Skip to content

Category: healthy living

Published on Leave a comment on Our Gut Microbes Need Dietary Diversity

A thought-provoking article by Heiman and Greenway was just published in the journal Molecular Metabolism making the case that changes in farming practices over the last 50 years have resulted in decreased agricultural diversity which, in turn, has resulted in decreased dietary diversity, and that the reduction in dietary diversity has changed and decreased the richness of the human gut microbiota (microbes living in the gut). And meanwhile, during the past 50 years, the rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and inflammatory bowel diseases sharply increased - and in each of these conditions there is a reduction of the gut microbial diversity. Similar views have also been stated by others in the field of microbiology.

The thinking is that the more diverse the diet, the more diverse the gut microbiome (and healthier), and the more it can adapt to disturbances. Heiman and Greenway state: "Unfortunately, dietary diversity has been lost during the past 50 years because of economic pressures for greater food production to support a growing world population.... Of the 250,000 to 300,000 known edible plant species, humans use only 150 to 200...Today, 75 percent of the world's food is generated from only 12 plants and five animal species."

Also, agricultural practices of using antibiotics as growth promoters for poultry, swine, and cattle further harm the human gut microbiome when the meat is ingested by humans, and pesticide residues on crops ingested by humans may have gut microbiome effects. Even emulsifiers, used in processed foods, reduce microbial richness. Every time a person goes on a certain diet (vegan, Paleo, etc) or makes dietary choices in which some foods are eliminated, it makes it easier for some microbial species, and gives them a competitive advantage over other gut microbes. From Science Daily:

Reduction in dietary diversity impacts richness of human gut microbiota

Changes in farming practices over the last 50 years have resulted in decreased agro-diversity which, in turn, has resulted in decreased dietary diversity. The significant impact of this change in dietary richness on human health is an emerging topic for discussion

Heiman and Greenway describe how the reduction in dietary diversity has changed the richness of human gut microbiota, the community of microorganisms living in the gut. The researchers point out that healthy individuals have diverse gut microbiota and many of the common pathologies of the 21st century, including type 2 diabetes, obesity and inflammatory bowel disease, are associated with reduced microbiotic richness.

Gut microbiota function as an endocrine organ, metabolizing specific nutrients from the diet and producing specific substances that act as metabolic signals in the host. It follows then that highly specialized diets will change the landscape of the gut microbiome over time. In fact, it takes only a few days of changing diet to alter the microbiotic makeup of the human gut. And if the dietary change involves elimination of one or more macronutrients (think Atkins or Paleo or vegan), humans are essentially selecting for some microbiotic species over others.

The importance of microbiota diversity cannot be overstated. They produce an abundance of important molecules for the host and with increased variation comes increased adaptability and an increased range of physiological responses. "The greater the repertoire of signals, the more likely is the ability to maintain homeostasis when dietary intake is perturbed," explain Heiman and Greenway. "Furthermore, because each particular macronutrient has the potential to be metabolized by microbiota into unique metabolic signals, the greater the variety in signals, the greater the variety of responses possible."

Published on Leave a comment on Higher Activity Levels and the Aging Brain

Another study showing that higher physical activity (from a variety of activities) is "related to larger gray matter volume in the elderly, regardless of cognitive status", specifically in gray matter areas of the brain responsible for memory, learning, and cognition. In other words, higher levels of physical activity reduce brain atrophy that occurs with aging and improves cognitive function in elderly individuals.  There is also discussion of higher activity levels improving cerebral (brain) blood flow. Bottom line: get off your butt and move more for better brain health. From Medical Xpress:

Burning more calories linked with greater gray matter volume, reduced Alzheimer's risk

Whether they jog, swim, garden or dance, physically active older persons have larger gray matter volume in key brain areas responsible for memory and cognition, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and UCLA.The findings, published today in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, showed also that people who had Alzheimer's disease or mild cognitive impairment experienced less gray matter volume reduction over time if their exercise-associated calorie burn was high.

A growing number of studies indicate physical activity can help protect the brain from cognitive decline, said investigator James T. Becker, Ph.D., professor of psychiatry, Pitt School of Medicine..... "Our study is one of the largest to examine the relationship between physical activity and cognitive decline, and the results strongly support the notion that staying active maintains brain health."

