Yogurt containing probiotic bacteria successfully protected children and pregnant women against heavy metal exposure in a recent study. Canadian and Tanzanian researchers created and distributed a special yogurt containing Lactobacillus rhamnosus bacteria and observed the outcomes against a control group.
A research team from the Canadian Centre for Human Microbiome and Probiotics, led by Dr. Gregor Reid, studied how microbes could protect against environmental health damage in poor parts of the world. Their lab research indicated that L. rhamnosus had a great affinity for binding toxic heavy metals. Working with this knowledge, the team hypothesized that regularly consuming this probiotic strain could prevent metals from being absorbed from the diet.
Working with the Western Heads East organization, Dr. Reid had already established a network of community kitchens in Mwanza, Tanzania to produce a probiotic yogurt for the local population. Mwanza is located on the shores of Lake Victoria, which is known to be polluted with pesticides and toxic metals including mercury. The team utilized this network to produce and distribute a new type of yogurt containing L. rhamnosus. The special yogurt was distributed to a group of pregnant women and a group of children. The researchers measured the baseline and post-yogurt levels of toxic metals.
The team found a significant protective effect of the probiotic against mercury and arsenic in the pregnant women. This is important as "reduction in these compounds in the mothers could presumably decrease negative developmental effects in their fetus andnewborns," according to Dr. Reid. While the results obtained in the children studied showed benefits and lower toxin levels, the sample size and duration of treatment did not allow statistical significance.
The link between pesticide exposure (pesticides used in the home or in the garden or lawn) and childhood brain tumors has been known for years. From Science Daily:
Older parents, birth defects, maternal nutrition and childhood exposure to CT scans and pesticides are increasingly being associated with brain tumors in children, according to new research. Brain and central nervous system tumors are the second leading cause of cancer death in children.
A team of researchers, led by Kimberly Johnson, PhD, assistant professor of social work at the Brown School, a member of the Institute for Public Health and a research member of Siteman Cancer Center, examined studies published since 2004 that analyzed the incidence of childhood brain tumors and survival in different parts of the world.
In this research, binge drinking was defined as drinking four or more units of alcohol in a day on at least one occasion during the pregnancy.From Science Daily:
Binge drinking during pregnancy can increase the risk of mental health problems (particularly hyperactivity and inattention) in children aged 11 and can have a negative effect on their school examination results, according to new research on more than 4,000 participants. This builds on earlier research on the same children that found a link between binge drinking in pregnancy and their mental health when aged four and seven, suggesting that problems can persist as a child gets older. Other effects, such as on academic performance, may only become apparent later in a child's life.
Women who are pregnant or who are planning to become pregnant should be aware of the possible risks associated with episodes of heavier drinking during pregnancy, even if this only occurs on an occasional basis.'The consumption of four or more drinks in a day may increase the risk for hyperactivity and inattention problems and lower academic attainment even if daily average levels of alcohol consumption during pregnancy are low.
Nearly half of all cases of diabetes during pregnancy, known as gestational diabetes, could be prevented if young women eat well, exercise regularly and stop smoking before and during pregnancy, finds a study.
Several modifiable risk factors before pregnancy have been identified over the past decade. These include maintaining a healthy weight, consuming a healthy diet, regular physical activity, and not smoking.So a team of researchers based in the United States set out to examine the effect of these "low risk" lifestyle factors on the risk of gestational diabetes -- and measure the portion of the condition that may be preventable through adhering to them.
The strongest individual risk factor for gestational diabetes was pre-existing overweight or obesity -- having a body mass index (BMI) above 25 before pregnancy. Women with a BMI above 33 were over four times more likely to develop gestational diabetes than women who had a normal BMI before pregnancy. ..Compared with women who did not meet any of the low risk lifestyle factors, those meeting all four criteria had an 83% lower risk of developing gestational diabetes.
