Skip to content

Category: children

Published on Leave a comment on Endocrine Disruptors In Fast Food

Recent research examined levels of endocrine disruptors called phthalates in people eating fast food. Researchers found evidence of a dose–response relationship between fast food intake and exposure to phthalates - the more one eats fast food, the more phthalates (actually metabolites of the phthalates) can be measured in the person's urine. Fast food consumers had higher urinary levels of the phthalates DEHP, DiNP, and BPA than those not consuming fast food (even though the differences in levels of BPA among groups were "non-significant"). This is of concern because these endocrine disruptors are linked to a number of health problems. (Earlier discussion of this research.)

DEHP, DiNP, and BPA are detected in over 90% of the population in the US, but since there are many health concerns - it is better to have lower levels than higher levels. (Zero levels would be best). Note that phthalates and BPA are quickly metabolized and excreted in urine, with elimination half-lives of less than 24 hr - which is why the study looked at what had been eaten in the last 24 hours. But this also shows that one can quickly reduce their levels in the body.

Some possible sources of phthalate contamination in fast food are: PVC tubing, vinyl gloves used for food handling, and food packaging, including beverage cans - the chemicals leach or migrate out into the food and then are ingested. (More on chemicals migrating from containers to food), Fast food was defined as food obtained from restaurants without waiter service and from pizza restaurants, as well as all carry-out and delivery food. Another excellent reason to cut back on fast food (like we don't have enough reasons already!). The following news report discusses the research. From Environmental Health Perspectives:

Phthalates in Fast Food: A Potential Dietary Source of Exposure

Many research studies have surveyed nutritional habits, but fewer have studied how food processing and packaging might introduce unwanted chemicals into foods. In this issue of EHP, researchers report that fast food consumption appears to be one source of exposure to the chemicals di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and diisononyl phthalate (DiNP).1

The authors used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to estimate the percentage of individuals’ calories that came from fast food, fat intake attributable to fast food consumption, and fast food intake by food group. During NHANES interviews, respondents had reported their diet from the preceding 24 hours. Fast food was defined as food obtained from restaurants without waiter service and from pizza restaurants, as well as all carryout and delivery food.2 ....The final study population included nearly 9,000 people aged 6 years or older. Approximately one-third of people surveyed had eaten fast food in the preceding 24 hours. Study participants who ate fast food were more likely to be male, under age 40, and non-Hispanic black, and to have higher total calorie and total fat intake from fast food, compared with the general population.1

Fast food consumers had higher urinary levels of DEHP, DiNP, and BPA than non-consumers, although the differences in average urinary levels were small and for BPA were non-significant. When fast food intake was categorized by food group, DEHP metabolites were associated with intake of grains and “other” (a category that included vegetables, condiments, potato items, beverages, and more). DiNP metabolites were associated with intake of meat and grains.1

The authors also found that the associations between phthalates and fast food were not uniform across the population.1They speculate that the pronounced association they saw between fast food consumption and DEHP in black consumers could reflect higher overall consumption of fast food and/or different food choices among this population. Prior research suggests that predominately black neighborhoods in urban areas have a greater density of fast food restaurants than white neighborhoods.3

The authors point to PVC tubing, vinyl gloves used for food handling, and food packaging as possible sources of phthalate contamination in fast food. DEHP is a ubiquitous high-molecular-weight phthalate that has been removed from some products due to concerns about potential adverse health effects.5 In some cases it is being replaced with DiNP.2

The related Environmental Health Perspectives research article:  Recent Fast Food Consumption and Bisphenol A and Phthalates Exposures among the U.S. Population in NHANES, 2003–2010

