Skip to content

Another large study found problems with parents spanking children - specifically that spanking may make a child's behavior worse over time. More than 50 countries ban spanking, but many parents still spank in the US (and yes, it is legal). Unfortunately some states in the US also allow spanking (corporal punishment) in schools even today, which is viewed by many as physical abuse.

Psychologists at the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Virginia found that children who were spanked by their parents at age five years were more likely to have behavioral problems between the ages 6 and 8. "Our findings suggest that spanking is not an effective technique and actually makes children's behavior worse not better," says lead author Elizabeth T Gershoff.

The researchers had 2 main conclusions. First:They found no evidence that spankings in general or recent spankings are effective at reducing "externalizing behavior problems" (e.g., fighting, arguing, getting angry, disrupting activities, being impulsive - as reported by their teachers) over time.  Instead, this study (like others) found that instead spanking children predicts more behavior problems in the future in children. And secondly, while the number of spankings was important (frequent vs not frequent spankings) with the result that children receiving frequent spankings had more behavior problems later, they also found  that a child who is spanked even once is more likely to have behavior problems in the future than a similar child who is never spanked. From Medical Xpress:

Spanking linked to increase in children's behavior problems

Children who have been spanked by their parents by age 5 show an increase in behavior problems at age 6 and age 8 relative to children who have never been spanked, according to new findings in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. The study, which uses a statistical technique to approximate random assignment, indicates that this increase in behavior problems cannot be attributed to various characteristics of the child, the parents, or the home environment - rather, it seems to be the specific result of spanking.

Gershoff and coauthors Kierra M. P. Sattler (University of Texas at Austin) and Arya Ansari (University of Virginia) examined data from 12,112 children who participated in the nationally representative Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. When the children were 5 years old, their parents reported how many times they had spanked their child in the past week (if any). The researchers classified any child whose parent provided a number other than zero as having been spanked.

The researchers then matched children who had been spanked with those who hadn't according to 38 child- and family-related characteristics, including: the child's age, gender, overall health, and behavior problems at age 5; the parent's education, age... Pairing the children in this way yielded two groups of children whose main difference was whether their parents had spanked them, effectively accounting for other factors that could plausibly influence the behavior of both parent and child. This approach allowed the researchers to approximate the random assignment of participants to groups, a hallmark of experimental design.

To gauge children's behavior problems over time, Gershoff, Sattler, and Ansari examined teachers' ratings when the children were 5, 6, and 8 years old. Children's teachers reported the frequency with which the children argued, fought, got angry, acted impulsively, and disturbed ongoing activities. The results were clear: Children who had been spanked at age 5 showed greater increases in behavior problems by age 6 and also by age 8 when compared with children who had never been spanked.

Gershoff and colleagues conducted a similar analysis with only those children who had been spanked by their parents, comparing children who had been spanked in the week before the study (which suggests frequent spanking) and those who had not. Children spanked in the past week at age 5 also experienced greater increases in problem behavior at age 6 and 8 compared with children not spanked as frequently.

The following study was done in England, but the results should be taken seriously and may (probably) apply to the US also - painted and enameled glassware ("externally decorated glassware") may contain high levels of lead and cadmium. The researchers found that more than 70% of the products (52 out of 72) tested positive for lead, and the metal was found in all colors, including the decorated gold leaf of some items. A similar number (51 out of 72) tested positive for cadmium, with the highest concentrations usually encountered in red enamel.

They found this in products manufactured both in Europe and China - which is why I think the results apply to painted or decorated glassware in the USA also. It probably also applies to some (many?) painted ceramics. So beware!  If you use painted or enameled glassware, you are at increased risk for ingesting lead and cadmium, both of which are linked to health problems - especially for developing fetuses and children. The best safe level of each is zero. The researchers mention that there are newer alternatives that are safe (lead and cadmium free). From Science Daily:

Drinking glasses can contain potentially harmful levels of lead and cadmium

Enameled drinking glasses and popular merchandise can contain potentially toxic levels of lead and cadmium, a study has shown. Researchers at the University of Plymouth carried out 197 tests on 72 new and second-hand drinking glass products, including tumblers, beer and wine glasses, and jars.

