Overusing cleaning products can increase the risk of childhood obesity, according to new research, as exposure causes changes in the bacteria which live in children’s guts.

The research, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, compared how much mothers reported using cleaning products with the rate of obesity in 757 children at the age of three. Faecal samples were taken from the infants at three to four-months-old and the researchers investigated associations between microbial changes and being overweight at age three. The researchers found a link between heavy use of cleaning products, microbial changes and children with a higher body mass index (BMI).

However, higher disinfectant usage was also reported among households with infants who received antibiotics around the time of birth; who were exposed to cigarette smoke; or were delivered by caesarean section. The results may therefore reflect several interlinking factors. Obesity was less likely to occur in breastfed children, but breastfeeding was also linked to lower disinfectant usage, which makes it difficult to tease apart these two factors.

The microflora of the human gut

The prevalence of obesity has seen a dramatic global rise over the last 30 years, leading to increases in related health problems. At the same time, our understanding of the microscopic life we share our living spaces with has grown. Most microorganisms are not harmful and many of them can colonise our digestive system, forming our “microflora”.

We pick up our microflora from our environment, starting from our mothers, and then other household members and even our pets, throughout our lives. Most of our gut microflora are obtained through the mouth, for example during eating, drinking and brushing our teeth. All of our bodily surfaces, including gut, airways and skin, are covered by bacteria. Household cleaning products kill off microorganisms, including the good ones, preventing them from reaching our guts.

We’ve all heard that it’s good for children to “play in the dirt” and there’s a lot of truth in that. Having a diverse microflora is healthy. Dominance or “overgrowth” of one particular group of bacteria can lead to an increased risk of developing many health problems, including obesity, allergies, inflammation and type 2 diabetes.

The more “diverse” the community of bacteria that live in our gut, and the more balanced our diet is to sustain and feed those bacteria, the less chance there is of one type of bacteria associated with a disease being able to flourish.

Gut bacteria and obesity

Obesity has previously been linked to a dominance of one certain type of bacteria, known as Firmicutes, over another called Bacteriodetes, in the intestine. In the current study, Lachnospiraceae (a family of bacteria in the Firmicutes family), were found to be more abundant in infants from households that use cleaning products and in subsequently obese children.

Lachnospiraceae are also more efficient in breaking down food than other species, so that they extract more energy which causes weight gain as the human gut absorbs it. The exact mechanism linking gut microbiota to obesity is not currently well understood, but it is well established that certain bacteria, particularly the Firmicutes, can increase energy production from the diet which can increase the likelihood of obesity developing.

Diseases often emerge from particular groups or even species of bacteria that dominate the rest. This recent research demonstrates that overusing cleaning products may promote this shift in microbial dominance. Childhood obesity may be one of several threats from our attempts to maintain sanitised environment for children, the results of which we’re only beginning to understand.

• Rachael Rigby is a Senior Lecturer in Gastro-Intestinal Health at Lancaster University.
• This article first appeared in The Conversation and is reproduced here with permission.

Hardening of the arteries happens at different rates in different people as we age. It is known to be a factor in cardiovascular risk but there are no straightforward answers to what causes the arteries to harden in the first place.

A number of diseases – and, in particular, inflammation-related conditions – are linked to low microbiome diversity. While a link with gut diseases, such as the inflammatory bowel disease may seem obvious, low microbiome diversity has also been found to be connected to conditions such as arthritis, psoriasis, asthma, eczema and allergies.

Type-2 diabetes, obesity and weight gain – which are also linked to inflammation – also appear to be linked to a lower numbers of gut bugs. Because these conditions are known risk factors for heart disease the research team wanted to determine whether low microbiome diversity was directly linked to poor heart health, or if it instead was linked to type-2 diabetes, obesity and weight, which, in turn, are tied to poor heart health.

Diversity is the key

The researchers took measurements of arterial stiffening alongside data on the composition of the gut microbiomes in 617 middle-aged female twins.

Results showed that arterial stiffness was significantly higher in women with lower diversity of healthy bacteria in the gut. The scientists were also able to identify specific microbes which were linked to a lower risk of arterial stiffening; including species from Ruminococcaceae, Rikenellaceae, Clostridiaceae, and Barnesiellaceae families. These microbes have also previously been associated with a lower risk of obesity.

Lead author Dr Ana Valdes, from the University of Nottingham’s School of Medicine and NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, said: “We know that a substantial proportion of serious cardiovascular events like heart attacks are not explained by traditional risk factors such as obesity and smoking, particularly in younger people and in women and that arterial stiffness is related to risk in those groups. So our results reveal the first observation in humans linking the gut microbes and their products to lower arterial stiffness.”