Experimental animal studies demonstrate that DEHP and DiNP have endocrine-disrupting properties because of their anti-androgenic effects on the male reproductive system (National Research Council 2008). Human exposure to DEHP has been associated with adverse reproductive, neurobehavioral, and respiratory outcomes in children (Braun et al. 2013; Ejaredar et al. 2015) and metabolic disease risk factors such as insulin resistance in adolescents and adults (James-Todd et al. 2012; Attina and Trasande 2015). Though epidemiologic evidence of DiNP is less complete, recent studies report associations between exposure and similar health outcomes including adverse respiratory and metabolic outcomes in children (Bertelsen et al. 2013; Attina and Trasande 2015). BPA is also a suspected endocrine disrupter, and experimental and human evidence suggest that BPA is a reproductive toxicant (Peretz et al. 2014). In addition, prenatal BPA exposure has also been associated with adverse neurobehavioral outcomes in children (Mustieles et al. 2015).

Given the concern over chemical toxicity, it is important to identify modifiable sources of exposure that may be targeted for exposure reduction strategies. Simulated exposure modeling, observational epidemiologic studies, and intervention studies all suggest that diet is an important exposure pathway for both high-molecular-weight phthalates and BPA.....Phthalates have been shown to leach into food from PVC in materials like tubing used in the milking process, lid gaskets, food preparation gloves, conveyor belts and food packaging materials (Cao 2010;Serrano et al. 2014). In fact, an intervention study reported that urinary BPA and DEHP were reduced by 66% and 53–56%, respectively, when participants’ diets were restricted to food with limited packaging (Rudel et al. 2011). Foods high in fat, such as dairy and meat, may be more contaminated by high-molecular-weight phthalates that are more lipophilic such as DEHP (Serrano et al. 2014). Fast food may be an important source of exposure to phthalates and BPA because it is highly processed, packaged, and handled.

Published on Leave a comment on Building Blocks Are Important Toys For Children

This study reinforces (once again) that actively playing with toy blocks is good for developing the spatial skills and spatial abilities of children. Other studies have shown that playing with puzzles and actively going out and exploring their environment (like riding a bicycle around the neighborhood) are also good for developing spatial skills and spatial abilities. For both boys and girls. Even though unfortunately this study only looked at 8 year old boys. (Hey, where were the girls???) Remember that playing is how children learn, and helping develop spatial skills is good for math, science, and technology. So get out the Legos and toy blocks and encourage children to play and build! From Medical Xpress:

Neuroimaging study: Building blocks activate spatial ability in children better than board games

Research from Indiana University has found that structured block-building games improve spatial abilities in children to a greater degree than board games. The study, which appears in the journal Frontiers in Psychology, measured the relative impact of two games—a structured block-building game and a word-spelling board game—on children's spatial processing, including mental rotation, which involves visualizing what an object will look like after it is rotated. The research lends new support to the idea that such block games might help children develop spatial skills needed in science- and math-oriented disciplines.

Block play changed brain activation patterns," Newman said. "It changed the way the children were solving the mental rotation problems; we saw increased activation in regions that have been linked to spatial processing only in the building blocks group." The structured block-building game used for the study was called "Blocks Rock"; the board game was Scrabble.

The research builds upon previous studies that have shown that children who frequently participate in activities such as block play, puzzles and board games have higher spatial ability than those who participate more in activities such as drawing, riding bikes, or playing with trucks and sound-producing toys.

It is also demonstrates that training on one visuo-spatial task can transfer to other tasks. In this instance, training on the structured block-building game resulted in transfer to mental rotation performance.....To conduct the study, IU researchers placed 28 8-year-olds in a magnetic resonance imaging scanner before and after playing one of the two games. Play sessions were conducted for 30 minutes over the course of five days.

There were no differences in mental rotation performance between the two groups in either the brain activation or performance during the first rotation test and scan. But the block play group showed a change in activation in regions linked to both motor and spatial processing during the second scan. The group who played board games failed to show any significant change in brain activation between the pre- and post-game scans, or any significant improvement on the mental rotation test results.

 Scans of the children's brains show increased activation in the anterior lobe of the cerebellum and the parahippocampus during the second mental rotation test, which was administered after they played with blocks. Credit: Indiana University

Published on Leave a comment on What’s In Your Household Dust?

