Skip to content

1

Published on 1 Comment on Long Work Hours Associated With Increased Stroke Risk

Do you routinely work more than 10 hours a day at your job? Uh-oh. A large study conducted in France found that individuals working long hours had a 29% greater risk of stroke, and those working long hours for 10 years or more had a 45% greater risk of stroke. What exactly are long working hours? The study defined long working hours (LWH) as working more than 10 hours daily for at least 50 days per year.

The researchers looked at people who had full-time jobs, and did not separate out types of strokes - both ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes were lumped together in this study. Another interesting finding was that the risk for stroke was greater among people under the age of 50 who reported long working hours for more than 10 years. And this association had a "lower effect for owners, chief executive officers, professionals, and farmers" - all occupations where people had greater control over decisions during their days.

Studies from other countries found a similar association. For example, in Japan, 60% of death from over-work (called karoshi) cases who received worker compensation died of stroke.

From Science Daily: Long work hours associated with increased risk of stroke  ...continue reading "Long Work Hours Associated With Increased Stroke Risk"

Published on Leave a comment on The U.S. Lags Behind Other Nations In Banning Harmful Pesticides

Once again the USA lags behind other countries - this time in banning harmful pesticides. Dr. Nathan Donley at the Center for Biological Diversity in Oregon compared the world's 4 top agricultural producers (USA, Brazil, China, and European Union) in the use of 500 pesticides, and whether they allow or ban pesticides that have the most potential for harm to humans and the environment. He found that the US allows the use of 85 agricultural pesticides that are banned by at least one other nation. [Specifically: the US allows 72 agricultural pesticides that are banned or being phased out in the EU, 17 in Brazil, and 11 in China.]

This means that "Of the pesticides used in USA agriculture in 2016, 322 million pounds were of pesticides banned in the EU, 26 million pounds were of pesticides banned in Brazil, and 40 million pounds were of pesticides banned in China. Pesticides banned in the EU account for more than a quarter of all agricultural pesticide use in the USA." Yikes! These are the most harmful of the bunch and yet they're being used and contaminating our environment, our food, and us.

Yes, pesticides are in almost all of us, and there a number of ways they get into us - whether inhaled, absorbed through the skin, or ingested (e.g. in our food or water).

And look at the amount of all pesticides used annually in these 4 top agricultural producers and exporters. In 2016 the USA used 1.2 billion pounds of pesticides, China used 3.9 billion pounds, Brazil used 831 million pounds, and the EU used 827 million pounds. It's a lot!

A disturbing finding was that currently the USA exclusively  uses voluntary cancellation of pesticides - which are initiated by the pesticide industry, while the EU, China, and Brazil mainly have bans that are initiated by their regulatory industries. It's no wonder that dangerous pesticides aren't being banned in the United States. And the one pesticide that was recently scheduled to be banned (chlorpyrifos) wasn't, because an industry-friendly administration took control of the EPA before the ban was enacted.

The study itself is easy to relatively easy to read: The USA lags behind other agricultural nations in banning harmful pesticides

Or here is a nice write-up from Beyond Pesticides: 85 Pesticides Banned Around the World Account For A Quarter of U.S. Use  ...continue reading "The U.S. Lags Behind Other Nations In Banning Harmful Pesticides"

Published on Leave a comment on Outdoor Soil Microbes In the Home and Asthma

Want to prevent your children from having allergies or asthma? A recent study adds support to increasing evidence that growing up on a farm, or living among multiple pets in the first year of life is protective against developing allergies and asthma. This is because exposure to lots of animal and outdoor soil bacteria in early childhood is good for the developing immune system. The study, which was conducted by Finland's National Institute  of Health and Welfare, carried this line of work further and found that this type of beneficial farm microbial exposure could be duplicated in non-farm homes.

They found that children's risk of developing asthma decreased as the similarity of their home's bacteria became more similar to that of farm homes. The researchers analyzed living room dust from homes and found that certain types of outdoor soil microbes were beneficial for preventing asthma. They found higher levels of these bacteria (and archaea, another microbe) in homes where people wore their outdoor shoes in the house, as well as 3 or more children, and increased moisture in houses. The types of fungi found in the dust of farm and non-farm houses didn't seem to matter. The researchers mention that the same kind of protective (for asthma) results of soil microbes has also been shown in mice.

Additional thoughts reading this: The study results can be interpreted as playing and crawling outdoors is definitely beneficial to children's health, especially young children. Exposure to soil microbes! And, of course, having pets. But wearing outdoor shoes indoors is problematic in areas with high lawn and garden pesticide use (e.g. suburban NY and NJ!) because studies show the pesticides get tracked indoors. This same problem occurs in areas with high lead levels (around older homes) or other heavy metals.