Diet as prevention

The issue of heart health and disease has been shown, by recent research to be much more nuanced than traditional advice to eat less fat and/or cholesterol. Indeed, getting enough healthy fats can actually help improve microbiome diversity.

Co-author Dr Cristina Menni, from the Department of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, suggests that dietary approaches could be a useful first line for prevention. “There is considerable interest in finding ways to increase the diversity of gut microbes for other conditions such as obesity and diabetes. Our findings now suggest that finding dietary interventions to improve the healthy bacteria in the gut could also be used to reduce the risk of heart disease.”

The research, published in the European Heart Journal, concludes that cardiovascular risk that is not explained by the usual risk factors could, in the future, be enhanced by paying attention to the health of the gut microbiome. Their results, also suggest that targeting the microbiome through diet that includes healthy fibre and probiotics may be a way to reduce inflammation and therefore the risk of cardiovascular disease.

With chronic disorders among children in the developed world reaching epidemic levels, parents are desperately seeking solutions to their children’s declining health, often with little medical guidance from the experts.

In their book, Drs Michelle Perro and Vincanne Adams provide both insight and guidance, showing that, in their combined experience, hard-to-diagnose and hard-to-treat chronic health problems in children are rooted in diet and environment.

The book provides clinical case studies illustrating how the health problems of many children – allergies, asthma, rashes, gastrointestinal issues, autoimmune disorders, and cognitive malfunction – can be successfully treated through the gut with a fresh,  organic (and therefore non-GMO and pesticide-free) wholefood diet.

These treatment successes are related, in part, to the impact that diet has on the community of bacteria and other microorganisms in the body, collectively known as the microbiome.  In this Q&A they talk about the book and some of their findings.

Question: Why did you write this book?

Michelle: I’ve always considered myself a ‘front-line’ doctor, whether attending in the Emergency Department or working in the clinic, with my focus on taking care of patients. I began working in an integrative clinic five years ago, caring for some of the most chronic, complex health challenges in children that I could ever imagine.

On May 24, in London, the authors will be giving a talk about the book and their journey of writing it. The event at OmVed Gardens is free – and will include organic refreshments and lots of resources to take away – but booking is essential. Click to reserve your place now.

The crux of the practice of holistic care is that it is individualized, and that requires taking a significant amount of time sorting out each patient’s history and working out a unique treatment plan. One day at the end of a busy clinic session, I became concerned regarding the multitude of children that I could not see, that didn’t have access to the type of practitioner that looked at toxic food and environmental poisons as being potential culprits in the decline of kids’ health.

So I decided to write a book. I had a serendipitous encounter with Dr. Vincanne Adams, an extraordinary, brilliant medical anthropologist and author and together, we married the fields of clinical medicine and anthropology to create our book, What’s Making our Children Sick?

Vincanne: When I first met Michelle and began to hear about her medical practices I was fascinated. Her work touched on many aspects of the work I had done as a medical anthropologist. This included exploring how non-Western medical systems paid more attention to food and ecosystem-wide, holistic approaches to health.

Initially I thought it would be amazing to write a book about Michelle and her integrative practice. Her stories were fascinating and compelling. . I interviewed physicians and scientists about the phenomena that Michelle had identified. I shadowed Michelle in her clinical practice and together we interviewed her patients so that I could better understand the human and clinical story behind her ideas about these food-health connections. All this information has been collected in the book.

Question: Can you tell us something about how the book?

Vincanne: The book covers how and why medicine tends to seek pharmaceutical over food-based health solutions; how new biomedical research on things like the microbiome, leaky gut or dysbiosis are still a long way from being incorporated into standard practice guidelines and how integrative doctors are breaking the mold; how agrocorporate investments in scientific research have made it hard for insights about the potential harms of GM foods and their associated pesticides to reach the light of day; and how we might think of a future medicine in relation to our ecosystem health – what we call ‘ecomedicine’.

Michelle: The key take-home point is that when patients change their diets to organic food, they get better. My patients are also receiving herbs, supplements, and homeopathic remedies that I recommend, but what is remarkable is that family members who are not my patients also get significantly better.

Question: Is there any research to show that GM foods and their associated pesticides are harmful to consume?

Michelle: I’ve felt frustration over the past two decades over the lack of research on the effects of GM foods and their associated pesticides on human health.

But several animal studies caused light bulbs to switch on in my head. The first was the work of Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a European scientist. His research examined rats fed GM potatoes compared to those fed non-GM potatoes. (When I saw the intestinal disruption of the villi in the rats (fingerlike projections in the gut lining responsible for nutrient absorption), it brought to mind the explosion of intestinal permeability that I was seeing in my child patients.

