(Independent) A large amount of baby food products contain dangerous chemicals, a new study has found.
Products were revealed to include arsenic, lead, cadmium and acrylamide in a test carried out by The Clean Label Project, a non-profit organisation that advocates consumer transparency.
They used Nielsen data to analyse 530 different snacks, cereals, formulas and drinks that had been purchased in the last five months.
Are babies born by caesarean more likely to be obese?
Out of the products analysed, researchers found that 65 percent contained arsenic, 58 percent contained cadmium, 36 percent contained lead and 10 percent contained acrylamide.
80 per cent of infant formula samples were also found to contain arsenic, a toxin which the World Health Organisation associates with a slew of health issues such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer.
While the amounts of each chemical varied with each product, some contained up to 600 parts of arsenic per billion.
Many of these were rice-based products such as crisps and “puffs”.
Mother is shocked when her breastmilk turns yellow, then finds out why
The study also found that baby foods today had 70 percent more acrylamide than the average French fry, a chemical which has been linked to brain damage and reproductive challenges.
The report named and shamed some major baby food retailers, including Enfamil, Plum Organics and Sprout, who they deemed as some of the worst offenders for containing harmful chemicals.
They also found that 60 percent of products with “BPA free” labels, in fact, tested positive for bisphenol A, an industrial chemical which is used to make plastic.
Clean Label Project concluded their findings by identifying the top and bottom five cereals, formulas, snacks, drinks and jar meals in terms of dangerous chemical contents.
Man takes out mobile phone of his pocket of jeans on beach near the sea to make self-portrait or to photograph the sea
Dramatic decline in male fertility may be a product of modernity
(Natural Blaze) Modern living can be a real drag, particularly if you’re a sperm cell it seems. In July came news of the publication of a scientific review that appeared to confirm the suspicions of many a soothsayer down the ages. Verily, the seed of human existence looks to be drying up.
According to study authors at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, sperm counts and concentration figures in the West have halved since the early 1970s, and continue to fall at an alarming rate. Might the baron dystopia of intergenerational fruitlessness, foretold by many a cackling witch down the ages, indeed be just around the corner?
As the news broke, Edinburgh University’s Professor Richard Sharpe was on hand to reassure us that “the end of humanity is not approaching”.
Alas, those of the Sir David Attenborough (“we are a plague on earth”) school, quick to cheer the report, may have been a little premature in rejoicing. A substantially depopulated planet may not, in fact, be right around the corner and mankind’s fate is far from sealed.
Rather disconcertingly, however, the professor added:
We have no idea about what is the cause of the condition…
We cannot remedy it…
Knowledge of male fertility problems remains patchy on the whole; but this is not to say we have no clue as to what’s going on – far from it. Whilst some in the field may still be firing blanks, others feel that they have already reached satisfactory conclusions.
There exists a significant, growing body of robust research we may look to for signs of credible causes. In truth, one doesn’t have to be a reproductive health expert to fathom what may (at least partially) underlie the recent decline in male fertility.
Whatever select specialists may be willing to venture, on the record, about what they know, or how convincing they find the existing evidence, the picture that emerges from the literature is pretty clear. Contrary to the dismissive pronouncements of certain on-message establishment figures (who shan’t be named), in reality we are unlikely to have to wait another generation to be in a position to pinpoint some of the main culprits. Better still, the prime suspect is close at hand, and we have it in our grasp to do something about it.
As it happens, the elephant in the room is actually in your pocket…
That’s right guys, we’ve more than likely done this to ourselves. Irradiating intimate areas with radiofrequency (or ‘wireless’) transmission devices – like mobile phones, tablets, and laptops – has been repeatedly shown to be bad news for delicate reproductive cells and anatomy. Turns out microwaving the family jewels may be harmful. Who’d have known?
According to Dr. Joel Moskowitz of the University of California, Berkeley, “we have considerable evidence that cell phone radiation damages sperm and is associated with male infertility”. The Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at Berkley’s School of Public Health has further cautioned in recent months that it appears female fertility may also be adversely affected.
