flavorings, coloring, or even coatings for food packaging (which can then migrate or leach into food). It is thought that nanocoatings are being used on some fruits and vegetables. Even though ingredients such as titanium dioxide are considered to be "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) before they're made into nanoparticles, the question is whether they’re safe in their nanoparticle form. This is because nanoparticles can exhibit new or altered properties at nanoscale dimensions. Some concerns about nanoparticles are that they are small enough to penetrate the skin, lungs, digestive system, and perhaps pass through the blood-brain barrier and placental-fetal barrier, and cause damage. Some earlier studies raised the question of whether low-level inflammation of the intestines from chronic (daily) nanoparticle ingestion is contributing to intestinal bowel diseases or the development of colorectal cancer in humans. This research is in its infancy. Whew... So if this concerns you, how can you avoid nanoparticles in food? Read food ingredient lists to avoid titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, zinc oxide, and cut back (or avoid) eating processed foods as much as possible.

From Science Daily:  Food additive found in candy, gum could alter digestive cell structure and function

The ability of small intestine cells to absorb nutrients and act as a barrier to pathogens is "significantly decreased" after chronic exposure to nanoparticles of titanium dioxide, a common food additive found in everything from chewing gum to bread, according to research from Binghamton University, State University of New York. Researchers exposed a small intestinal cell culture model to the physiological equivalent of a meal's worth of titanium oxide nanoparticles -- 30 nanometers across -- over four hours (acute exposure), or three meal's worth over five days (chronic exposure).

Acute exposures did not have much effect, but chronic exposure diminished the absorptive projections on the surface of intestinal cells called microvilli. With fewer microvilli, the intestinal barrier was weakened, metabolism slowed and some nutrients -- iron, zinc, and fatty acids, specifically -- were more difficult to absorb. Enzyme functions were negatively affected, while inflammation signals increased. "There has been previous work on how titanium oxide nanoparticles affects microvilli, but we are looking at much lower concentrations," Mahler said. "We also extended previous work to show that these nanoparticles alter intestinal function."

Titanium dioxide is generally recognized as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and ingestion is nearly unavoidable.[Note: the FDA does not distinguish between regular titanium dioxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles.] The compound is an inert and insoluble material that is commonly used for white pigmentation in paints, paper and plastics. It is also an active ingredient in mineral-based sunscreens for pigmentation to block ultraviolet light. However, it can enter the digestive system through toothpastes, as titanium dioxide is used to create abrasion needed for cleaning. The oxide is also used in some chocolate to give it a smooth texture; in donuts to provide color; and in skimmed milks for a brighter, more opaque appearance which makes the milk more palatable. "To avoid foods rich in titanium oxide nanoparticles you should avoid processed foods, and especially candy. That is where you see a lot of nanoparticles," Mahler said. [Original study.]

From Science Daily: Food additive E171: First findings of oral exposure to titanium dioxide nanoparticles

Researchers from INRA and their partners1 have studied the effects of oral exposure to titanium dioxide, an additive (E171) commonly used in foodstuffs, especially confectionary. They have shown for the first time that E171 crosses the intestinal barrier in animals and reaches other parts of the body. Immune system disorders linked to the absorption of the nanoscale fraction of E171 particles were observed. The researchers also showed that chronic oral exposure to the additive spontaneously induced preneoplastic lesions in the colon, a non-malignant stage of carcinogenesis, in 40% of exposed animals. Moreover, E171 was found to accelerate the development of lesions previously induced for experimental purposes. While the findings show that the additive plays a role in initiating and promoting the early stages of colorectal carcinogenesis, they cannot be extrapolated to humans or more advanced stages of the disease. The findings were published in the 20 January 2017 issue of Scientific Reports.

Present in many products including cosmetics, sunscreens, paint and building materials, titanium dioxide (or TiO2), known as E171 in Europe....Composed of micro- and nanoparticles, E171 is nevertheless not labelled a "nanomaterial," since it does not contain more than 50% of nanoparticles (in general it contains from 10-40%). The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated the risk of exposure to titanium dioxide by inhalation (occupational exposure), resulting in a Group 2B classification, reserved for potential carcinogens for humans. [Original study.]