From Science Daily: Farm-like indoor microbiota may protect children from asthma also in urban homes   ...continue reading "Outdoor Soil Microbes In the Home and Asthma"

Published on Leave a comment on Gut Bacteria Has An Effect On Some Medicines?

New research is raising questions about the role of gut bacteria in how people react to medications and whether the medicines are effective, at least some medications such as L-dopa treatment for Parkinson's disease. Why do medicines work for some people and not others? Perhaps the gut microbes are playing a part by interacting with the medicines! The gut microbes may actually be breaking down medicines and preventing them from reaching their target.

Researchers from Harvard University and University of California found that the composition of the gut microbes has an effect on whether the medicine L-dopa is effective or becomes ineffective as a Parkinson's disease treatment. They found that some bacteria can inactivate the medicine. Definitely research that needs following up on. Also, which medications is this true for?

Excerpts from Science Daily: Gut microbes eat our medication    ...continue reading "Gut Bacteria Has An Effect On Some Medicines?"

Published on Leave a comment on Why Are We Still Using These Dangerous Substances In Consumer Products?

More bad news about the toxic class of chemicals called PFAS chemicals, which are used in a wide variety of consumer products, such as Teflon non-stick cookware and Scotchgard. The problem is that the chemicals don't stay in the products, but leach out (migrate out) and spread further - even into us. Unfortunately these chemicals persist in the environment. Earlier studies had already detected PFAS  (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) chemicals in water, soil, some foods, and in the bodies of almost all Americans. Now some recent research studies and the efforts of investigative journalists have uncovered more disturbing findings about the spread of these chemicals in the environment, in foods, and us.

The site Intercept has done a series of investigative reports highlighting these new findings about PFAS chemicals For example, these chemicals are found in fertilizers that contain sewage sludge (or biosolids) that farmers use on their farms. Farmers have been been doing this for decades. And it's in milk from dairy farms that spread this compost (fertilizer) made from sewage sludge on their fields. Of course! What is spread on the fields gets into food and which humans then ingest. The chemicals are also found in breastmilk from women in every country that has been studied.

Environmental Working Group (EWG) also has a series of articles on these chemicals, including the results of a recent FDA study of foods. The FDA found PFAS in many foods, including meat, seafood, dairy products, sweet potatoes, pineapples, leafy greens, and chocolate cake with icing. But the FDA has not publicly disclosed the results. Why not? Especially since the EPA has already said that "dietary exposure" (what we eat) is a main way that people get these chemicals into their bodies.

Why should we be concerned? PFAS chemicals are called  by some as "persistant chemicals" because of their persistence in the environment and humans. PFAS chemicals are linked to all sorts of serious health risks, including reproductive harm (e.g.poorer semen quality), cancers, lowered sex and growth hormones in children, immune effects,  thyroid disease, liver and kidney damage, and high cholesterol.

PFAS chemicals (such as PFOA, PFOS, PFBS) are used in a wide variety of consumer products because they have stain, water, and grease repellent properties. They are used in nonstick cookware, in food packaging (especially the paper wrappers and cardboard containers), stain-resistant carpets, furniture, floor waxes, textiles, water-proof and stain-resistant clothing (such as Gore-tex fabric), and performance gear. Remember Teflon? That's one. Some have been banned, phased out of use because of their dangers, but the replacements appear to be just as bad. The chemicals migrate out of food packaging into food, or can be released into the air and dust from carpets and upholstery treated with stain-resistant coatings.

I want to point out that sewage sludge (also called biosolids), are found in many commonly available fertilizers, such as Milorganite fertilizer.  It's not just farmers who've been using the stuff for years. Note that organic fertilizers and organic farmers can NOT use sewage sludge (biosolids). It turns out that even compostable food containers contain PFAS chemicals that leach out. Yikes!

What can you do to lower exposure to PFCs? These are chemicals that are hard to totally avoid, but one can lower exposure to them. And some have been phased out. The good news is that research shows that after a while levels in blood and breast milk should drop. What to do?? First of all, don't use non-stick pots and pans, and definitely not older Teflon ones. Use stainless steel or cast iron instead. Avoid the use of non-stick smooth dental floss made with a "non-stick" coating such as Oral-B Glide dental floss (use plain waxed or unwaxed floss instead). Try to not eat prepared foods in coated containers frequently. Avoid Scotchgard or other stain-proofing or stain-resistant treatments on upholstered furniture or rugs. Avoid water-proof treated fabric. It's also best to avoid drinking PFAS-contaminated water (which may be hard to do in places such as NJ where so much of the water supply is contaminated by PFAS chemicals).

