Category: Resyndicated

How the gut microbiome may influence the severity of COVID-19

The risk of severe COVID-19 infection is more common in those with high blood pressure, diabetes and obesity, conditions that are all associated with changes to the composition of the gut microbiome — the community of bacteria, viruses and fungi that live in the intestines. This raises the question of whether the gut microbiome has a role in dictating COVID-19 severity.

Republished from The Conversation

Let’s recap what we know about COVID-19. COVID-19 is a new disease caused by a very contagious virus called SARS-CoV-2.

In most infected individuals, the virus does not cause serious illness. However, it causes a very serious respiratory disease — and even death — in a minority of patients. Through many studies of people with COVID-19 over the past few months, we have learned what characteristics are more likely to be linked to mild versus severe forms of the disease.

Related: How To Heal Your Gut 

Who is predisposed to serious COVID-19?

Children and young adults are less likely to develop symptomatic COVID-19, although infection readily occurs in young people with equally high viral loads in the airway, suggesting that they can certainly infect others. In contrast, people of older age and those with pre-existing chronic conditions are highly at risk and very likely develop symptomatic, severe disease.

If we consider the gradient of severity of the disease, children are at one end, and the elderly and patients with chronic conditions are at the other end.

What conditions are linked to severe COVID-19?

The information collected by researchers from many countries all points to similar characteristics and health conditions that are more commonly seen in patients with severe disease. These include older age, high blood pressure, diabetes and obesity.

The strength of these associations is even more prominent among younger individuals, as younger patients with obesity and diabetes are more likely to have serious disease.

In New York City, 5,279 patients tested positive for COVID-19 between March 1 and April 8, 2020. Of these, 22.6 per cent had diabetes and 35.3 per cent were obese.

Related: Americans are Fatter Now Than in the 1980s, Even with the Same Diet and Exercise

Obesity was associated with an increased rate of hospital admission and critical illness. Similar findings were provided by investigators in the United Kingdomabout the outbreak in Britain, where obese patients were twice as likely to develop severe disease.

Do these findings raise the possibility that the mechanisms underlying high blood pressure, diabetes and obesity may help explain why these conditions lead to severe COVID-19 disease? Before exploring this question, let’s zoom in on cellular and molecular mechanisms known to be involved in COVID-19 disease.

How does the body fight COVID-19 infection?

When the virus enters the body, it mostly goes to the airways and the gastrointestinal tract. The virus then binds to specific receptors present on the surface of epithelial cells to enter these cells. Viral replication within the cells leads to cell damage and cell death. This results in the release of specific signalling molecules that alert the local immune system.

Armies of immune cells are then dispatched to initiate an antiviral response. Some of these cells are specialized to locate and identify the virus, while others mount a specific immune attack. The immune response results in the release of cytokines, chemokines and antibodies, which in many cases can defeat the virus, and the patient recovers.

Sometimes the immune system is dangerously at high alert and overreacts. In this case, the immune cells mount an especially strong inflammatory response — one that goes beyond what is required to kill the virus. This extra-strong attack releases cytokines and chemokines on a massive scale throughout the body, resulting in a cytokine storm, which causes widespread inflammation and tissue damage in patients with severe COVID-19.

One of the reasons for an abnormal, overreactive immune response lies in the gastrointestinal tract. Millions of interactions are constantly occurring between the immune system and trillions of non-dangerous microbes that live within the body. These interactions educate the immune system in how to function and, importantly, in how not to overreact to infectious microbes. Could this help explain why some people are more likely to develop uncontrolled inflammation upon COVID-19 infection?

Related: Data Shows How to Protect Against Coronavirus and We Address Conspiracy Theories

Trillions of micro-organisms that call your gastrointestinal tract home

The gut microbiome is the community of micro-organisms living inside the gastrointestinal tract, mostly in the large bowel. The microbiome contains bacteria, fungi (yeast), viruses and protozoa, all of which contribute to maintaining a balanced ecosystem and human health. These microbes collectively perform many beneficial functions, including educating the immune system.

When studying the microbiome, scientists examine the composition (what is there) and function (what are they doing) of this ecosystem. We have learned that both composition and function of the gut microbiome are important features linked to human health. In certain conditions, the balance of the gut microbiome composition and function is disrupted in a way that leads to disease, a phenomenon called microbiome dysbiosis.