Led by Cyrus Raji, M.D., Ph.D., formerly a student at Pitt School of Medicine and now a senior radiology resident at UCLA, the team examined data obtained over five years from nearly 876 people 65 or older participating in the multicenter Cardiovascular Health Study. All participants had brain scans and periodic cognitive assessments. They also were surveyed about how frequently they engaged in physical activities, such as walking, tennis, dancing and golfing, to assess their calorie expenditure or energy output per week.

Using mathematical modeling, the researchers found that the individuals who burned the most calories had larger gray matter volumes in the frontal, temporal and parietal lobes of the brain, areas that are associated with memory, learning and performing complex cognitive tasks. In a subset of more than 300 participants at the Pitt site, those with the highest energy expenditure had larger gray matter volumes in key areas on initial brain scans and were half as likely to have developed Alzheimer's disease five years later.

"Gray matter houses all of the neurons in your brain, so its volume can reflect neuronal health," Dr. Raji explained. "We also noted that these volumes increased if people became more active over five years leading up to their brain MRI."

Published on Leave a comment on Americans Eat Way Too Many Ultra-Processed Foods

Not good news. More than half of Americans’ calories come from “ultra-processed foods,” according to a new study published in BMJ Open. Ultra-processed foods were defined as "formulations of several ingredients which, besides salt, sugar, oils and fats, include food substances not used in culinary preparations, in particular, flavours, colours, sweeteners, emulsifiers and other additives used to imitate sensorial qualities of unprocessed or minimally processed foods and their culinary preparations or to disguise undesirable qualities of the final product". Whew....

In other words, they're not real foods, but fake or pseudo foods with lots of added stuff that doesn't occur naturally. Examples are instant soups, sodas, many frozen meals, cake mixes, packaged snacks, energy drinks, syrups (excluding maple syrup). Ultra-processed foods account for about 90% or almost all of the added sugars Americans eat.

Food can be classified 4 ways: unprocessed or minimally processed foods (such as fresh, dry or frozen fruits or vegetables, grains, legumes, meat, fish and milk); processed culinary ingredients (including table sugar, oils, fats, salt, and other substances extracted from foods or from nature, and used in kitchens to make culinary preparations); processed foods (foods manufactured with the addition of salt or sugar or other substances of culinary use to unprocessed or minimally processed foods, such as canned food and simple breads and cheese) and ultra-processed foods (see above for definition).

It's time for Americans to cut back on ultra-processed foods and take Michael Pollan's advice on how to improve our health: "Eat real food. Not too much. Mostly plants." From Medical Xpress:

'Ultra-processed' foods make up more than half of all calories in US diet

'Ultra-processed' foods make up more than half of all calories consumed in the US diet, and contribute nearly 90% of all added sugar intake, finds research published in the online journal BMJ Open. Ultra-processed foods are formulations of several ingredients. Besides salt, sugar, oils and fats, they include substances not generally used in cooking, such as flavourings, emulsifiers, and other additives designed to mimic the qualities of 'real foods'.

Ultra-processed foods include mass produced soft drinks; sweet or savoury packaged snacks; confectionery and desserts; packaged baked goods; chicken/fish nuggets and other reconstituted meat products; instant noodles and soups.

To assess the contribution of ultra-processed foods to the intake of added sugars in the US diet, the researchers drew on dietary data involving more than 9000 people from the 2009-10 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), an ongoing nationally representative cross sectional survey of US civilians. They looked at the average dietary content of added sugars and the proportion of people who consumed more than 10% of their total energy intake—the maximum recommended limit—from this source. 

Ultra-processed foods made up over half of total calorie intake (just under 60%) and contributed almost 90% of energy intake from added sugars. Added sugars represented 1 in every 5 calories in the average ultra-processed food product—far higher than the calorie content of added sugars in processed foods and in unprocessed or minimally processed foods and processed culinary ingredients, including table sugar, combined. A strong linear association emerged between the dietary content of ultra-processed foods and the overall dietary intake of added sugars. Furthermore, the proportion of people exceeding the recommended upper limit of 10% of energy from added sugars was far higher when ultra-processed food consumption was high, rising to more than 80% among those who ate the most ultra-processed foods.

Notably, only those Americans whose ultra-processed food consumption was within the lowest 20% had an average daily added sugar intake that fell below the maximum recommended limit. Several leading health bodies, including the World Health Organization, the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation, the American Heart Association, and the US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee have concluded that excess added sugar intake increases the risk not only of weight gain, but also of obesity and diabetes, which are associated with a heightened risk of cardiovascular disease, and tooth decay. Cutting back on the consumption of ultra-processed foods could be an effective way of curbing excessive added sugar intake in the US, conclude the researchers.