The second ‘aha’ moment was viewing the gross pathology found in the study on pigs carried out by Dr. Judy Carman and Howard Vlieger. The stomachs of pigs fed GM soy and corn, their typical diet, were compared to those fed non-GM soy and corn. The visual difference of the extensive inflammation in the GM-fed pigs compared to the normal stomachs of the non-GM fed pigs was shocking.

Two further independent studies that helped improve and alter my practice were based on work led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini and some follow-up research led by Dr. Michael Antoniou.

Prof Séralini’s team concluded that there were toxic effects to the liver and kidney of rats fed GM corn and an ultra-low dose of the glyphosate-based herbicide (Roundup) that it was engineered to be grown with, when tested separately and together.

Recent follow-up studies led by Dr. Antoniou used cutting-edge “molecular profiling” (transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics) analytical techniques to examine tissues taken from the rats in the Séralini experiment.

These studies showed that an ultra-low dose of Roundup fed over a long-term two-year period caused kidney and especially liver damage, resulting in Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD). NAFLD now affects 1 in 4 American adults, and is also becoming a problem for children.

Question: Was there anything that stood out or surprised you when you were writing the book?

Michelle: I was shocked first by the fact that these findings were unreported and unknown among health practitioners. Second, I was shocked by the vehemence of the attacks on scientists whose work questions the safety or efficacy of GM foods and their associated pesticides (some of the scientists who led the studies I mention above are cases in point). Such attacks are not only ethically wrong, but discourage others from questioning the effects of industrial food on health. Third, I was shocked that many of these findings were known to the regulatory agencies that were designed to protect the public from the untoward effects of new products on health. But these agencies succumbed to the pressure by big agribusiness and failed to do their job. And last but not least, I was shocked to find that there are no human studies on the effects of GM food on health. Additionally, there are no human studies on the health effects of combinations of toxins.

Vincanne: One of the things that surprised me about this project was how convinced I became that GM foods and their associated pesticides were a problem. When I began, I honestly didn’t initially think GM foods were as big a problem as Michelle and others made them out to be. However, the more I learned about the theories of chronic illness that were being talked about in the integrative medical world and the amazing assault-like campaigns to dismiss concern over these food technologies, the more I was convinced.

Question: Have you made any changes in your own life as a result of what you learned when writing this book?

Vincanne: Well, although I always felt that organic foods were probably better for me, I never really thought that eating non-organic was potentially dangerous. But now I certainly try to eat only organic. It is clear that harm from foods functions as more of a ‘carrying capacity’ or ‘toxic load’ issue than a straight ‘eat-this-and-you die’ set of measures. Even so, I pay more attention to gut health in general now.

Working on this book has also shifted my perspective on population health and my vision of a society whose health is impaired, or at least less than robust, for the simple reason that our nutrition is compromised. It starts with a variety of things that compromise gut health, from antibiotics to toxicants in the built environment (such as chemicals used in building materials and soft furnishings) and in body and hygiene products, and extends also to the health of the foods we eat. Going beyond the normal culprits like packaged and processed foods, how healthy are our real foods? Then, we need to talk about toxicants like pesticides in our foods, and foods that have been turned into pesticides via genetic modification. We really don’t know much about these in terms of their safety for humans but we have a considerable body of research based on animal studies that is pointing to risks.

Q: Is there anything else you wish to say?

Michelle: My hope for this book is to reach those individuals who are concerned about the current epidemic of illness and want to help change this ominous course. I support readers to question our book and do their own investigations. I’m hopeful that parents will engage in meaningful dialogues with their own paediatricians and that together we can create positive change. I’m fully confident that we can restore our children and ourselves to our natural state of good health.

Vincanne: We need to change both our concept of public health and the kind of medicine we practice. On top of this, we need to think about how planetary survival really may depend on organic solutions – the opposite of what GM food scientists and agrochemical companies have been saying for several decades. My hope is that this book will help people think about how a healthy body is really only possible in a healthy food environment. In order to bring that about, we need to rethink our paradigms about the relationships between health and food, food and soil, and our bodies and society, or what we call ecomedicine.

• What’s Making Our Children Sick? How Industrial Food Is Causing an Epidemic of Chronic Illness, and What Parents (and Doctors) Can Do About It, by Michelle Perro, MD, and Vincanne Adams, PhD, is published by Chelsea Green and is available from Amazon.
• On May 24, in London, the authors will be giving a talk about the book and their journey of writing it. Thanks to support from the Sheepdrove Trust the event at OmVed Gardens is free – and will include organic refreshments and lots of resources to take away – but booking is essential. Click to reserve your place now.
• For readers interested in a UK perspective on child health, Beyond-GM, co-hosts of the London event (above) have prepared a special leaflet which can be viewed and downloaded here.
• Interviews adapted from the website GMO Science, with permission.