There is accumulating evidence from animal and human studies that gut microbiome dysbiosis has a causal role in metabolism dysregulation manifested as diabetes and obesity — the risk factors of severe COVID-19 disease.

Is gut microbiome predisposing patients to severe COVID-19?

The gut microbiome regulates host defences against viral infections including respiratory viruses, such as influenza virus. This occurs through the activation of immune antiviral mechanisms and the prevention of excessive inflammation.

Different species of the gut microbiome have pro- or anti-inflammatory properties and play different roles in regulating the immune system. In the context of COVID-19, a recent preprint study (not yet peer reviewed) showed that specific members of the gut microbiome were associated with severe disease and with immune markers known to be elevated in severe disease. The association of these gut bacteria with the immune markers was even higher than that of the known risk factors of COVID-19 severity: age and obesity.

Further work is needed to confirm that pro-inflammatory microbial species can contribute to the immune responses that make severe COVID-19 more likely, but based on what we know about the microbiome, this is certainly a possibility. This also could mean that beneficial gut microbiome species, the type that promote low inflammation, have the potential to prevent or remediate the immune alterations that lead to severe COVID-19.

Potential for treatments and prevention

The research community is working very hard to develop and test safe and effective vaccines and treatments against COVID-19. Tapping into the potential of the gut microbiome is another avenue that we can pursue to identify potential safe and affordable probiotics for prevention and treatment. This is not unprecedented in the context of viral respiratory diseases: probiotics and prebiotics can affect the immune response to the flu vaccine, and may improve outcomes in flu-like illnesses.

Until effective treatments are available, “mind your microbes” and maintain a healthy lifestyle.

20% of Water Pollution Is From Your Clothing

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The dyeing and treatment of textiles uses many dangerous chemicals, such that these processes are said to contribute 20% of industrial water pollution globally
  • Millions of gallons of toxic effluent are discharged from textile mills, often at high temperatures and pH, which in and of themselves are damaging
  • Combined with the chemicals, the wastewater can contaminate drinking water and soil and even deplete the water of oxygen, harming marine life
  • Some of the heavy metals used in dyes are known to cause cancer and accumulate in crops and fish via contaminated water and soil
  • Chronic exposure to dye chemicals has also been linked to cancer and hormone disruption in animals and humans
  • When shopping for clothing, make sure it’s organic, biodynamic and/or GOTS-certified, and opt out of fast fashion’s “throwaway” clothing mindset

The clothes on your back probably don’t come to mind when you think about the biggest polluters on the planet, but the clothing industry is a toxic one, nearing the top of the list. Along with being a water-intensive industry, the dyeing and treatment of textiles use many dangerous chemicals, such that these processes are said to contribute 20% of industrial water pollution globally.1

As noted by Rita Kant of the University Institute of Fashion Technology at Panjab University in India, color is a major reason why people choose to buy certain articles of clothing. “No matter how excellent its constitution, if unsuitably colored it is bound to be a failure as a commercial fabric.”2

While there are ways to dye clothing that are safe and do not harm the environment, the majority of textile dyes are toxic for virtually all forms of life.

Recommended: How to Eliminate IBS, IBD, Leaky Gut 

Why Textile Dyes Are so Dangerous

When clothing is dyed, about 80% of the chemicals stay on the fabric, while the rest go down the drain.3 Problems exist not only with the dyes themselves but also with the chemicals used to fix or set the colors onto the fabrics. According to Kant:4

“The textile dyeing and finishing industry has created a huge pollution problem as it is one of the most chemically intensive industries on earth, and the No. 1 polluter of clean water (after agriculture). More than 3600 individual textile dyes are being manufactured by the industry today.

The industry is using more than 8000 chemicals in various processes of textile manufacture including dyeing and printing … Many of these chemicals are poisonous and dam- aging to human health directly or indirectly.”

