It shouldn’t be a surprise but, of course, it still needs to be reported. The kid’s cereals and other packaged marketed to children still contain alarming amounts of glyphosate, the cancer-causing ingredient in Roundup, the herbicide produced by Bayer-Monsanto. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) detected the carcinogen in all 21 oat-based cereal and snack products sampled in their latest testing.

Nearly two dozen popular children’s cereals and other snack products tested and show to contain glyphosate.

Organic oats were not exempt from glyphosate contamination either.

EWG noted that only four products “contained levels of glyphosate higher than what EWG scientists consider protective for children’s health with a sufficient margin of safety.”

The new tests were performed by independent laboratories and they confirm the findings from EWG’s testing in July and October of last year. Honey Nut Cheerios and Medley Crunch showed the two highest levels of glyphosate at between 729 and 833 parts per billion. The EWG “children’s health benchmark” is 160 ppb.

EWG-commissioned independent laboratory tests of oat-based products found glyphosate present in 95 percent of samples made with conventionally grown oats and 31 percent of samples made with organic oats. Conventional products had much higher glyphosate levels than their organic counterparts.

It is common practice for conventional oats to be sprayed with glyphosate prior to harvest, as a desiccant that kills all crops uniformly. Organic oats are not treated that way, but may become contaminated by glyphosate drifting from nearby conventional crops.

How Does EWG Set a ‘Health Benchmark’ for Glyphosate Exposure?

Related: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

Products testing positive include:

• Honey Nut Cheerios (147 ppb)
• Cheerios Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal (729 ppb)
• Chocolate Peanut Butter Cheerios (400ppb)
• Cheerios Oat Crunch Cinnamon (283 ppb)
• Honey Nut Cheerios Medley Crunch (833 ppb)
• Multi Grain Cheerios (216 ppb)
• Nature Valley Baked Oat Bites (389 ppb)
• Nature Valley Granola Peanut Butter Creamy & Crunchy (198 ppb)
• Nature Valley Granola Protein Oats n Dark Chocolate (261 ppb)
• Nature Valley Fruit & Nut Chewy Trail Mix Granola Bars, Dark Chocolate & Nut (76 ppb)
• Nature Valley Fruit & Nut Chewy Trail Mix Granola Bars – Dark Chocolate Cherry (275 ppb)
• Nature Valley Sweet & Salty Nut granola bars – Cashew (158 ppb)
• Nature Valley Crunchy granola bars – Oats and Honey (320 ppb)
• Nature Valley Crunchy granola bars – Peanut Butter (312 ppb)
• Nature Valley Crunchy granola bars – Maple Brown Sugar (566 ppb)
• Nature Valley Soft-Baked Oatmeal Squares – Blueberry (206
  ppb)
• Nature Valley Soft-Baked Oatmeal Squares – Cinnamon Brown Sugar (124 ppb)
• Nature Valley Granola Cups – Almond Butter (529 ppb)
• Nature Valley Granola Cups – Peanut Butter Chocolate (297 ppb)
• Nature Valley Biscuits with Almond Butter (194 ppb)
• Fiber One Oatmeal Raisin soft-baked cookies (204 ppb).

Related: How to Eliminate IBS, IBD, Leaky Gut 

EWG purchased products via online retail sites. Approximately 300 grams of each product were packed in our Washington, D.C., office and shipped to Anresco Laboratories in San Francisco. Glyphosate levels were analyzed by a liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method described here.

In New Round of Tests, Monsanto’s Weedkiller Still Contaminates Foods Marketed to Children

Researchers at Emory University have recently had a study published in the journal Public Health Nutrition that found that in comparison to organic milk, conventional milk samples contained more pesticide and antibiotic residues. In addition to that, some of the samples collected contained residue levels above the federally recognized limits for antibiotic residues. Study researchers explained…

To our knowledge, the present study is the first study to compare levels of pesticide in the U.S. milk supply by production method (conventional vs. organic)…It is also the first in a decade to measure antibiotic and hormone levels and compare them by milk production type.”

