If you’re a person of European ancestry from the United States, United Kingdom, or Iceland, congratulations! A recent study review published in Communications Biology examined 3,369 genome-wide association studies (GWAS) conducted from 2005 to 2018 and found that more than 80 percent of the people studied had a European background, and 72 percent of discoveries were made from studies examining individuals from those three countries. Seventy-six percent of the world’s 7 billion people live in Asia and Africa, populations underexamined in genome studies. This lack of diversity limits the potential for discoveries and decreases the effectiveness of genetically targeted treatments. As the authors of this review conclude,

A central finding was that our results once again emphasized the potential for a cycle of disadvantage for underrepresented communities and despite continued efforts, infusing diversity into genomics remains challenging.”

So what are genome-wide association studies?

Where the Data Comes From

Why do genome studies lack diversity? This is due in large part to where the data is coming from. Many of these genome-wide studies rely on genetic material obtained from testing sites like 23andme. Those results are heavily skewed. Less than three years ago, researchers from Stanford estimated as many as 90 percent of the research into the genetics of disease was based on people of European descent. Services like this also explain why Iceland, a country with less than 350,000 people, figures prominently into genetic research. The Icelandic company, deCODE Genetics, has been cataloging genetic information for more than 20 years, and nearly a third of the population has had at least part of their genome sequenced.

Other Influences

Funding also plays a role in genome study results. Of the more than 3,000 studies examined in this review, 85 percent of the funding acknowledgments referenced grants and other agencies in the U.S. Another 14 percent are based in the United Kingdom. This means the rest of the world is responsible for funding one percent of available genome-wide studies. Both the U.S. and the U.K. are predominantly composed of people with European ancestry (61 and 87 percent, respectively). 

Another explanation for the overrepresentation of European ancestry in genome-wide studies is the people releasing them. Of the ten most connected and influential authors of genome studies, 9 are based in Europe. Three work for deCODE genetics in Iceland. Another three work for Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands, though that number would have been 4 prior to 2016. The only non-European author (based at Harvard University in the U.S.) also used to work at Erasmus. The work of these European men (and woman) is highly influential. Their articles and studies have been cumulatively cited over 200,000 times, and all of these scientists have strong European ties.

Echo Chambers

Genome-wide association studies are still a relatively new area of study (the first successful study was in 2002). These studies use a majority of data from those with European ancestry, receive funds from agencies in countries with a majority of European ancestry, and are authored by white, mostly European scientists. It creates an echo chamber. That can limit, and in some cases, even hinder discovery.

The Oxford researchers responsible for this study call for more diversity, both ethnically and geographically.

GWAS that utilize data from diverse populations will provide more accurately targeted therapeutic treatments to more of the world’s population, extend insights into the architecture of traits and uncover rare variants with significant effect sizes, which replicate across ancestries.”

Sources:

• A scientometric review of genome-wide association studies – Nature.com
• 23andMe has a problem when it comes to ancestry reports for people of color – Quartz
• Why Iceland is the World’s Greatest Genetic Laboratory – Wired

A new study shows that women who drink two or more diet drinks a day are 30% more likely to have heart problems, including heart attack and stroke, and 50 percent more likely to die from related disease. The University of Iowa included nearly 60,000 women, making it the largest study of it’s kind.

The study looked at diet soda and diet fruit drink intake and heart health for women participating in the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study, comparing women who never or only rarely consume diet drinks to those who consume two or more a day.

This is one of the largest studies on this topic, and our findings are consistent with some previous data, especially those linking diet drinks to the metabolic syndrome.” – Dr.Ankur Vyas, lead investigator of the study

Recommended: How To Heal Your Gut

Diet drinks were defined as a 12-ounce beverage of diet soda or a diet fruit drink.

After an average follow-up of 8.7 years, the primary outcome—defined as a composite of incident coronary heart disease, congestive heart failure, heart attack, coronary revascularization procedure, ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease, and cardiovascular death—occurred in 8.5 percent of the women consuming two or more diet drinks a day compared to 6.9 percent in the five-to-seven diet drinks per week group; 6.8 percent in the one-to-four drinks per week group; and 7.2 percent in the zero-to-three per month group.

The association persisted even after researchers adjusted the data to account for demographic characteristics and other cardiovascular risk factors, including body mass index, smoking, hormone therapy use, physical activity, energy intake, salt intake, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and sugar-sweetened beverage intake. On average, women who consumed two or more diet drinks a day were younger, more likely to be smokers, and had a higher prevalence of diabetes, high blood pressure, and higher body mass index.” – Iowa State

Related:  If You Drink Soda, It’s Probably The Worst Thing You Do To Yourself (even worse than smoking!)