Natural Health News — Women who take fish oil supplements and probiotics in later pregnancy may reduce their child’s risk of food allergy and eczema, according to new research.

In one of the largest ever research reports of how a pregnant woman’s diet affects her baby’s allergy and eczema risk, scientists from London’s Imperial College assessed over 400 studies involving 1.5 million people.

As part of the study, they found that when pregnant women took a daily fish oil capsule from 20 weeks pregnant, and during the first three to four months of breastfeeding, risk of egg allergy in the child was reduced by 30%.

The team also found that taking a daily probiotic supplement from 36-38 weeks pregnant, and during the first three to six months of breastfeeding, reduced the risk of a child developing eczema by 22%.

The researchers, who published their meta-analysis in the journal PLOS Medicine, found no evidence that avoiding potentially allergenic foods such as nuts, dairy and eggs during pregnancy made a difference to a child’s allergy or eczema risk.

Dr Robert Boyle, lead author of the research from the Department of Medicine at Imperial College London, explained: “Food allergies and eczema in children are a growing problem across the world. Although there has been a suggestion that what a woman eats during pregnancy may affect her baby’s risk of developing allergies or eczema, until now there has never been such a comprehensive analysis of the data.”

He added: “Our research suggests probiotic and fish oil supplements may reduce a child’s risk of developing an allergic condition, and these findings need to be considered when guidelines for pregnant women are updated.”

The team also assessed a host of dietary factors during pregnancy including fruit, vegetable and vitamin intake, but found no clear evidence that any of these affected allergy or eczema risk.

Allergies, eczema still not well understood

Allergies to foods, such as nuts, egg, milk or wheat, affect around one in 20 children in the UK. They are caused by the immune system malfunctioning and over-reacting to these harmless foods. This triggers symptoms such as rashes, swelling, vomiting and wheezing.

Eczema affects around one in five children in the UK, and causes dry, cracked and itchy skin. The causes of eczema and allergies are not fully understood, but allergies are more common in people who suffer from eczema.

More research is now needed to understand how probiotics and fish oils may reduce allergy and eczema risk, said Dr Vanessa Garcia-Larsen, co-author of the study from the National Heart and Lung Institute at Imperial: “Despite allergies and eczema being on the rise, and affecting millions of children, we are still hunting for the root causes of these conditions, and how to prevent them.”

Dr Garcia-Larsen added: “This study has provided clues, which we now need to follow with further research.”

Significant benefits

In the current study, the team assessed 28 trials of probiotic supplements during pregnancy, involving around 6,000 women. Probiotics contain live bacteria that may influence the natural balance of bugs in the gut. Previous research has linked a disruption in naturally-occurring bacteria to allergy risk.

In the research, probiotics were taken during pregnancy and breastfeeding as a capsule, powder or drink (most yogurts do not contain enough probiotic). They were found to reduce the risk of a child developing eczema – between the ages of six months to three years – by 22%. This is the equivalent of 44 cases of eczema per 1000 children.

The scientists added that the probiotics, which mostly contained a bacterium called Lactobacillus rhamnosus, were not used in early pregnancy.

The team also assessed around 19 trials of fish oil supplements during pregnancy, involving around 15,000 people. These studies revealed a 30% reduction in risk of egg allergy by age one, which equates to a reduction of 31 cases of egg allergy per 1000 children. Egg allergy was tested with a skin test, where a tiny amount of egg is pricked onto the skin.

In the studies using fish oil supplements, the capsules contained a standard dose of omega-3 fatty acids (another type of fatty acid, called omega-6, was not found to have any effect on allergy risk).

Dr Boyle added that previous research suggests fish oils may help dampen down the immune system, and prevent it from over-reacting.

Most of the trials used supplements, although one involved eating oily fish, and a few others used non-fish oils such as nut oils. The Department of Health advises women to eat no more than two portions of oily fish a week, and to avoid shark, swordfish or marlin as these contain high levels of mercury.

The team also found that taking fish oil supplements during pregnancy reduced the child’s risk of peanut allergy by 38%. However they caution this finding was based only on two studies, and not as reliable as the egg allergy and eczema results.

Breastfeeding gives kids an immune boost too

The study also revealed some evidence for links between longer duration of breast feeding and a reduced risk of eczema, and breastfeeding was also linked with a lower risk of type one diabetes.

The findings of this study, funded by the Food Standards Agency, are being considered by the Government alongside the wider evidence base on infant feeding and the introduction of solids. As part of the cross-government review of complementary feeding, the risks and benefits associated with the timing of introduction of allergenic foods will also be considered.