The link is consistent with the observation that Western men are the only major demographic group known to have experienced such a stark transformation. Of course, this could well be a function of other shifting cultural phenomena but it’s becoming increasingly difficult to discount the possibility that early adoption of wireless consumer tech has played a role. Any which way you look at it, growing male infertility in the West is plausibly the very definition of a ‘modern disease’.
Besides recent replicated study findings linking radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure to impaired male fertility, scientists have known for decades that even relatively low power intensity microwaves can disturb finely tuned, sensitive biological systems in sometimes subtle and insidious ways.
This is not, however, to say that RFR represents the primary determinant of the emergent fertility crisis, or indeed that biomedical science is close to having the precise role of any lifestyle-linked risk factor all sewn up.
Clearly, there remains plenty of further investigative research to be done in this most sensitive of areas, and a number of other contemporary thematics must also be borne in mind. These include a role for: stress, diet, body weight, temperature of the testes, and both voluntary behavioural and involuntary environmental exposure to endocrine disruptors (e.g. pharmaceuticals, drugs, alcohol, and other chemical pollutants).
“If we act now … then countless couples may be spared the ordeal of having to pursue invasive and by no means guaranteed … reproductive treatments in the future.”
For many, the jury’s still out on the effects of RFR, but few by now can deny the rationale for a precautionary approach, in view of the emerging evidence. If we act now, both as individuals and as a society, then countless couples may be spared the ordeal of having to pursue invasive, by no means guaranteed, and increasingly restricted assisted reproductive treatments in the future.
All that’s required is that we’re willing to accept the mother of all inconvenient truths: that the gizmos and gadgets we’re all glued to may not just prove a barrier to truly living life in the present but also get in the way of life (rather less figuratively) going forward.
Sepsis, bacteria in blood. 3D illustration showing rod-shaped bacteria in blood with red blood cells and leukocytes
(Dr. Mercola) As drug-resistant infections become more prevalent, so are cases of sepsis — a progressive disease process initiated by an aggressive, dysfunctional immune response to an infection in the bloodstream, which is why it’s sometimes referred to as blood poisoning. Unless caught and treated early, the condition can progress to septic shock, resulting in extremely low blood pressure, weakening of the heart, multiple organ failure and death.
An estimated 1 million Americans develop sepsis each year1,2 and up to 50 percent die from the systemic infection.3,4,5 While illnesses such as bronchitis, pneumonia, strep throat, kidney infection or even localized infections can turn septic, sepsis is most commonly acquired in hospital settings.6,7 Unfortunately, conventional treatment often fails, as evidenced by the 50 percent mortality rate.
It’s also costly. According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, sepsis is the most expensive condition being treated in U.S. hospitals, racking up expenses in excess of $24 billion in 2014.8 There’s good news though. Recently, evidence for not just one but two different nondrug treatments have emerged, both of which show remarkable promise.
Infants Saved by Probiotics
Sepsis can occur in just about anyone, including infants. Recent research9,10 shows feeding newborns probiotics (healthy bacteria) significantly lowers the child’s risk of developing sepsis. The study involved infants in rural India, where sepsis is common. Worldwide, an estimated 600,000 infants die from sepsis, primarily in developing countries.
The bacterial strain selected was Lactobacillus plantarum ATCC-202195 — a kind of lactic acid bacteria found in fermented vegetables such as sauerkraut and kimchi.11 To that, they added the prebiotic fructooligosaccharide “to promote growth and sustain colonization of the probiotic strain.”
The bacterial strain was chosen by methodically prescreening more than 280 strains in preliminary studies. Lactobacillus plantarum was in part chosen for its ability to attach to cells in the gut. According to NPR,12 the team was “shocked by how well the bacteria worked.” In infants given the synbiotic mix (probiotic plus prebiotic) for one week, the risk of sepsis and death dropped by 40 percent, from 9 to 5.4 percent.