 Another study not finding benefits from taking supplements - this time older men taking vitamin E and selenium supplements to see if it prevents dementia and Alzheimer's disease. The men (average age 67.5 years) were randomly assigned to take either vitamin E (400 IU) or selenium (200 µg), both supplements, or a placebo daily for over 5 years. However, there was no difference among the groups in the rate of dementia Alzheimer's disease both after 5 years and the subset of men who were also studied for a further 7 years. The rationale for taking these supplements was that they are antioxidants. The authors also discuss that taking vitamin E supplements is linked to an increase in prostate cancer, and selenium is linked to an increase in diabetes. Bottom line: eat food, not supplements.

From Science Daily:  Vitamin E, selenium supplements did not prevent dementia

Antioxidant supplements vitamin E and selenium -- taken alone or in combination -- did not prevent dementia in asymptomatic older men, according to a study published online by JAMA Neurology. Antioxidants as potential treatment for cognitive impairment or dementia have been of interest for years because oxidative stress has been implicated as a dementia pathway.

The Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease by Vitamin E and Selenium (PREADViSE) clinical trial initially enrolled 7,540 older men who used the supplements for an average of about five years and a subset of 3,786 men who agreed to be observed longer. The men received either vitamin E, selenium, both or a placeboThe incidence of dementia (325 of 7,338 men [4.4 percent]) was not different among the four study groups, according to the results in the article by Richard J. Kryscio, Ph.D., of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, and coauthors.

Limitations of the study include losing about half of the participants to long-term follow-up during the transition from a randomized clinical trial to a cohort study. Publicity about the negative effect of supplements also may have played a role, according to the authors. [Original study.]

Image result for pills wikipedia A new study has been released that reminds us that all drugs (whether prescription or non-prescription) have side-effects.  This time a nation wide study from Denmark found that short-term use of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) ibuprofen (e.g. Advil and Motrin) and diclofenac is linked to a higher risk of cardiac arrest (the heart suddenly stops beating). It was an observational study so can't definitely say that ibuprofen and diclofenac caused the cardiac arrests, but the findings match a growing body of evidence.

Since Ibuprofen and other NSAIDs are popular non-prescription medicines used worldwide, people assume they are safe to use. In Denmark, ibuprofen is the only NSAID sold as an over-the-counter drug, and only in small amounts. In the U.S., both ibuprofen and diclofenac are sold in both non-prescription and prescription forms.

In the study, they found an increased risk of cardiac arrest in ibuprofen and diclofenac users. However, they did not find a risk of cardiac arrest with the use of COX-2 selective inhibitors, rofecoxib and celecoxib, nor with the NSAID naproxen. One of the researchers (Dr. Gislason) therefore advises consumers to try to avoid diclofenac, to limit the use of ibuprofen to no more than 1200 mg per day, and that perhaps the safest is naproxen (up to 500 mg per day). From Medical Xpress:

'Harmless' painkillers associated with increased risk of cardiac arrest

Painkillers considered harmless by the general public are associated with increased risk of cardiac arrest, according to research published today in the March issue of European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy.....The current study investigated the link between NSAID use and cardiac arrest. All patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark between 2001 and 2010 were identified from the nationwide Danish Cardiac Arrest Registry. Data was collected on all redeemed prescriptions for NSAIDs from Danish pharmacies since 1995. These included the non-selective NSAIDs (diclofenac, naproxen, ibuprofen), and COX-2 selective inhibitors (rofecoxib, celecoxib).

A total of 28 947 patients had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark during the ten year period. Of these, 3 376 were treated with an NSAID up to 30 days before the event. Ibuprofen and diclofenac were the most commonly used NSAIDs, making up 51% and 22% of total NSAID use, respectively. Use of any NSAID was associated with a 31% increased risk of cardiac arrest. Diclofenac and ibuprofen were associated with a 50% and 31% increased risk, respectively. Naproxen, celecoxib and rofecoxib were not associated with the occurrence of cardiac arrest, probably due to a low number of events.