They found lead present in 139 cases and cadmium in 134, both on the surface of the glasses and, in some cases, on the rims, with concentrations of lead sometimes more than 1000 times higher than the limit level. Tests showed that flakes of paint often came away from the glass under when simulating sustained use, indicating the substances could be ingested over a prolonged period.

The study, published in Science of the Total Environment, analysed a range of glassware using portable x-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometryMore than 70% of the products (52 out of 72) tested positive for lead, and the metal was found in all recorded colours, including the decorated gold leaf of some items. A similar number (51 out of 72) tested positive for cadmium, with the highest concentrations usually encountered in red enamel.

The lead concentrations ranged from about 40 to 400,000 parts per million (ppm), while quantities of cadmium ranged from about 300 to 70,000 ppm. According to the US Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the limit levels for the externally decorated lip area of drinking glass are 200 ppm and 800 ppm respectively.

In the research, Dr Turner highlights that the Federation of European Screen Printers Associations says organic inks are becoming more popular than metallic pigments because of environmental concerns, and that such inks were evident on a number of newly-purchased products which proved negative for lead and cadmium.

He also says that additional analyses confirmed that hazardous elements are also used to decorate a wider range of consumer glassware that has the potential to be in contact with food, including the exteriors of bottles for the storage of beer, wine or spirits, the external text and logos on egg cups, jugs and measuring cups, and the undersides of coasters and chopping boards. "Given that safer alternatives are available to the industry, the overall results of this study are both surprising and concerning," Dr Turner added. "Why are harmful or restricted elements still being employed so commonly to decorate contemporary glassware manufactured in China, the European Union and elsewhere? " [Original study.]

A while ago I posted the results of studies showing differences in infant  microbiomes (community of microbes) depending on whether the babies were delivered vaginally or by C-section, and also that "vaginal seeding" may eliminate some of these differences. [C-section babies also have a higher incidence of some health issues, such as allergies, asthma, etc.] Well....that research generated a lot of controversy both for and against, and resulted in many women requesting that "vaginal seeding" be done to their babies after they were delivered by C-section. Even the noted microbiome researcher Rob Knight publicly admitted that the procedure was done to his baby after his partner received a C-section.

Vaginal seeding is the process of swabbing the bodies of C-section babies (including the mouth and nose) with a gauze pad containing the vaginal fluids from their mothers in the minutes after birth - so that the baby is exposed to the same maternal microbes as a baby born vaginally (because mothers transmit microbes to the baby as it moves through the birth canal). Initial research showed this made the microbiomes of the C-section babies look a lot like vaginally born babies, especially their skin and oral microbiomes, but whether these differences persist after a few months is unclear.

Now the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) has come out with a position paper that vaginal seeding should not be done to babies, except as part of an official clinical trial. Their main opposition to the procedure is fear of transmitting pathogenic bacteria or viruses (e.g. group B streptococci, and STDs). The main reasons in support of doing the  vaginal seeding procedure is the body of research finding differences among C-section and vaginally delivered babies (allergies, asthma, etc.), and the concern that at least some of this may be due to lack of  exposure to maternal vaginal microbes during delivery. Instead, ACOG suggests breastfeeding the baby to transmit maternal microbes to the baby to "seed the gut". And if "a patient insists on performing the procedure herself, ACOG recommends ob-gyns have a documented discussion of the potential risks".

As can be expected, there is an outcry and rejection by some (many?) of the ACOG position paper. At least the ACOG paper acknowledges that every woman can make her own decision regarding this issue, even though they may not support it. And absolutely everyone agrees that more research is needed. From Ars Technica:

Doctors warn new parents: Step away from the vaginal fluid swabs

To slather, or not to slather—that is the question that has been roiling doctors, scientists, and new parents recently. And a new ruling by a doctor’s group stands to muck up the debate further. Amid the birth of microbiome research, some scientists have advocated for smearing bacteria-laden vaginal secretions on any newborns who missed out—namely those born via Caesarian section. Scientists keenly hypothesize that such a gooey glaze can “seed” a more-or-less sterile infant with life-long microbial companions. These wee chums may help train an infant's immune system and dodge issues like allergies and asthma later in life. Several studies have indeed found correlations between C-section deliveries and higher risks of those conditions.