The bottom line is to read the ingredients list on products, and avoid all products labeled "antimicrobial" or "antibacterial" (because those are the ones typically containing triclosan and triclorocarban). Over 2000 products contain antibacterial compounds. I've even seen them in pillows, pillow protectors, mattress pads, dish racks, toys, and blankets! As we know from the latest microbiology research, we need to cultivate a healthy microbiome, and not throw it out of whack by continuously trying to kill off all bacteria. From The Atlantic:
Antimicrobial chemicals are so ubiquitous that a recent study found them in pregnant mothers' urine and newborns' cord blood. Research shows that their risks may outweigh their benefits.
Antimicrobial chemicals, intended to kill bacteria and other microorganisms, are commonly found in not just soaps, but all kinds of products—toothpaste, cosmetics, and plastics among them. There is evidence that the chemicals aren’t always effective, and may even be harmful, and their ubiquity means people are often continually exposed to them. One such chemical, triclosan, has previously been found in many human bodily fluids. New research found traces of triclosan, triclocarban, and butyl paraben in the urine ofpregnant women, and the cord blood of newborn infants.
The research looked at the same population of 180 expectant mothers living in Brooklyn, New York, most of Puerto Rican descent. In a study published last week in Environmental Science and Technology, researchers from Arizona State University and State University of New York’s Downstate School of Public Health found triclosan in 100 percent of the women’s urine samples, and triclocarban in 87 percent of the samples. Of the 33 cord blood samples they looked at, 46 percent contained triclosan and 23 percent contained triclocarban.
In another, still-unpublished study, the researchers found that all of the cord blood samples contained “at least one paraben,” according to Dr. Rolf Halden, director of ASU’s Center for Environmental Security.
Triclosan and triclocarban are endocrine disruptors, Halden explains. The risk there is that the chemicals can mimic thyroid hormones, potentially disrupting the metabolism and causing weight gain or weight loss. Previous research has also shown a connection between higher levels of triclosan in urine, and allergy diagnoses in children.
In the study looking at butyl paraben, the researchers found an association between higher exposure to the chemical, and a smaller head circumference and length of babies after they were born. Butyl paraben is used as a preservative, so it’s found in a wider breadth of products, according to Halden.
As the Food and Drug Administration mulls over whether to rein in the use of common antibacterial compounds that are causing growing concern among environmental health experts, scientists are reporting that many pregnant women and their fetuses are beingexposed to these substances. The compounds are used in more than 2,000 everyday productsmarketed as antimicrobial, including toothpastes, soaps, detergents, carpets, paints, school supplies and toys, the researchers say.
The problem with this, explains Pycke, a research scientist at Arizona State University (ASU), is that there is a growing body of evidence showing that the compounds can lead to developmental and reproductive problems in animals and potentially in humans. Also, some research suggests that the additives could contribute to antibiotic resistance, a growing public health problem.
Although the human body is efficient at flushing out triclosan and triclocarban, a person's exposure to them can potentially be constant. "If you cut off the source of exposure, eventually triclosan and triclocarban would quickly be diluted out, but the truth is that we have universal use of these chemicals, and therefore alsouniversal exposure," says Rolf Halden, Ph.D., the lead investigator of the study at ASU.
We may think of ourselves as just human, but we’re really a mass of microorganisms housed in a human shell. Every person alive is host to about 100 trillion bacteria cells. They outnumber human cells 10 to one and account for 99.9 percent of the unique genes in the body.
Our collection of microbiota, known as the microbiome, is the human equivalent of an environmental ecosystem. Although the bacteria together weigh a mere three pounds, their composition determines much about how the body functions and, alas, sometimes malfunctions. Like ecosystems the world over, the human microbiome is losing its diversity, to the potential detriment of the health of those it inhabits.
Dr. Martin J. Blaser, a specialist in infectious diseases at the New York University School of Medicine and the director of the Human Microbiome Program,has studied the role of bacteria in disease for more than three decades. In his new book, “Missing Microbes,"Dr. Blaser links the declining variety within themicrobiome to our increased susceptibility to serious, often chronic conditions, from allergies and celiac disease to Type 1 diabetes and obesity. He and others primarily blame antibiotics for the connection.