Examples of some of the toxic chemicals used to dye textiles include the following:5

SulphurNaphthol
Vat dyesNitrates
Acetic acidHeavy metals, including copper, arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury, nickel and cobalt
Formaldehyde-based dye fixing agentsChlorinated stain removers
Hydrocarbon based softenersNonbiodegradable dyeing chemicals

Toxic Dye Chemicals Lead to Water Pollution

Millions of gallons of toxic effluent are discharged from textile mills, often at high temperature and pH, which in and of themselves are damaging. Combined with the chemicals, the wastewater can contaminate drinking water and soil and even deplete the water of oxygen, harming marine life. Kant explained:6

“It [mill effluent] prevents the penetration of sunlight necessary for the process of photosynthesis. This interferes with the oxygen transfer mechanism at air water interface. Depletion of dissolved oxygen in water is the most serious effect of textile waste as dissolved oxygen is very essential for marine life.

This also hinders with self purification process of water. In addition when this effluent is allowed to flow in the fields it clogs the pores of the soil resulting in loss of soil productivity. The texture of soil gets hardened and penetration of roots is prevented.

The waste water that flows in the drains corrodes and incrustates the sewerage pipes. If allowed to flow in drains and rivers it effects the quality of drinking water in hand pumps making it unfit for human consumption. It also leads to leakage in drains increasing their maintenance cost. Such polluted water can be a breeding ground for bacteria and viruses.”

Some of the heavy metals used in dyes are known to cause cancer and accumulate in crops and fish via contaminated water and soil. Chronic exposure to dye chemicals has also been linked to cancer and hormone disruption in animals and humans.7

Azo dyes are among the most commonly used and the most toxic, as they break down into cancer-causing amines. According to the Soil Association, in their report “Thirsty for fashion?” even azo dyes in very small quantities of less than 1 part per million in water may kill beneficial microorganisms in soil such that it affects agricultural productivity and may also be toxic to flora and fauna in water.8

Further, textile dyeing facilities tend to be located in developing countries where regulations are lax and labor costs are low. Untreated or minimally treated wastewater is typically discharged into nearby rivers, from where it spreads into seas and oceans, traveling across the globe with the currents.

An estimated 40% of textile chemicals are discharged by China.9 According to Ecowatch, Indonesia is also struggling with the chemical fallout of the garment industry. The Citarum River is now one of the most heavily polluted rivers in the world, thanks to the congregation of hundreds of textile factories along its shorelines.

When Greenpeace tested discharge from a textile plant along the river, they found antimony, tributylphosphate and nonylphenol, a toxic endocrine-disrupting surfactant.10 Kant further noted, “Some 72 toxic chemicals have been identified in water solely from textile dyeing, 30 of which cannot be removed. This represents an appalling environmental problem for the clothing and textile manufacturers.”11

Clothing Manufacturing Uses Staggering Amounts of Water

The clothing industry is not only polluting water but also using massive quantities of it. Kant stated that the daily water consumption of a textile mill that produces about 8,000 kilograms (17,637 pounds) of fabric a day is about 1.6 million liters (422,675 gallons).12 Further, some of the greatest water usage comes from growing the cotton used to make the clothing.

The Soil Association stated that growing cotton accounts for 69% of the water footprint of textile fiber production, with just 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of cotton requiring 10,000 (2,641 gallons) to 20,000 liters (5,283 gallons) of water to produce.13

Green America also noted that it takes 2,700 liters (713 gallons) of water to grow enough cotton to make a T-shirt (and this doesn’t account for the water used for dyeing and finishing).14 Cotton is also considered to be a “dirty” crop, requiring 200,000 tons of pesticides and 8 million tons of fertilizers to grow, annually.15 The Soil Association added:16

“Cotton production uses 2.5% of the world’s cultivated land, yet it accounts for 16% of all insecticides sold globally. It also accounts for 4% of artificial nitrogen and phosphorus fertilisers used globally. It is estimated that growing cotton requires 200,000 tonnes of pesticides and 8 million tonnes of synthetic fertilisers every year.”

Problems With ‘Fast Fashion’

The fast fashion industry dictates that you must buy the latest new clothing fad each season, adding more garments to your probably already overstuffed closet. Americans have increased how much clothing they buy due to this consumption trend, with the average person bringing home more than 65 articles of clothing in 2016, according to the “Toxic Textiles” report by Green America.17

At the same time, Americans throw away 70 pounds of clothing and other textiles each year.18According to the U.S. EPA, textiles made up 6.1% of municipal solid waste in 2015. Only 15.3%, or 2.5 million tons, was recycled while landfills received 10.5 million tons of textiles in 2015, accounting for 7.6% of all municipal solid waste landfills.19

Even when clothing is recycled, Green America notes that “less than 1% of the resources required to make clothing is recaptured and reused to create new clothing.”20 When you donate clothes, it’s also not a sustainable solution, as the majority end up getting sold to textile “recyclers” and exported to other countries.