Fewer Pesticides, Fewer Antibiotics

The study looked at 69 total samples of organic (34) and conventional (35) milk from all different regions of the United States. Of the 14 pesticides researchers tested for, both organic and conventional samples tested positive for legacy pesticides, chemicals that are no longer allowed in the United States but remain in our environment and food supply (DDT, DDE, and hexachlorobenzene). In addition to those, conventional milk also contained atrazine, chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, diazinon, and permethrin.

Related: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

There was an even more clearcut difference between organic and conventional milk when researchers examined antibiotic residues. Organic milk samples did not test positive for antibiotics, while conventional milk samples tested positive for 5 different kinds of antibiotics, amoxicillin, oxytetracycline, sulfamethazine, sulfadimethoxine, and sulfathiazole. One of the conventional samples contained levels of amoxicillin above federal limits, while 37 percent of samples had higher than legal amounts sulfamethazine. Twenty-six percent of those samples also contained high levels of sulfathiazole.

Critics of this study have pointed out the involvement of The Organic Center, a non-profit research organization. Be that as it may, it’s hard to deny the facts. Organic milk has fewer pesticides and antibiotics, and some conventional milk contains verified unsafe levels of these chemicals.

Related: How to Eliminate IBS, IBD, Leaky Gut

Chasing the Pesticide Free Life

You would think that I would be urging you to live a pesticide-free life, seeing that this is Organic Lifestyle Magazine. And I will. Organic milk will always be better than conventional milk from the viewpoint of someone trying to avoid pesticides and unnecessary antibiotics in their food. It seems an added insult to conventional milk to reveal that some of that product isn’t even meeting the basic federal requirements for those chemical residues. But it’s difficult to realize that both types of milk contain pesticides banned in 1972 (DDT). These samples were collected in 2015, the same year the International Agency for Research on Cancer finally classified as “probably carcinogenic” and 43 years after the pesticide was banned. How pesticide free can we truly be at this point?

Sources:

• Production-related contaminants (pesticides, antibiotics and hormones) in organic and conventionally produced milk samples sold in the USA – Cambridge Core
• Study finds residue of pesticides, antibiotics and growth hormone in non-organic milk – USA Today
• New study shows that choosing organic is an easy way to avoid pesticide, antibiotic, and synthetic growth hormone residues in milk – The Organic Center
• The differences between organic and conventional milk – Feed the Wisely

“Back in my day, no one had these so-called food allergies, and we ate whatever we wanted!”

Anyone with food allergies or diet restrictions has heard a statement like the one above, and it turns out eating whatever you want might be causing the food allergies in the first place. A small study based in Italy found that children with food allergies had higher levels of advanced glycation endproducts (AGE), substances found in highly processed foodstuffs.

What They Found

This new study is by no means a definitive answer to the question of where food allergies come from. First off, it’s a small study. Researchers examined 61 children from ages six to twelve in three groups – those with food allergies, those with respiratory allergies, and a control group. The study drew a link between high levels of AGES and junk food consumption. Children with food allergies registered higher levels of AGEs. The lead researcher for this study, Roberto Berni Canani, thinks that link needs to be examined more closely.

As of yet, existing hypotheses and models of food allergy do not adequately explain the dramatic increase observed in the last years – so dietary AGEs may be the missing link. Our study certainly supports this hypothesis, we now need further research to confirm it. If this link is confirmed, it will strengthen the case for national governments to enhance public health interventions to restrict junk food consumption in children.”

Acquiring AGEs

So what are advanced glycation endproducts? Glycation is a process where a sugar molecule like glucose or fructose binds to a protein or lipid molecule without an enzyme to control the process. You’re probably a big fan of glycation already – a prominent example of this chemical reaction is the Maillard reaction, also known as the browning of food. Glycation makes food delicious, and AGEs are the end result of that process. But that deliciousness comes at a price.