The damaging effect of antibiotics on microbial diversity starts early, Dr. Blaser said. The average American child is given nearly three courses of antibiotics in the first two years of life, and eight more during the next eight years. Even a short course of antibiotics like the widely prescribed Z-pack (azithromycin, taken for five days), can result in long-term shifts in the body’s microbial environment.
But antibiotics are not the only way the balance within us can be disrupted. Cesareandeliveries, which have soared in recent decades, encourage the growth of microbes from the mother’s skin, instead of from the birth canal, in the baby’s gut, Dr. Blaser said in an interview.
This change in microbiota can reshape an infant’s metabolism and immune system. A recent review of 15 studies involving 163,796 births found that, compared with babies delivered vaginally, those born by cesarean section were 26 percent more likely to be overweightand 22 percent more likely to be obese as adults.
The placenta has a microbiome of its own,researchers have discovered, which may also contribute to the infant’s gut health and help mitigate the microbial losses caused by cesarean sections.
Further evidence of a link to obesity comes from farm animals. About three-fourths of theantibiotics sold in the United States are used in livestock. These antibiotics change theanimals’ microbiota, hastening their growth. When mice are given the same antibiotics used on livestock, the metabolism of their liver changes, stimulating an increase in body fat, Dr. Blaser said.
Even more serious is the increasing number of serious disorders now linked to a distortion inthe microbial balance in the human gut. They include several that are becoming more common in developed countries: gastrointestinal ailments like Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis and celiac disease; cardiovascular disease; nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; digestive disorders like chronic reflux; autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis; and asthma and allergies.
For years, researchers characterized the microbial community of women’s vaginas as being dominated by Lactobacillus bacteria, which ferment carbohydrates to lactic acid, yielding a low pH that is toxic to many pathogenic microbes. When levels of Lactobacillus drop, the pH becomes more neutral, and the risk of infection rises.
But with research revealing notable variation among women’s vaginal microbiomes, as well as some interesting dynamics of the microbial communities within a single organ, “that dogma is changing a little bit,” said Gregory Buck of the Vaginal Microbiome Consortium at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU).
The composition and stability of the vaginal microbiome varies by race, age, even within an individual—and it’s quickly become clear that the formula for a “normal,” “healthy” microbialcommunity cannot be computed by ratios of bacterial species. “In the past we’ve made some generalizations about what kinds of bacteria are found in the vagina, what kinds of bacteria are good or healthy or protective,” said microbial ecologist Larry Forney of the University of Idaho. “What the research is showing is there are tremendous differences between women in terms of the kinds of bacteria that are present and the changes in the communities that occur over time.”
In June 2010, Forney, Jacques Ravel of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, and their collaborators published a survey of the vaginal microbiomes of nearly 400 women and found that the majority harbored bacterial communities dominated by one of four Lactobacillus strains. More than a quarter of the women studied, however, did not follow this pattern. Instead, their vaginas had fewer Lactobacillus and greater numbers of other anaerobic bacteria, although the bacterial communities always included members of genera known to produce lactic acid.
In many ways, the microbiome of these women resembled the bacterial communities of women suffering from bacterial vaginosis (BV), an infection characterized by an odorous vaginal discharge, Buck noted. “By looking at the microbial components, you’d say they have BV, but they have no clinical symptoms,” he said. “These people are not unhealthy.”
The researchers also found that the composition of a woman’s vaginal microbiome was linked to her race. Eighty percent of Asian women and nearly 90 percent of white women harbored vaginal microbiomes that were dominated by Lactobacillus, while only about 60 percent of Hispanic and black women did. Moreover, vaginal pH varied with ethnicity as well, with Hispanic and black women averaging 5.0 and 4.7, respectively, and Asian and white women averaging 4.4 and 4.2.