Published on Leave a comment on Education and Climbing Stairs Keep the Brain Younger?

Brain aging can be viewed as having 2 parts: chronological age (normally  the brain grey matter volume slowly shrinks with advancing age) and a lifetime of exposures - which can be negative from unhealthy lifestyle and injuries, and positive from a healthy lifestyle and enriched environments. That's why after a lifetime there can be wide variation in the physiological age of our brains. These differences in the  brain (in the grey matter) can be measured with magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs).

The researchers in this study used the concept of physiological age - the difference between the chronological age and predicted age, as a marker of brain health. They looked at adults of varying ages,and found that the more flights of stairs a person climbs daily, and the more years of school a person had completed, the "younger" their brain physically appears.  This study was a cross-sectional study and so shows an association rather than a definite cause, but interestingly other forms of exercise did not show this link (walking/hiking, jogging, running, bicycling, aerobic exercise, lap swimming, tennis.squash/racquetball, low intensity exercise). From Science Daily:

Want a younger brain? Stay in school -- and take the stairs

Taking the stairs is normally associated with keeping your body strong and healthy. But new research shows that it improves your brain's health too -- and that education also has a positive effect. In a study recently published in the journal Neurobiology of Aging, researchers led by Jason Steffener, a scientist at Concordia University's Montreal-based PERFORM Centre, show that the more flights of stairs a person climbs, and the more years of school a person completes, the "younger" their brain physically appears.

The researchers found that brain age decreases by 0.95 years for each year of education, and by 0.58 years for every daily flight of stairs climbed -- i.e., the stairs between two consecutive floors in a building.

For the study, Steffener and his co-authors used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to non-invasively examine the brains of 331 healthy adults who ranged in age from 19 to 79. They measured the volume of grey matter found in participants' brains because its decline, caused by neural shrinkage and neuronal loss, is a very visible part of the chronological aging process. Then, they compared brain volume to the participants' reported number of flights of stairs climbed, and years of schooling completed. 

Results were clear: the more flights of stairs climbed, and the more years of schooling completed, the younger the brain. "This study shows that education and physical activity affect the difference between a physiological prediction of age and chronological age, and that people can actively do something to help their brains stay young," he says.

Published on Leave a comment on How To Easily Lower Endocrine Disrupting Chemical Levels In Your Body

Yes, the chemicals in personal care products and cosmetics you use absolutely get into your body, have effects, and can be measured in the urine. Of especially big concern are the endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals such as phthalates, parabens, triclosan, and oxybenzone (BP-3). This study shows that even taking a 3 day break from these chemicals lowers their levels in your body. The researchers found that : "The adolescent girls in this study experienced an average within girl decline of 27-45% in urinary concentrations of certain phthalates, certain parabens, triclosan, and oxybenzone after three days of abstaining from conventional personal care products and using replacement products with labels indicating they did not contain these chemicals."

Bottom line: Read the ingredient lists of all personal care products and try to avoid those with phthalates, parabens, triclosan, and oxybenzone (BP-3). Try to buy "unscented" or "fragrance-free" products.The site ewg.org also has lists of personal care products to avoid, and rates many products. From Science Daily:

Teen girls see big drop in chemical exposure with switch in cosmetics

A new study led by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, and Clinica de Salud del Valle de Salinas demonstrates how even a short break from certain kinds of makeup, shampoos and lotions can lead to a significant drop in levels of hormone-disrupting chemicals in the body. The results, published Monday, March 7, 2016 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, came from a study of 100 Latina teenagers participating in the Health and Environmental Research on Makeup of Salinas Adolescents (HERMOSA) study.

Researchers provided teen study participants with personal care products labeled free of chemicals such as phthalates, parabens, triclosan and oxybenzone. Such chemicals are widely used in personal care products, including cosmetics, fragrance, hair products, soaps and sunscreens, and have been shown in animal studies to interfere with the body's endocrine system.

"Because women are the primary consumers of many personal care products, they may be disproportionately exposed to these chemicals," said study lead author Kim Harley, associate director of the UC Berkeley Center for Environmental Research and Children's Health. "Teen girls may be at particular risk since it's a time of rapid reproductive development, and research has suggested that they use more personal care products per day than the average adult woman."

