The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has released a new study that confirms the awesome powers of a bacteria commonly found in probiotic supplements: Bacillus. Testing a variety of Bacillus microbes against Staphylococcus aureus, a common cause of antibiotic-resistant infections, scientists found that the beneficial bacteria stopped the S. aureus bacteria from colonizing the gut. Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. leads the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the NIH division responsible for the study.

Probiotics frequently are recommended as dietary supplements to improve digestive health…This is one of the first studies to describe precisely how they may work to provide health benefits. The possibility that oral Bacillus might be an effective alternative to antibiotic treatment for some conditions is scientifically intriguing and definitely worthy of further exploration.”

Related: How To Heal Your Gut

Drawing Conclusions

This study came in two parts. The first part examined the behavior of S. aureus in healthy subjects and the second used a mouse model to explain bacillus’ influence on the harmful bacteria. In both cases, researchers found that more bacillus equals less S. aureus. In the initial section of the study, scientists found 200 volunteers in rural Thailand. They first tested them for Bacillus, and then tested for S. aureus. Of the 101 subjects who tested positive for Bacillus, none of them tested positive for S. aureus.

The second portion of the experiment was a mouse study, based on the volunteer findings. The guts of the mice were deliberately colonized with S. aureus. These mice were then fed probiotics every two days, which eliminated the S. aureus colonization. Researchers identified fengycins, a lipopeptide (a molecule that’s part peptide and part lipid), as the reason S. aureus was no longer able to colonize. The lipopeptide shuts down the sensing system the potentially harmful bacteria need to proliferate.

How to Use This News

This information makes a fantastic case for probiotics and more specifically bacillus. Even potentially dangerous bacteria like Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are susceptible to those supplements. Bacillus is a widespread bacteria, with more than 200 species found in the air and water. More than half of the rural Thai volunteers from the first portion of the study had bacillus in their guts, and the likelihood that they have an every other day probiotic regimen is very low. People can get bacillus from eating raw, vegetable foods.

Related: Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones

If you want a probiotic though, there are a few things to look for. First, the probiotic does you no good if it doesn’t make it past the stomach acid and bile to make it to the intestinal tract. There are a couple of ways around that. The American Nutrition Association found that Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Streptococcus are the bacteria most likely to make it past the stomach acid. Another strategy is to find a probiotic with an acid resistant-capsule. That can increase the chances the probiotic will be able to balance the gut and do some good.

Beneath the Surface

We often talk about bacteria in terms of “good” and “bad.” Bacillus, found in most probiotics, is considered a good bacteria. E. coli and S. aureus are considered bad bacteria. Yet E. coli produce vitamin K2 and is a crucial part of a healthy digestive system. Meanwhile, two strains of Bacillus (B. anthracis and B. cereus) cause anthrax and food poisoning, respectively. Scientists have barely discovered what bacteria are capable individually, much less how they work holistically. This study suggests that thinking about how our microbes work together could be a positive, necessary shift…especially with the threat antibiotic-resistant bacteria pose. Antibiotics have been easy and lucrative. But those drugs might not be viable much longer. Are probiotics the best solution?

Sources:

• NIH Study Finds Probiotic Bacillus Eliminates Staphylococcus Bacteria – National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
• Pathogen elimination by probiotic Bacillus via signalling interference – Nature.com
• Bacillus – Encyclopedia Britannica
• Probiotics, Bacteria, and Our Health – Organic Lifestyle Magazine

According to a recent study presented at the 26th United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week, the plastics surrounding the food we eat has now made it into our gut. Researchers from the Medical University of Vienna and the Environment Agency Austria tested eight volunteers from a variety of countries, including Finland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, the U.K., and Austria. These volunteers were asked to keep a food diary for a week leading up to having a stool sample taken. Of the 8 volunteers, none of them were vegetarian, and six reported eating sea fish. After analyzing the samples they collected, researchers confirmed that every single volunteer had microplastics in their stool. Scientists identified nine different kinds of plastics, including polypropylene (PP), polyethylene-terephthalate (PET), and others. Dr. Philipp Schwabl is the lead researcher who presented the findings at the 26th UEG Week.

This is the first study of its kind and confirms what we have long suspected, that plastics ultimately reach the human gut. Of particular concern is what this means to us, and especially patients with gastrointestinal diseases. While the highest plastic concentrations in animal studies have been found in the gut, the smallest microplastic particles are capable of entering the blood stream, lymphatic system and may even reach the liver. Now that we have first evidence for microplastics inside humans, we need further research to understand what this means for human health.”

Related: How to Detox From Plastics and Other Endocrine Disruptors

Where Is It From?