Related: Allergy Free in Five Days (foods, dander, dust, seasonal, etc.)

The first issue is with the loss of enzyme activity. Applying heat to food is the easiest way to initiate glycation, but that also destroys enzymes. Glycation and AGEs have also been linked to oxidative stress and inflammation in the body and conditions like diabetes, atherosclerosis (where plaque builds up inside the arteries), and neurological disorders. Highly processed junk food is usually heat processed, and that can lead to high levels of potentially harmful AGEs.

Related: How To Heal Your Gut 

What Goes In

The body is able to clear AGEs in low levels, but the amount of those endproducts found in the modern diets isn’t at a low level. In addition to that, AGEs can impair the body’s function, leading to issues like diabetes or potentially food allergies. What we eat makes a big difference in our health, sometimes in ways we don’t even think about.

Sources:

• Researchers warn: junk food could be responsible for the food allergy epidemic – Eureka Alert
• Junk food may be fueling rise in food allergies, say experts – Guardian
• What Are Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs)? – Healthline
• Advanced Glycation End Products in Foods and a Practical Guide to Their Reduction in the Diet – NCBI

New numbers from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that the 2018-2019 flu vaccine registered the lowest vaccine effective rate since 2015. While flu effectiveness measured 47% in February 2019, the shot was less able to prevent cases of H3N2 that appeared later in the season, with vaccine effectiveness of 9%. The CDC has announced that the effectiveness of this season has been 29%, significantly less than the 40 percent or more recorded for the last three years.

The 2018-2019 Flu Season

Much like fire season, flu season now lasts longer than ever. Flu activity levels increased beginning in November and returned to normal levels in mid-April, making 2018-2019 the longest flu season in 10 years. This is a significant development that could have lasting implications for the flu shot. Healthcare practitioners are advised to vaccinate their patients by the end of October with many offices or locations giving the shot as early as September. The flu vaccine lasts from four to six months before it no longer provides protection. In fact, a 2018 study from researchers at Kaiser Permanente in Northern California found that the risk of getting the flu rose by 16 percent after twenty-eight days of being vaccinated. As of right now, flu revaccination later in the season isn’t recommended.

Recommended: How to Eliminate IBS, IBD, Leaky Gut

Over the last decade and a half, the flu vaccine has never been more than 60 percent effective. If a longer flu season becomes the norm, that effectiveness will likely decrease even further as immunity from the vaccine won’t last the whole season. The flu shot also comes with side effects ranging from headaches, diarrhea, loss of appetite, and fatigue to serious side effects like brain inflammation, convulsions, Bell’s palsy, paralysis of limbs, neuropathy, shock, asthma, wheezing, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and other respiratory issues.

Sources:

• Latest flu vaccine failing against current strain, CDC reports – ABC News
• Poor Late-Season Protection Limited Flu Vaccine Impact for 2018-19 – CIDRAP
• CDC: 2018-2019 Flu Season the Longest in a Decade – Pharmacy Times
• Update: Influenza Activity in the United States During the 2018–19 Season and Composition of the 2019–20 Influenza Vaccine – CDC.gov
• Immunize – Immunization Action Coalition
• Study: Flu vaccine protection starts to wane within weeks – CIDRAP

The Trump administration wants to exempt many new genetically engineered crops from regulation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Trump wants it to be easier for genetically engineered plants and animals to enter the food supply. He signed an executive order on June 11th to have federal agencies simplify the “regulatory maze” for genetically modified food producers.

The administration says it wants to cut the cost of genetically modified crop development and exempt crops that have similar traits to plants that could be produced through hybridization (traditional plant breeding). GMO companies would be allowed to determine if their products are exempt from regulation.

Related: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

The administration argues the approach will allow regulators to focus on ‘increasingly complex products which, in turn, may pose new types of risks.’ “

Bloomberg

Crops produced with the newer gene-editing technologies wouldn’t automatically be subject to special oversight under the proposed rule. GMO companies say gene-editing makes it so that they can easily and more precisely alter the DNA of plants and animals, and that these changes to the DNA could be done with conventional breeding techniques.