The UK Food Standards Agency, which funded the study, advises that families should continue to follow the current Government advice to exclusively breastfeed for around the first six months of age, and continue breastfeeding thereafter. Solid foods should be introduced into the infant diet at around six months of age. Pregnant women should also continue to follow government dietary and supplement advice.

With regard to maternal and infant diets the review concludes that “current infant feeding guidance needs revision” and add that “guideline committees will need to carefully consider the key findings together with an evaluation of the safety, acceptability, and cost implications of advising probiotic or fish oil supplementation for pregnant and lactating women”.

Gluten is a protein found in wheat, rye and barley and gives food a chewy texture and elasticity during the baking process.

For those with a confirmed allergy to it, such as coeliac disease, avoiding gluten is important. Gluten sensitivity – where people report gut reactions to consuming gluten-containing foods, even if they don’t have a diagnosed, or diagnosable, gluten allergy – also appears to be on the rise.

But cutting gluten-containing foods out of your diet entirely leaves a big nutritional hole and a recent flurry of studies looking into the general nutritional quality of gluten-free products has found they are often not as healthy as their conventional counterparts.

More fat less protein

Earlier this year Spanish researchers compared 655 conventional food products to 654 gluten-free alternatives across 14 food groups including breads, pasta, breakfast cereals, biscuits and even ready meals, covering a range of brands.

Their results – presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition – showed that, overall, gluten-free products were more energy-dense than their conventional counterparts.

The team found that, on average, gluten-free bread loaves had more than twice the fat of conventional loaves, while gluten-free breads in general had two to three times less protein than conventional products. Gluten-free biscuits were also found to be lower in protein but higher in fat, while gluten-free pasta had lower levels of sugar and just half of the protein of standard pasta.

More salt, sugar and calories

Research from Netherlands consumer association, Consumentenbond, gluten-free foods are frequently higher in fat sugar and salt and lower in fibre than comparable mainstream products that contain gluten.

The Consumentenbond found for example that in the Netherlands, crispbread maker Wasa’s gluten-free crispbread contains six times as much fat as the company’s whole grain variety; Koopmans gluten-free pancake mix is twice as salty as its 6-Grain pancake mix; and Peijnenburg’s gluten free breakfast cake has 30 kcals more per 100 grams than the regular breakfast cake.

At the same time, because flour is not used in gluten-free production, products tested were also found to be lower in dietary fibre than their gluten-containing counterparts.

While the Consumentenbond’s study focused on a relatively small sample of gluten-free and conventional products, its findings are borne out in earlier research.

The Dutch Celiac Society (Nederlandse Coeliakie Vereniging, or NCV), for example, conducted a study two years ago in conjunction with Wageningen University that also concluded gluten-free products have more salt, sugar and fats and less fibre than comparable conventional products.

No protection against disease

Many people believe that cutting out gluten will be protective against other types of disease. But in March 2017, Harvard University researchers analysed 30 years of medical data from nearly 200,000 patients and concluded that going gluten free did not, for example, protect against type-2 diabetes.

They found that most participants had a gluten intake of below 12g a day, which is roughly the equivalent to two or three slices of wholemeal bread. Within this range, those eating the most gluten had a 13% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared with those eating the least (around 4g a day).

In May 2017 researchers at Harvard University again looked at data from nearly 120,000 people over 26 years and found that going gluten-free also did not cut the risk of heart disease. They warned that restricting dietary gluten may result in a low intake of whole grains, which are known to be beneficial for the heart.

Beyond gluten-free

Coeliac disease is an autoimmune disorder. It is caused by an improper immune response to gluten that, in turn, damages the lining of the small intestine. There is no cure for coeliac, and the only effective treatment is a gluten-free diet.

In the UK it is estimated that only around 1% of people are genuinely gluten-intolerant, but some estimates suggest that the proportion of adults adhering to gluten-free diets is more than 12%.

Little wonder, then that the ‘free from’ market is growing rapidly and expected to be worth £550 million in the UK alone, by 2019. Similar trends are being seen in other countries.

It’s still not entirely clear why some people are more sensitive to gluten than others. Earlier this year scientists in the US found that infection with a common but otherwise harmless virus, can trigger the immune system response to gluten that leads to coeliac disease, according to new research.

There has also been some speculation that many people are reacting to the pesticides used on cereals (such as glyphosate) rather than the gluten itself.

What is clear, however is that if you don’t need to cut gluten out you probably shouldn’t and if you do, especially if you have coeliac disease, you may need to make broader dietary changes than simply cutting out gluten. Much more careful attention to the nutrient balance of your foods, less reliance on commercial foods and perhaps more home cooking will help you know what is in your foods as well as giving you the nutrition you need order to maintain good health.