A total of 149 villages in Odisha state, India — where infant mortality is the highest in the nation — were included in the study. While the team was initially planning to enroll 8,000 infants, the study was halted after the enrollment of 4,557 babies. Due to the clear evidence of significant benefit, it would have been unethical to continue depriving half of the newborns of the treatment.
Probiotic Also Lowered Other Infection Rates
The probiotic also reduced a number of other common infections. Respiratory infections, for example, were reduced by 34 percent, which was entirely unexpected. Gram-positive bacterial infections were reduced by 82 percent and gram-negative infections (which are more difficult to treat) dropped by 75 percent. Another major benefit is the price. At a cost of about $1 per infant per weeklong course of treatment, it’s incredibly affordable.
The researchers note that probiotics may be more powerful than drugs for a number of reasons. For starters, the beneficial bacteria help control harmful bacteria that may otherwise overtake the baby’s gut. The probiotic also generates compounds that strengthen the intestinal wall, thereby preventing harmful bacteria from entering the bloodstream. It also helps bolster and promote healthier maturation of the baby’s immune system.
Decline in Healthy Gut Bacteria Drives Up Disease Rates
Decades of overprescribing and misuse have made antibiotics a serious threat to human health by reducing healthy bacteria in the human microbiome and producing drug-resistant bacteria. As noted by Dr. Martin Blaser, director of the Human Microbiome Program at the NYU School of Medicine,13,14 “loss of microbes that have long accompanied humans is causing an overall rise in conditions against which our bodies can no longer defend.”
Blaser links declining gut microbes to diseases such as Type 1 diabetes, autism, inflammatory bowel diseases, food allergies and much more, noting that infancy is a critical time in which your gut microbiome is developed. The increasing use of C-sections play a role here, since this deprives the baby of exposure to the mother’s microbiome, which is picked up as the baby pushes through the birth canal.
Lack of breast-feeding adds to the problem, as breast milk helps seed the baby’s gut microbiome with healthy bacteria and indigestible sugars that feed the bacteria. Use of antibiotics during pregnancy and/or shortly after birth also disrupts the balance of bacterial communities, and recent studies suggest taking antibiotics during pregnancy increases the risk of birth defects.15
Antibiotics may also result in permanent alterations in metabolism, increasing the child’s risk of obesity later in life. Many parents are also overzealous in their use of antibacterial products, believing children must be protected against dirt and germs at all costs. This has the unfortunate side effect of weakening rather than strengthening the child’s immune system.16
Getting dirty outside is actually an important part of childhood, from a health perspective, as soil-based organisms help stimulate your immune system, reduce inflammation and even aid in detoxification.
Probiotics in Wound Healing
In related news, probiotics may also lower the risk of infections during wound healing — including sepsis.17 As reported by Medical News Today:18
“Staphylococcus aureus is naturally present in the noses of around 30 percent of the population and mostly does not cause harm. However, when the skin barrier is broken, S. aureus can cause severe infection. S. aureus is notorious for forming biofilms. When this happens, the bacteria attach to a surface — such as the skin …
Biofilms are mostly resistant to antibiotics and are therefore a considerable health risk. If S. aureus spreads to the blood it can cause sepsis, which is a major cause of death in children who have experienced severe burn injuries. Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which is another pathogen known to form biofilms, is often found in infected burn wounds …
[B]oth L. rhamnosus GG and L. reuteri could protect skin cells in the laboratory from infection by S. aureus. This was true when live bacteria were added to the skin cells and when the bacteria were killed and their extracts added instead.”
L. rhamnosus GG was found to promote cell migration, resulting in more rapid wound closure, while L. reuteri increased cell division rates, thereby aiding in the wound healing. The idea of placing live bacteria on an open wound is questionable, but since the extract of killed bacteria proved to have a similar effect, the researchers suggest bacterial extracts may eventually be used in wound care.