This raises questions about the role of the commensal bacteria and risk of preterm labor , which has been linked to BV—and to low levels of Lactobacillus in particular—and is one-and-a-half times more common among African American women than Caucasian women.
Meanwhile, the researchers continue to sort through 40,000 swabs from more than 6,000 women to better characterize the bacterial communities living in the vagina. But Fettweis and her colleagues face a common problem in microbiome research. “In many samples, only afraction of [the genetic sequences] align to anything we have in our databases,” she said. “So I think there’s still a lot of work to be done in terms of actually understanding: What are theseorganisms?”
Another question facing researchers probing the vaginal microbiome is how it is initiallycolonized.“Where do [the bacteria] come from?” said Forney.
Many suspect that the process occurs during vaginal childbirth. But the adolescent microbiome does not resemble that of a sexually mature woman, having far less Lactobacillus, leading some to suspect that there may be a second colonization of the vagina later in life. And if the birthing process is important to establish the vaginal microbiome, what happens in the case of C-sections? “We have more questions than answers,” Forney said.
The microbiome is also not stable later in life. It is now well known that the vaginal microbiome changes after menopause, containing fewer Lactobacillus than the vaginas of reproductive-aged women, with the notable exception of women on hormone-replacement therapies.
Moreover, recent research has revealed that the composition of the vaginal microbiome can change in as little as 24 hours.
The temporal dynamics of the vaginal microbiome raise important questions about developingmicrobiota-based diagnostics and therapeutics, said Forney. “If you perform a diagnostic test, would you get a different result tomorrow or the day after? In some cases, yes. How do you incorporate that into [a] decision about whether some kind of intervention is required?”
Informing pregnant women about environmental health hazards is absolutely necessary, especially because steps can be taken to avoid them (such as pesticides, mercury in fish, lead and BPA). Why isn't it happening routinely? Hey obstetricians - are you listening? From Huffington Post:
...dozens of environmental chemicals can course through a pregnant woman's body, cross the umbilical cord and wreck havoc on a developing fetus. Birth defects, IQ losses and childhood cancers are just some of the potential risks scientists have now tied to even low levels of exposure.
Among more than 2,500 doctors consulted for the survey, nearly all of them reportedcounseling patients on factors such as diet, exercise and cigarette smoking. However, only about 20 percent said they addressed environmental exposures. They pegged their hesitation to a number of factors, from the fear of overwhelming patients with anxiety-inducing worries to limited appointment time to a lack of environmental health education.
Just one in 15 doctors said they had received training on the harmful reproductive effects of toxic chemicals. "Medical school and residencies tend to frame their curriculum around the boards and required licensing exams," said Stotland. "This material is not yet on those tests." ... The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Society forReproductive Medicine (ASRM) issued a statement in October that underscored mounting evidence of "significant and long-lasting effects" caused by industrial chemicals, and emphasized doctors' role in protecting pregnant women.
The actual study from Plos One summed up the importance of knowing about exposures to environmental hazards during pregnancy very nicely in the introduction:
Exposure to hazardous environmental chemicals, i.e., manufactured chemicals and metals, is linked to adverse health outcomes across all stages of the human life cycle including fertility, conception, pregnancy, child and adolescent development, and adult health [1]–[5]. Human exposure to environmental chemicals is ubiquitous. A population-based study found that virtually all pregnant women in the U.S. had measureable levels of at least 43 different environmental chemicals in their bodies, including chemicals that were measured at levels similar to those associated with adverse developmental and reproductive health outcomes in epidemiologic studies [6]. There are currently over 80,000 chemicals in commerce [7], [8], and exposure occurs through air, water, food and consumer products in the home and workplace. The majority of industrial chemicals have not been tested for potential reproductive/developmental harm[9].
