Skip to content

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

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

The U. S. study found that the ability of small intestine cells to absorb nutrients and act as a barrier to pathogens is "significantly decreased" after chronic low-level exposure to nanoparticles of titanium dioxide. It affected the surface of the intestinal cells, called microvilli, of the small intestine in a negative way (it "induced a significant decrease in absorptive microvilli").

The French study found that 100 days of chronic low-level ingestion of titanium nanoparticles in food resulted in intestinal inflammation, that it crossed the intestinal barrier and passed into the bloodstream (and even to the liver), and there was development of "preneoplastic lesions" - thus leading the researchers to suggest that chronic low-level exposure plays a role in initiating and promoting early stages of colorectal cancer (colorectal carcinogenesis).

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

Nanoparticles are typically used in foods as additives, flavorings, coloring, or even coatings for food packaging (which can then migrate or leach into food). It is thought that nanocoatings are being used on some fruits and vegetables. Even though ingredients such as titanium dioxide are considered to be "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) before they're made into nanoparticles, the question is whether they’re safe in their nanoparticle form. This is because nanoparticles can exhibit new or altered properties at nanoscale dimensions.

Some concerns about nanoparticles are that they are small enough to penetrate the skin, lungs, digestive system, and perhaps pass through the blood-brain barrier and placental-fetal barrier, and cause damage. Some earlier studies raised the question of whether low-level inflammation of the intestines from chronic (daily) nanoparticle ingestion is contributing to intestinal bowel diseases or the development of colorectal cancer in humans. This research is in its infancy. Whew...

So if this concerns you, how can you avoid nanoparticles in food? Read food ingredient lists to avoid titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, zinc oxide, and cut back (or avoid) eating processed foods as much as possible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Harmless' painkillers associated with increased risk of cardiac arrest

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volunteers are in better health than non-volunteers

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

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

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

Image result for apple tree wikipedia This post continues the discussion of antibiotics and their overuse. Antibiotic resistance is increasing due to misuse of antibiotics (or antimicrobials), and this is occurring throughout the world (post with video of how superbugs evolve). This is because bacteria are constantly evolving against the antibiotics they're exposed to. We may reach a point where simple cuts or infections could lead to death because no antibiotics will work. The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2016 said that bacterial resistance to antibiotics is “one of the biggest threats to global health." Especially scary are the bacteria resistant to numerous antibiotics - the superbugs. 

According to the CDC: "Each year in the United States, at least 2 million people become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and at least 23,000 people die each year as a direct result of these infections."

Part of the problem is that farmers are still giving antibiotics (antimicrobials) to farm animals unnecessarily, typically as "growth promoters" or to try to prevent disease. Currently about 80% of all antibiotics used in the US are given to livestock animals (of which nearly 70 percent of those used are considered “medically important” for humans). But what is typically ignored is that farmers also use antibiotics, or antimicrobials, on crops (plant agriculture). In both instances - conventional farming uses antibiotics, but NOT organic farming. Another reason to support organic farming and to eat organic foods.

The nonprofit organization Beyond Pesticides has just released a report discussing antibiotic use in conventional farming (both crops and animals), and how this is contributing to "bacterial resistance to critical life-saving human medicines", and also how organic farming does not use antibiotics. The report discusses that while antibiotic use in animal agriculture is widely acknowledged as harmful, the use of antibiotics in conventional crop production is also harmful. Antibiotics are used because plants can get bacterial diseases (e.g.,bacterial canker, soft rot, and bacterial wilt) The report even discusses fish farming, how antibiotics are used routinely in seafood imported from other countries, and also how some fungicides are used as antibiotics (to "manage" or kill bacteria).

What antibiotics are used in agriculture? For starters - glyphosate (in the pesticide Roundup), which is the most widely used pesticide in the world. Glyphosate is patented by its manufacturer (Monsanto) for its antibacterial properties - thus an antibiotic. As a result, glyphosate is the most widely used antibiotic in agriculture and around homes, gardens, schools, and communities in the U.S. Other antibiotics used widely in farming (especially for fruit trees) are oxytetracycline and streptomycin - which are used in the production of apples, pears, peaches, beans, celery, peppers, tomatoes, and potatoes. The government allows antibiotic residues to remain on the foods ("tolerances for residues on foods") when we buy them in grocery stores.