The Ellen Macarthur Foundation’s Circular Fibres Initiative describes the clothing industry as a linear system that is “ripe for disruption:”21

“The textiles system operates in an almost completely linear way: large amounts of non-renewable resources are extracted to produce clothes that are often used for only a short time, after which the materials are mostly sent to landfill or incinerated. More than USD 500 billion of value is lost every year due to clothing underutilisation and the lack of recycling.

Furthermore, this take-make-dispose model has numerous negative environmental and societal impacts. For instance, total greenhouse gas emissions from textiles production, at 1.2 billion tonnes annually, are more than those of all international flights and maritime shipping combined.

Hazardous substances affect the health of both textile workers and wearers of clothes, and they escape into the environment. When washed, some garments release plastic microbreads, of which around half a million tonnes every year contribute to ocean pollution – 16 times more than plastic microbeads from cosmetics. Trends point to these negative impacts rising inexorably, with the potential for catastrophic outcomes in future.”

Junk Food Makers Target Blacks, Latinos and Communities of Color, Increasing Risks From COVID-19

In the United States, the novel coronavirus appears to be infecting, hospitalizing and killing black people and Latinos at alarmingly high rates, with data from several states illustrating this pattern.

There are many reasons for this. Structural inequalities across U.S. society contribute to this problem, including unequal access to fresh healthy foods, specific targeting of communities of color by manufacturers of junk food, unequal access to health care, more workers in essential jobs who cannot stay home and excess exposure to toxic chemicals and unhealthy air.

In this post, we are tracking studies and news articles about the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on black Americans, Latinos and communities of color, and how junk food manufacturers specifically and disproportionately target communities of color. For recent reporting on the connections between food-related diseases and the coronavirus, impacts on farmworkers and food workers, and other vital food system issues related to the pandemic, see our Coronavirus Food News Tracker.

Data on the disproportionate targeting of junk food advertising and marketing to communities of color

Increasing disparities in unhealthy food advertising targeted to Hispanic and Black youth, Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity; Council on Black Health (January 2019)

• Junk food ads disproportionately target black and Hispanic kids: report, by Lisa Rapaport, Reuters (1.17.19)

• Black and Hispanic youth are targeted with junk food ads, research shows, by Jessica Ravitz, CNN (1.15.19)

Television food advertising viewed by preschoolers, children and adolescents: contributors to differences in exposure for black and white youth in the United States, Rudd Center of Food Policy and Obesity (May 2016)

Food advertising targeted to Hispanic and Black youth: Contributing to health disparities, Rudd Center for Food Policy, AACORN, Salud America! (August 2015)

• Study: Black children are exposed to junk-food ads way more than white kids are, by Caitlin Dewey, Washington Post (12.15.16)

Limit junk-food ads that contribute to childhood obesity, Statement by the American Medical Association (2018)

Health equity & junk food marketing: talking about targeting kids of color, Berkeley Media Studies Group (2017)

Television food advertising viewed by preschoolers, children and adolescents: contributors to differences in exposure for black and white youth in the United States, Pediatric Obesity (2016)

To Choose (Not) to Eat Healthy: Social Norms, Self‐affirmation, and Food Choice, by Aarti Ivanic, Psychology and Marketing (July 2016)

• People of color have the highest obesity rates in the US. Food marketing is part of the problem: Interview with Aarti Ivanic by Nadra Little, Vox (9.28.18)

Disparities in Obesity-Related Outdoor Advertising by Neighborhood Income and Race, Journal of Urban Health (2015)

Child-Directed Marketing Inside and on the Exterior of Fast Food Restaurants, American Journal of Preventive Medicine (2014)

• Fast-Food Chains Disproportionately Target Black Children, by Olga Khazan, The Atlantic (11.13.14)

• Fast food marketing for children disproportionately affects certain communities, Arizona State University (10.14)

• Fast Food Restaurants Are Targeting Black Kids with Their Advertising, by Laura Rotham, Vice (11.17.14)