Obstetricians are uniquely positioned to help prevent exposures to environmental chemicals with adverse developmental and reproductive health effects [2]. Pregnancy is a time when exposure to environmental contaminants can disrupt or interfere with the physiology of a cell, tissue, or organ [4], leading to permanent and lifelong adverse health outcomes that may be passed down to future generations [10]. Pregnancy is also an opportune time to preventharmful exposures as it is a period when patient interest about health can be extremely high.
Women exposed to high levels of bisphenol A early in their pregnancy had an 83percent greater risk of miscarriage than women with the lowest levels, according to new research. The scientists said their new study adds to evidence that low levels of the ubiquitous chemical, used to make polycarbonate plastic and found in some food cans and paper receipts, may affect human reproduction. The study involved 115 pregnant women who had visited a Stanford University fertility clinic within about four weeks of fertilization. The more BPA detected in the women’s blood, the highertheir risk of miscarriage, according to the researchers.
“Couples suffering from infertility or recurrent miscarriages would be best advised to reduce BPA exposure because it has the potential to adversely affect fetaldevelopment,” wrote the scientists, led by Dr. Ruth Lathi, a Stanford University associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology.
In 2005, a smaller study in Japan found that 45 women who had three or more first-trimester miscarriages had three times more BPA in their blood than 32 women with no history of pregnancy problems.
Fetal exposure to a commonly used plasticizer found in products such as water bottles, soup can liners and paper receipts, can increase the risk for prostate cancerlater in life, according to a study. Exposure of the fetus to BPA in utero is of particular concern, because the chemical, which mimics the hormone estrogen, has been linkedto several kinds of cancer, including prostate cancer, in rodent models. The new findings show that human prostate tissue is also susceptible.
"Our research provides the first direct evidence that exposure to BPA during development, at the levels we see in our day-to-day lives, increases the risk forprostate cancer in human prostate tissue," Prins said
This study was done in rats, but thought to also apply to humans. From Science Daily:
Bisphenol S (BPS), a common substitute for bisphenol A (BPA) in consumer products, may have similar toxic effects on the heart as previously reported for BPA, a new study finds.
There is implied safety in BPA-free products. The thing is, the BPA analogs -- and BPSis one of them -- have not been tested for safety in humans.""Our findings call into question the safety of BPA-free products containing BPS," he said. "BPS and other BPA analogs need to be evaluated before further use by humans."
The researchers of this study looked at proximity to farm fields (how close a pregnant woman lives to a farm) and certain farm pesticides and found a link between exposure to farm pesticides during pregnancy and having a child with autism. But too bad they didn't also include pesticide exposures from homes (for pest control), gardens, and yards which would have given a more accurate measure of total exposure. However, it's a start. From Science Daily:
Pregnant women who lived in close proximity to fields and farms where chemical pesticides were applied experienced a two-thirds increased risk of having a child with autism spectrum disorder or other developmental delay, a study by researchers with the UC Davis MIND Institute has found. The associations were stronger when the exposures occurred during the second and third trimesters of the women's pregnancies.
The large, multisite California-based study examined associations between specific classes ofpesticides, including organophosphates, pyrethroids and carbamates, applied during the study participants' pregnancies and later diagnoses of autism and developmental delay in their offspring. It is published online in Environmental Health Perspectives. "... the message is very clear: Women who are pregnant should take special care to avoid contact with agricultural chemicals whenever possible."
California is the top agricultural producing state in the nation, grossing $38 billion in revenue from farm crops in 2010. Statewide, approximately 200 million pounds of active pesticides are applied each year, most of it in the Central Valley, north to the Sacramento Valley and south to the Imperial Valley on the California-Mexico border. While pesticides are critical for the modern agriculture industry, certain commonly used pesticides are neurotoxic and may pose threats to brain development during gestation, potentially resulting in developmental delay or autism.