In the latest turn to the controversy, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ (ACOG) Committee on Obstetric Practice issued a November opinion firmly wiping up the slimy idea. In its opinion, the committee said it: “…does not recommend or encourage vaginal seeding outside of the context of an institutional review board-approved research protocol, and it is recommended that vaginal seeding otherwise not be performed until adequate data regarding the safety and benefit of the process become available.”

The few studies we do have on infant microbiomes provide no clear answers on the significance of an early “seeding” for health. A 2016 review looking at the patterns of microbial communities in the guts of infants in their first year found that C-section babies did show differences in the first three months. However, those differences disappeared by six months. Similarly, a small study of 18 babies also published last year found that vaginal seeding could eliminate microbial differences between vaginally and C-section delivered babies. But the study only looked at the infants' microbiomes in that first month, and the health effects—if any—are unknown.

The most concerning thing about vaginal seeding, the committee argues, is the potential for transmitting pathogens, such as herpes simplex virus, human papilloma virus (HPV), group B streptococci, and Neisseria gonorrhea. .... If a woman insists on the seeding, the committee recommended she be thoroughly tested and informed of the risks—as well as discouraged.

The prestigious medical journal The Lancet recently released a report by its Commission On Pollution and Health on the effects of various types of pollution (water, air, occupational, chemical, etc) on people and world economies - that is, the effect of pollution on "global health". The main finding: Diseases caused by pollution were responsible in 2015 for an estimated 9 million premature deaths -- 16 percent of all deaths worldwide. Pollution is now known to cause a wide variety of diseases and health problems, including asthma, cancer, neurodevelopmental disorders, and birth defects in children; and heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cancer in adults. The list of health effects keeps increasing. [See all posts on pollution.]

The report states that certain types of pollution are increasing throughout the world - air, chemical, and soil pollution.They also discuss new and emerging pollutants (most of them chemical pollutants) whose effects on human health
are not yet fully understood, yet they are widely found in the environment and detected in most humans. The authors of the report even say: "At least some of these chemical pollutants appear to have potential to cause global epidemics of disease, disability, and death."

Chemical pollutants include: developmental neurotoxicants (e.g. pesticides, lead, mercury), endocrine disruptors (which have reproductive effects and can alter fertility), new classes of pesticides such as the neonicotinoids, chemical herbicides such as glyphosate (found in Roundup and the most commonly used pesticide in the world), nano-particles, and pharmaceutical wastes.

While most deaths from all sorts of pollution are currently occurring in poorer developing countries (e.g. China and India), we in the United States also have health effects and deaths from pollution - just not on the scale of those countries. Also, remember that winds carry pollutants globally - so that air pollution in China will cross the Pacific Ocean on the winds to the US.

Everyone agrees that taking action works - think of the success in banning lead, asbestos, and DDT in the United States. And amounts of six common air pollutants have been reduced by about 70% since passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970. We can thank laws, and organizations established due to environmental problems and crises in the past (e.g. the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Superfund legislation, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act) for that.

From Science Daily: Pollution responsible for 16 percent of early deaths globally

Diseases caused by pollution were responsible in 2015 for an estimated 9 million premature deaths -- 16 percent of all deaths worldwide, according to a report. Simon Fraser University health sciences professor Bruce Lanphear is a Commissioner and author of The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health that has released a report detailing the adverse effects of pollution on global health. ...."Pollution, which is at the root of many diseases and disorders that plague humankind, is entirely preventable." 

Commission findings include: - Pollution causes 16% of all deaths globally. Diseases caused by pollution were responsible in 2015 for an estimated 9 million premature deaths -- 16% of all deaths worldwide -- three times more deaths than AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined; and fifteen times more than all wars and other forms of violence. It kills more people than smoking, hunger and natural disasters. In some countries, it accounts for one in four deaths. - Pollution disproportionately kills the poor and the vulnerable. Nearly 92% of pollution-related deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Within countries, pollution's toll is greatest in poor and marginalized communities. Children face the highest risks because small exposures to chemicals in utero and in early childhood can result in lifelong disease and, disability, premature death, as well as reduced learning and earning potential. - Pollution is closely tied to climate change and biodiversity. Fossil fuel combustion in higher-income countries and the burning of biomass in lower-income countries accounts for 85% of airborne particulate pollution. Major emitters of carbon dioxide are coal-fired power plants, chemical producers, mining operations, and vehicles.