Racial/Ethnic and Income Disparities in Child and Adolescent Exposure to Food and Beverage Television Ads across U.S. Media Markets, Health Place (2014)

Impact of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption on Black Americans’ Health, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation(2011)

The Context for Choice: Health Implications of Targeted Food and Beverage Marketing to African Americans, American Journal of Public Health (2008)

Fast Food: Oppression through Poor Nutrition, California Law Review (2007)

The Health Impact of Targeted Marketing: An Interview with Sonya Grier, Corporations and Health Watch (2010)

What to do

Limit junk-food ads that contribute to childhood obesity, Statement by the American Medical Association (2018)

Targeted Marketing Of Junk Food To Ethnic Minority Youth: Fighting Back With Legal Advocacy And Community Engagement, ChangeLab Solutions(2012)

Food-Related Diseases, Marketing to Children, Pesticides, Sweeteners   Black Americans, communities of color, Covid-19, food related diseases, junk food advertising, Latinos, obesity rates, Rudd Center

Posted with permission from U.S. Right to Know.

Poison Found in 95% of Baby Food

  • A national investigation found 95% of baby foods tested contained the heavy metals lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury. Some also contained the rocket fuel component perchlorate
  • Apple and grape juice, oat ring cereal, macaroni and cheese, puff snacks and rice-based foods had the highest levels of heavy metals
  • Heavy metals are developmental neurotoxins that can harm a baby’s developing brain and nervous system
  • Organic food may still contain heavy metals due to the presence of heavy metals in soil
  • There are several ways parents can safeguard their infant’s food, including making their own or using organic or biodynamically-grown vegetables

Republished – Mercola

A national investigation commissioned by Healthy Babies Bright Futures (HBBF) recently made a disturbing finding. A shocking 95% of baby foods tested contained the heavy metals lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury.1

I have often written about how most commercial infant formulas are high in processed sugar and questionable ingredients including soy. They can contain as much sugar as a can of soda yet lack the benefits of the natural sugars found in breast milk.

Worse, most formulas also contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs), synthetic vitamins, inorganic minerals, excessive protein and harmful fats while lacking vital immune-boosting nutrients found in breast milk.

Still, the new findings about poisons like heavy metals lurking in baby food add urgency to the problem and raise questions about how parents can safely feed their infants.

Related: Circumcision Linked to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

Disturbing Findings About Baby Food

Parent volunteers working with HBBF’s partner organizations were asked to buy the most prominent baby food brands at their local stores or online.

The organizations the parents worked with were the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Campaign for Healthier Solutions, Coming Clean, Ecology Center, Environmental Justice Health Alliance, Getting Ready for Baby, Learning Disabilities Association of America, Organizacion en California de Lideres Campesinas Inc., and Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services.2

The foods selected by the parents included 61 brands and 13 food types, including infant formula, teething biscuits, cereals and fruit juices. The results were staggering. Lead was found in 94% of the baby foods; cadmium and arsenic in approximately 75% of the items; and mercury in just under 33% of the products.

Fifteen of the baby foods accounted for 55% of the heavy metal contaminants. These included apple and grape juice, oat ring cereal, macaroni and cheese, puff snacks and rice-based foods. Rice foods such as cereal and rice-based snacks account for one-fifth of the risks babies face, as these foods have high levels of arsenic, as well as the other three metals, HBBF says.3

Related: Autism Correlates with Circumcision

Contaminants Threaten Babies’ IQs

The presence of heavy metals in baby food has been known for a decade, but the HBBF’s study sheds new light on just how widespread the contamination is, and the specific risks babies and toddlers may face from such foods, especially to their IQs. An excerpt from the report reads:4

“The four heavy metals we found in baby food have a unique significance. All are developmental neurotoxins … They can harm a baby’s developing brain and nervous system, both in utero and after birth, for impacts that include the permanent loss of intellectual capacity and behavioral problems like attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

All four metals are linked to IQ loss from exposures early in life. The scientific evidence spans decades and continues to build: at least 23 studies published in the past seven years confirm these four heavy metals’ impacts to a child’s healthy development …

These metals are so prevalent in foods eaten by babies and toddlers that every child could be exposed daily to all three of the most common heavy metals detected in food — lead, arsenic, and cadmium — based on an analysis of federal surveys of children’s dietary patterns and heavy metals levels in food …”