Vitamin C, Another Game Changer in Treatment of Sepsis
Another important medical discovery is the use of vitamin C for the treatment of sepsis. Dr. Paul Marik, chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in East Virginia, found the deadly infection could be effectively and inexpensively treated with a combination of intravenous (IV) vitamin C, thiamine (vitamin B1) and hydrocortisone (a steroid).19,20
Earlier this year, Marik published a small retrospective before-after clinical study21,22,23 showing that giving septic patients this simple IV cocktail for two days reduced mortality nearly fivefold, from 40 percent to 8.5 percent. Of the 50 patients treated, only four died, but none of them actually died from sepsis; they died from their underlying disease.
Vitamin C is well-known for its ability to prevent and treat infectious disease. Previous research has shown it effectively lowers proinflammatory cytokines and C-reactive protein.24,25,26 Influenza,27 encephalitis and measles28 have all been successfully treated with high-dose vitamin C. To investigate the mechanism of action for sepsis, Marik reached out to John Catravas, Ph.D., a pharmacology researcher at Old Dominion University.
At Marik’s request, Catravas performed an independent lab study, which confirmed the effectiveness of the treatment. Interestingly, vitamin C acts like hydrocortisone, yet when either vitamin C or the steroid was administered in isolation, nothing happened. When administered together, however, the infection was successfully eradicated.
The addition of thiamine is also important. Not only is thiamine required for metabolism of some of the metabolites of vitamin C, research has shown many patients with sepsis are vitamin deficient, and when thiamine is given, it reduces the risk of renal failure and mortality.
Nationwide Trial of Marik’s Protocol Is Underway
Sepsis kills more than breast cancer, colon cancer and AIDS combined, and Marik’s protocol has not only been shown to be profoundly effective, it has no side effects, is inexpensive, readily available and simple to administer. Patients and doctors really have nothing to lose by trying it, but to make it standard of care across the U.S., more evidence is needed.
Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, where Marik works, has already made the protocol its standard of care for sepsis, and more than 50 medical centers around the U.S. are following suit. Still, despite the successes seen in clinical practice, many doctors are wary of implementing the protocol without further studies to support it.
To test the theory on a grander scale, Dr. Craig Coopersmith, a leading sepsis researcher at Emory University School of Medicine, is now planning a multicenter trial to put Marik’s vitamin C protocol to the test across the nation. “If this is validated, this would be the single biggest breakthrough in sepsis care in my lifetime,” he told Smithsonian.29
Results from his field trial cannot come soon enough, as current best practices are ineffective at best. For example, recent research shows the standard calling for rapid and substantial infusion of IV fluids have no effect on survival rates,30 and previous guidelines calling for the use of a specific drug turned out to do more harm than good.31 In short, there are few good alternatives available, making Marik’s treatment protocol all the more crucial.
Are You at High Risk for Sepsis?
With sepsis affecting more than a million Americans each year, it’s important to be aware of its signs, symptoms and risks.32 Even health care workers can miss the signs and delay treatment. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), you’re at higher risk for sepsis if you have:
Chronic disease. A vast majority — 7 out of 10 — of people who develop sepsis have some kind of chronic health condition. Those with diabetes, lung, kidney or liver disease tend to be particularly susceptible to infection, which raises the risk.
Weakened immune system, AIDS or cancer.
Recently spent time in a hospital, nursing home or other health care facility, as exposure to infection-causing bacteria is common in these places.
Common Sense Strategies to Reduce Your Risk of Sepsis
While health care workers have a responsibility to prevent infections that could potentially turn septic and to educate patients about warning signs of sepsis, you can lower your own risk by:
•Promptly treating urinary tract infections (UTIs). UTIs are the second most common type of infection in the body, sending more than 8 million people to their health care providers every year in the U.S. alone,33 and one-quarter of sepsis cases are related to urinary tract infections.