Mushrooms are considered a valuable health food, since they have a significant amount of dietary fibre and are low in calories and fat.

In addition, they have a good protein content (20-30% of dry matter) which includes most of the essential amino acids and also provide nutritionally significant levels of vitamins (B1, B2, B12, C, D and E) and trace minerals such as zinc and selenium.

They are also an important source of biologically active compounds with potential medicinal value such as beta-glucans – naturally occurring polysaccharides which support the immune system and can help strengthen resistance against allergies.

While some advocates would advise eating them raw, the truth is that most mushrooms are eaten cooked.

How we cook them – boiling, microwaving, grilling, and deep frying – has an influence on their nutritional profiles and in particular on the antioxidant levels. But until recently it has not been clear what the best cooking method is to retain the nutritional benefits of mushrooms

Scientists from Mushroom Technological Research Center of La Rioja (CTICH) undertook to find out by comparing the influence of different cooking methods (boiling, microwaving, grilling and frying) on ‘proximate composition’ (levels of moisture, ash, lipid, protein and carbohydrate), beta-glucans content and antioxidant activity of four cultivated mushrooms species.

Process counts

The study was conducted on the most widely consumed mushrooms worldwide, grown and harvested at the CTICH facility. These included: Agaricus bisporus (white button mushroom), Lentinula edodes (shiitake), Pleurotus ostreatus (oyster mushroom) and Pleurotus eryngii (king oyster mushroom).

After the mushrooms were cooked, samples of both the raw and cooked mushrooms were then freeze-dried, and the proximate composition and the antioxidant activity were analysed.

The results revealed that frying induced more severe losses in protein, ash, and carbohydrates content but increased the fat and energy.

Boiling improved the total glucans content, especially beta-glucans, but it also significantly decreased the antioxidant activity as did frying.

The advantages of grilling or microwave cooking

Grilling and microwaving, by comparison, increased antioxidant activity with little loss of other nutrients.

They further found that adding a little oil portion while grilling mushrooms did not alter the nutrient sparing effect of grilling. “This minimal amount will not cause nutrient loses by leaching; in fact, the antioxidant capacity can be even improved. Moreover, if olive oil is used, the fatty acid profile of the final preparation is enhanced with barely increase in the calorie content.” they wrote.

• For more on the benefits of mushrooms see our article Fantastic fungi – the nutritional and medicinal benefits of mushrooms

A – You might have heard of the terms ‘prebiotics’ and ‘probiotics’ being mentioned in association with digestive health. While both are important to health, they function in slightly different ways.

The human intestines (gut) are home to anywhere from 500 to 1000 different species of bacteria, some good, and some bad.

The bad ones – such as E. coli, Salmonella and Clostridium – are commonly responsible for stomach upsets like diarrhoea. However, these are kept in check by the good bacteria, the principal ones being Lactobacillus acidophilus and bifidobacteria, which are naturally derived from the body’s own lactic acid, and which we obtain from our mother during pregnancy and with breastfeeding.

For the most part ‘good’ or ‘friendly’ bacteria outnumber the ‘bad’ or ‘unfriendly’ bacteria and play an important role in digestive health. But friendly bacteria also perform various important functions as well; they ferment organic acid into glucose, lower blood cholesterol, synthesise vitamins, break down the enzymes, proteins and fibres in food, and generally boost the immune system. The gut is also home to a sophisticated nervous system known as our ‘second brain’, which is why gut disorders also tend to come with a side of mind and mood disorders as well.

Several things – diet, stress, alcohol and smoking – can change the balance of bacteria in the gut and an imbalance in gut bacteria has been linked to immune system problems such as allergies and arthritis, but also to neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s disease and ADHD.

You can feed and encourage thriving communities of good bacteria in your gut in two ways – through prebiotics (available in foods and supplements) and through probiotics (usually taken as supplements – though also present in some foods).

Prebiotics

The best way to look after our gut bacteria is by feeding it well and the best foods for it are known as ‘prebiotics’.

Prebiotics are essentially dietary fibre – the indigestible components of food. They are naturally resistant to heat, oxygen, the body’s enzymes and stomach acids, and are therefore not destroyed, digested or absorbed as they travel through your digestive system.

Because of this they reach the colon intact, where they promote the growth and function of beneficial lactobacilli and bifidobacteria in your gut.

Because of the Western diet many of us consume, we don’t get enough fibre to help maintain a healthy gut. In general we should be consuming around 30g of fibre daily, however the current average intake of fibre in the UK, for example, is around 18g/day.

Prebiotics are also available in the form of food supplements such as ‘fructooligosacharides’ (FOS) and inulin which, research shows, are the most beneficial types of prebiotics for feeding our gut bacteria.