Jaydee Hanson of the Center for Food Safety warns that these new gene editing techniques can make significant changes, “including those that would never happen in nature,” and says that the companies need oversight.

The proposed rules are open for public comment through Aug. 5 before the department issues a final regulation.

The Trump Administration has been friendly to companies like Bayer (formerly Monsanto) in the past. In 2019 Trump’s administration lifted Obama’s ban on GMOs and bee-killing chemicals in wildlife refuges.

A recent observational study published in the journal General Psychiatry found that regulating the gut microbiome had positive effects on people with anxiety. In a review of 21 different studies that included controlled anxiety tests, 11 studies showed that regulating the intestinal microbiome produced positive results. The researchers conclude:

We find that more than half of the studies included showed it was positive to treat anxiety symptoms by regulation of intestinal microbiota. There are two kinds of interventions (probiotic and non-probiotic interventions) to regulate intestinal microbiota, and it should be highlighted that the non-probiotic interventions were more effective than the probiotic interventions. More studies are needed to clarify this conclusion since we still cannot run meta-analysis so far.”

Related: How To Heal Your Gut

Managing the Gut

After looking at 21 studies and the 1,503 people those studies consisted of, researchers found that regulating intestinal flora was a beneficial action 52 percent of the time. But what did their interventions look like and can that be applied in real life?

The interventions in the study were mostly divided into two different categories, probiotic and non-probiotic. The non-probiotic options consisted of regulating diet, like choosing a low FODMAP diet or using prebiotics like fructooligosaccharides or trans-galactooligosaccharides. Of the 11 studies that showed the positive effects of microbiome regulation on anxiety, 5 used probiotics and 6 relied on non-probiotic options, including diet.

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

Mood and the Gut

Diet has a powerful effect on our microbiome, and that microbiome in turn greatly affects mood. Many of the hormones responsible for regulating our attitudes are produced in the intestinal tract, like serotonin. There is direct communication between our gut and our brain chemicals, and an unbalanced, unhealthy gut will correlate with mood shifts and fluctuations.

Non-probiotic interventions were the most effective method of anxiety treatment which includes the use of prebiotics. Prebiotics stimulate the growth of beneficial bacteria like Lactobacillus and bifidobacteria. These bacteria can be found in probiotics, but prebiotics work because they feed the bacteria and create an atmosphere where it can thrive. Because they are a type of fiber, prebiotics are also easy and inexpensive to obtain. Many foods are an excellent source of them, from raw vegetables and fruits (especially dandelion greens, onions, garlic, bananas, apples, and asparagus) to pulses like chickpeas, lentils, and kidney beans.

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

A Holistic View

The gut has been called the “second brain” by many scientists and using that connections to treat mental disorders like anxiety is (pardon me…) a no-brainer. One of the benefits of the increased availability and advancements of research in the way we work is how it allows us to see how truly holistic our body is. Everything is connected, and that process starts in the gut. A healthy, thriving gut goes a long way in improving the health of the other systems in our body.

Sources:

• Anxiety Might Be Alleviated By Regulating Gut Bacteria – BMJ
• Effects of regulating intestinal microbiota on anxiety symptoms: A systematic review – BMJ General Psychiatry
• How Candida Leads to Depression, Anxiety, ADHD, and Other Mental Disorders – Organic Lifestyle Magazine
• Think Twice: How the Gut’s “Second Brain” Influences Mood and Well-Being – Scientific American
• Probiotics and Prebiotics: What’s the Difference? – Healthline

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is in the process of updating its sunscreen regulation requirements. A small study funded by the agency has discovered that the active ingredients in sunscreen get absorbed into the bloodstream. Regulations for these ingredients haven’t changed since the 1970s, and the FDA is now asking for more information regarding 12 of the most commonly used active ingredients in sunscreen, like oxybenzone, octinoxate, octisalate, octocrylene, homosalate, and avobenzone. These ingredients are also absorbed into the bloodstream within hours and remain in levels that exceed the generally regarded as safe levels set by the FDA. Theresa Michele, director of the FDA’s division of nonprescription drug products and coauthor on the FDA-funded study, says

Everyone had always thought that because these are intended to work on the surface of the skin that they wouldn’t be absorbed, but they are…”

As of yet, only two of the active sunscreen ingredients studied recently by the FDA have been deemed safe, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.