Conventional treatment typically involves antibiotics, but research shows 90 percent of UTIs can be successfully treated with D-Mannose, a naturally occurring sugar that’s closely related to glucose. To learn more, see “D-Mannose for UTI Prevention Validated in a Clinical Trial.”
•Properly clean skin wounds. About 1 in 10 sepsis cases are due to skin infections, so always take the time to properly clean and care for wounds and scrapes. Wash the wound with mild soap and water to clean out dirt and debris, then cover with a sterile bandage. Diabetics should follow good foot care to avoid dangerous foot infections.
•Avoid infections in hospitals. When visiting a health care facility, be sure to wash your own hands, and remind doctors and nurses to wash theirs (and/or change gloves) before touching you or any equipment being used on you.
If you have to undergo a colonoscopy or other testing using a flexible medical scope, remember to call and ask how they clean their scopes and what kind of cleaning solution they use. If the answer is glutaraldehyde (brand name Cidex), find another hospital or clinic — one that uses peracetic acid. This preliminary legwork will significantly decrease your risk of contracting an infection from a contaminated scope.
(Mercola) Allergies are your body’s reaction to a protein (allergen) and are a sign your immune system is working overtime. According to the Allergy and Asthma Foundation of America,1 nasal allergies affect nearly 50 million people in the U.S., and that number is growing. As many as 30 percent of adults and 40 percent of children suffer from allergic diseases, including asthma.
These conditions are the fifth leading chronic disease in the U.S. and the third chronic disease in children under 18. In 2010, Americans with allergic rhinitis spent nearly $17.5 billion on health care related to the condition, lost more than 6 million work and school days and had nearly 16 million doctor visits.2
During the second encounter with an allergen, your body is ready to react, sending a powerful cocktail of histamine, leukotrienes and prostaglandins to protect your body. They trigger a cascade of symptoms associated with allergies, such as sneezing, sore throat, runny nose and itchy, watery eyes. Histamine may also cause your airways to constrict, triggering an asthma response or hives.
Pollen is one common allergen that triggers this reaction, but other protein molecules may as well, including mold spores, dust mites, pet dander, cockroaches, and cleaning and personal care products. The activation of this allergic response may be related to your dietary intake and your gut microbiome. Recent research has identified a higher risk of allergies and asthma in children born to mothers who ate high amounts of sugar during their pregnancy.3
Sugar During Pregnancy Increases Your Child’s Risk of Allergies
Researchers at Queen Mary University of London evaluated survey data from nearly 9,000 mother-child pairs in the ongoing Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, tracking the health of families with children born between April 1, 1991, and December 31, 1992.4 Lead author Annabelle Bedard, Ph.D., commented on what triggered the researchers to evaluate the association between sugar and allergies:5
“The dramatic ‘epidemic’ of asthma and allergies in the West in the last 50 years is still largely unexplained — one potential culprit is a change in diet. Intake of free sugar and high fructose corn syrup has increased substantially over this period. We know that the prenatal period may be crucial for determining risk of asthma and allergies in childhood and recent trials have confirmed that maternal diet in pregnancy is important.”
Using self-reported estimates of sugar intake from questionnaires, the researchers calculated the amount of sugar the mothers ate during their pregnancy and compared this against the number of children diagnosed with allergies or asthma by age 7. Sixty-two percent of the children did not have allergic reactions, 22 percent had common allergies and 12 percent had asthma.
As a comparison, 10 percent of children in the U.S. were diagnosed with asthma in 2010, six years prior to this analysis.6 When the children were grouped into those with the lowest sugar intake during pregnancy (less than 34 grams or 7 teaspoons) and those with the greatest (over 82 grams or 16 teaspoons) the researchers discovered that children whose mothers ate the highest amounts had a 38 percent increased risk of allergies and a 73 percent higher risk of becoming allergic to two or more allergens.7
Women who ate high amounts of sugar were also twice as likely to have children who developed allergic asthma.8 Co-author Seif Shaheen, Ph.D., said:9
“We cannot say on the basis of these observations that high intake of sugar by mothers in pregnancy is definitely causing allergy and allergic asthma in their offspring. However, given the extremely high consumption of sugar in the West, we will certainly be investigating this hypothesis further with some urgency.”