A few excerpts (lead & pesticides) from the report in The Lancet: The Lancet Commission on pollution and health

Another example of the economic benefits of addressing pollution is seen in the consequences of removing lead from gasoline in the USA. This intervention began in 1975 and, within a decade, had reduced the mean blood concentration of lead in the population by more than 90%, almost eliminated childhood lead poisoning, and increased the cognitive capacity of all American children born since 1980 by 2–5 IQ points. This gain in intelligence has increased national economic productivity and will yield an economic benefit of US$200 billion (range $110 billion–300 billion) over the lifetimes of each annual cohort of children born since 1980, an aggregate benefit to-date of over $6 trillion.

Developmental neurotoxicants: Evidence is strong that widely used chemicals and pesticides have been responsible for injury to the brains of millions of children and have resulted in a global pandemic of neurodevelopmental toxicity. The manifestations of exposure to these chemicals during early development include loss of cognition, shortening of attention span, impairment of executive function, behavioural disorders, increased prevalence of attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, learning disabilities, dyslexia, and autism.

Pesticides: More than 20,000 commercial pesticide products, including insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and rodenticides are available on world markets. More than 1.1 billion pounds of these products are used in the USA each year and an estimated 5.2 billion pounds globally. ....The organophosphate insecticides are a large and widely used class of pesticides. Members of this class of chemicals are powerful developmental neurotoxicantsand prenatal exposures are associated with persistent deleterious effects on children’s cognitive and behavioural function and with long-term, potentially irreversible, changes to brain structure that are evident on MRI. 

Chemical herbicides account for nearly 40% of global pesticide use and applications are increasing. A major use is in production of genetically modified food crops engineered to be resistant to glyphosate (Roundup), the world’s most widely used herbicide. Glyphosate-resistant, so-called “Roundup Ready” crops, now account for more than 90% of all corn and soybeans planted in the USA, and their use is growing globally. Glyphosate is widely detected in air and water in agricultural areas, and glyphosate residues are detected in commonly consumed foods.

For years studies have suggested that eating blueberries and other berries is good for our health (here, here, and here). Now another study suggests that eating wild blueberries benefits children's thinking, specifically attention and "executive function" (mental processes which lets people plan, organize, and complete tasks). What was nice in this study was that it was "double-blind"- which meant that biases couldn't influence the results. 

Flavonoids are a diverse group of phytonutrients (plant chemicals) found in almost all fruits and vegetables. They are powerful antioxidants with anti-inflammatory and immune system benefits. And yes, other studies have also found various benefits to mental processes with an increase of flavonoids in the diet - in both children and adults.

What foods contain flavonoids? There are 6 main classes of flavonoids, and each is found in different foods: - Anthocyanidins – found in red, purple,and blue berries, red wine, and red and purple grapes. - Flavonols - found in onions, leeks, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, kale, tea, berries, beans, and apples. - Flavones - found in parsley, celery, and hot peppers. - Isoflavones - found in soybeans, soy products, and legumes. - Flavanones - found in citrus fruit and tomatoes. - Flavanols - found in tea, red wine, grapes, apples, fava beans, and cocoa. From Medical Xpress:

Primary school children could show better attention by consuming flavonoid-rich blueberries, following a study conducted by the University of Reading. In a paper published in Food & Function, a group of 7-10 year olds who consumed a drink containing wild blueberries or a matched placebo and were tested on their speed and accuracy in completing an executive task function on a computer.The double blind trial found that the children who consumed the flavonoid-rich blueberry drink had 9% quicker reaction times on the test without any sacrifice of accuracy. In particular, the effect was more noticeable as the tests got harder.

Previous [Univ. of] Reading research has shown that consuming wild blueberries can improve mood in children and young people, simple memory recall in primary school children, and that other flavonoid rich drinks such as orange juice, can also improve memory and concentration.

Wild blueberries are grown and harvested in North America, and are smaller than regular blueberries, and are higher in flavonoids compared to regular varieties. The double-blind trial used a flavonoid-rich wild blueberry drink, with a matched placebo contained 8.9 g of fructose, 7.99 g of glucose and 4 mg of vitamin C matching the levels of nutrients found in the blueberry drink. [Original study.] 