Editors Note: There are problems with zinc oxide and titanium dioxide as well.

The shocking truth is the fact that both petrochemical sunscreens (avobenzone, methoxycinnamate, padimate-o and the like) and physical sunblocks (chemically-reacted synthetics titanium dioxide and zinc oxide) are not natural and have been found to generate free radicals when exposed to sunlight, which then can attack the nuclei of your skin cells and cause mutations. That’s right, they can cause skin cancer. Furthermore, sunscreen chemicals have been found to pass through the skin and mimic the effects of estrogen, which may disrupt the delicate balance of the body’s natural hormones.

Sunscreen Dangers

Actively Harming Ingredients…?

The most recent sunscreen study focused on proving how feasible a sunscreen use trial would be and gathering information on frequently seen active ingredients. Researchers used four different types of sunscreen formulations (two sprays, a lotion, and a cream) to test exposure levels of four different chemicals – avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, and ecamsule. All four of the chemicals registered significant exposure levels, and avobenzone, oxybenzone, and octocrylene reached those levels within the first six hours of application. Those elevated exposure levels also took at least 24 hours to decrease, with octocrylene concentrations taking the longest amount of time to decrease (84 hours).

Recommended: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

There is not enough information about these chemicals, although what we do know is concerning. Some active sunscreen ingredients like oxybenzone and avobenzone have been identified as endocrine disruptors. These chemicals also degrade when exposed to the sun, releasing free radicals and increasing skin cancer risks. It doesn’t help that many of these ingredients find their way into breast milk, amniotic fluid, and urine in addition to the bloodstream.

But We Need the D

Sunscreen can also impede the body’s ability to absorb vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiencies are no joke. A lack of the vitamin can result in fatigue, back pain, hair loss, and depression, among other things. This deficiency is widespread, even among populations with constant access to sunlight and it has been declared a pandemic by health organizations for over a decade. A study from 2010 counted over a billion people worldwide with insufficient vitamin D levels. As of last year, 42 percent of Americans were not getting enough vitamin D.

While it’s possible to get vitamin D from diet, the best source is the sun. But sunscreen interrupts that absorption, making the product doubly problematic. It disrupts the intake of an essential nutrient while replacing it with improperly tested and potentially toxic chemicals.

There are two types of skin cancer. There’s what’s called non-melanoma skin cancer and there is no question that excessive exposure to sunlight and sunburns will damage the DNA and induce skin cells to become cancerous. That is non-melanoma squamous and basal cell cancers. They are typically easy to detect, easy to treat. They’re not lethal, for the most part.”

Dr. Michael Holick, homemade sunscreen article

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

A New Vision

Wear sunscreen has become a mantra. Professionals in the health and beauty sectors tout the benefits of the product left and right. There’s even a song about it! But none of that well-meaning advice addresses the possibility that sunscreen could be more harmful than previously thought. Ideally, new regulations will do something to bring those dangers to attention.

Sources:

• Sunscreen Chemicals Soak All the Way Into Your Bloodstream – Wired
• Effect of Sunscreen Application Under Maximal Use Conditions on Plasma Concentration of Sunscreen Active Ingredients – JAMA
• The Trouble With Ingredients in Sunscreens – EWG
• Vitamin D Health: Why You Shouldn’t Shun the Sun – HuffPost
• The FDA is questioning the safety of 14 common sunscreen ingredients – Popular Science
• Neurotoxic effect of active ingredients in sunscreen products, a contemporary review – Science Direct