U.S. consumption of artificial sweeteners has risen substantially in the last 20 years. Soda likely comes to mind, but aspartame and sucralose are being put into more and more products from bread to toothpaste. As more studies are being done, artificial sweeteners seem to be connected to more and more negative health consequences. That’s probably because they’re poison.

Artificial Sweeteners May Harm Gut Bacteria

Ariel Kushmaro is a professor of microbial biotechnology at Ben-Gurion University. He told Business Insider, “My recommendation is to not use artificial sweeteners.” Kushmaro and his team performed a study with common artificial sweeteners and E. coli bacteria. Don’t confuse this bacteria with the kind that makes us sick; E. coli is a beneficial bacteria in healthy human intestines.

Factory farming is how we get the “superbug” variety of E. coli. The “superbug” variety of E. Coli can happen when a cow is fed a very acidic, glyphosate-heavy grain diet while being pumped full of antibiotics. Whatever doesn’t kill you…

Researchers exposed the E. coli to six artificial sweeteners including aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), sucralose (Splenda), and saccharin (Sweet’N Low). They also subjected the bacteria to various protein powders and flavoring packets that use artificial sweeteners.

After dosing the E. coli bacteria with artificial sweeteners ‘hundreds of times,’ Kushmaro concluded the sweeteners had a toxic, stressing effect, making it difficult for gut microbes to grow and reproduce. The researchers think that a couple of artificially sweetened sodas or coffees a day could be enough to have an influence on gut health —and could even make it tougher for the body to process regular sugar and other carbohydrates.” – Business Insider

Obviously, we need more testing. Fortunately, Kushmaro plans to run more of these kinds of experiments to see how artificial sweeteners alter the human gut microbiome.

Related: How To Heal Your Gut

Artificial Sweeteners Won’t Reduce Appetite, or Satisfy Sugar Cravings

Sugar-sweetened foods trigger hormones throughout the body and chemicals in the brain that leaves us feeling satisfied after eating. The phenomenon, how it works, is similar to what happens with addiction to drugs. The satisfaction is short-lived, but it’s there. But artificial sweeteners don’t provide the sugar, or any calories for that matter, so scientists say the “food reward” system is never activated. This is probably why artificial sweeteners are shown to increase appetite, and sugar cravings as well.

Some researchers believe that artificial sweeteners do not satisfy our biological sugar cravings in the same manner as sugar, and could therefore lead to increased food intake. However, the evidence is mixed.” – Healthline

Related: Healthy Sugar Alternative and More

Artificial Sweeteners May Promote Obesity

In addition to promoting overeating, there are other mechanisms with which artificial sweeteners may promote weight gain. Sweet taste receptors are found not just in the mouth, but also in the bladder, the lungs, and our bones. Recent research looked at how artificial sweeteners affect our cells that make up our fat stores.

The new research, results of which were presented at ENDO 2018, the 100th annual meeting of the Endocrine Society in Chicago, looks at the effect that artificial sweeteners have on the cells that make up our fat stores. These cells have a glucose transporter (a protein that helps glucose get into a cell) called GLUT4 on their surface and, when we eat more sugar, the cells take up more glucose, accumulate more fat and become larger. The researchers in this latest study found that the artificial sweetener, sucralose, commonly found in diet foods and drinks, increases GLUT4 in these cells and promotes the accumulation of fat. These changes are associated with an increased risk of becoming obese.” – The Conversation

Artificial Sweeteners May Lead To Diabetes

Dr. Brian Hoffman, George Ronan, and Dhanush Haspula are the authors of a new study that found a link between consuming artificial sweeteners and changes in the blood that increases the prevalence of type 2 diabetes. Researchers found that acesulfame potassium, a sugar substitute, accumulated in the blood of rats tested. This accumulation of potassium harmed the cells that line blood vessels. The study indicates that artificial sweeteners can alter how the body processes fat and how we use energy at a cellular level. According to the authors, this vascular impairment may lead to diabetes (and obesity).

Gut ecology plays a huge role in disease, including diabetes, and medical science is at the forefront of realizing this. A potential new treatment hailed to be a likely medical breakthrough removed the mucous membrane of the small intestine to cure type 2 diabetes. The treatment inserts a balloon into the small intestine and inflates the balloon with hot water, hot enough to kill the gut’s mucous membrane. Within two weeks, if the patients eat well enough, a healthier membrane develops.