Once again a study finds that pesticide exposure is linked to an adverse health effect - that pesticide exposure in the home during pregnancy and early childhood is linked to an elevated risk of brain tumor in the child. Other studies have also found that pesticides used in the home are associated with a higher risk of childhood cancers.

This is because pesticides do cross the placental barrier, as the study researchers point out: "There is evidence that pesticides cross the fetal-placental barrier since residues of some insecticides have been found in umbilical cord blood, neonatal hair, and meconium following maternal exposure during pregnancy." Also, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified "more than twenty pesticide chemical compounds as potential human carcinogens".

The following are examples (but there are more) of other studies finding pesticide and childhood cancer links: A meta-analysis published in 2015 in Pediatrics by researchers at Harvard University found that children exposed to indoor insecticides (also herbicides) have a higher risk of certain childhood cancers, specifically leukemia, lymphomas, and brain tumors. A 2013 study published in Cancer Causes and Control found that professional pest control applications in the home within a year of conception and during pregnancy was associated with a higher risk of childhood brain tumors. A review of studies published in 2010 found that pesticide exposure during pregnancy and childhood increased the risk of childhood leukemia.

The good news is that there are alternatives to exposing fetuses and children to toxic pesticides at home - by using alternative ways of dealing with pests, such as least toxic Integrated Pest Management (IPM) or organic methods. That means doing other things (such as sealing or caulking holes, putting out traps and baits, vacuuming), a focus on least toxic methods and on prevention (here and here), rather than routinely applying toxic pesticides. If needed, least toxic pesticides include boric acid and vinegar. Other sources of pesticide exposure for pregnant women and children are foods and exposure in settings outside the home - perhaps even a friend's yard. By the way, pesticide exposure for everyone is linked to a higher risk of health problems, not just pregnant women and children.

From Science Daily: Pesticide use during pregnancy linked to increased risk of childhood brain tumors

Previous epidemiological studies have suggested that exposure to pesticides during pregnancy may have a possible role in the development of childhood brain tumors. In a new International Journal of Cancer analysis, researchers found a link between maternal residential pesticide use -- particularly insecticides -- and the risk of childhood brain tumorsThe analysis included 437 malignant childhood brain tumor cases and 3102 controls from two French studies. Pesticide use was associated with a 1.4-times increased risk of childhood brain tumors.

The investigators noted that many pesticide compounds are classified as probable carcinogens, and there is evidence that some insecticides can pass through the feto-placental barrier. "Although such retrospective studies cannot identify specific chemicals used or quantify the exposure, our findings add another reason to advise mothers to limit their exposure to pesticides around the time of pregnancy," said Nicolas Vidart d'Egurbide Bagazgoïtia, lead author of the study. [Original study.]

Two recent studies, both done in California, looked at different aspects of pesticide exposure. They highlight how people can be exposed to pesticides in the air they breathe, especially if they live in areas where pesticides are heavily applied (such as farms). But keep in mind that even in suburbia, every time a neighbor applies pesticides on the lawn or trees - there is drift, and so you are also exposed (e.g., breathing it, droplets on the skin).

The first study found that pregnant women with high pesticide exposure (living in areas near farms using pesticides) had increases in adverse birth outcomes (low birth weight, shorter pregnancy length, preterm birth, birth defects or abnormalities). No effects were seen with low pesticide exposure. But note that these results are what could be seen at birth - they do not include effects that can only be seen later, such as delayed development, learning disabilities, lower intelligence, asthma, autism - all effects found in some studies.

The other was a California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) 2016 report on air monitoring results (from 6 sites) of 32 chemicals (pesticides and breakdown products) in California. Some pesticides were not detected, some were only at trace amounts, and some were detected at higher amounts  - and the amounts fluctuated over the year and from site to site. [NOTE: They did not monitor for 2 widely used pesticides: glyphosate, which is in Roundup, and 2,4-D. Hmm...]. A Kern County high school monitoring site showed levels of the pesticide chlorpyrifos more than 18 times higher than EPA's "level of concern for pregnant women" - but yet these levels are considered OK for the general public.

Chlorpyrifos is "controversial" in that scientists (including EPA scientists), medical professionals, and farmworker organiztions asked that its use be banned due to its serious health effects on humans, but this year EPA chief Scott Pruitt refused to do so (he gave in to pesticide industry lobbying). The bottom lineWhat effect do the mixtures of pesticides (at chronic low levels) that we're exposed to have on us? Unknown. 