Ten chemicals suspected or known to harm human health are present in more than 90% of U.S. household dust samples, according to a new study. The research adds to a growing body of evidence showing the dangers posed by exposure to chemicals we are exposed to on a daily basis. The chemicals come from a variety of household goods, including toys, cosmetics, personal care products, furniture, electronics, nonstick cookware, food packaging, floor coverings, some clothing (e.g., stain resistant), building materials, and cleaning products. How do the chemicals get into the dust? The chemicals can leach, migrate, abrade, or off-gas from the products, which winds up in the dust and  results in human exposure. (That's right:  vacuum a lot and wash your hands a lot, and try to avoid or cut  back use of products with these chemicals,)

What was found in the dust? The main chemicals were: phthalates — a group of chemicals that includes DEP, DEHP, DNBP and DIBP (these were present in the highest concentrations),  highly fluorinated chemicals (HFCs), flame retardants (both old and newer replacement ones), synthetic fragrances, and phenols. These chemicals are known to have various adverse health effects, including endocrine disruption, cancer, neurological, immune, and developmental effects. (See posts on endocrine disruptors and flame retardants) Studies typically study one chemical at a time, but household dust contains MIXTURES of these chemicals with effects unknown. How does it get into us? Inhalation, ingestion, and through skin contact. And while the levels we are exposed to may be low, research is showing that even low level exposure can have adverse health effects. From Medical Xpress:

Potentially harmful chemicals widespread in household dust

Household dust exposes people to a wide range of toxic chemicals from everyday products, according to a study led by researchers at Milken Institute School of Public Health at the George Washington University. The multi-institutional team conducted a first-of-a-kind meta-analysis, compiling data from dust samples collected throughout the United States to identify the top ten toxic chemicals commonly found in dust. They found that DEHP, a chemical belonging to a hazardous class called phthalates, was number one on that list. In addition, the researchers found that phthalates overall were found at the highest levels in dust followed by phenols and flame retardant chemicals....."The findings suggest that people, and especially children, are exposed on a daily basis to multiple chemicals in dust that are linked to serious health problems." ...continue reading "What’s In Your Household Dust?"

Published on Leave a comment on Laser Pointers Are Not Toys and Can Cause Vision Loss

It has long been known that laser pointers can be damaging to the eyes, but apparently this is not widely known. Injuries to the eyes (retinal injuries) causing irreversible vision loss are rapidly increasing from them, especially among children. Injuries to the eye happen when a person stares directly into the laser pointer, or even into the reflection in a mirror. This can inadvertently happen among children, for example when playing games such as laser tag.

A laser pointer is a small handheld device that contains a small diode laser that emits a very narrow beam of light, used to highlight something of interest.during presentations. They are also inappropriately used as toys for some children. The researchers point out that "green laser pointers are becoming increasingly more popular and abundantly available, which is concerning because experiments reveal that green laser pointers (490–575 nm) are more harmful to the retina compared with red laser pointers (630–750 nm)". From Medscape:

Laser Pointers Can Cause Irreversible Vision Loss for Kids

Used incorrectly, laser pointers can damage the retina of the eye and may cause some irreversible vision loss, according to researchers who treated four boys for these injuries. Doctors, teachers and parents should be aware that this can happen, and limit children's use of laser pointers, the authors write.

The authors report on two 12-year-olds, one nine-year-old and one 16-year-old who came to a medical center with central vision loss and "blind spots" within hours to days after looking into or playing with a green or red laser pointer. In one case, the boy looked at the reflection of a laser pointer in a mirror. Two others simply pointed the lasers at themselves, and the fourth was engaged in a "laser war" with a friend.