By destroying the mucous membrane in the small intestine and causing a new one to develop, scientists stabilized the blood sugar levels of people with type 2 diabetes. The results have been described as ‘spectacular’ – albeit unexpected – by the chief researchers involved. In the hourlong procedure, trialled on 50 patients in Amsterdam, a tube with a small balloon in its end is inserted through the mouth of the patient down to the small intestine.

“Even a year after the treatment, the disease was found to be stable in 90% of those treated. It is believed there is a link between nutrient absorption by the mucous membrane in the small intestine and the development of insulin resistance among people with type 2 diabetes.” – The Guardian

It stands to reason that if foods and chemicals like artificial sweeteners negatively influence our gut ecosystem, this damage may promote diabetes, as well as a host of other chronic illness.

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

Artificial Sweeteners May Contribute to Cardiovascular Disease and More

Researchers from the University of Manitoba’s George & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation reviewed 37 trials that followed a total of more than 400,000 people for an average of 10 years. The study showed a link between artificial sweetener consumption and increased risk of obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, and other health issues.

Artificial Sweeteners Are Likely To Promote Candida

Modern health loves to compartmentalize everything. Natural health practitioners generally have a more holistic outlook. Our belief is and has been, that toxic chemicals do damage to the body in a myriad of ways, including damage to the gut microbiome. Damaging the gut’s ecosystem has long-lasting, far-reaching consequences to virtually every facet of health.

Damage feeds candida and other pathogens. Cells in the body are made up of sugars and starches. When these cells are damaged they can feed pathogens. A healthy gut feeds the body with healthy, beneficial bacteria (it’s a misnomer that all bacteria is supposed to stay in the gut). An unhealthy gut with pathogens feeds the whole body pathogens.

Toxic chemicals damage the gut’s ecosystem and they also do damage all over the body in various ways. This promotes pathogenic proliferation. Candida is a normal part of a healthy gut colony, but if beneficial bacteria is damaged enough candida is very likely to take over. If not candida, other another fungus is likely there ready and waiting. It’s nearly impossible to kill fungal spores. Once they proliferate it’s a challenge to get them under control, especially with our modern sugar and toxin-laden diets.

Related: Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new opioid medication that’s up to 10 times more powerful than fentanyl. Critics say the drug will contribute to the opioid crisis.

There are very tight restrictions being placed on the distribution and use of this product. We’ve learned much from the harmful impact that other oral opioid products can have in the context of the opioid crisis. We’ve applied those hard lessons as part of the steps we’re taking to address safety concerns for Dsuvia.” – FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb

Opioid addiction is often considered to be the biggest crisis in the U.S. More people die from opioid overdoses than breast cancer.

Recommended: Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections

The company says that DSUVIA will not be sold in retail pharmacies or available for outpatient use. The FDA says that it cannot be used for more than 72 hours at a time. This same drug with the chemical name sufentanil is already available as IV medication and is administered to patients with acute pain who cannot swallow a pill, but this new drug can be used for people who cannot swallow or take an IV. The company

Projected annual sales for the drug are said to be at 1.1 billion dollars. DSUVIA is expected to be available in the first quarter of next year.

Related:

• Opioids No Better than NSAIDs for Chronic Back or Arthritis Pain
• Puget Sound Mussels Contain Opioids, Antidepressants, and Chemotherapy Drugs
• Drug Firms Profiting From Addiction – Shipping Massive Quantities of Opioids To West Virginia

They might have used different methodology and measurements, but two recent studies have come to the same conclusion – male fertility is on the decline. Both studies were premiered at the Scientific Congress of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) in Denver.

The first study is a collaborative effort between private fertility centers in New Jersey and Spain. This study looked at 120,000 men struggling with infertility and found that the percentage of men with a total motile sperm count (TMSC) of more than 15 million declined from 85 percent in 2002-05 to 79 percent in 2014-17. A TMSC under 15 million is considered low, and this study also found that the number of men with an extremely low TMSC (0 to 5 million) increased from 9 to more than 11.5 percent.