They belong to the same family of fructo-polysaccharides, and the primary difference between them is that inulin is a longer chain fructo-polysaccharide than FOS.

Although they both have very similar effects in terms of promoting the size, diversity and physiological functions of our gut bacteria. Both of these can be naturally derived from chicory, they are naturally sweet and can be used as a healthy alternative to sugar when the powder is sprinkled over food such as porridge for example.

Other foods that act as prebiotics include: raw oats, unrefined wheat and barley, Jerusalem artichokes, chicory, leeks, garlic, onions, asparagus, bananas and dandelion greens.

Pulses contain other complex carbohydrates like resistant and slowly digestible starch as well as other forms of oligosaccharides which also act as prebiotics feeding and encouraging the growth of healthy flora in the gut.

Probiotics

Probiotics are ‘perishable’ live bacteria; as they travel through the digestive tract they are easily killed by enzymes and acids in our mouth and stomach. Those that reach the lower part of the gut must compete with other types of bacteria present to get established. A high intake of the supplemental probiotic bacteria is therefore necessary to see any benefits.

When choosing a probiotics supplement we recommend ones that:

• Contain a few billion active bacteria. Opinions vary but between 1 and 10 billion is reasonable
• A clear label. It’s helpful if the label tells you how many viable organisms there are in the product at its expiration date, since this will be less than when they are manufactured. This figure guarantees the minimum dose you will receive.
• Are resistant to stomach acid, or can be dissolved in water so that they pass through the stomach environment fairly quickly
• Contain the best researched strains: Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria

Probiotic supplement can be particularly helpful in conjunction with antibiotic therapy. While antibiotics tend to kill off beneficial gut bacteria, causing symptoms such as diarrhoea, probiotic supplements help to recolonise the intestines and prevent most of the gut side-effects of antibiotics. For similar reasons, they are equally good to have on hand to combat the food-poisoning bugs that cause “traveller’s diarrhoea”.

But supplements with live probiotics have a short shelf life and require refrigeration, and freeze dried supplements – which also have an expiration date – must be kept dry and at room temperature.

In order for probiotics to provide any health benefits, they also need to survive the harsh digestive process, an environment designed to kill bugs that may cause illness, which is why most now come in capsules and enteric coated pills designed to resist stomach acids and reach the colon intact. Probiotics supplements also have the advantage being manufactured to deliver a minimum effective dose of live bacteria.

Probiotcs in your diet

You can also get beneficial live bacteria form your diet. Yogurt is the most well-known of these. A product of fermented milk, yogurt naturally contains probiotics from the species Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus. Additional live bacteria including the strains acidophilus and bifidus are commonly added to enhance yogurt’s probiotic content.

Some, however, contend that kefir is the better choice. Kefir is best made at home by made by adding kefir grains to milk, which causes a unique fermenting process to occur.

Avoid commercial kefir drinks unless they specifically say they contain live bacteria. Often these are sugary drinks with little real health benefits to offer. The flavour of real kefir is more tart than milk – similar to an unsweetened yogurt drink or buttermilk. Blending kefir with fruit to make a smoothie or pouring it over cereal, rather than drinking it plain, may make the taste more acceptable to some.

Foods that use lactic acid bacteria for the fermentation process also contain live probiotic cultures. That includes pickled vegetables such as the Korean specialty kimchi. Kimchi is spicy a condiment made from fermented vegetables including cabbage and carrot, mixed with seasonings such as hot pepper flakes, ginger, and salt.

Sauerkraut and lacto-fermented pickles are also sources of live bacteria. So are fermented soybean foods such as tempeh, miso, and natto.

A healthy, wholefood varied diet is arguably the best way to help maintain a healthy gut. But the bottom line is that although feeding our bacteria with prebiotics is important, it just as important to have the right balance of beneficial bacteria to be fed in the first place, which is why both probiotics and prebiotics are just as important as each other.

That’s because new research shows a probiotic combination might help reduce hay fever symptoms, if it’s taken during allergy season.

Seasonal allergies can reduce sleep and productivity at work or school and can cause stress and embarrassment. In addition, current allergy medications have unwanted potential side effects, including dry mouth and drowsiness; thus the need for alternatives.

Previous studies have shown some probiotics can help to regulate the body’s immune response to allergies, but not all of the probiotics tested have demonstrated this benefit, University of Florida researchers say.

Regulating the immune system

Scientists think probiotics might work by increasing the human body’s percentage of regulatory T-cells, which in turn might increase tolerance to hay fever symptoms.

There is evidence that the probiotic combination of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria, helps maintain digestive health and parts of the immune system.