The study was conducted by examining commercial pesticide application using the California Pesticide Use Report and linking the data to the residential addresses of approximately 1,000 participants in the Northern California-based Childhood Risk of Autism from Genetics and the Environment (CHARGE) Study. The study includes families with children between 2 and 5 diagnosed with autism or developmental delay or with typical development. "We mapped where our study participants' lived during pregnancy and around the time of birth. In California, pesticide applicators must report what they're applying, where they're applying it, dates when the applications were made and how much was applied," Hertz-Picciotto said. "What we saw were several classes of pesticides more commonly applied near residences of mothers whose children developed autism or had delayed cognitive or other skills."
Organophosphates applied over the course of pregnancy were associated with an elevated risk of autism spectrum disorder, particularly for chlorpyrifos applications in the second trimester. Pyrethroids were moderately associated with autism spectrum disorder immediately prior to conception and in the third trimester. Carbamates applied during pregnancy were associated with developmental delay.
Exposures to insecticides for those living near agricultural areas may be problematic, especially during gestation, because the developing fetal brain may be more vulnerable than it is in adults. Because these pesticides are neurotoxic, in utero exposures during early development may distort the complex processes of structural development and neuronal signaling, producing alterations to the excitation and inhibition mechanisms that govern mood, learning, social interactions and behavior.
Of course we should expect to find bacteria in a healthy placenta. It only makes sense. But this is interesting stuff - the possibility that the placental biome being out of whack playing a role in preterm birth. From Medical Xpress:
Surprising new research shows a small but diverse community of bacteria lives in the placentas of healthy pregnant women, overturning the belief that fetuses grow in a pretty sterile environment. These are mostly varieties of "good germs" that live in everybody. But the study also hints that the make-up of this microbial colony plays a role in premature birth.
We share our bodies with trillions of microbes—on the skin, in the gut, in the mouth. These communities are called our microbiome, and many bacteria play critical roles in keeping us healthy, especially those in the intestinal tract. Healthy newborns pick up some from their mother during birth, different bugs depending on whether they were delivered vaginally or by C-section. What about before birth?
Aagard's team earlier had studied the microbiome of the vagina, and learned that its composition changes when a woman becomes pregnant. The puzzle: The most common vaginal microbes weren't the same as the earliest gut bacteria that scientists were finding in newborns. What else, Aagaard wondered, could be "seeding" the infants' intestinal tract?
With colleagues from Baylor and Texas Children's Hospital, Aagaard analyzed 320 donatedplacentas, using technology that teases out bacterial DNA to evaluate the type and abundance of different microbes. The placenta isn't teeming with microbes—it harbors a low level, Aagaard stressed. Among them are kinds of E. coli that live in the intestines of most healthy people. But to Aagaard's surprise, the placental microbiome most resembled bacteria frequently found in the mouth, she reported in the journal Science Translational Medicine. The theory: Oral microbes slip into the mother's bloodstream and make their way to the placenta.
Why does the body allow them to stay? Aagaard said there appears to be a role for differentmicrobes. Some metabolize nutrients. Some are toxic to yeast and parasites. Some act a bit like natural versions of medications used to stop preterm contractions, she said. In fact, among the 89 placentas that were collected after preterm births, levels of some of the apparently helpful bacteria were markedly lower, she said.
Having a low sperm count doesn't seem to determine whether a man's children will be born with birth defects, a new study indicates.
With infertile couples,men are partially or fully responsible for the inability to conceive about40 percent of the time. Assisted reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization can help couples have children, but research has suggested a possible link between these approaches—when used to treat infertility problems in the male partner—and a higher risk of birth defects.
In the new study, researchers examined a Baylor College of Medicine database in search ofpossible connections between birth defects and low sperm count.The researchers didn't find any links.
But the following finding is a cause for concern. From Science Daily:
Men who are infertile because of defects in their semen appear to be at increased risk of dyingsooner than men with normal semen, according to a study. Men with two or moreabnormalities in their semen were more than twice as likely to die over a roughly eight-yearperiod as men who had normal semen, the study found.
Very exciting new way to use probiotics! Huge potential. From Science Daily: