Health benefits of taking probiotics

Click here for complete article
Bacteria have a reputation for causing disease, so the idea of tossing down a few billion a day for your health might seem — literally and figuratively — hard to swallow. But a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that you can treat and even prevent some illnesses with foods and supplements containing certain kinds of live bacteria. Northern Europeans consume a lot of these beneficial microorganisms, called probiotics (from pro and biota, meaning “for life”), because of their tradition of eating foods fermented with bacteria, such as yogurt. Probiotic-laced beverages are also big business in Japan.

Enthusiasm for such foods has lagged in the United States, but interest in probiotic supplements is on the rise. Some digestive disease specialists are recommending them for disorders that frustrate conventional medicine, such as irritable bowel syndrome. Since the mid-1990s, clinical studies have established that probiotic therapy can help treat several gastrointestinal ills, delay the development of allergies in children, and treat and prevent vaginal and urinary infections in women.

Self-dosing with bacteria isn’t as outlandish as it might seem. An estimated 100 trillion microorganisms representing more than 500 different species inhabit every normal, healthy bowel. These microorganisms (or microflora) generally don’t make us sick; most are helpful. Gut-dwelling bacteria keep pathogens (harmful microorganisms) in check, aid digestion and nutrient absorption, and contribute to immune function.

The best case for probiotic therapy has been in the treatment of diarrhea. Controlled trials have shown that Lactobacillus GG can shorten the course of infectious diarrhea in infants and children (but not adults). Although studies are limited and data are inconsistent, two large reviews, taken together, suggest that probiotics reduce antibiotic-associated diarrhea by 60%, when compared with a placebo.

Probiotic therapy may also help people with Crohn’s disease and irritable bowel syndrome. Clinical trial results are mixed, but several small studies suggest that certain probiotics may help maintain remission of ulcerative colitis and prevent relapse of Crohn’s disease and the recurrence of pouchitis (a complication of surgery to treat ulcerative colitis). Because these disorders are so frustrating to treat, many people are giving probiotics a try before all the evidence is in for the particular strains they’re using. More research is needed to find out which strains work best for what conditions.

Probiotics may also be of use in maintaining urogenital health. Like the intestinal tract, the vagina is a finely balanced ecosystem. The dominant Lactobacilli strains normally make it too acidic for harmful microorganisms to survive. But the system can be thrown out of balance by a number of factors, including antibiotics, spermicides, and birth control pills. Probiotic treatment that restores the balance of microflora may be helpful for such common female urogenital problems as bacterial vaginosis, yeast infection, and urinary tract infection.

Many women eat yogurt or insert it into the vagina to treat recurring yeast infections, a “folk” remedy for which medical science offers limited support. Oral and vaginal administration of Lactobacilli may help in the treatment of bacterial vaginosis, although there isn’t enough evidence yet to recommend it over conventional approaches. (Vaginosis must be treated because it creates a risk for pregnancy-related complications and pelvic inflammatory disease.) Probiotic treatment of urinary tract infections is under study.

Probiotics are generally considered safe — they’re already present in a normal digestive system — although there’s a theoretical risk for people with impaired immune function. Be sure the ingredients are clearly marked on the label and familiar to you or your health provider. There’s no way to judge the safety of unidentified mixtures.
Save This Page

Gov't raises safety questions about chemical in plastics

Click here for article source
The federal National Toxicology Program said Tuesday that experiments on rats found precancerous prostate tumors, urinary system problems and early puberty when the animals were fed or injected with low doses of the plastics chemical bisphenol-A.

While such animal studies only provide "limited evidence" of bisphenol's developmental risks, the group's draft report stresses the possible effects on humans "cannot be dismissed." The group is made up of scientists from the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration and the Institutes of Health.

Most Americans are exposed to trace amounts of bisphenol, which leaches out of water bottles and other items made with it.

The American Chemistry Council, which represents manufacturers, said the report "affirms that there are no serious or high level concerns for adverse effects of bisphenol A on human reproduction and development." The group said it supports additional research to determine whether affects of the chemical when used in animals "are of any significance to human health."

The toxicology group's findings echo those of researchers assembled by the National Institutes of Health, who last August called for more research on bisphenol in humans.