The researchers of this study chose to focus on food packaging. Plastic food packaging is everywhere. In 2013, the plastic industry produced 78 million metric tons of packaging and only 28 percent of that was recycled. The amount of non-bottle plastic packaging containers (dairy tubs, deli containers, lids, etc.)  recycled in the U.S. reached nearly 1.3 billion pounds in 2015. If that number is 28 percent of all of the non-bottle plastic in the U.S., the total amount of plastics directly touching deli meats, dips, spreads, sandwiches, and other popular foodstuffs is roughly 4.6 billion pounds. How do you avoid that?

It’s possible to limit your exposure to plastics through the food you eat. Shopping at the farmer’s market, bringing your own packaging to stores, and choosing items packaged in paper or glass are all potential options. That’s not the only way a person is exposed to microplastics, though. Water is another avenue of exposure. An analysis of popular bottled water brands found that 90 percent of them contained microplastics. The actual water bottle could be the source of those pieces, but a study of the water in major metropolitan areas found that 83 percent of samples contained plastic microfibers.

Related: Microplastics in Sea Salt – A Growing Concern

We Are the Fish Now

Microplastics enter our environment through a myriad of ways, like cosmetics, manufacturing processes, fishing gear, and packaging. Once microplastics are in the water, they are impossible for fish and other marine life (including coral) to avoid and can sometimes even get stuck in gills. These plastics are more than an irritant. They also contain BPA and other similar substances and can disrupt the endocrine system and cause serious health concerns.

We’ve known about plastics pollution in the oceans since the 1960s and 70s. Our use of it has increased dramatically since then. Four years ago, it was estimated there were between 15 and 50 trillion pieces of plastics in the oceans, and scientists have been discovering significant amounts of plastic in whales, birds, and fish. This study is confirmation that we are no different.

Related: Many Hand-me-down Plastic Toys Are Toxic for Kids

Sources:

• In a first, microplastics found in human poop – National Geographic
• UEG Week: Microplastics discovered in human stools across the globe in ‘first study of its kind’ – United European Gastroenterology
• Guess What Is In Your Poop: Plastic, Suggests A Study – Forbes
• Fifteen Plastic Packaging Statistics That Will Scare You – Ribble
• Food and Beverage – Plastic Packaging Facts

JAMA Internal Medicine reported a French study where nearly 69,000 adults completed web-based questionnaires about their diets over three 24-hour periods. People who reported eating more organic foods were less likely to develop certain cancers, compared to people who consumed the least amount of organic foods. Organic consumers were 25 percent less likely to develop cancer during the study. Specifically, organic consumers were 73% less likely to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma and 21% less likely to develop postmenopausal breast cancer.

After the surveys were completed follow-up time varied but averaged about four and a half years. Participants developed 1,340 cancers. Common cancers included breast cancers, prostate cancers, skin cancers, colorectal cancers and lymphomas.

Related: Stop Eating Like That and Start Eating Like This – Your Guide to Homeostasis Through Diet

People who ate more organic foods were more likely to be married and had higher income and education levels. These participants also consumed less processed meat and alcohol. More than three-quarters of the volunteers were women with average ages in their mid-40s.

Related: How To Heal Your Gut

President Donald Trump says he wants Aurelia Skipwith to head the Fish and Wildlife Service. Skipwith is a former executive at Monsanto, now owned by Bayer. Skipwith is a biologist and lawyer who spent more than six years at Monsanto who is currently the deputy assistant Interior secretary for fish, wildlife and parks. If confirmed by the Senate, she would be the first African-American to head the wildlife agency. The Fish and Wildlife Service has 9,000 employees with a $2.8 billion annual budget.

Duties of leading the Fish and Wildlife Service include “…enforcing federal wildlife laws, protecting endangered species, managing migratory birds, restoring nationally significant fisheries, conserving and restoring wildlife habitat (such as wetlands), helping foreign governments with their international conservation efforts, and distributing money to states’ fish and wildlife agencies through the Wildlife Sport Fish and Restoration program,” according to Wikipedia.

Related: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

Skipwith, as deputy assistant secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks at the Interior Department, has been responsible for the protecting national parks and the wildlife refuge system. Environmental and conservation groups are condemning the nomination in large part because Skipwith has been helping to dismantle wildlife and national monument protections.

Ms. Skipwith’s nomination is business as usual for an administration that has sought to reward its allies at the expense of public lands and wildlife.” – Chris Saeger, executive director of the Western Values Project

Related: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

It seemed as though Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos was about to overturn the infamous $289 million verdict against Monsanto’s weed killer, glyphosate. The good news is that the San Fransico judge has upheld the ruling. The bad news is that she cut the award down to $78 million.

The compensation damages were set at $39 million and the punitive damage awarded (punishment) by the jury was $250 million. Judge Bolanos cut the punitive damage from $250 million to $39 million, matching compensation damages for a total award of $78 million. Bolanos said punitive damages that are more than seven times the size of the compensatory award are not legally justified. She said the ratio should be 1-to-1. The judge set a December 7th deadline for the plaintiff to accept a total of $78.6 million. Johnson’s spokeswoman, Diana McKinley, says that they are reviewing the decision and are yet to decide. If this award is rejected, Bayer is entitled to a new trial on just the punitive damages, according to the judge. Reportedly, Diana McKinley also said,

Related: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

Although we believe a reduction in punitive damages was unwarranted and we are weighing the options, we are pleased the court did not disturb the verdict.”

Bayer recently acquired Monsanto. It’s stock fell more than percent in Frankfurt trading yesterday, which is the biggest drop since the Aug. 13 jury verdict.

Related: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

Judge Suzanne Ramos Bolanos rejected Bayer’s arguments that the jury didn’t have legal basis to conclude that glyphosate causes cancer. Bayer says it will appeal the August 13th ruling. Bayer is facing another 8,700 plaintiffs who are saying that glyphosate causes cancer.

Recommended: How To Heal Your Gut

A recent Danish study suggests that women who have had an abortion are no more likely to develop depression than women who don’t. The data on 396,397 women born in Denmark between 1980 and 1994 includes 30,834 women who had an abortion and 85,592 who gave birth.

Women who had an abortion were more likely to take antidepressants, but these women were already showing increased use of antidepressants before their pregnancy. In other words, women who had an abortion are not significantly more likely to go on antidepressants, but in this group of women, those who are on antidepressants were more likely to get an abortion.

Women who had an abortion were 54 percent more likely to take antidepressants in the year after the procedure than women who didn’t have abortions but were tracked for the same one-year period, the study found. But their increased use of antidepressants was already evident in the year before the abortions, when these women were 46 percent more likely to take antidepressants than their counterparts who didn’t have abortions.” – Reuters

Past research has also been unable to show a correlation between abortions and mental health problems, but abortion opponents have still been using depression and other mental disorders as a reason to avoid abortions.

“Our study shows that there was an association between abortion and antidepressant use – but because the risk of antidepressant use was the same in the year before and after the abortion and goes down as more time from the abortion passes, it cannot be that abortion is causing depression or antidepressant use.” -Julia Steinberg, lead researcher

Steinberg also said that other factors like mental illness and being at a social disadvantage are associated with both having an abortion and with suffering from depression. Check out the Reuters article, Abortion not tied to increased risk of depression for more information.

Related: Sugar Leads to Depression – World’s First Trial Proves Gut and Brain are Linked (Protocol Included)

Another study found that those who are denied abortions are more likely to suffer from mental health issues. Check out the video for more on that:

Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos said in a tentative ruling that she would likely overturn $250 million in punitive damages because there was no convincing evidence that Monsanto had knowingly manufactured a harmful product or acted “despicably” toward the plaintiff, Dewayne “Lee” Johnson.

Bayer AG, who recently acquired Monsanto, is challenging the verdict in August that awarded Dewayne Johnson $289 million. Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos out of San Francisco indicated that she plans to hold back $250 million of the award. This ruling will be very good news to Bayer since the company is defending itself against thousands of U.S. lawsuits.

Related: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

The judge said that even if she decides not to vacate the $250 million punishment damages she will likely still grant a new trial. She says the evidence against Bayer was insufficient. She also didn’t like Brent Wisner’s closing arguments from the trial. Brent told jurors that Monsanto executives were hanging out in a company boardroom, “waiting for the phone to ring” and that “behind them is a bunch of champagne on ice,” according to a court filing. The lawyer went on to say that “if the damages number isn’t significant enough, champagne corks will pop.”

Related: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

Bayer agrees with the court’s tentative ruling. The jury’s verdict was wholly at odds with over 40 years of real-world use, an extensive body of scientific data and analysis, including in-depth reviews by regulatory authorities in the U.S. and EU, and approvals in 160 countries, which support the conclusion that glyphosate-based herbicides are safe when used as directed and that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.” – Bayer said in an emailed statement

The San Fransico Chronical reports that some of the jurors who awarded the $289 million verdicts are imploring the judge to reconsider her tentative decision to overturn most of the damages.

You may not have been convinced by the evidence but we were. I urge you to respect and honor our verdict and the six weeks of our lives that we dedicated to this trial.” – Juror Gary Kitahata said in a letter to Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos

Recommended: How To Heal Your Gut