The report also points out that: The main health impacts of antibiotic residues in food are the promotion of antibiotic resistance and disruption of the microbiota in the human gut. Which means that the microbial communities in our gut can be affected in a negative way. It's well worth reading the 7 page easy to read report - with lots of photos, graphs, and good explanations. Beyond Pesticides: Agricultural Uses of Antibiotics Escalate Bacterial Resistance

5

Image result for eyes A recent study had great results in preventing glaucoma or stopping the progress of glaucoma by supplementing the diet of mice with vitamin B3 (nicotinamide). But now the research needs to see if this also holds true for humans.

Glaucoma is a common neurodegenerative disease that results in vision loss. Two main risk factors are increasing age and high intraocular pressure (pressure in the eye). The researchers said that their next step is testing B3 in human glaucoma patients. So stay tuned...

Vitamin B3, also known as niacin, is an essential vitamin for health, but both deficiencies and too high doses have negative health effects. It is recommended that adults get between 14 mg to 18 mg of niacin per day. Since it is not stored in the body (the excess will be excreted in urine), then you need to get a continuous supply from your diet.

As seen in so many other studies of vitamins and minerals, there is no evidence of adverse effects from the consumption of naturally occurring niacin in foods, but one can get too much from supplements (along with negative health effects).

What foods are good sources of B3 (niacin)? Foods highest in B3 (niacin) are tuna, chicken, turkey, but other good sources are anchovies, salmon, sardines, red meat, peanuts, nuts, seeds, eggs, mushrooms, dairy foods. lentils, beans, potatoes, and grain products.

From Medical Xpress: Vitamin B3 prevents glaucoma in laboratory mice

In mice genetically predisposed to glaucoma, vitamin B3 added to drinking water is effective at preventing the disease, a research team led by Jackson Laboratory Professor and Howard Hughes Medical Investigator Simon W.M. John reports in the journal Science. ...continue reading "Vitamin B3 and Glaucoma"

A new study found differences in gut microbes between active women (they exercised at least the recommended amount) and those that are sedentary. When the gut bacteria were analyzed with modern tests (genetic sequencing) the active women had more of the health promoting beneficial bacteria such as Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Roseburia hominis, and Akkermansia muciniphila than the sedentary women. The sedentary women also had some bacterial species not seen in the active women. The researchers said that exercise "modifies the composition of gut microbiota" (the gut microbes) in a way beneficial for health.

And what is the recommended minimal amount of exercise? The World Health Organization recommends at least 3 days of exercise per week for 30 minutes at a moderate intensity. Note that exercise can mean doing exercises, but it can also include walking briskly, intense housework (scrubbing, vacuuming with lots of bending, etc.), gardening (digging, raking, etc), or shoveling snow, etc. In this study the group of active women had at least 3 hours of physical exercise per week. Note that a sedentary lifestyle is associated with a high incidence of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes, while physical exercise or activity has metabolic and immune health benefits (prevents disease).

But...reading the full study, the research also showed that the active group ate more fruits and vegetables - which we know has an effect on the gut microbiome and feeds beneficial bacteria. Although the diets of the 2 groups of women were similar in total carbohydrates, protein and fat content eaten, the active women ate more fruits, vegetables, and fiber, and the sedentary group ate more processed meat. So it looks like both exercise and a good amount of fruits and vegetables may be important for nurturing beneficial bacteria. By the way, the 3 species of beneficial bacteria mentioned currently are not found in any probiotic supplements on the market. (Earlier posts on the beneficial F. prausnitzii and Akkermansia muciniphila). From C. Bressa et al research article in PLoS ONE:

Differences in gut microbiota profile between women with active lifestyle and sedentary women