The Food and Drug Administration in November said there is "no reason at this time to ban or otherwise restrict its use." The agency on Tuesday did not immediately have any comment about the new report.

But growing concern about the chemical has pushed many consumers toward glass alternatives, and triggered investigations by state and federal lawmakers.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., called on FDA Tuesday to reconsider the safety of bisphenol, saying the toxicology report's findings "fly in the face of the FDA's determination."

Dingell issued letters to seven companies that make baby formulations earlier this year, questioning whether they use bisphenol in the lining of their cans and bottles.

The companies included Hain Celestial Group, Nestle USA and Abbott Laboratories.

A spokeswoman for the International Formula Council, which represents baby food makers, said Tuesday "the overwhelming scientific evidence supports the safety" of bisphenol, adding that no international governments have restricted or banned its use.

The National Toxicology Program will take public comments on its initial report through May. A final version will be issued this summer.

Earlier this month state lawmakers in New Jersey passed a bill that would ban the sale of all products containing bisphenol.

Canada's health agency is also examining the health risks of bisphenol is expected to issue its findings in coming days.
Save This Page

Getting forgetful? Then blueberries may hold the key

Click here for article source
They have found that phytochemical-rich foods, such as blueberries, are effective at reversing age-related deficits in memory, according to a study soon to be published in the science journal Free Radical Biology and Medicine.

The researchers working at the Schools of Food Biosciences and Psychology in Reading and the Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences at the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter supplemented a regular diet with blueberries over a 12-week period, and found that improvements in spatial working memory tasks emerged within three weeks and continued throughout the period of the study.

Blueberries are a major source of flavonoids, in particular anthocyanins and flavanols. Although the precise mechanisms by which these plant-derived molecules affect the brain are unknown, they have been shown to cross the blood brain barrier after dietary intake. It is believed that they exert their effects on learning and memory by enhancing existing neuronal (brain cell) connections, improving cellular communications and stimulating neuronal regeneration.

The enhancement of both short-term and long-term memory is controlled at the molecular level in neurons. The research team was able to show that the ability of flavonoids to induce memory improvements are mediated by the activation of signalling proteins via a specific pathway in the hippocampus, the part of the brain that controls learning and memory.

This innovative research was conducted by a multidisciplinary research team led by Dr. Jeremy Spencer, a lecturer in Molecular Nutrition at the University of Reading and included Dr. Claire Williams, a Psychologist also from Reading and Dr. Matt Whiteman, a Principal Investigator at the Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, Peninsula Medical School. Dr Spencer commented: “Impaired or failing memory as we get older is one of life’s major inconveniences. Scientists have known of the potential health benefits of diets rich in fresh fruits for a long time. Our previous work had suggested that flavonoid compounds had some kind of effect on memory, but until now we had not known the potential mechanisms to account for this”.

Dr. Whiteman added "This study not only adds science to the claim that eating blueberries are good for you, it also provides support to a diet-based approach that could potentially be used to increase memory capacity and performance in the future. Indeed, Dr. Spencer’s research team plan on extending these findings further by investigating the effects of diets rich in flavonoids on individuals suffering from cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease.”
Save This Page

Toxic Formula?

Click here for article source
Liquid infant formula from the top manufacturers is sold in cans lined with a toxic chemical linked to reproductive disorders and neurobehavioral problems in laboratory animals, according to an investigation by Environmental Working Group (EWG). The chemical is almost as common in the packaging of powdered formula, with 4 of the top 5 companies acknowledging its use.

The chemical is bisphenol A, or BPA, a component of the plastic epoxy resins used to line metal food cans. Dozens of laboratory studies show that BPA affects the developing brain and reproductive systems of animals exposed to low doses during pregnancy and early life. BPA has recently raised concerns from 2 separate expert panels of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), with 1 group of scientists warning that human exposures to BPA are already at or above the levels that harm animals and another expressing concern about impacts of BPA on infants' brains and behavior.

In October and November 2007, Environmental Working Group surveyed the 5 leading makers of baby formula sold in the U.S. to determine whether they use BPA in their packaging. We found:

The makers of Nestlé, Similac, Enfamil and PBM (who make store-brand formulas sold at WalMart, Target, Kroger and dozens of other retailers) all said that they use BPA in the linings of metal cans holding liquid formula.