From Medical Xpress: Researchers unravel the negative effects of pesticide exposure on birth outcomes

Although common opinion holds that exposure to pesticides increases adverse birth outcomes, the existing body of scientific evidence is ambiguous..... A new study by researchers at UC Santa Barbara addresses the issue in a novel way—by analyzing birth outcomes in California's San Joaquin Valley. With more than one-third of the country's vegetables and two-thirds of its fruits and nuts produced there, the San Joaquin Valley, not surprisingly, is a heavy pesticide-use region. The UCSB team investigated the effect of exposure during pregnancy in this agriculturally dominated area and observed an increase in adverse outcomes accompanying very high levels of pesticide exposure

"For the majority of births, there is no statistically identifiable impact of pesticide exposure on birth outcome," said lead author Ashley Larsen, an assistant professor in UCSB's Bren School of Environmental Science & Management. "Yet mothers exposed to extreme levels of pesticides, defined here as the top 5 percent of the pesticide exposure distribution, experienced between 5 and 9 percent increases in the probability of adverse outcomes with an approximately 13-gram decrease in birth weight."

Using individual birth certificate records for more than 500,000 single births between 1997 and 2011, coupled with pesticide use data at a fine spatial and temporal scale, the scientists were able to determine if residential agricultural pesticide exposure during gestation—by trimester and by toxicity—influenced birth weight, gestational length or birth abnormalities.

They found negative effects of pesticide exposure for all birth outcomes—birth weight, low birth weight, gestational length, preterm birth, birth abnormalities—but only for mothers exposed to very high levels of pesticides—the top 5 percent of the exposure distribution in this sample.... Numerous chemicals are used daily in close proximity to residential areas, making it difficult to ascertain a specific responsible agent. As a result, in this study, the researchers looked at the combined results from all pesticides used in the region[Original study.]

Excerpts from Beyond Pesticides: Neurotoxic Pesticide Detected in Air at High Levels in California County

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) released its 2016 air monitoring data where it was revealed that chlorpyrifos air concentrations for a one-month period at the air monitoring site on the campus of Shafter High School in Kern County was 39.4 nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3) – more than 18 times higher than EPA’s level of concern for pregnant women (2.1 ng/m3).  Shafter High School is some distance from fields in an area where chlorpyrifos use is not as high as in other parts of Kern County or elsewhere in California. 

High chlorpyrifos levels at a school means that children and unsuspecting teachers and parents, especially those that may be pregnant, are breathing in unusually high levels of chlorpyrifos. Children exposed to high levels of chlorpyrifos have developmental delays, attention problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and pervasive developmental disorders.

 Could something as simple as giving a probiotic and a sugar for 7 days prevent sepsis in babies? Sepsis is a life-threatening infection that is a HUGE problem in developing countries such as India. It is a major cause of death in babies throughout the world, even with antibiotic treatment. So this new research (done in India) finding that giving newborn babies a probiotic plus the sugar fructooligosaccharide (FOS) for only one week had the result of lowering the incidence of sepsis and death by 40%, and also infections is huge news. A game changer.

The researchers found that the strain given to the babies was very important. They first tried Lactobacillus GG and Lactobacillus sporogenes, but didn't have success. But a strain of Lactobacillus plantarum was amazingly effective. They gave it together with a sugar - fructooligosaccharide (FOS) - which together worked as a synbiotic. Synbiotics are combinations of probiotics with an FOS supplement that promotes growth and colonization of the beneficial bacteria. FOS (which is naturally found in breast milk and such plants as onion, chicory, garlic, asparagus, banana, artichoke, agave, leeks, wheat, barley), is food for the probiotic bacteria.

It must be pointed out that other studies have tried other probiotics in the prevention of sepsis, but have not been successful. Probiotics that did not work work in other studies were Streptococcus thermophilus, Bifidobacterium infantis, Bifidobacterium lactis, and Bifidobacterium breve. However, they did not also use prebiotic supplements (the FOS) - just the probiotic alone - and studied premature or low birth weight babies (while this study focused on healthy babies of approximately normal weight.) This is why research now needs to be done looking at other groups of babies. From Medical Xpress:

Study shows probiotics can prevent sepsis in infants

A research team at the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health has determined that a special mixture of good bacteria in the body reduced the incidence of sepsis in infants in India by 40 percent at a cost of only $1 per infant...... The special mixture included a probiotic called Lactobacillus plantarum ATCC-202195 combined with fructo-oligosaccharide (FOS), an oral synbiotic preparation developed by Dr. Panigrahi.