Analysis of urine samples before and after a three-day trial in which the participants used the lower- chemical products found significant drops in levels of these chemicals in the body. Metabolites of diethyl phthalate, commonly used in fragrances, decreased 27 percent by the end of the trial period. Methyl and propyl parabens, used as preservatives in cosmetics, dropped 44 and 45 percent respectively. Both triclosan, found in antibacterial soaps and some brands of toothpaste, and benzophenone-3 (BP-3), found in some sunscreens under the name oxybenzone, fell 36 percent. Surprisingly, there was a small increase in concentrations in two less common parabens. Those levels were small and could have been caused by accidental contamination or a substitution not listed on the labels, the study authors said.

The researchers noted that cosmetics and personal care products are not well-regulated in this country, and that getting data about health effects from exposure, particularly long-term ones, is difficult. But they say there is growing evidence linking endocrine-disrupting chemicals to neurobehavioral problems, obesity and cancer cell growth. (Original study.)

Published on Leave a comment on Dangers Persist With Nonstick Coatings

For years stores and manufacturers have promoted the advantages of Scotchgard and Teflon nonstick coatings for pots and pans, as stain-proofing for upholstered furniture and rugs, as a water repellent for clothing, for consumer goods such as dental floss, and for grease-proof food wrappers and containers. And yes, people have been convinced - with most cookware sold today being of the nonstick type, and the popularity of sofas and rugs coated with non-stain coatings. But once again, chemicals come with a price and health effects, and unfortunately these particular chemicals are found in all of us in varying levels.

Polyfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) are a class of chemicals that are stain, water, and grease repellent chemicals.They have been found in the blood of more than 98% of the United States population. PFCs stay in the environment and body for many years (thus labeled as "persistent"). Some PFCs: perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, perfluorooctane sulfonate or PFOS, perfluorononanoic acid or PFNA, and perfluorohexane sulfonate or PFHxS.

PFOA was used to make DuPont's popular Teflon coating for decades. DuPont phased out its PFOA production after a settlement with federal regulators (it was linked it to birth defects and cancer in animals). But meanwhile PFOA spread worldwide, and traces of the compound have been found in most people, in polar bears in the Arctic, in some drinking water, and even in some fish. PFCs pass from mothers to their babies during pregnancy, and in breast milk after birth. They are considered hazardous even in small doses, they accumulate, and have been linked to all sorts of medical problems, from developmental delays in the fetus and child, to immune problems, kidney disease, kidney and testicular cancers, and to thyroid disease.

And once again, as some chemicals are phased out, the replacement chemicals may be just as bad. One group of replacement chemicals is perfluoroalkyl sulfonate (PFAS). Experts worry that this new group of PFASs has many of the same troubling characteristics as their predecessors, because of the chemical similarities with the original chemicals. But we won't know for years, because once again the necessary health tests have not been done.

What can you do to avoid PFCs? 1) Do not use Teflon or non-stick pots, pans, and utensils. Use stainless steel or cast iron instead. 2) Avoid Scotchgard or other stain-proofing or stain-resistant treatments on upholstered furniture or rugs. 3) Avoid jackets, rain gear, or other clothing with "water resistant" or "stain resistant" treatments. 4) Try to cut back on foods that come in "grease-proof" containers. Don't use microwave popcorn bags. 5) Don't use dental floss such as Oral-B Glide dental floss (uses PFC), and use unwaxed or natural wax floss instead (such as Toms of Maine floss). 6) Avoid personal care products that contain ingredients that include the words “fluoro” or “perfluoro.

From Medscape: Prenatal Exposure to Household Chemicals Hurts Kids' Cognition

Exposure to common household chemicals such as those found in nonstick cooking pans, upholstery, carpet pads, and electronics during pregnancy may lead to poorer cognitive and behavioral development during childhood, new research shows.

In an analysis of more than 250 mother-child pairs, maternal exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) was associated with impairments in executive function in children aged 5 and 8 years. "These findings suggest that concentrations of maternal serum PBDEs and PFASs during pregnancy may be associated with poorer executive function in school-age children," the investigators, with first author Ann Vuong, DrPH,...."Given that the persistence of PBDEs and PFASs has resulted in detectable serum concentrations worldwide, the observed deficits in executive function may have a large impact at the population level," they add.