Physical exercise is a tool to prevent and treat some of the chronic diseases affecting the world’s population. A mechanism through which exercise could exert beneficial effects in the body is by provoking alterations to the gut microbiota, an environmental factor that in recent years has been associated with numerous chronic diseases. Here we show that physical exercise performed by women to at least the degree recommended by the World Health Organization can modify the composition of gut microbiota. Using high-throughput sequencing of the 16s rRNA gene, eleven genera were found to be significantly different between active and sedentary women. Quantitative PCR analysis revealed higher abundance of health-promoting bacterial species in active women, including Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Roseburia hominis and Akkermansia muciniphila. Moreover, body fat percentage, muscular mass and physical activity significantly correlated with several bacterial populations. In summary, we provide the first demonstration of interdependence between some bacterial genera and sedentary behavior parameters, and show that not only does the dose and type of exercise influence the composition of gut microbiota, but also the breaking of sedentary behavior. ...continue reading "Gut Microbe Differences Between Active and Sedentary Women"

1

Another study is adding to the evidence that food packaging  is frequently coated  with harmful chemicals - called perfluorinated chemicals or PFCs. The chemicals are used because they resist grease and stains, but unfortunately they then leach into the food, and when people eat the food - it gets into them. The evidence is also growing that these chemicals have all sorts of harmful health effects, including endocrine disruption (they are hormone disruptors) - even in low doses. They are linked to kidney and testicular cancer, high blood cholesterol levels, thyroid problems, development and immune system problems, low birth weights, and decreased sperm quality. (See earlier post) The list keeps growing each year.

Researchers tested about 400 pieces of food packaging from 27 fast food chains,  including McDonald’s, Burger King, Taco Bell, Chick-Fil-A, Quiznos, Starbucks, and Dunkin’ Donuts (see how they scored). Overall, about 33 percent of the packages contained fluorine (a chemical not found in paper, but is an indicator of perfluorinated chemicals present to make the packaging grease and stain resistant). What is even more disturbing is that when the researchers more closely examined 20 samples to find out exactly what fluorinated compounds they contained - they found that 6 of the more rigorously tested packages contained PFOA (which was used in Teflon). PFOA was phased out for use in the USA years ago due to it being so long-lasting in the environment and its serious health effects, but other countries still produce it. Unfortunately, even the replacement chemicals  seem to be similarly harmful (not surprising because of the chemical similarities), and they also persist in the environment.

It should be pointed out that perfluorinated chemicals are also used in products such as stain and water resistant coatings on clothing, upholstery, carpeting and floor waxes. They are in non-stick coatings in pots and pans. The chemicals leach or migrate out of products and degrade very slowly — thus showing up in air, household dust, water, dirt, wildlife, and people. Yes, studies show that almost everyone in the U.S. has these chemicals in their blood, and unfortunately some of them can stay in the body for years. PFCs pass from mothers to their babies during pregnancy, and in breast milk after birth. Exposure to perfluorinated chemicals from fast food packaging is of big concern for children, because one-third of U.S. children consume fast food daily, and children may be especially susceptible to the adverse health effects.

Yes, we are surrounded by a sea of harmful chemicals that are tough to avoid, but we should at least try to minimize our exposure. Fast food restaurants should be encouraged to use nontoxic alternatives (e.g., aluminum foil or wax paper) - after all, the study showed that there is packaging out there without these chemicals.

What can we do to avoid PFCs? 1) Try to avoid or eat less fast food and food that comes in "grease-proof" containers. 2) Don't use non-stick pots and pans - use stainless steel instead. 3) Try to avoid clothing, upholstered furniture, and carpets with stain and water-resistant coatings. 4) Don't use microwave popcorn bags, and try to avoid microwaving foods in their packaging - use a glass dish instead. 5) Don't use dental floss such as Oral-B Glide dental floss (uses PFC), and use unwaxed or natural wax floss instead. 6) Avoid personal care products that contain ingredients that include the words “fluoro” or “perfluoro". *Please check out the Environmental Working Group site for more information (here and here).

From Science Daily: Extensive use of fluorinated chemicals in fast food wrappers: Chemicals can leach into food

Americans may be consuming fast food wrapped in paper treated with perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) -- the same chemicals used in stain-resistant products, firefighting materials and nonstick cookware, according to a new study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Researchers tested more than 400 samples of packaging materials, including hamburger and sandwich wrappers, pastry bags, beverage cups and French fry containers, and found evidence of fluorinated compounds called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). Of the materials tested, these chemicals were found in 56 percent of dessert and bread wrappers, 38 percent of sandwich and burger wrappers and 20 percent of paperboard.