Acidophilus bacteria predominantly colonise the upper to lower part of the small intestine, while bifidum and longum colonise primarily the lower part of the small intestine to the large intestine.

In this study, researchers looked at a branded supplement, Kyo-Dophilus which contains the strains Lactobacillus gasseri KS-13, Bifidobacterium bifidum G9-1, and Bifidobacterium longum MM-2.

“Not all probiotics work for allergies. This one did,” said Jennifer Dennis, first author on the latest study.

Better quality of life

For their study the scientists randomly divided 173 healthy adults, who said they suffered seasonal allergies, into two groups.

Some took the combination probiotic, and others took a placebo. Each week during the eight-week experiment, participants responded to an online survey to convey their discomfort level.

The study was conducted at the height of spring allergy season.

During the study the scientists also analysed DNA from participants’ stool samples to determine how their bacteria changed, because probiotics aim to deliver good bacteria to the human’s intestinal system. The DNA test also confirmed who was taking the probiotic, said Bobbi Langkamp-Henken, senior author of the study.

Participants who took the probiotic reported improvements in quality of life, compared to those taking the placebo. For instance they suffered fewer allergy-related nose symptoms, which meant that they were less troubled during daily activities.

Although this study did not include severe allergy sufferers, it did show that those with milder seasonal allergies can see clinical benefit from taking the probiotics.

Writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition the scientists say: “To our knowledge, this is the first randomised, placebo-controlled trial addressing the clinical relevance of this particular combination of 3 probiotic strains on quality of life related to self-identified seasonal allergies.”

The technical name for this assumption is ‘substantial equivalence’ and it is on this basis that most GM foods are pushed through the regulatory system and onto our plates.

But a new analysis in the journal Scientific Reports has taken a deep look at a strain of GMO maize, NK603, and concluded that claims of ‘substantial equivalence’ – the notion that GMO crops are basically the same as non-GMO crops –  is false.

Campaigners have, for many years, questioned whether there is any factual basis for the ‘substantial equivalence claim given that determining it usually involves only superficial testing of nutritional content.  Given the tricky and not terribly exact nature of genetic modification, other aspects of the plant can also be altered – often in unintended ways – by the genetic alteration.

Looking beneath the surface

Now, using the most up to date molecular profiling methods, scientists at King’s College in London have found that deep down, where it counts, GMO NK603, which is widely consumed by humans and animals, differs substantially from its non-GMO relatives.

The researchers found that the process of genetic modification altered the levels of various proteins in the maize kernels and exposed the plant’s cells and tissues to greater damage when reacting with oxygen (in other words it is more prone to free radical damage).

The GMO maize was also found to contain the polyamines cadaverine and putrescine, which can heighten allergic reactions and are involved in the formation of carcinogenic substances in the body. These were found at levels two and three times that of non-GMO maize.

“It is generally considered that the GM maize and non-GM are similar, except for the modified gene,” says Robin Mesnage, molecular toxicology researcher and co-author of the study.

Indeed, in 2009 the European Food Safety Authority ruled that “maize NK603 is compositionally equivalent to conventional maize”, except for the genetic modification that makes it tolerant to glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup.

But what the current study, which compared the GMO maize to non-GMO maize grown under exactly the same conditions, found was a total of 117 proteins and 91 small molecule biochemicals (metabolites) were statistically significantly altered in NK603 corn by the GM transformation process. At the molecular level GMOs are simply not the same.

How safe is safe?

The differences found in this study, says lead author Michael Antoniou, call for “a more thorough evaluation of the safety of NK603 [maize] consumption on a long-term basis.”

This is not the first study to suggest that GMOs are not substantially equivalent to natural plants. What’s more, this same strain of GMO maize has previously been shown to produce toxic effects in rats, notably liver and kidney damage.

As the evidence mounts it throws into question the process by which regulators deem GMOs ‘safe’ for humans and animals to consume. It also highlights the complete lack of post-marketing monitoring which should be looking for any adverse health consequences of consuming GM foods.

Organic standards, of course, do not allow GMOs in food or feed and Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, the UK’s main organic certification body, notes that the findings, if replicated “…may start to explain why farmers have found that some GM crops, which are claimed to be the same as non-GM, have caused health problems when fed to their animals.”

Pat Thomas of Beyond GM suggests that the time has come to stop using ‘substantial equivalence’ as a reason to avoid more thorough research into the potential risks of GM foods: “Campaigners have long known that ‘substantial equivalence’ is little more than a comforting lie. It allows marketers to bring these unnatural crops to market without full – and potentially revealing – testing, it keeps regulators from having to work too hard to ensure our food is safe, and it stops many consumers from asking the questions that need to be asked about whether it is actually safe for them to be consuming GMOs. It’s time to stop believing in that lie.”