The researchers report in Pediatrics September 1st that three of the boys had potentially irreversible, although relatively mild, vision loss. One boy's vision continued to worsen two weeks after the injury and eventually decreased to 20/40 best corrected visual acuity in both eyes, which is at or close to the limit for obtaining a driver's license in most U.S. states.

He advises parents to be careful about where they buy laser pointers, as some retailers may not list the power rating or may list it incorrectly, and to limit use for kids under 14. Most consumer laser pointers fall under class II or class IIIA level of safety according to the American National Standard Institute, with a power output of five milliwatts or less. But class 3B or class 4 level lasers may emit up to 500 milliwatts or more and these lasers may cause immediate eye hazard when viewed directly, Almeida and his coauthors write.

Retinal tissue in the back of the eye leads to the brain, and it has no ability to regenerate after tissue loss, Almeida said.

Published on Leave a comment on Avoid Lavender and Tea Tree Oils In Personal Care Products?

Over the years I have read about some oils, especially lavender and tea tree oils,  as having hormone altering (endocrine disrupting) effects when used over prolonged periods of time or when someone is "chronically exposed". Especially worrisome was the possible estrogenic effects of lavender oils in shampoos, lotions, and soaps on developing children - especially boys (prolonged use leading to the development of breasts in some boys!). I just read a recently published journal study (with very interesting comments at the end), and an article in WebMD about this same topic. The condition of early breast development is called prepubertal gynecomastia in boys and thelarche in girls.

As you can imagine, the industry (Australian Tea Tree Industry Association and Research Institute for Fragrance Materials Inc) calls such research  "poor science". Of course industry sponsored "research" never ever finds any problems (because any "problems" would impact the big $$ from the sale of those products). In fact, I would be skeptical of any industry sponsored research in this area - it is not truly independent, unbiased research if they "have to" and "want to" find no problems. So when you do read industry research, also read the rebuttals by independent scientists and doctors.

Bottom line: No matter the age, avoid prolonged use of lavender and tea tree oil in personal care products, including "aromatherapy" -  especially important for children and pregnant women. The good news is that the development of breasts in young children is reversible when use of the product is stopped. But better to avoid such products (including Agua de Violetas) on children in the first place. Instead use unscented personal care products.

From WebMD:  Are Tea Tree and Lavender Oils Safe for Kids?

Tea tree and lavender essential oils are popular ingredients in personal care and household products, including many aimed at children. But can the ingredients, often promoted as “natural” alternatives, trigger abnormal breast growth in boys and girls? A few small studies suggest that frequently using lotions, shampoos, styling gels, and even a certain cologne containing lavender and tea tree oils may cause breast growth in boys, also known as gynecomastia, along with breast growth in girls as young as 4 or 5. 

Other studies have not reached the same conclusions, and the cases appear to be rare. In addition, scientific research into most natural products is scant. The FDA doesn’t oversee essential oils unless they are intended for use in a drug, making it challenging to know how safe and effective these products are....Lavender and tea tree oils are among the most commonly used essential oils used. Although research is inconclusive, lavender is often used for aromatherapy and calming lotions, while tea tree oil is promoted for acne, nail fungus, and other skin conditions. 

...continue reading "Avoid Lavender and Tea Tree Oils In Personal Care Products?"

Published on Leave a comment on Early Childhood Antibiotic Use and Food Allergies

Yikes! Another study showing effects from antibiotic use - this time a higher incidence of food allergies in children who took antibiotics in the first year of life. Especially multiple courses of antibiotics, with the strongest association among children receiving cephalosporin and sulfonamide antibiotics. Antibiotics can be life-saving, but there can also be unintended consequences.

As the researchers wrote: "Changes in the composition, richness, and abundance of microbiota that colonize the human gut during infancy has been theorized to play a role in development in atopic disease, including food allergen sensitization. " And what changes the gut microbes? Antibiotics. Other research suggests that alterations in microbes due to childhood antibiotic use may increase the risk of Crohn's disease, obesity, and asthma. From Science Daily:

Young children's antibiotic exposure associated with higher food allergy risk

Antibiotic treatment within the first year of life may wipe out more than an unwanted infection: exposure to the drugs is associated with an increase in food allergy diagnosis, new research from the University of South Carolina suggests.