Rocket Fuel Component Also Found in Baby Food

Related: Johnson And Johnson Knew Asbestos Was In Baby Powder, More Lawsuits Are Coming

Heavy metals are not the only IQ-lowering substances found in baby food, according to HBBF. The industrial chemical perchlorate, a rocket fuel component, was also detected, and this dangerous substance adds to the cognitive risks posed by heavy metals, HBBF says:5

“Perchlorate disrupts thyroid functions crucial to brain development and has been linked to IQ loss among children born to mothers with thyroid dysfunction, who are more vulnerable to perchlorate toxicity …

It is a rocket fuel component used since the Cold War. In 2005 FDA approved its use as an antistatic in plastic food packaging, and in 2016 expanded the approval to cover dry food handling equipment.

Perchlorate is also a degradation product of hypochlorite used to disinfect food processing equipment. Levels in children’s food increased dramatically from 2005 to 2012 …”

This is not the first time perchlorates — salts derived from perchloric acid used in the ways described above — have been found in baby food. Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found 15 brands of powdered infant formula were contaminated with the substance 10 years ago.6

Most people are exposed to perchlorate through their diet, in the form of contaminated water and/or foods. But the exposure infants receive may be far greater than that of adults if they are fed infant formula, as the toxin may be present in both the formula and the milk or water used to prepare it.

Perchlorate blocks the thyroid gland from taking up iodine, which can have a serious effect on a developing fetus and infant whose neurodevelopment depends on access to iodine.7 The harmful impact of perchlorate is also mediated by other endocrine disruptors that affect the thyroid found which might be found in the environment.

Related: Nurses Against Circumcision

Even Organic Baby Food Poses Risks

Sadly, parents can’t “shop their way out of” the toxic heavy metal problem by buying organic products, HBBF warns. Heavy metals are everywhere — they naturally occur in the soil, but pesticides, fertilizers, factory farms and other environmental pollution greatly increase their presence.

Because heavy metals are in the soil (whether deposited there naturally or through artificial means), leafy greens and root vegetables like carrots and sweet potatoes take up and retain them to a greater degree than fruits and above ground crops.

While parents may decide to buy organic foods and make their own baby food, this does not entirely solve the problem because organic standards do not set strict limits for such contaminants; both adult and baby foods may contain heavy metals.8

Parents also cannot rely on bottled water to avoid heavy metals. Bottled water is no safer than filtered tap water and generates toxic plastic waste to boot.9 In a previous article, I noted that that microplastics are also found in bottled water.

Parents Should Beware of Fruit Juices

The HBBF report recommends against giving babies and toddlers fruit juices for two reasons. First, because common juices like apple and grape contain heavy metals and secondly because parents tend to give excessive amounts of juices to their children. This means the metal levels can build up.

According to a consensus statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Heart Association and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, “Even 100% fruit juice offers no nutritional benefits over whole fruit.”10

There are other reasons to shun juice, say child and medical experts. Fruit juices can cause weight gain and lifelong obesity to the same degree as soft drinks, and their effect on teeth is equally destructive.

Most parents probably don’t realize that giving their child apple juice is akin to giving them a Coke, but metabolically, and in terms of dental health, it is. The lack of protein and fiber in juice counteracts any nutritional benefits, add the experts.11

Over seven years ago, Dr. Oz and Consumer Reports exposed high levels of arsenic in fruit juices. A full 10% of juice tested by Consumer Reports exceeded federal drinking-water standards for arsenic in the U.S.

Low-level chronic exposure to arsenic can lead to gastrointestinal problems, skin discoloration and hyperkeratosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, high blood pressure, diabetes, reproductive problems, neurological problems, various cancers and reduced IQ, as cited in the HBBF report.

Rice Is Also a Harmful Baby Food

Though pediatricians continue to tell parents that rice cereal mixed with breast milk or formula should be a baby’s first meal, it is irresponsible advice that I have always resisted.

Acclimating infants to the taste of highly processed white rice could set them up for a lifetime of bad eating habits and put them at risk for diabetes.12 The way that white rice is processed strips away vitamins, fiber and other nutrients. The rice that is left turns to sugar and raises insulin levels.