"The findings are a stark reminder that NSAIDs are not harmless," said Professor Gislason. "Diclofenac and ibuprofen, both commonly used drugs, were associated with significantly increased risk of cardiac arrest. NSAIDs should be used with caution and for a valid indication. They should probably be avoided in patients with cardiovascular disease or many cardiovascular risk factors." NSAIDs exert numerous effects on the cardiovascular system which could explain the link with cardiac arrest. These include influencing platelet aggregation and causing blood clots, causing the arteries to constrict, increasing fluid retention, and raising blood pressure. [Original study.]

 Another study has linked childhood behavioral problems to pesticide exposure, this time to pyrethroid insecticide exposure. Pyrethroids are synthetic pesticides (insecticides) that are increasingly used for personal use (mosquito repellents and treatments for head lice, scabies), on pets (for fleas), home use (e.g., Raid pesticides), and in agriculture.

Until recently, they have been viewed as "safer" and posing fewer risks to human health than older pesticides, but a growing body of research is finding that pyrethroid pesticides share similar neurocognitive health effects as older pesticides. Neurocognitive refers to the neural processes of the brain and central nervous system involved in cognitive functioning. Pyrethroids get into people various ways: through inhalation, absorbed through the skin, and ingested in food. And yes, they cross the placenta (they have been detected in the placental cord immediately after birth).

In this study, researchers looked at levels of pyrethroid metabolites (the breakdown products from pyrethroids) in the mother's urine during early pregnancy and in the child's urine when the child was 6 years of age. They looked at how social a child is (altruism), whether the child is inhibited and has difficulty sharing problems or asking for help (internalizing behaviors), as well as how defiant or disruptive a child is (externalizing behaviors, which can include hyperactivity and oppositionality).

Pyrethroids (the metabolites) were regularly detected in both mothers and children participating in the study. Internalizing disorders were associated with high levels of one pyrethroid metabolite (cis-DCCA, a breakdown product of permethrin, cypermethrin, and clyfluthrin) in pregnant mothers’ urine. Childhood exposure to pyrethroids (as measured in the child's urine) was linked to externalizing disordersResearchers hypothesized that the behavioral difficulties were due to changes in the child’s brain. The authors stated: “The current study suggests that exposure to certain pyrethroids at the low environmental doses encountered by the general public may be associated with behavioural disorders in children.” "Internalizing behaviors are inhibited and overcontrolled in nature, while children with

Other studies have also found negative health effects on children from pyrethroids -  for example, an association between synthetic pyrethroid exposure and ADHD hyperactivity and impulsivity. Recent research found that living near a farm field where pyrethroids are applied during a mother’s third trimester or just before conception corresponds with a greatly increased risk of having a child with autism spectrum disorder.

What can one do? Main one: try to avoid using and ingesting (in food) synthetic pyrethroids. This means avoid routine "pesticide treatments" of your home and garden, and instead use least-toxic methods to control pests around the home and garden (such as baits for insects, caulk holes, etc.). Try viewing weeds in the lawn as native wildflowers and the flowers as bee habitats (yes, you'll also be saving bees!). Eat as many organic foods (especially fruits and vegetables) as possible - this will lower the amount of pesticides in your body. This is because synthetic pyrethroids are not allowed in organic farming.  The good news is that pyrethroid pesticides leave the body within days, so with some lifestyle changes you can really lower your pesticide levels.

From Medscape:  'Safe' Insecticides Tied to Neurobehavioral Problems in Kids

Prenatal and childhood exposure to pyrethroid insecticides may adversely affect neurobehavioral development in children up to age 6 years, new research shows. A group of French researchers led by Jean-François Viel, MD, PhD, and Prof Andreas G. Franke, MD, both of the University of Mainz, Germany, investigated the associations between exposure to pyrethroid insecticides and behavioral skills in 6-year-olds.

Using a longitudinal design, the researchers assessed pyrethroid exposure in children prenatally and at age 6 years. They found that in 6-year-old children, increased prenatal concentrations of the cis-dimethylcyclopropane carbolic acid metabolite were associated with internalizing difficulties. A positive association was also found between the presence of childhood 3-phenoxybenzoic acid (3-PBA) and externalizing difficulties.