Analyzing South Carolina Medicaid administrative data from 2007 to 2009, researchers from the College of Pharmacy, School of Medicine and Arnold School of Public Health identified 1,504 cases of children with food allergies and 5,995 controls without food allergies, adjusting for birth month and year, sex and race/ethnicity. Applying conditional logistic regression and adjusting for factors including birth, breastfeeding, asthma, eczema, maternal age and urban residence, the researchers found that children prescribed antibiotics within the first year of life were 1.21 times more likely to be diagnosed with food allergy than children who hadn't received an antibiotic prescription.

The association between antibiotic prescription and development of food allergy was statistically significant, and the odds of a food allergy diagnosis increased with the number of antibiotic prescriptions a child received, growing from 1.31 times greater risk with three prescriptions to 1.43 times with four prescriptions and 1.64 times with five or more prescriptions. The interdisciplinary research team, led by Bryan Love, Pharm.D., found the strongest association between children who were prescribed cephalosporin and sulfonamide antibiotics, which are broad-spectrum therapies (adjusted OR 1.50 and 1.54, respectively), compared with narrower spectrum agents such as penicillins and macrolides. .

This research builds upon previous studies finding that normal gut flora is critical for developing the body's tolerance to foreign proteins such as food. Antibiotics are known to alter the composition of gut flora, and U.S. children ages three months to three years are prescribed 2.2 antimicrobial prescriptions per year on average, according to the literature. The study's results suggest a potential link between the rise in antibiotic prescriptions for young children and the rise in diagnosis of food allergies in children.

Published on Leave a comment on Peanut Allergies Can Be Successfully Treated In Young Children

Yes! Treating young children who have peanut allergies with doses of peanut protein (oral immunotherapy or OIT) for one month works in treating the peanut allergies in the overwhelming majority of young children in an important study. Several studies have now shown that early exposure to nuts is important for prevention of nut allergies, and in this study the researchers showed that both lower and higher dose oral immunotherapy works in treating nut allergies in young children (9 to 36 months of age). Note that this is a paradigm change - before this the thinking was avoid, avoid, avoid for the child to not get or to not worsen the allergy (whether nuts or animals), but now it's early exposure is good in preventing and treating allergies. From Futurity:

Can therapy before 3 wipe out a peanut allergy?

Preschool children with a peanut allergy were able to start eating peanuts after taking part in oral immunotherapy, a new study shows. The findings confirm and extend previous results that show oral immunotherapy (OIT) can protect children from potentially life-threatening anaphylaxis caused by peanut exposure.

The phase two clinical trial results, published online in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, show that one month after completing the OIT protocol, almost 80 percent of trial participants achieved “sustained unresponsiveness,” the highest rate yet reported.

“These findings, if confirmed in larger studies, could transform the care of peanut-allergic children early in life,” says Brian P. Vickery, lead investigator of the trial and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Approximately three million people in the United States report having allergies to peanuts and tree nuts. According to a study released in 2013 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, food allergies among children increased approximately 50 percent between 1997 and 2011.

The initial allergic reaction to peanuts commonly occurs within the first year or two of life, and the condition persists in 80 percent of affected patients, placing them at life-long risk of anaphylaxis. Based on other studies suggesting that peanut allergies strengthen over time, researchers enrolled 40 peanut-allergic children aged 9 to 36 months in the trial, the first study to specifically target children under the age of three.

Children were randomly assigned to high-dose peanut OIT with a target daily dose of 3,000 milligrams of peanut protein or a low-dose regimen with a target dose of 300 milligrams. The trial was double-blinded. Participants took 3,000 mg of study protein, but for the low-dose group, 2,700 mg of placebo was added to the OIT medication. As in previous studies, nearly all participants experienced some side effects, most of which were mild and required little or no treatment.