In-unit increases in PFOS levels were associated with worse behavior regulation, poorer metacognition, and poorer global executive functioning. No link was found between PFOA levels and executive function. Dr Vuong told Medscape Medical News that although the majority of PBDEs and PFASs have been phased out of products, there is an ongoing risk of exposure."It's in the environment, and probably it's that people have already purchased products within their homes, and everyone has [PBDEs] in their bodies. So the only way to reduce the body burden or exposure is through cleaning methods," she said.

For PBDEs, it is recommended that people regularly use a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter in their vacuum and that they wipe down surfaces and regularly wash their hands. "For PFASs, it's recommended that you try not to, or limit your use of, microwaved fast food packaging, as well as trying not to use deteriorated pans with nonstick coatings," Dr Vuong added....Although reducing exposure to substances with known neurodevelopmental and cognitive risks is important, Dr Vuong emphasized that the chemicals have been replaced by novel compounds, some of which may carry their own risks.

UPDATE: 2 new articles discussing this issue: New Teflon Toxin Causes Cancer in Lab Animals and How Dupont Concealed the Dangers of the New Teflon Toxin

Published on Leave a comment on Avoid the New Generation of Flame Retardants

Flame retardants. All around us, and in us. So, so hard to avoid because they're in electronic goods, in upholstered furniture, polyurethane foam, carpet pads, some textiles, the foam in baby items, house dust, building insulation, and on and on. And unfortunately, while a number of toxic flame retardants have been phased out, it appears that the new replacements may be just as bad and are more easily inhaled (the small particles go down the air tract and into the lung tissue).

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. From Environmental Health News:

As Washington state decides on stronger toxics law, residents are breathing flame retardants

A new generation of chemicals added to furniture, building insulation and baby products like car seats to slow the spread of flames are escaping into air at higher levels than previously thought, according to a new study out of Washington state. The findings come as Washington lawmakers decide on bolstering flame retardant bans. The state was one of the first to ban an earlier generation of retardants, known as PBDEs.

The new research found flame retardant chemicals used to replace polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) also escape, are ubiquitous in indoor air and suggest inhalation is a major route of exposure for people. The compounds, called chlorinated organophosphate flame retardants, found in the study have been linked to cancer and reproductive problems, and some can alter hormones essential for development. “We’ve been underestimating what total exposure is,” said Erika Schreder, staff scientist at the Washington Toxics Coalition and lead author of the study published this month in the scientific journal Chemosphere.

Researchers gave 10 people from Washington state an air sampler that simulates breathing to wear during a normal day: office work, commuting, hanging out at home. They tested for a suite of the new generation of chlorinated flame retardants and found all 10 were breathing some amount of them throughout the day. Exposure to one of the most prevalent compounds was up to 30 times greater than ingesting the chemicals via dust. The distinction is important: dust exposure occurs largely through the mouth, previously thought to be the major exposure route for banned PBDEs.

Chlorinated flame retardants are used mostly in polyurethane foam, often in building insulation and everyday products such as furniture, children’s car seats and baby strollers. The compounds are substitutes for PBDEs, which were widely used as flame retardants until scientists reported they were building up in people and wildlife and various bans took hold.

While chlorinated flame retardants have been around for decades, Salamova said scientists have recently started to understand them as, at first, it was thought they weren’t harmful or able to accumulate in people and wildlife. However there is evidence the replacement are following the same path as PBDEs: chlorinated flame retardants have been found in household dust, children’s products, drinking water, and mother-toddlers pairs. Two chlorinated flame retardants have been flagged by the state of California as carcinogens, and animal research suggests they may hamper brain development as well. 

From Medical Xpress: Prenatal exposure to flame retardants linked to poorer behavioral function in children

New research from the University of Cincinnati (UC) College of Medicine suggests that prenatal exposure to flame retardants and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) commonly found in the environment may have a lasting effect on a child's cognitive and behavioral development, known as executive function...."We examined the relationship between prenatal exposure to PBDEs and PFASs and executive function in children at 5 and 8 years of age," said Ann Vuong, DrPH, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Cincinnati in the Department of Environmental Health. "The findings suggest that maternal serum concentrations of PBDEs and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), one of the most commonly found PFASs in human blood, may be associated with poorer executive functioning in school-age children."

From Science Daily: Exposure to common flame retardants may contribute to attention problems in children

Prenatal exposure to some flame retardants that have been widely-used in consumer products is associated with attention problems in young children. A new study is the first to show the effects of prenatal exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ethers on children's development at ages 3, 4, and 7 years. Children with the highest exposure to certain PBDEs had approximately twice the number of maternally-reported attention problems compared to the other children in the study. PBDEs are found in textiles, plastics, wiring, and furniture containing polyurethane foam to reduce flammability.