Previous studies have shown that these PFASs can migrate, contaminating the food and, when consumed, accumulating in the body....Previous studies have linked PFASs to kidney and testicular cancers, thyroid disease, low birth weight and immunotoxicity in children, among other health issues. The chemicals have an especially long half-life and take many years before just 50 percent of the intake leaves the human body. The results are concerning when considering the role of fast food in the American diet. The National Center for Health Statistics reported one-third of U.S. children consume fast food daily.

Samples were collected from a total of 27 fast food restaurant chains including McDonald's, Burger King, Chipotle, Starbucks, Jimmy Johns, Panera and Chick-Fil-A, in and around Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, Washington, D.C., and Grand Rapids, Michigan. The study did not include takeout containers, such as Chinese food boxes or pizza boxes. [Original study]

Another study finding a link between air pollution and negative health effects - this time a higher incidence of decline in cognitive functioning  and dementia in older women (65 and older) exposed to fine particles (PM2.5 ). These extremely small particles from vehicle emissions are a major source of urban air pollution throughout the world. These results match other studies finding a link with urban air pollution, especially vehicle traffic, to negative effects on the brain (dementia, cognitive decline, shrinking of the brain, etc.). The researchers also exposed mice to this air pollution for 15 weeks and then studied their brains for evidence of degenerative effects in their brains - and yes, they did find them.

The researchers found that the adverse effects of fine particulate air pollution was stronger in both women and mice who had the APOE4 gene, a genetic variation that increases the risk for Alzheimer's disease. They said that while the air pollution has negative effects in general, that having the APOE4 gene interacted with the air pollution. The researchers also wrote that the mice studies they did showed that "...exposure to urban airborne particulates can intensify amyloid accumulation and neurodegeneration". Medical Xpress:

Air pollution may lead to dementia in older women

Tiny air pollution particles—the type that mainly comes from power plants and automobiles—may greatly increase the chance of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, according to USC-led research. Scientists and engineers found that older women who live in places with fine particulate matter exceeding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's standard are 81 percent more at risk for global cognitive decline and 92 percent more likely to develop dementia, including Alzheimer's.

If their findings hold up in the general population, air pollution could be responsible for about 21 percent of dementia cases, according to the study. "Microscopic particles generated by fossil fuels get into our body directly through the nose into the brain," said University Professor Caleb Finch at the USC Leonard Davis School of Gerontology and co-senior author of the study. "Cells in the brain treat these particles as invaders and react with inflammatory responses, which over the course of time, appear to exacerbate and promote Alzheimer's disease.

The adverse effects were stronger in women who had the APOE4 gene, a genetic variation that increases the risk for Alzheimer's. "Our study .....provides the inaugural scientific evidence of a critical Alzheimer's risk gene possibly interacting with air particles to accelerate brain aging," said Jiu-Chiuan Chen, co-senior author of the study....[Their study] adds to an emerging body of research from around the world that links air pollution to dementia. The offending pollutants—known as PM2.5—are fine, inhalable particles with diameters 2.5 micrometers or smaller. A human hair is about 70 micrometers in diameter, making it 30 times larger than the largest PM2.5. The researchers analyzed data of 3,647 65- to 79-year-old women from the Women's Health Initiative Memory Study (WHIMS). These women lived across 48 states and did not have dementia when they enrolled.

USC scientists chronically exposed female mice carrying the APOE4 gene to nano-sized air pollution for 15 weeks. Compared to the control group, mice predisposed to Alzheimer's disease accumulated as much as 60 percent more amyloid plaque, the toxic clusters of protein fragments that further the progression of Alzheimer's.