Probiotics are live bacteria and yeasts that are good for your health, especially your digestive system. Synbiotics are combinations of probiotics with an FOS supplement that promotes growth and sustains colonization of the probiotic strain. FOS, naturally found in breast milk and such plants as onion, chicory, garlic, asparagus, banana, artichoke and others, is food for the probiotic bacteria.

Sepsis is a severe complication of bacterial infection that results in around one million infant deaths worldwide each year, mostly in developing countries. It occurs when the immune system stops fighting germs and begins to turn on itself and can lead to tissue damage, organ failure and death. It is estimated that 40 percent of patients with severe sepsis in developing countries do not survive.

The team enrolled more than 4,500 newborns from 149 villages in the Indian province of Odisha and followed them for their first 60 days, the most critical period when they get sick and die. During their first days of life, the newborns were administered the oral preparation for seven days. Results of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study showed that sepsis and deaths in the first two months of infancy were reduced by 40 percent, more than twice the anticipated reduction of 20 percent. The synbiotic treatment also lowered respiratory tract infections. The effectiveness demonstrated in Dr. Panigrahi's study was so successful the study was halted early. 

An interesting article about this research from The Atlantic: At Last, a Big, Successful Trial of Probiotics

  Amazing if this holds up in larger studies - a treatment for peanut allergy! As the researchers said -  the treatment (2 grams of peanut protein plus a specific strain of the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus daily for 18 months) provided "persistent suppression of the allergic immune response to peanuts 4 years" after the treatment had ended This was a nicely done multi-year study in children - a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (to eliminate biases).

The researchers also wrote in the Discussion section of the study: "PPOIT [combined probiotic and peanut oral immunotherapy] was associated with long-lasting peanut tolerance 4 years after stopping treatment. Two-thirds of PPOIT treated participants were able to continue regular peanut ingestion, and more than half were ingesting moderate to-large amounts of peanut on a regular basis, compared with only one (4%) of 24 placebo-treated participants. Allergic reactions from intentional peanut ingestion were uncommon and all reactions were mild, suggesting that those who achieved PPOIT-induced sustained unresponsiveness can safely continue peanut ingestion." In other words - WOW! (Other posts on peanut allergies - here and here, and earlier progress report of this study.) From Medical Xpress:

Australian researchers in peanut allergy breakthrough

Australian researchers have reported a major breakthrough in the relief of deadly peanut allergy with the discovery of a long-lasting treatment they say offers hope that a cure will soon be possible. In clinical trials conducted by scientists at Melbourne's Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, children with peanut allergies were given a probiotic along with small doses of a peanut protein over an 18-month period. When the experiment ended in 2013 some 80 percent of the kids were able to tolerate peanutsThe research, published Wednesday in medical journal The Lancet, found that four years on, about 70 percent could still eat peanuts without an adverse reaction.

"The importance of this finding is that these children were able to eat peanuts like children who don't have peanut allergy and still maintain their tolerant state, protected against reactions to peanut," lead researcher Mimi Tang said. "These findings suggest our treatment is effective at inducing long-term tolerance, up to four years after completing treatment, and is safe. Food allergy affects one in 20 children and about two in 100 adults, with seafood, cow's milk, eggs and peanuts among the most typical triggers. Peanuts are one of the most common foods to cause anaphylaxis, a potentially fatal allergic reaction.

The researchers said the Murdoch study provides the "strongest evidence yet that a cure may be possible for peanut allergy"..... Ten-year-old Olivia May suffered a reaction when she tried to eat a peanut butter sandwich seven years ago. "We visited the allergist the first time [and] he said 'sorry, you're going to have to go home and empty your pantry out, clear it of all nuts, anything with nuts in it'," Oliver's mother Tanya told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. But after taking part in the trial, Oliva no longer suffers from her allergy.