After receiving OIT for 29 months on average, participants abstained from peanut exposure for four weeks before undergoing a final peanut challenge—where participants ingest a small amount of peanut in a controlled setting. If the challenge is successful, then doctors reintroduce normal amounts of peanuts—such as in a peanut butter and jelly sandwich—into the diets of participants. After the four-week period, nearly 80 percent of children in both the high- and low-dose groups consumed peanut with no allergic response and achieved sustained unresponsiveness.

The OIT-treated children were compared with a matched control group of 154 peanut-allergic children who avoided peanut. The OIT-treated children experienced beneficial changes in their immune responses to peanut and were 19 times more likely to successfully incorporate peanut into their diets. 

Published on Leave a comment on More Problems With BPA, BPS, and “BPA Free”

Two recent articles about BPA (bisphenol A), BPS (bisphenol B), and the "BPA-free" label  - one a study, and one a review article. The "BPA-free" label unfortunately means the product contains a product similar to BPA (typically BPS) and with the same problems as BPA. Both articles discuss the accumulating health reasons to try to avoid these endocrine disruptors. Which is really , really tough to do given that plastics are all around us and used by us every day.

From Science Daily: Prenatal BPA exposure linked to anxiety and depression in boys

Boys exposed prenatally to a common chemical used in plastics may be morelikely to develop symptoms of anxiety and depression at age 10-12. The new study by researchers at the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health (CCCEH) within the Mailman School of Public Health examined early life exposure to the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA). Results are published in the journal Environmental Research.

BPA is a component of some plastics and is found in food containers, plastic water bottles, dental sealants, and thermal receipt paper. In the body, BPA is a synthetic estrogen, one of the class of chemicals known as "endocrine disruptors." The Columbia researchers, led by Frederica Perera, PhD, DrPH, director of CCCEH, previously reported that prenatal exposure to BPA was associated with emotionally reactive and aggressive behavior, and more symptoms of anxiety and depression in boys at age 7-9.

Perera and her co-investigators followed 241 nonsmoking pregnant women and their children, a subset of CCCEH's longstanding urban birth cohort study in New York City, from pregnancy through childhood....Researchers controlled for factors that have been previously associated with BPA exposure levels, including socioeconomic factors. After separating the data by sex, they found that boys with the highest levels of prenatal exposure to BPA had more symptoms of depression and anxiety than boys with lower levels of prenatal exposure to BPA; no such associations were found in girls.

From Endocrine News: Warning Signs: How Safe Is “BPA Free?”

While stickers are showing up declaring certain products “BPA Free,” that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily safe. Could bisphenol S be even worse than the compound it is supposed to be replacing? 

Human exposure to BPA is as ubiquitous as the stickers showing up now that proclaim products BPA free. The chemical used to make plastic has been linked to all kinds of reproductive issues, and even thought to play a role in the development of obesity and cardiovascular events, so industry is taking some steps to correct the problem (after much wailing and gnashing of teeth on their part). These stickers read “BPA FREE” and “NON-TOXIC PLASTIC” in bold letters and usually feature leaves and a green motif, the implication being that these products are safe and healthy. 

But “BPA free” does not mean “EDC free” [endocrine disruptor free] and many products now contain bisphenol S as a substitute for BPA. BPS is a similar chemical and has been found in everything from canned soft drinks to receipt paper to baby bottles. (The FDA banned BPA in baby bottles.) It’s been found in indoor dust samples and is beginning to show up in human urine, and it has been reported to be less biodegradable than BPA. Animal studies have implicated BPS in impaired offspring development. And the production of BPS is increasing annually.

“Recent studies testing BPS and comparing it to BPA show that BPS is as bad, if not worse, than BPA as an EDC,” says Andrea Gore, PhD, professor and Vacek Chair of Pharmacology at the University of Texas in Austin, and editor-in-chief of Endocrinology. “’BPA free’ can give consumers a false sense of security about the product.”