Very nice and thorough report about flame retardants written in 2013 by the highly regarded center EHHI (Environment and Human Health, Inc.): FLAME RETARDANTS THE CASE FOR POLICY CHANGE

Published on Leave a comment on What Are the Herbicide Levels In Your Food?

A very popular herbicide – currently the most widely applied pesticide in the world – is glyphosate, 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 human carcinogen and linked to various health effects, and even though it is so extensively used, the FDA just announced in February 2016 that they will “soon” start testing for its presence and actual levels in food for the first time in the agency’s history.

What, it never occurred to them that the most widely used pesticide in the world would be found in food?  Of course they knew glyphosate residues were 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.

But remember.... there are very strong industry pressures on the EPA, and so the EPA seems to keep its head firmly in the sand for all sorts of pesticide issues. Maybe their motto is: see no evil...hear no evil....

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.

Private testing has already found glyphosate residues in breast milk, soybeans, corn, honey, cereal, wheat flour, soy sauce, and infant formula. It is currently unknown what glyphosate residues in food, which we then ingest, mean 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. 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.

So where have glyphosate residues been found recently? In Germany's 14 most popular beers. German beer purity in question after environment group finds weed-killer traces And in feminine hygiene products in France. How to lower your daily intake of glyphosate? Eat organic foods as much as possible, including wheat, corn, oats, soybeans.

Some influential scientists and physicians just came out with a Statement of Concern regarding their serious concerns with glyphosate. The article summary (Abstract) from Environmental Health: Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement

The broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate (common trade name “Roundup”) was first sold to farmers in 1974. Since the late 1970s, the volume of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) applied has increased approximately 100-fold. Further increases in the volume applied are likely due to more and higher rates of application in response to the widespread emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds and new, pre-harvest, dessicant use patterns. GBHs were developed to replace or reduce reliance on herbicides causing well-documented problems associated with drift and crop damage, slipping efficacy, and human health risks. Initial industry toxicity testing suggested that GBHs posed relatively low risks to non-target species, including mammals, leading regulatory authorities worldwide to set high acceptable exposure limits. To accommodate changes in GBH use patterns associated with genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant crops, regulators have dramatically increased tolerance levels in maize, oilseed (soybeans and canola), and alfalfa crops and related livestock feeds.

Animal and epidemiology studies published in the last decade, however, point to the need for a fresh look at glyphosate toxicity. Furthermore, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer recently concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” In response to changing GBH use patterns and advances in scientific understanding of their potential hazards, we have produced a Statement of Concern drawing on emerging science relevant to the safety of GBHs. Our Statement of Concern considers current published literature describing GBH uses, mechanisms of action, toxicity in laboratory animals, and epidemiological studies. It also examines the derivation of current human safety standards.

We conclude that: (1) GBHs are the most heavily applied herbicide in the world and usage continues to rise; (2) Worldwide, GBHs often contaminate drinking water sources, precipitation, and air, especially in agricultural regions; (3) The half-life of glyphosate in water and soil is longer than previously recognized; (4) Glyphosate and its metabolites are widely present in the global soybean supply; (5) Human exposures to GBHs are rising; (6) Glyphosate is now authoritatively classified as a probable human carcinogen; (7) Regulatory estimates of tolerable daily intakes for glyphosate in the United States and European Union are based on outdated science. We offer a series of recommendations related to the need for new investments in epidemiological studies, biomonitoring, and toxicology studies that draw on the principles of endocrinology to determine whether the effects of GBHs are due to endocrine disrupting activities. We suggest that common commercial formulations of GBHs should be prioritized for inclusion in government-led toxicology testing programs such as the U.S. National Toxicology Program, as well as for biomonitoring as conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Published on Leave a comment on Clear Differences Between Organic and Non-Organic Milk and Meat

Two new papers just published in the British Journal of Nutrition are analyses of existing studies that compare conventional vs organic milk, and conventional vs organic red meat. Both studies found clear differences between organic meat and milk compared to conventional milk and meat, with the organic milk and meat best health-wise, especially due to differences in fatty acids. The researchers stated: "organic bovine (cow) milk has a more desirable fatty acid composition than conventional milk".