Fifty-six children completed the study, with half receiving a placebo and half receiving the treatment, which encourages the immune system to develop a tolerance to the allergy. Researchers are now aiming to confirm the results with a larger study of the treatment they say "holds important implications for attacking the modern food allergy epidemic". [Original study.]

 A new study that analyzed other studies (a meta-analysis) found that the class of flame retardant chemicals called PBDEs (commonly found in furniture and household products) has an effect on children's intelligence, so that it results in a loss of IQ points. Most of the studies looked at the child's exposure to flame retardants during pregnancy and then later IQ. They found that the child's IQ was reduced by 3.70 points for each ten-fold increase in flame retardant levels (thus, the higher the PBDE levels, the greater the effect on the child's IQ). This is of concern because flame retardants are in so many products around us, both in and out of the home. Older flame retardants (PBDEs) were phased out by 2013, but it turns out that the newer replacements (TBB and TBPH, including Firemaster 550) also get into people and also have negative health effects.

More and more research is finding health problems with flame retardants because they are "not chemically bound" to the products in which they are used - thus they escape over time. and get into us via the skin (dermal), inhalation (from dust), and ingestion (from certain foods and dust on our fingers). And because flame retardants are persistant, they bioaccumulate (they build up over time). They can be measured in our urine and blood. Evidence suggests that flame retardants may be endocrine disruptors, carcinogenic, alter hormone levels, decrease semen quality in men, thyoid disruptors, and act as developmental neurotoxicants (when developing fetus is exposed during pregnancy)  so that children have lowered IQ and more hyperactivity behaviors.

Where are flame retardants found? All around us, and in us. They are so hard to avoid because they're in electronic goods, in upholstered furniture, polyurethane foam, carpet pads, some textiles, the foam in baby items (car seats, bumpers, crib mattresses, strollers,nursing pillows, etc.), house dust, building insulation, and on and on. What to do? Wash hands before eating. Try to use a vacuum cleaner with a HEPA filter. Try to avoid products that say they contain "flame retardants". Only buy upholstered furniture with tags that say they are flame retardant free. The California Childcare Health Program has an information sheet on how to lower exposure to fire retardants. From Medical Xpress:

Flame retardant exposure found to lower IQ in children

A hazardous class of flame retardant chemicals commonly found in furniture and household products damages children's intelligence, resulting in loss of IQ points, according to a new study by UC San Francisco researchers. The study, published Aug. 3, 2017, in Environmental Health Perspectives, included the largest meta-analysis performed on flame retardants to date, and presented strong evidence of polybrominated diphenyl ethers' (PBDE) effect on children's intelligenceDespite a series of bans and phase-outs, nearly everyone is still exposed to PBDE flame retardants, and children are at the most risk," said UCSF's Tracey Woodruff, professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences..... 

The findings go beyond merely showing a strong correlation: using rigorous epidemiological criteria, the authors considered factors like strength and consistency of the evidence to establish that there was "sufficient evidence" supporting the link between PBDE exposure and intelligence outcomes. Furthermore, a recent report by the National Academies of Sciences endorsed the study and integrated evidence from animal studies to reach similar conclusions that PBDEs are a "presumed hazard" to intelligence in humans.

Researchers examined data from studies around the world, covering nearly 3,000 mother-child pairs. They discovered that every 10-fold increase in a mom's PBDE levels led to a drop of 3.7 IQ points in her child." "Many people are exposed to high levels of PBDEs, and the more PBDEs a pregnant woman is exposed to, the lower her child's IQ," said Woodruff. "And when the effects of PBDEs are combined with those of other toxic chemicals such as from building products or pesticides, the result is a serious chemical cocktail that our current environmental regulations simply don't account for." The researchers also found some evidence of a link between PDBE exposures and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but concluded that more studies are necessary to better characterize the relationship.

PBDEs first came into widespread use after California passed fire safety standards for furniture and certain other products in 1975. Thanks to the size of the Californian market, flame retardants soon became a standard treatment for furniture sold across the country..... Mounting evidence of PDBEs' danger prompted reconsideration and starting in 2003 California, other states, and international bodies approved bans or phase outs for some of the most common PBDEs. PBDEs and similar flame retardants are especially concerning because they aren't chemically bonded to the foams they protect. Instead, they are merely mixed in, so can easily leach out from the foam and into house dust, food, and eventually, our bodies. [Original study.]