Impact of Asthma on Your Community
Asthma is a chronic lung disease that inflames the lining of your lung tissue and narrows the airways. The inflammation in your lung tissue is sensitive to environmental stimuli, also called triggers, which differ from person to person.10 Allergy triggers include dust mites, cockroaches, mold, pet dander and pollen.11
However, you may develop an asthma exacerbation from triggers other than allergic proteins. For instance, strong irritants, such as chemical sprays, perfumes and tobacco smoke or scented products may irritate your lung tissue and narrow your airways. Other triggers include cold weather, exercise, upper respiratory infections, food sensitivities and stress.
In the featured study, researchers found children whose mothers ate high amounts of sugar while pregnant developed asthma triggered by allergens and not by fragrances, cold weather, exercise, infections or food sensitivities. In the past 30 years, the incidence of asthma has increased worldwide. While the condition is generally accepted as costly, some countries do not consider it a health care priority.12
The total cost of treatment and lost work and school to society is difficult to estimate, due in part to different definitions and characterizations of the conditions and different assessments of the socioeconomic impact on society. Although variable from country to country, an average cost per patient in Europe is $1,900, while in the U.S. the cost hovers near $3,100.13
Vitamin D During Pregnancy Helps Reduce Asthma Risk
Low vitamin D levels in children who have asthma may increase the number of severe exacerbations they suffer, including the need for a trip to the hospital.14 A previous study, which followed over 1,000 children for nearly four years, found vitamin D insufficiency was linked to a 50 percent increased risk of a severe asthmatic attack necessitating a visit to the emergency room or hospitalization.
A more recent study15 published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology also links low vitamin D levels in pregnant women to a higher risk of asthma in their children.16 This study supports similar findings from Harvard Medical School,17 in which vitamin D intake in over 1,100 mothers from the Northeastern U.S. was assessed. Children from mothers whose intake was higher during pregnancy had a decreased risk of recurrent wheezing by age 3, whether the vitamin D was from diet or a supplement.
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology study evaluated the effect of using an oral supplement of vitamin D-3 during the second and third trimester of pregnancy at nearly 4,000 IUs higher than the recommended daily intake of 400 IUs.18 After birth, researchers took a sample of the cord blood, testing the newborn’s innate immune system response known to provide the baby with long-term protection against environmental pathogens.
The samples from babies whose mothers had taken the higher supplemental dose of 4,400 IUs of vitamin D-3 responded with a healthier innate cytokine response and greater IL-17A production after T lymphocyte stimulation. The researchers believe this would likely lead to improved respiratory health as the child grows, since past research has linked a strong immune response with a reduction in asthma.
The lead researcher, Catherine Hawrylowicz, Ph.D., professor of immune regulation in allergic disease at King’s College London, commented on the importance of the results as it relates to both the health of future children and the importance of investigating further links between vitamin D and immunity:19
“The majority of all asthma cases are diagnosed in early childhood implying that the origin of the disease stems in fetal and early life. Studies to date that have investigated links between vitamin D and immunity in the baby have been observational.
For the first time, we have shown that higher vitamin D levels in pregnancy can effectively alter the immune response of the newborn baby, which could help to protect the child from developing asthma. Future studies should look at the long-term impact on the immunity of the infant.”
Impact of Sugar on Your Body
Sugar is 50 times more potent than total calories in explaining the rising rates of diabetes worldwide, explains Dr. Robert Lustig in this short video. While both glucose and fructose are sweet, they are two different molecules.
Research demonstrates not only the detrimental effect sugar has on your developing baby and their future health, but also on your own health. Despite the American Heart Association’s seal of approval on products that meet or exceed their own recommended daily limit on sugar, there is no nutritional reason to eat foods with added sugar.