According to Kimberly H. Cox, a postdoctoral fellow studying reproductive endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, the effects of BPA and BPS are subtler than say, PCBs or pesticides, where exposures came at high levels, with devastating effects. The effects of BPA and BPS depend on the timing, length, and dose of exposure, and numerous studies have shown that there are effects on the reproductive system, for example, at doses of BPA much lower than what has been determined as a “safe” exposure by the EPA. And now there also seem to be effects of BPS on the development of the reproductive system, as well as the brain regions that control reproduction.

“When endocrinologists talk about BPA, they frequently describe it as estrogenic – and do not point out the other endocrine systems that are being altered, such as thyroid hormone,” Wayne says. “Our paper emphasizes that BPA and BPS are activating both estrogenic and thyroid hormone pathways. This suggests that EDCs are having much broader effects on health and disease than just mimicking estrogens (which is bad enough).”

Published on Leave a comment on Farm Animal Exposure and Asthma In Children

Earlier posts discussed research that showed that farm and animal (pets such as dogs) exposures in the first year of life is protective against allergies and asthma (lowers the risk of developing them). New research examined this further by looking at Amish and Hutterite groups - looking at not just "farm life", but whether children had much exposure to farm animals. The Amish have close exposure to farm animals (traditional farming methods), but the Hutterites don't (communal highly industrialized farming). Both groups studied had similar lifestyles (drank raw milk, breastfeeding, little exposure to smoking), but both groups did not have indoor pets ("taboos against indoor pets"). Thus farming methods were important for exposures to animals and their microbes.

The researchers said: "The importance of environmental exposures in the development of asthma is most exquisitely illustrated by epidemiologic studies conducted in Central Europe that show significant protection from asthma and allergic disease in children raised on traditional dairy farms. In particular, children’s contact with farm animals and the associated high microbial exposures4,5have been related to the reduced risk." Traditional farming exposed the children to an environment rich in microbes, and these children had very low rates of asthma and "distinct immune profiles that suggest profound effects on innate immunity." Once again, note the importance of microbes in the development of the immune system. From Science Daily:

Growing up on an Amish farm protects children against asthma by reprogramming immune cells

By probing the differences between two farming communities -- the Amish of Indiana and the Hutterites of South Dakota -- an interdisciplinary team of researchers found that specific aspects of the Amish environment are associated with changes to immune cells that appear to protect children from developing asthma. In the Aug. 4, 2016, issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers showed that substances in the house dust from Amish, but not Hutterite, homes were able to engage and shape the innate immune system (the body's front-line response to most microbes) in young Amish children in ways that may suppress pathologic responses leading to allergic asthma.

The Amish and Hutterite farming communities in the United States, founded by immigrants from Central Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, respectively, provide textbook opportunities for such comparative studies. The Amish and the Hutterites have similar genetic ancestry. They share similar lifestyles and customs, such as no television and a Germanic farming diet. They have large families, get childhood vaccinations, breastfeed their children, drink raw milk and don't allow indoor pets.

The communities, however, are distinct in two important ways. Although both groups depend on agriculture, their farming practices differ. The Amish have retained traditional methods. They live on single-family dairy farms and rely on horses for fieldwork and transportation. In contrast, the Hutterites live on large communal farms. They use modern, industrialized farm machinery. This distances young Hutterite children from the constant daily exposure to farm animals. The other striking difference is what Ober calls a "whopping disparity in asthma." About 5 percent of Amish schoolchildren aged 6 to 14 have asthma. This is about half of the U.S. average (10.3%) for children aged 5 to 14, and one-fourth of the prevalence (21.3%) among Hutterite children.