The second study comes from researchers at Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine in conjunction with the California Cryobank and Reproductive Medicine Associates of New York. They looked at 124,000 sperm samples from 2,600 donors between 19-38 from various locations, including Los Angeles, Palo Alto, Houston, Boston, Indianapolis, and New York City. Testing sperm count, sperm concentration, and TMSC, researchers discovered that these numbers declined in almost every location from 2007 to 2017 (New York City was an exception for all three factors, while sperm counts in Boston showed no change).

Recommended: How To Heal Your Gut 

This is not news. Scientists from Hebrew University in Jerusalem found last year that sperm counts in the west have more than halved over the last forty years. The average rate of yearly decline is 1.4 percent. At this point, the real news would be the discovery of why. Why are men in the developed world experiencing this loss of fertility? Science still don’t know.

What We Need to Know

There are some theories as to how sperm counts and male fertility are declining in the western world. Some say the lack of exercise and increasing obesity play a part in decreased sperm numbers. Others point to the standard American diet, laced with sugar, soy, and other health-disrupting substances. Chemicals found in everyday items like Bis-Phenol A (BPA) are another common reason floated for the decline of male fertility. Add in smoking, stress, and drinking, and the causes of male infertility look like the textbook definition of an unhealthy lifestyle. Scientists haven’t found the official link between infertility and this kind of lifestyle. This suggests there isn’t one cause for the decline, though.  All of these options are valid and correct. Together they form the conditions needed to effectively slow men’s fertility in its tracks.

Related: How to Detox From Plastics and Other Endocrine Disruptors

Is This A Bad Thing?

As an environmentalist, I would love this news if the decrease in fertility wasn’t caused by environmental toxicity. Fewer people means less strain on resources, and 2017 study found that potential parents lower carbon emissions equivalent to 58.6 tonnes of CO2 emissions every year by having one fewer child. But lower sperm counts and decreased male fertility negatively affect the lives of the men dealing with them. Individuals struggling with infertility are more likely to develop diabetes, substance abuse disorders, or heart conditions. In a way that strains resources as well, especially in the U.S., where health care costs are a heavy burden on the population. Maybe we should treat infertility as a lifestyle problem, rather than a medical one. Let’s see that study.

Sources:

• Sperm Counts Continue to Fall – The Atlantic
• Study Finds Declining Sperm Counts in Houston and Other Cities – Houston Public Media
• Sperm counts of Western men plummeting, analysis finds – CNN
• The infertility crisis is beyond doubt. Now scientists must find the cause – The Guardian

Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, the groundskeeper who was awarded $289 million in a civil suit against Bayer’s Monsanto, has agreed to accept the reduced award of $78 million. Dewayne went to trial on the grounds that the weedkiller Roundup caused his cancer. The jury awarded him $39 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages. Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos cut the award by $211 million, stating that punitive damages at more than seven times the size of the compensatory award are not legally justified.

In enforcing due process limits, the Court does not sit as a replacement for a jury but only as a check on arbitrary awards.”

Johnson could have demanded a new trial, but instead, he accepted the reduced award of $78 million. Doctors report he has very little time left to live. Johnson accepted the lower amount in a desire to reach “a final resolution within his lifetime,” spokeswoman Robin McCall told The Associated Press.

Related: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, was 42, working as a groundskeeper and pest-control manager in Northern California, when he developed a rash that led to a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in August 2014. Court records say duties at work included mixing and spraying hundreds of gallons of Roundup, Monsanto’s glyphosate-based weedkiller.

His attorney disagreed with the judge’s settlement reduction, but Johnson will accept the lower amount in hopes of achieving “a final resolution within his lifetime,” spokeswoman Robin McCall told The Associated Press.

Related: Gluten Intolerance, Wheat Allergies, and Celiac Disease – It’s More Complicated Than You Think

Bayer acquired Monsanto in June. In an emailed statement Bayer spokesperson Charla Lord told NPR:

The Court’s decision to reduce the punitive damage award by more than $200 million is a step in the right direction, but we continue to believe that the liability verdict and damage awards are not supported by the evidence at trial or the law and plan to file an appeal with the California Court of Appeal.

There is an extensive body of research on glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides, including more than 800 rigorous registration studies required by EPA, European and other regulators, that confirms that these products are safe when used as directed.”

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

Glyphosate is one of the most widely used and well-known herbicides in the U.S. Reuters reports that Bayer faces about 8,000 more lawsuits on the herbicide.

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