BPA is widely used in powdered formula containers as well. Every manufacturer except Nestlé said it uses a BPA-based lining on the metal portions of their powdered formula cans. Nestlé failed to provide EWG with reliable documentation of their alternative packaging, and thus is not a clear improvement over other types.

Powdered formulas are a better choice. Our calculations indicate that babies fed reconstituted powdered formula likely receive 8 to 20 times less BPA than those fed liquid formula from a metal can.

Liquid formula is of greatest concern, and its use could lead to high BPA exposures for babies. Recent studies documenting that BPA leaches out of plastic baby bottles prompted a run on glass bottles by concerned parents. But testing by EWG and by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indicates that under normal use, liquid formula itself could expose an infant to substantially more BPA than a plastic bottle. An August 2007 investigation by EWG estimated that at BPA levels found in ready-to-eat liquid formula, 1 of every 16 infants fed the formula would be exposed to the chemical at doses exceeding those that caused harm in laboratory studies.

The safest choice is clear: Breastfeed your baby whenever possible.

Breast milk is the best source of nutrition for babies. It contains essential fatty acids that help bolster babies’ bodies against the impacts of toxic chemicals. However, there are many reasons why families rely on formula for some or all of their baby’s diet. Seventy percent of babies in the U.S. receive some formula by the time they are 3 months old. These babies need a safe and healthy source of food, and formula should be manufactured in a way that avoids contamination with harmful chemicals.

If your child is fed infant formula, you can reduce BPA exposure by choosing powdered formula.

Nestlé, makers of Good Start and Mam brands, repeatedly told EWG researchers that its powdered formula cans contain no BPA. Nestlé's emails to parents repeat this claim, but the company has failed to document this in writing or provide information on their alternative to EWG, despite our numerous requests to the company. In any case, EWG cannot recommend Nestlé baby formula due to the company's long history of ethically suspect infant formula marketing practices in the developing world. Nestlé's claim that it uses BPA-free packaging, if true, would be welcome news, because it suggests that other manufacturers could switch to safer packaging materials and reduce babies' BPA exposures.

Powdered formula sold by Enfamil and Similac are reduced-risk choices, because only the metal tops and bottoms of their packages – not the cardboard sides – are metal and lined with BPA-based plastic. Earth's Best Organic and PBM (which make dozens of store brands) are more of a concern: they are sold in an entirely metal can, which means the formula has more contact with a BPA-coated surface.

If you must choose liquid formula, look for types sold in plastic containers or purchase concentrated – not ready-to-eat – types.

If you buy liquid formulas, look for those sold in plastic containers. If you must use liquid formula sold in metal cans, choose concentrated rather than ready-to-eat formula. Both FDA and EWG have tested samples of liquid formula sold in cans and found BPA in every company’s formula. Choosing a formula that requires dilution with water reduces the amount of BPA in your baby’s diet.

If you don’t know whether your brand is packaged with BPA, ask – and demand a straight answer.

During our initial calls to formula manufacturers, we asked company representatives if their packaging contains BPA, if they test for BPA levels in their products, and if they would disclose their test results to EWG. Many of the companies had a prepared response – “We comply with all FDA regulations regarding BPA and formula” – so it was clear that concerned parents are asking about BPA in formula. We later sent an email, without mentioning EWG, to see whether the information they gave to parents was consistent with what they told us.

PBM, the manufacturer of store brands, told EWG researchers their containers have a BPA lining. However, PBM later sent an EWG staff member an email stating that their packaging contains no BPA. These conflicting claims raise serious doubts about the credibility of PBM’s consumer information on BPA.

Nestlé tells parents on the phone and by email that their powdered formulas have no contact with BPA. They repeatedly told EWG researchers the same thing over the phone, but failed to put their claims in writing, making it difficult to determine if Nestlé is really a better option for babies.

Ross-Abbot, the makers of Similac, is the only company that told us they tested for BPA in their products, and that they detected none. However, both EWG and the Food and Drug Administration have found BPA in Similac cans, raising questions about either Ross-Abbot’s candor or the sensitivity of their testing methods.
Save This Page