In other studies, Chen and his colleagues linked long-term exposure to high PM2.5 levels to smaller gray and white matter volumes in important areas such as the frontal lobe, which carries out thinking, decision-making and planning. For every 3.5 micrograms of PM2.5 per cubic meter of air, white matter (insulated nerve fibers that connect different brain regions) decreased by 6 cubic centimeters, according to one earlier study. [see post]

For years it has been known that most children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have all sorts of gastrointestinal (GI) problems (e.g., constipation, diarrhea, stomach pain, food intolerance), and the more severe the autism, the more severe the GI problems. Recent studies suggested that a major factor in this are abnormal gut bacteria, with the gut microbial community out of whack (dysbiosis). Previous studies looking at the gut microbiome of children with autism have shown lower diversity and lower amounts (abundances) of certain bacteria in children with autism compared to neurologically normal (neurotypical) children.

A recent study of children with autism spectrum disorder found that giving the children a fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) led to significant and lasting improvements in both gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and autism-related behaviors and symptoms. A fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) is a transplant of fecal matter from a healthy donor to the recipient. A fecal microbial transplant contains approximately a thousand bacterial species that live in a healthy gut, as well as other microbes such as viruses and fungi. FMTs have so far been an amazingly successful treatment for recurrent Clostridium difficile infections, and are now being looked at as promising treatments of chronic inflammatory diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease.

The researchers were surprised to see an 80% improvement in gastrointestinal symptoms, especially abdominal pain, indigestion, diarrhea, and constipation. They also saw about a 25% improvement in autism related behaviors and symptoms which persisted for 8 weeks after treatment stopped, which is when the study ended. One measurement of adaptive behaviors (such as communication, daily living skills, and socialization) found that the average developmental age increased by 1.4 years after treatment. The researchers also found that there was a "rebalancing" of the gut microbes following treatment. They found evidence of "successful partial engraftment of donor microbiota and beneficial changes in the gut environment" - meaning they could see that donor microbes were living in the gut. Also, overall bacterial diversity increased (which is good) and the abundance of certain bacteria increased (including Bifidobacterium, Prevotella, and Desulfovibrio), and these changes persisted until the end of the study.

The researchers caution that this was a small trial, that there could be placebo effects, and so the results should be "cautiously interpreted and viewed as preliminary." But nonetheless, the results are exciting. Really exciting. From Science Daily:

Autism symptoms improve after fecal transplant, small study finds

Children with autism may benefit from fecal transplants -- a method of introducing donated healthy microbes into people with gastrointestinal disease to rebalance the gut, a new study has found. Behavioral symptoms of autism and gastrointestinal distress often go hand-in-hand, and both improved when a small group of children with the disorder underwent fecal transplant and subsequent treatment. In the study of 18 children with autism and moderate to severe gastrointestinal problems, parents and doctors said they saw positive changes that lasted at least eight weeks after the treatment. Children without autism were included for comparison of bacterial and viral gut composition prior to the study.

Previous research has established that children with autism typically have fewer types of some important bacteria in their guts and less bacterial diversity overall -- a difference that held true in this study. That could be because many of them are prescribed a lot of antibiotics in the first three years of life, the research team wrote in the study.

Parents of the children not only reported a decrease in gut woes including diarrhea and stomach pain in the eight weeks following the end of treatment: They also said they saw significant changes for the better when it came to behavioral autism symptoms in their sons and daughters, who ranged from 7 to 16 years old....One of those tools showed the average developmental age increased by 1.4 years after treatment. 

Researchers also were able to document a rebalancing of the gut following treatment. At the end of the study, the bacterial diversity in the children with autism was indistinguishable from their healthy peers. The study also included a unique viral analysis by Ohio State scientists, made possible because of previous work in the world's oceans. Gregory, who is particularly interested in the interplay between viruses and bacteria, used genetic testing to examine the viral diversity in the guts of the treated children. It rebounded quickly, and became more similar to the donor's microbiome. "Those donor viruses seemed to help," she said.

Fecal transplantation is done by processing donor feces and screening it for disease-causing viruses and bacteria before introducing it into another person's gastrointestinal tract. In this study, the researchers used a method called microbiota transfer therapy, which started with the children receiving a two-week course of antibiotics to wipe out much of their existing gut flora. Then, doctors gave them an initial high-dose fecal transplant in liquid form. In the seven to eight weeks that followed, the children drank smoothies blended with a lower-dose powder. [Original study.]