Some of the differences may be due to organic milk and beef coming from cattle that graze on grass (organic farming standards require  grazing/forage-based diets), while most conventional milk and beef come from cows subsisting on grain. Beneficial omega-3 is much more prevalent in grass than in grain, which is why organic livestock and milk also contain higher levels, while omega-6 levels were lower in organic meat and dairy.

The researchers did not look at antioxidant, vitamin and mineral concentrations between the meat groups because there weren't enough studies to look at. Two years ago, Dr. Leifert led a similar review for fruits and vegetables that found organic produce had higher levels of some antioxidants and less pesticide residue than conventionally grown crops. From Medical Xpress:

New study finds clear differences between organic and non-organic milk and meat

In the largest study of its kind, an international team of experts led by Newcastle University, UK, has shown that both organic milk and meat contain around 50% more beneficial omega-3 fatty acids than conventionally produced products. Analyzing data from around the world, the team reviewed 196 papers on milk and 67 papers on meat and found clear differences between organic and conventional milk and meat, especially in terms of fatty acid composition, and the concentrations of certain essential minerals and antioxidants.  ...continue reading "Clear Differences Between Organic and Non-Organic Milk and Meat"

Published on Leave a comment on Oral Bacteria Linked to Hemorrhagic Stroke

The finding that the oral bacteria Streptococcus mutans, which is found in 10% of the population, is linked with hemorrhagic strokes is big. S. mutans is found in tooth decay or cavities (dental caries). The researchers found a link with cnm-positive S. mutans with both intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and also with cerebral microbleeds.

Some risk factors for strokes have long since been known, such as high blood pressure and advanced age, but then there are those hemorrhagic strikes that don't seem to fit the norm, with no apparent risk factors. Well, apparently the presence of cnm-positive S. mutans is one. My understanding of what cnm-positive S. mutans means is S. mutans bacteria that carries the collagen-binding Cnm gene. This bacteria can be found in a person's saliva and in dental plaque, and swabs of both were taken for this study.

This study builds on other studies that find a link between the bacteria Streptococcus mutans and a number of systemic diseases, including bacteremia, infective endocarditis and hemorrhagic stroke. The researchers of this latest study suggest that infection with cnm-positive S. mutans causes constant inflammation (as shown by 2 inflammatory markers: CRP and fibrinogen), which then causes damage to blood vessels (endothelial damage) in the brain. Bottom line: take care of your teeth and gums.

From Science Daily: Oral bacteria linked to risk of stroke

In a study of patients entering the hospital for acute stroke, researchers have increased their understanding of an association between certain types of stroke and the presence of the oral bacteria (cnm-positive Streptococcus mutans).

In the single hospital study, researchers at the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center in Osaka, Japan, observed stroke patients to gain a better understanding of the relationship between hemorrhagic stroke and oral bacteria. Among the patients who experienced intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), 26 percent were found to have a specific bacterium in their saliva, cnm-positive S. mutans. Among patients with other types of stroke, only 6 percent tested positive for the bacterium.

Strokes are characterized as either ischemic strokes, which involve a blockage of one or more blood vessels supplying the brain, or hemorrhagic strokes, in which blood vessels in the brain rupture, causing bleeding.

The researchers also evaluated MRIs of study subjects for the presence of cerebral microbleeds (CMB), small brain hemorrhages which may cause dementia and also often underlie ICH. They found that the number of CMBs was significantly higher in subjects with cnm-positive S. mutans than in those without. The authors hypothesize that the S. mutans bacteria may bind to blood vessels weakened by age and high blood pressure, causing arterial ruptures in the brain, leading to small or large hemorrhages.

"This study shows that oral health is important for brain health. People need to take care of their teeth because it is good for their brain and their heart as well as their teeth," Friedland said. "The study and related work in our labs have shown that oral bacteria are involved in several kinds of stroke, including brain hemorrhages and strokes that lead to dementia."

Multiple research studies have shown a close association between the presence of gum disease and heart disease, and a 2013 publication by Jan Potempa, Ph.D., D.Sc., of the UofL School of Dentistry, revealed how the bacterium responsible for gum disease worsens rheumatoid arthritis. The cnm-negative S. mutans bacteria is found in approximately 10 percent of the general population, Friedland says, and is known to cause dental cavities (tooth decay). Friedland also is researching the role of oral bacteria in other diseases affecting the brain.  http://www.nature.com/articles/srep20074