The researchers used a longitudinal design to assess the relationship between prenatal and childhood pyrethroid concentrations, using data from the French PELAGIE mother-child study. That study enrolled 3421 pregnant women from Brittany, France, between 2002 and 2006. Of this cohort, 287 randomly selected mothers agreed to participate in neuropsychological follow-up. Psychologists who were blinded to pyrethroid exposure levels in the study participants conducted neurodevelopmental assessments and maternal interviews to assess the home environment. They also collected children's urine samples as well as dust samples.

Image result for tea A study found that daily drinking of  tea (either black tea/oolong or green tea) is associated with a lower risk of "neurocognitive disorders" - in cognitive impairment in women, and in a lower risk of Alzheimer's disease in both men and women who are genetically predisposed to the disease (apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype) - when compared to those who never or rarely drank tea. The researchers called long-term daily tea drinking as "neuroprotective".

The study followed 957 residents of Singapore for several years. All were "cognitively normal" when the study started (average age 64 1/2 years), but 72 people or 7.5% had developed neurocognitive disorders by the second follow-up (after 4 years). The study found that there was a dose-dependent relationship - the more tea that was drunk daily, the more protective it appeared to be. And it was most protective in those who consistently drank tea at both time points - when the study started and till the end. However, there was a gender difference - it seemed to protect women from neurocognitive disorders, but not men. But in those who were genetically predisposed to Alzheimer's - tea drinking was protective for both males and females. Further studies will follow up to see if the gender difference holds - they couldn't explain it.

The researchers also point out that tea drinking has a long history in Chinese culture as an natural "attention enhancer" and strong tea is drunk as to maintain alertness and concentration. Sounds a lot like why people drink coffee. From Medical Xpress:

Daily consumption of tea protects the elderly from cognitive decline

Tea drinking reduces the risk of cognitive impairment in older persons by 50 per cent and as much as 86 per cent for those who are genetically at risk of Alzheimer's. A cup of tea a day can keep dementia away, and this is especially so for those who are genetically predisposed to the debilitating disease, according to a recent study led by Assistant Professor Feng Lei from the Department of Psychological Medicine at National University of Singapore's (NUS) Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine. The longitudinal study involving 957 Chinese seniors aged 55 years or older has found that regular consumption of tea lowers the risk of cognitive decline in the elderly by 50 per cent, while APOE e4 gene carriers who are genetically at risk of developing Alzheimer's disease may experience a reduction in cognitive impairment risk by as much as 86 per cent.

He added, "Based on current knowledge, this long term benefit of tea consumption is due to the bioactive compounds in tea leaves, such as catechins, theaflavins, thearubigins and L-theanine. These compounds exhibit anti-inflammatory and antioxidant potential and other bioactive properties that may protect the brain from vascular damage and neurodegeneration. Our understanding of the detailed biological mechanisms is still very limited so we do need more research to find out definitive answers.

Image result for wheat bread wikipedia Low gluten or gluten-free diets are a necessity for those suffering from Celiac disease or who are gluten intolerant. But low gluten diets are also followed by many people who do not have these diseases simply because they think it may be healthier for them. But is it healthier? Two recent studies raise health concerns about low gluten or gluten-free dietsGluten is a protein found in wheat, rye and barley.

The first study found that people who eat a low gluten or gluten-free diet are at risk for increased exposure to arsenic and mercury (which are toxic metals that can lead to cardiovascular disease, cancer and neurological effects). This is because gluten-free products often contain rice flour, which is used as a substitute for wheat. Rice is known to bioaccumulate certain toxic metals, including arsenic and mercury from fertilizers, soil, or water. People who reported eating gluten-free had higher concentrations of arsenic in their urine, and mercury in their blood, than those who did not. The arsenic levels were almost twice as high for people eating a gluten-free diet, and mercury levels were 70 percent higher. Unfortunately the U.S. does not have regulations for arsenic exposure in foods (but Europe does).

The second study found that a low-gluten diet may  raise the risk of type 2 diabetes. Diets higher in gluten were associated with a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes. In the study, those who ate less gluten also tended to eat less cereal fiber which is known to be protective against developing type 2 diabetes.