To understand this disparity, the researchers studied 30 Amish children 7 to 14 years old, and 30 age-matched Hutterite children. They scrutinized the children's genetic profiles, which confirmed the remarkable similarities between Amish and Hutterite children. They compared the types of immune cells in the children's blood, collected airborne dust from Amish and Hutterite homes and measured the microbial load in homes in both communities.

The first gee-whiz moment came from the blood studies. These revealed startling differences between the innate immune response from the Amish and Hutterites. "The Amish had more and younger neutrophils, blood cells crucial to fight infections, and fewer eosinophils, blood cells that promote allergic inflammation," said study co-author, immunologist Anne Sperling, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago. Gene expression profiles in blood cells also revealed enhanced activation of key innate immunity genes in Amish children.

The second eureka moment came from experiments using mice. When study co-author, immunologist Donata Vercelli, MD, professor of cellular and molecular medicine and associate director of the Asthma and Airway Disease Research Center at the University of Arizona, exposed mice to house-dust extracts, she found the airways of mice that received Amish dust were protected from asthma-like responses to allergens. In contrast, mice exposed to Hutterite house dust were not protected.

What was different? Dust collected from Amish homes was "much richer in microbial products," the authors note, than dust from Hutterite homes. "Neither the Amish nor the Hutterites have dirty homes," Ober explained. "Both are tidy. The Amish barns, however, are much closer to their homes. Their children run in and out of them, often barefoot, all day long. There's no obvious dirt in the Amish homes, no lapse of cleanliness. It's just in the air, and in the dust."

To better understand how asthma protection was achieved, the researchers used mice that lack MyD88 and Trif, genes crucial for innate immune responses. In these mice, the protective effect of the Amish dust was completely lost. "The results of the mouse experiments conclusively prove that products from the Amish environment are sufficient to confer protection from asthma, and highlight the novel, central role that innate immunity plays in directing this process," Vercelli said.

Published on Leave a comment on Children Share Their Cavity Causing Bacteria

Research shows that Streptococcus mutans, the bacteria that is a main cause of tooth decay or dental caries, is passed from mother to child, and also between nonrelative children. Any interaction that involves saliva, like sharing an ice cream cone or drinking from the same cup or straw as another child, can cause the microbes to be transferred. From Medical Xpress:

Research shows sharing of cavity-causing bacteria may not be only from mothers to children

New ongoing research from the University of Alabama at Birmingham Department of Biology and School of Dentistry is showing more evidence that children may receive oral microbes from other, nonrelative children. It was previously believed that these microbes were passed primarily from mother to child, but in a recent study presented at the American Society for Microbiology MICROBE 2016 Meeting in Boston, researchers found that 72 percent of children harbored at least one strain of the cavity-causing Streptococcus mutans not found in any cohabiting family members.

S. mutans is a bacterium that feeds on fermentable carbohydrates, in particular sucrose, that are frequently consumed by humans. After meals, S. mutans produces enamel-eroding acids, which makes S. mutans one of the main causes of tooth decay, or dental caries, in humans.

One hundred nineteen African-American children ages 12-18 months and 5-6 years who lived with at least one family member were a part of the study. The researchers collected samples from children periodically over the course of eight years. Momeni says that dental caries are more prevalent in minorities and low-socioeconomic groups.

"The literature tells us that we usually get this bacterium from our mothers," Momeni said. "This is because we most commonly have more interaction with our mothers when we are very young. However, our data supports that children who interact with other children at school or in nurseries can, and frequently do, contract this bacteria from each other." Momeni says any interaction that involves saliva, like sharing an ice cream cone or drinking after another child from the same cup or straw, can cause the microbes to be transferred.

Forty percent of the children in the study did not share any S. mutans strains with their mothers, and close to 20 percent of children shared these bacteria only with another child who lived in the household, such as a sibling or cousin. It is important to note that, for the strains of S. mutans not shared with anyone in the same household, approximately a third of the children had only a single isolate for a genotype, which could mean these rare strains may have nothing to do with the dental caries, and may be confounding the search for strains associated with the disease.