Since rice is submersed in water to grow, it also readily absorbs inorganic arsenic, which is the most harmful kind of arsenic. “Rice cereal has six times more arsenic than other types of cereal, like oatmeal and multigrain,” says Jane Houlihan, HBBF’s national director of science and health.13

“I have not been recommending rice cereal as a first food for many years, because I prefer babies eat whole grains with more nutrition,” agrees pediatrician Dr. Tanya Altmann.14 So, just how can baby food be made safe? Government clearly needs to do more, says the HBBF report, pointing out that:15

“FDA can use its testing programs, recall authority, and guidance to industry, among other tools, to characterize and control heavy metal levels in food. The agency tests a fraction of imported food in their Import Program, prioritizing food likely to pose risks to consumers, including those with high heavy metals levels.

Federal law gives FDA the authority to require a recall of food it deems to be adulterated, that ‘bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health,’ including heavy metals …

Despite FDA’s many areas of authority and its recent emphasis on reducing exposures to heavy metals, for 88 percent of baby foods tested by HBBF — 148 of 168 baby foods — FDA has failed to set enforceable limits or issue guidance on maximum safe amounts. And none of the agency’s existing guidance considers the additive neurological impacts of multiple metals in baby food.”

How Can Parents Ensure Baby Food Safety?

I have often written about how parents can make sure their babies and toddlers eat the most nutritious and safest foods. For instructions on how to make your own homemade baby formula, see “The U.S. Campaign Against Breastfeeding.” Here are a few other ideas sparked by the HBBF report that appeared on CNN:

Feed your baby a variety of healthy foods — This will help children be less picky eaters and avoid future food allergies.16
Choose snacks carefully — Rice teething rusks and other teething biscuits have little nutrition.
Reduce juice — Water and milk should be the drinks of choice.
Serve carrots and sweet potatoes less frequently — When you do, peel them carefully and cook them in water that is then disposed.
Minimize the use of plastic, especially with reheating foods — Heat causes dangerous plastics to leach into the food.
Steam and puree organic or biodynamically grown vegetables — Cool them in small glass containers, then freeze and put in bigger containers.
Mercola

‘Alarming’ Explosion of Toxic Pesticide Use Causing Insect Apocalypse in United States: Study

“Insect abundance has declined 45 percent. This is a global crisis—we must ban neonics to save the bees!”

(Common Dreams) The rapid and dangerous decline of the insect population in the United States—often called an “insect apocalypse” by scientists—has largely been driven by an increase in the toxicity of U.S. agriculture caused by the use of neonicotinoid pesticides, according to a study published Tuesday in the journal PLOS One.

We need to rapidly shift our food system away from dependence on harmful pesticides and toward organic farming methods that work with nature rather than against it.”

—Kendra Klein, Friends of the Earth

The study found that American agriculture has become 48 times more toxic to insects over the past 25 years and pinned 92 percent of the toxicity increase on neonicotinoids, which were banned by the European Union last year due to the threat they pose to bees and other pollinators.

Kendra Klein, Ph.D., study co-author and senior staff scientist at Friends of the Earth, said the United States must follow Europe’s lead and ban the toxic pesticides before it is too late.

“It is alarming that U.S. agriculture has become so much more toxic to insect life in the past two decades,” Klein said in a statement. “We need to phase out neonicotinoid pesticides to protect bees and other insects that are critical to biodiversity and the farms that feed us.”

“Congress must pass the Saving America’s Pollinators Act to ban neonicotinoids,” Klein added. “In addition, we need to rapidly shift our food system away from dependence on harmful pesticides and toward organic farming methods that work with nature rather than against it.”

Related: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

According to National Geographic, neonics “are used on over 140 different agricultural crops in more than 120 countries. They attack the central nervous system of insects, causing overstimulation of their nerve cells, paralysis, and death.”

With insect populations declining due to neonic use, “the numbers of insect-eating birds have plummeted in recent decades,” National Geographic reported. “There’s also been a widespread decline in nearly all bird species.”

Recommended: How to Eliminate IBS, IBD, Leaky Gut 

As Common Dreams reported in February, scientists warned in a global analysis that by decimating insect populations, widespread use of pesticides poses a serious threat to the planet’s ecosystems and ultimately to the survival of humankind.

Klein said the “good news” is that neonics are not at all necessary for food production.

“We have four decades of research and evidence that agroecological farming methods can grow our food without decimating pollinators,” said Klein.