From Science Daily: Gluten-free diet may increase risk of arsenic, mercury exposure

People who eat a gluten-free diet may be at risk for increased exposure to arsenic and mercury -- toxic metals that can lead to cardiovascular disease, cancer and neurological effects, according to a report in the journal Epidemiology. Gluten-free diets have become popular in the U.S., although less than 1 percent of Americans have been diagnosed with celiac disease -- an out-of-control immune response to gluten, a protein found in wheat, rye and barley. A gluten-free diet is recommended for people with celiac disease, but others often say they prefer eating gluten-free because it reduces inflammation -- a claim that has not been scientifically proven. In 2015, one-quarter of Americans reported eating gluten-free, a 67 percent increase from 2013.

They found 73 participants who reported eating a gluten-free diet among the 7,471 who completed the survey, between 2009 and 2014. Participants ranged in age from 6 to 80 years old. People who reported eating gluten-free had higher concentrations of arsenic in their urine, and mercury in their blood, than those who did not. The arsenic levels were almost twice as high for people eating a gluten-free diet, and mercury levels were 70 percent higher.

For Science Daily: Low gluten diets linked to higher risk of type 2 diabetes

Eating more gluten may be associated with a lower risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, according to research presented at the American Heart Association's Epidemiology and Prevention / Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health 2017 Scientific Sessions....In this long-term observational study, researchers found that most participants had gluten intake below 12 grams/day, and within this range, those who ate the most gluten had lower Type 2 diabetes risk during thirty years of follow-up. Study participants who ate less gluten also tended to eat less cereal fiber, a known protective factor for Type 2 diabetes development.

After further accounting for the potential effect of cereal fiber, individuals in the highest 20 percent of gluten consumption had a 13 percent lower risk of developing Type 2 diabetes in comparison to those with the lowest daily gluten consumption (approximately fewer than 4 grams).

Image result for volunteers working wikipedia Is volunteering good for you? People volunteer to benefit others, but there has been some debate over whether volunteer activities also benefit the volunteers. A multi-country European study found that volunteering is associated with better self-rated health and also household income when compared to people who don't volunteer. The volunteers had a health score which was equivalent to being 5 years younger than those who did not volunteer.

People were interviewed and asked “How is your health in general?” The participants could choose from five categories ranging from “very bad” to “very good” - so the people themselves rated their health. This way how people rated their own health might include “physical, mental and social well-being", thus including health indicators that are hard to measure - such as pain, suffering, or depression. The researchers found that volunteer activities are also associated with a higher household income, but note that other studies find that a higher household income is associated with better health. All these are associations in this study - can't say that one causes the other (causal). The researchers themselves say that after analyzing the data, the results show that the association between volunteering and self-rated health is stronger (a "direct association") than the "indirect" association with household income.

The overall rate of people participating in volunteer activities was 24.1%., while 75.9% did not participate in volunteer activities, but this varied from country to country. For example, in Germany, the Netherlands and Norway more than 40% of people volunteered, but in Bulgaria, Hungary and Lithuania fewer than 10% engaged in volunteering activities. From Science Daily:

Volunteers are in better health than non-volunteers

Researchers of Ghent University analysed data on volunteering, employment and health of more than 40,000 European citizens. Their results, just published in PLOS ONE, show that volunteering is associated with better employment and health outcomes. Even after controlling for other determinants of health (gender, age, education level, migrant status, religiosity and country of origin), volunteers are substantially in better health than non-volunteers. Doctoral researcher Jens Detollenaere: “This association is comparable in size to the health gains of being a man, being five years younger or being a native (compared to being a migrant).”....Volunteers have, after controlling for the aforementioned personal characteristics, a higher income and this higher income is associated with better health.

The researchers put forward three other explanations for an association between volunteering and health. Professor Sara Willems: “Firstly, volunteering may improve access to psychological resources (such as self-esteem and self-efficacy) and social resources (such as social integration and access to support and information), both of which are found to have an overall positive effect on health. Secondly, volunteering increases physical and cognitive activity, which protects against functional decline and dementia in old age. Finally, neuroscience research has related volunteering to the release of the caregiving-related hormones oxytocin and progesterone, which have the capacity to regulate stress and inflammation.”