In fact, the opposite is true. Diets high in net carbohydrates and added sweeteners may do far more than spike your blood glucose and insulin levels. Sugar will overload and damage your liver. High levels of sugar in your body will also trigger metabolic syndrome, a combination of weight gain, abdominal obesity, rising cholesterol levels and elevated triglycerides.
Eating a diet rich in net carbohydrates and excess sugars has also been linked to hypertension. As your insulin and leptin levels rise in response to sugars, your blood pressure also rises. Your body uses magnesium to fully relax your blood vessels, but your body is unable to store magnesium as you become resistant to insulin from a diet rich in sugar. When your body doesn’t have enough magnesium to relax your blood vessels, your blood pressure also rises.
Eating high amounts of sugar is also linked to brain-related health issues, such as depression, learning disorders, memory problems and food addiction. Sugars trigger the reward center in your brain, leading to cravings that may rival cocaine addiction in some individuals.20 However, not all sugars have identical effects. For instance, fructose may activate your brain to increase your interest in food, while glucose triggers your brain’s satiation signal.
Your Gut Microbiome and Allergies
High sugar intake also affects the growth of bacteria in your gut. In an evaluation of data from market research firm Euromonitor, researchers found people in the U.S. ate more sugar per person than any other country evaluated.21 The average person in the U.S. consumes more than 126 grams of sugar each day, nearly twice the amount consumed by 54 monitored countries and twice the amount recommended by the World Health Organization.
Researchers have demonstrated that diets rich in sugar will alter your gut microbiome,22,23 likely since your beneficial bacteria thrive on fiber and pathogenic bacteria thrive on sugar. Increasing the amount of sugar to the diet of mice transplanted with human fecal material demonstrated the gut microbiome would change dramatically within 24 hours of adding sugar to their diet.24
Scientists have found infants who go on to develop allergies start with early-life abnormalities in their gut microbiome and microbial function.25 While research continues to find links between healthy gut microbiota and a reduction in allergic response in adults and children, the evidence to date suggests that your gut microbiome is a significant target in the prevention and management of allergic asthma.26
In a recent scientific review, scientists found an association between immune-regulated epigenetic imprinting from mother to child during pregnancy that may support the immune system of the growing child after birth.27
However, if your gut microbiome is altered from high intake of sugar and net carbohydrates, this may alter your body’s ability to support the growing immune system of your child. In yet another study, doctors were able to associate altered intestinal microbiota with the development of asthma and allergies in children, suggesting the mother’s immune system may also play a role.28
Break Free From Sugar
Research supports making a break from processed foods and added sugars in your diet to optimize your health and the health of your children. While sugar is an additive that can be challenging to reduce or eliminate from your diet, the benefits to your overall health, energy level and brain function may become rapidly evident, helping to motivate your efforts.
If you currently eat a lot of sugar, there’s a good chance you’re struggling with sugar addiction. If so, I highly recommend trying an energy psychology technique called Turbo Tapping. It has helped many “soda addicts” kick their sweet habit, and it should work for any type of sweet craving you may have.
As you begin eliminating sugar from your diet, be sure to avoid most processed foods, as added sugar can be found in nearly 74 percent of processed foods under more than 60 different names.29 If you’re already fighting diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure or are overweight, you would be wise to limit your total fructose and sugar intake to 15 grams per day until your condition has normalized.
For all others, I recommend limiting your total fructose to 25 grams or less per day. As you move toward limiting your sugar intake, here are several tips to help reduce cravings and help you on your journey to good health:
Exercise: Anyone who exercises intensely on a regular basis will know a significant amount of cardiovascular exercise is one of the best “cures” for food cravings. It always amazes me how my appetite, especially for sweets, dramatically decreases after a good workout. I believe the mechanism is related to the dramatic reduction in insulin levels that occurs after exercise.