From the Intercept - TOXIC PFAS CHEMICALS FOUND IN MAINE FARMS FERTILIZED WITH SEWAGE SLUDGE ...continue reading "Why Are We Still Using These Dangerous Substances In Consumer Products?"

Published on Leave a comment on Can You Trust Organic and Other Food Labels?

Do you trust food labels? This past month several people have expressed doubts to me over the organic label found on many foods.  But actually the organic label on American grown foods is one that people can trust, and it means that a government agency (the US Department of Agriculture) has certified that the food was grown organically. Yes, there are standards for organic food.

The worst label on a food is "natural' - it is totally meaningless. View it as a marketing term and nothing more. I personally look for the organic label on all foods whenever possible, and I like meat and dairy products also labeled grass fed.

Here is a great article about some of the terms now used on food labels and what they mean. The food labels discussed are: organic, non-GMO, cage free, free range, pasture raised, grass-fed, and Fair Trade. I would add that I trust food labeled as organic from the USA, Canada, and Europe the most. Unfortunately many (most? almost all?) organic foods from China and Turkey may not really be organic.

Excerpts from the Washington Post: Why Food Reformers Have Mixed Feelings About Eco-Labels  ...continue reading "Can You Trust Organic and Other Food Labels?"

Published on Leave a comment on Americans Ingest More Than 74,000 Microplastic Particles Each Year

Did you know that you are eating teeny tiny bits of plastic in your food every day? And inhaling the pieces floating in the air? These tiny bits of plastic are called microplastics, and are from all the plastic breaking down (degrading) in the environment. They have entered the food chain (e.g. from fish and other animals ingesting bits of plastic, food preparation, or from plastic packaging), and in this way we are also ingesting microplastics. They vary in shape and size, but some pieces can be so small that they can only be seen with a microscope.

The problem is that microplastics can enter our body several ways (through ingestion get into the gut and so get into human tissues, or through inhalation into the lungs). They could trigger an immune response, or the plastic could release chemicals, such as carcinogens or endocrine disruptors. Unfortunately, the health effects from microsplastic ingestion are unknown.

A study by Canadian researchers looked at all available evidence from 26 studies to try to get some idea of how many microparticles of plastic Americans ingest over one year. The researchers estimate that annual consumption of microplastics ranges from 39,000 to 52,000 particles (depending on age and sex). When they added in inhalation of microplastic particles, the numbers increased to 74,000 to 121,000. And those who only drink bottled water may be getting an additional 90,000 microplastics (versus about 4000 microplastics from tap water).

These numbers are for about microplastics found only in certain foods (fish, shellfish, sugars, salts, honey, alcohol) that add up to about 15% of the diet. But the number of microplastics in other foods (such as fruits, vegetables, meats, grains) have not been studied. The researchers point out that we ingest microplastics that are in the air and settle on our food during meal preparation and during meals. So the actual numbers of microplastics that are ingested each year are certain to be much higher! [Microplastics are even in our house dust.]

What can one do to lower the number of microplastics that we eat? Number one, drink tap water or bottled water in glass bottles, and less water from plastic bottles. Since no one knows about how many plastic particles are in other foods, one possibility may be to eat more foods and beverages that come in glass containers, rather than plastic containers. As the researchers point out, microplastic research is still in its infancy. They also felt that since this study only looked at certain foods, then they really underestimated how many microplastics Americans ingest each year.

From Science Daily: Americans consumer 70,000 particles of microplastics per year    ...continue reading "Americans Ingest More Than 74,000 Microplastic Particles Each Year"

Published on Leave a comment on Eating Blueberries Frequently and Heart Health

What's with the blueberry obsession in medical studies? Another study finding health benefits with frequent eating of blueberries was recently published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Researchers at the Univ. of Anglia in the United Kingdom found that eating one cup of blueberries daily for 6 months reduced risk factors for cardiovascular disease (e.g. improvements in endothelial function, systemic arterial stiffness, and HDL cholesterol concentrations). They predicted that this would result in 12 to 15% reductions in heart (cardiovascular) disease risk.