The research results are based on data from the sixth round of the European Social Survey (conducted in 2012 and 2013). This survey measures the beliefs, preferences and behaviour of more than 40000 citizens of 29 European countries....[Original study.]

4 Comments

20131201_101300 Last week a person told an amazing story in the comments section after a post on this site. After suffering from a "constant runny nose and a bad smell" in the nose for 2 years - which was diagnosed as "fungi and staph" in the sinuses - the person started doing "kimchi treatments" (as discussed in the Sinusitis Treatment Summary page). After 2 weeks a fungal ball was loosened, which came out of the sinuses and into the mouth, and was then spit out. About an inch in size - a smelly, grey/green, round fungal ball. Wow. Which leads to the question: Are any of the microbes in live kimchi anti-fungal?

Kimchi is an amazing live fermented food, typically made with cabbage and other vegetables and a variety of seasonings. Kimchi is the national dish of Korea and so there is tremendous interest in Korea in studying kimchi to learn about the many different microbial species in kimchi, including how they change over the course of fermentation. It turns out that kimchi contains many species of bacteria, including various species of Lactobacillus - which are considered beneficial. Of course one of the species found in kimchi over the course of fermentation is Lactobacillus sakei - the bacteria that successfully treats sinusitis, and which I have written about extensively. L. sakei predominates over pathogenic bacteria (antibacterial) - which is why it is also used as a sausage starter culture (to kill off bacteria such as Listeria). One study found that the garlic, ginger, and leek used in making kimchi were the sources of L. sakei bacteria found in fermented kimchi.

Studies show that a number of the Lactobacillus species found in kimchi are antifungal against a number of different kinds of fungi.  Some of these antifungal bacteria are: Lactobacillus plantarum, L. cruvatus, L. lactis, L. casei, L. pentosus, L. acidophilus, and L. sakei (here, here.

A study from 2005 found that some Lactobacillus species found in kimchi are predominant over a fungi known to cause health problems in humans - Aspergillus fumigatus, a mold (fungi) which is the most common cause of Aspergillus infections. Aspergillus (of which there are many species) is very common both indoors and outdoors (on plants, soil, rotting plants, household dust, etc.), so people typically breathe in these fungal spores daily and without any negative effects. However, sometimes Aspergillus can cause allergic reactions, infections in the lungs and sinuses (including fungal balls), and other infections. (more information at CDC site). The study found that 5 bacterial species in kimchi were also antifungal against other species of fungi (Aspergillus flavus, Fusarium moniliforme, Penicillium commune, and Rhizopus oryzae). The 5 bacterial species in kimchi that they found to be antifungal were: Lactobacillus cruvatus, L. lactis subsp. lactis, L. casei, L. pentosus, and L. sakei.

Just keep in mind that fungi are everywhere around us, and even part of the microbes that live in and on us - this is our mycobiome (here and here). We also breathe in a variety of fungi (mold spores) every day. In healthy individuals (even babies) all the microbes (bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc) live in balanced microbial communities, but the communities can become "out of whack" (dysbiosis) for various reasons, and microbes that formerly co-existed peacefully can multiply and become problematic.  If the populations get too unbalanced (e.g., antibiotics can kill off bacteria, and then an increase in fungi populations take their place) then ordinarily non-harmful fungi can become pathogenic. Or other pathogenic microbes can enter the community (e.g., through infection), and the person becomes ill.

IN SUMMARY: Kimchi has beneficial bacteria in it that are effective not just against bacteria (antibacterial), but also against some kinds of fungi (antifungal). One 2016 review study went so far as to say: "Kimchi possesses anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, antioxidant, anticancer, antiobesity, probiotic properties, cholesterol reduction, and antiaging properties." Experiences of my family and people writing suggest that the L. sakei in kimchi (and other products) is also antibiofilm. Hopefully, there will be some research on this in the future. But in the meantime, please keep writing to me about fungal complications of sinusitis, and especially if kimchi, L. sakei products, or other probiotics helped.