Organic, black coffee: Coffee is a potent opioid receptor antagonist, and contains compounds such as cafestol — found plentifully in both caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee — which can bind to your opioid receptors, occupy them and essentially block your addiction to other opioid-releasing food.30,31 This may profoundly reduce the addictive power of other substances, such as sugar.
Sour taste: Simply tasting something sour, such as cultured vegetables, helps reduce sweet cravings, too. This is doubly beneficial, as fermented vegetables also promote gut health. You can also try adding lemon or lime juice to your water.
(Natural News) An investigation carried out by Channel 4’s Supershoppers program in the U.K. revealed that the country’s top selling baby food brand Ella’s Kitchen manufactures products that may contain up to five teaspoons of sugar per packet. Ella’s Kitchen has been the number one choice for middle-class mothers who want to wean their babies in a “nutritious” way.
The investigation noted that while the company’s red pepper, sweet potato, and apple pouch seemed to be a healthy vegetable product, it was in fact 78 percent apple puree. According to the investigation, Ella’s Purple One smoothie contained more than three teaspoons of sugar. In addition, Ella’s Banana and Apricot baby rice was found to contain nearly five teaspoons of naturally occurring sugar.
Experts have previously cautioned that while natural sugar is healthier than white sugar when eaten as fruit, processing the natural sugar makes it just as unhealthy. Dietician Anna Daniels quipped that once natural sugar is processed, blended, or made into smoothie, it is no longer encapsulated within the plant cell wall. This meant that processed natural sugar could be easily broken down and released into the bloodstream quicker. According to Daniels, processing natural sugars converts them into free sugars, which have a detrimental effect on the body once taken in excess.
However, Ella’s Kitchen dismissed the results of the television investigation and maintained that their products do not contain added sugars. The company also maintained that their products were made from 100 percent whole fruit or vegetable. In addition, Ella’s Kitchen stressed that it never uses fruit juice or concentrates. Moreover, the company questioned the investigation’s use of teaspoon value to measure their products’ sugar content.
“Expressing the sugar content in terms of teaspoons is misleading. Using this rationale, 100 ml of breast milk would contain nearly two teaspoons of sugar. The Purple One Smoothie Fruit pouch is a blend of 100 percent fruit and contains the same amount of sugar as if you’d made it at home using fruit from the fruit bowl. Likewise, Banana and Apricot Baby Rice is made from only organic bananas, apricots and rice with a squeeze of lemon juice. A banana from the fruit bowl contains 20 g sugar per 100 g, so again, the sugar content would be similar if you made the product at home,” the company said on The Daily Mail.
Previous study finds baby food products questionable
The recent investigation was not the first one to question the nutritional value of Ella’s Kitchen’s products. In fact, a 2013 study carried out by a team of researchers University of Glasgow revealed that commercial baby foods produced by Ella’s Kitchen, Cow and Gate and Heinz were significantly less nutritious than home-made meals. The study also revealed that many commercial baby food products contain high levels of sugar. (Related: Babies that eat fresh foods instead of processed foods have fewer allergies)
Likewise, the research team found that the products were typically promoted for use from four months of age, a time when babies’ diets should be primarily based on breast or formula milk. In addition, the study revealed that babies should eat twice as many commercial baby foods in order to get the same energy and protein levels found in home-made meals. Moreover, the study showed that commercial baby foods have significantly lower levels of essential minerals such as iron.
“Manufacturers have been dragging their feet, lagging behind current thinking and research evidence that babies don’t generally need solid foods before about six months. It’s time they stopped labelling foods ‘from 4 months. If babies are spoon-fed pureed fruit and vegetables before this time, it can replace the nutrients from milk. Many parents do find jars of food convenient when they are out and about, but babies can eat family foods most of the time. Buying commercial baby foods is also much more expensive than using family foods,” said Rosemary Dodds, senior policy adviser at the National Childbirth Trust.