The nicely done study was conducted on 138 overweight or obese men aged 50 to 75 years, all with Metabolic syndrome (e.g. hypertension, low levels of HDL cholesterol, impaired fasting glucose) - thus a group at risk for heart disease. Interestingly, ingesting 1/2 cup of blueberries a day did not have health benefits  - only 1 cup of blueberries a day did. So it was dose dependent -the more, the better. However, the study did not find any improvements in blood pressure or insulin resistance (glucose control) at the end of 6 months.

Remember, one should not focus on individual foods (e.g. blueberries), but should strive for a good dietary pattern, such as the Mediterranean diet. That means a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, whole grains, seeds, nuts, and legumes. These foods have lots of fiber and feed the beneficial microbes in the gut. Eating one beneficial food such as blueberries won't overcome an entire unhealthy dietary pattern, such as the Western one (lots of highly processed foods, low in fiber, lots of fast food, sugary drinks, etc).

BOTTOM LINE: While this study focused on blueberries, research shows that eating all types of berries (blueberries, blackberries, raspberries, lingonberries, bilberries, strawberries, etc.) have health benefits. One should actually try eating a variety of berries, if possible, because they all have different nutrients, microbes (to feed beneficial bacteria in the gut), and different health benefits.

From Medical Xpress: Eating blueberries every day improves heart health   ...continue reading "Eating Blueberries Frequently and Heart Health"

Published on Leave a comment on Will We Use Intestinal Worms To Treat Diseases?

There has been much discussion recently over why the incidence of allergies and chronic diseases is rising in Western industrialized countries. Some theories have been proposed, such as the hygiene hypothesis (that early childhood environments are too sterile and so that the developing immune system isn't properly "trained"), or that medicines such as antibiotics kill off beneficial bacteria, whille others say it is due to our Western diet and lifestyle. However, recently some researchers have proposed that the absence of intestinal worms, called helminths, in our bodies is actually negative for our health and could be a reason for the rising incidence of allergies and these diseases.

Over the centuries intestinal worms (such as hookworms) have caused a lot of human suffering, and therefore have been viewed as disease causing parasites. Western industrialized countries made major efforts (such as improved sanitation) to get rid of all intestinal worms in humans, and were generally successful. It is now rare to hear of someone in these countries having intestinal worms.

Dr. William Parker, an associate professor of surgery at Duke University in North Carolina, has written an interesting and thought-provoking article about the role of helminths in human health. He states: "A barrage of scientific evidence points toward helminths as being important regulators of immune function." In other words, we need them in order for our immune system to function properly.

Research actually shows that introducing certain species of intestinal worms, such as roundworms or flatworms, into the human gut successfully treats certain diseases in humans. But medicine has been slow to adopt such a view. Dr. Parker writes that viewing certain helminths as beneficial for proper immune functioning would be a "paradigm shift" in medicine.

By the way, the research looking at intestinal worms found benefits from low levels of helminths, not huge amounts. Having higher levels of helminths (such as roundworms) results in various symptoms (e.g. fever, abdominal pain, diarrhea)

Do go read the full article. Excerpts are from Dr. William Parker's article in Aeon: We Need Worms   ...continue reading "Will We Use Intestinal Worms To Treat Diseases?"

Published on Leave a comment on New Neurons Form In the Brains Of Older Adults

There has been a lot of discussion recently about whether older adults form new neurons in the brain. Neurons are specialized cells transmitting nerve impulses in the brain - they are nerve cells. In other words, if elderly people form new neurons in the brain, then this is excellent news for brain function. This means we can look for ways to enhance neurogenesis (formation of new neurons) and slow or prevent cognitive decline, whether in diseases such as Alzheimer's or normal age-related cognitive declines. Because yes, it is normal to have age-related declines, but some people have more declines while others far, far less.

Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago studied the hippocampus of 18 elderly brains (mean age 90.6 years!) after death (post-mortem). They found both new neural stem cells (neural progenitor cells) and developing neurons in each person's brain, but the numbers varied a lot between the brains. For example, brains with evidence of Alzheimer's disease and cognitive impairments had significantly fewer developing neurons than those without cognitive declines.

These results go hand in hand with studies showing a number of known age related brain changes, such as the volume of the brain shrinking a little as we age (this is considered normal). Studies find that there are ways to slow down this shrinkage such as good nutrition (including nuts, fruits and vegetables, coffee or tea containing caffeine, eating seafood), physical activity, exercise, having mentally stimulating activities. Also, avoiding medicines with anticholinergics, and avoiding air pollution and an unhealthy Western style diet (highly processed foods, low fiber, lots of meat).

From Medical Xpress: New neurons form in the brain into the tenth decade of life, even in people with Alzheimer's  ...continue reading "New Neurons Form In the Brains Of Older Adults"