There are several animal studies linking phthalates, parabens, and other personal care product chemicals to endocrine disruption, and a study published in the journal Human Reproduction shows that humans are not exempt from that group. Researchers from the University of California, Berkeley looked at 338  children from birth to adolescence, obtaining urine samples to determine chemical levels and looking for signs of puberty development at nine-month intervals from the age of nine. The study shows that every time a mother’s phthalate levels doubled in concentration, their daughters grew pubic hair 1.3 months earlier than expected. Kim Harley, lead author of the study and associate director of the Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health at the University of California, Berkeley says,

There has been considerable concern about why girls are entering puberty earlier and hormone disrupting chemicals like the ones in personal care products that we studied have been suggested as one possible reason…”

Endocrine Disruptors

Many of the chemicals measured in this study are known endocrine disruptors. Phthalates, parabens, and triclosan have all been found to have numerous negative effects on the body, and they’re very stable. This study found that endocrine disruptors measured while a child was still in utero had a link to abnormal hormonal events occurring a decade later. The chemicals are also measured in tiny amounts, parts per billion, indicating that a little goes a long way (or causes a lot of damage). Here’s a look at where to find these chemicals and why you should avoid them.

Related: How to Detox From Plastics and Other Endocrine Disruptors

Phthalates

Phthalates are nearly impossible to avoid. This group of chemicals is used to make plastics more flexible, and in addition to being present in virtually every type of plastic packaging, you can also find phthalates in computer cords, toys, cars, personal care items, detergents, and flooring. Phthalates are also found in various foods, though oils, dairy, and meat (especially chicken) have consistently registered high levels of the chemicals.

This is bad news for the endocrine system. It’s also a potential factor in other health problems. A 2014 study from researchers at Columbia University found a marked increase in asthma among children exposed to large concentrations of phthalates in the womb. Phthalates have also been linked to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, breast cancer, obesity, diabetes, neurodevelopmental issues, behavioral issues, and autism spectrum disorders.

Parabens

Parabens are used in preservatives, and you’ve probably seen them in the ingredient list of products like deodorants, shampoos, lotions, and other personal care products. Many conventional products have more than one type of paraben. These chemicals effectively prevent the growth of bacteria and are also used to preserve food and beverages like beer, sauces, desserts, sodas, processed fish, jams, pickles, frozen dairy products, processed vegetables, and flavoring syrups. A study conducted in Albany, New York in 2013 collected a range of food samples and found parabens in 90 percent of them.

The biggest controversy regarding parabens and health has to do with the chemical’s classification as xenoestrogens. This means they imitate estrogen in the body. This, in turn, disrupts the endocrine system. While a 2004 study in the U.K. that found parabens in malignant breast cancer tumors was hotly disputed, a more recent study (2015) from the Silent Spring Institute and the University of California Berkeley also suggested a significant link between parabens and cancer cells. Dale Leitman, a gynecologist and molecular biologist at UC Berkeley, is the study’s lead investigator.

Although parabens are known to mimic the growth effects of estrogens on breast cancer cells, some consider their effect too weak to cause harm…But this might not be true when parabens are combined with other agents that regulate cell growth.”

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

Triclosan

Triclosan is an antibacterial and antifungal chemical that’s frequently added to soaps, toothpaste, toys, kitchen materials, yoga mats, cosmetics, and athletic clothing. Interestingly, the chemical was initially registered as a pesticide at its introduction in 1969. Until 2016, it could also be found in hand sanitizers. Triclosan has since been banned for use in sanitizer products by the Food and Drug Administration. That ban has not stopped the public from being exposed to triclosan through a myriad of other means.

The antibacterial qualities of triclosan disrupt gut bacteria, and the chemical has been linked to chronic colon inflammation and colon cancer. It’s also been shown to alter hormone regulations in animal studies. This new study indicates that triclosan behaves the same way in humans as well.

New Normal

You can try your best to avoid these chemicals. This involves avoiding all plastics, anything that came into contact with plastics, any products with artificial fragrances, filter all of the water in your house, avoid food sprayed with any kind of chemicals, and stay away from any and all Bisphenol products, among other things. Unfortunately, the only way to accomplish a few of the items on that list requires checking out of modern life. All of this poses a huge challenge for understanding puberty – what do we do when what we know changes?

Sources:

• Chemicals in cosmetics, soaps tied to early puberty in girls – Reuters
• Association of phthalates, parabens and phenols found in personal care products with pubertal timing in girls and boys – Human Reproduction
• Chemicals in some household plastics linked to child asthma risk – The Guardian
• How to Detox From Plastics and Other Endocrine Disruptors – Organic Lifestyle Magazine
• 10 Surprising Places You Can Find Phthalates – Naturally Savvy
• Lotion ingredient paraben may be more potent carcinogen than thought – Berkeley News
• Triclosan could be really harmful to your gut, and it’s probably in your toothpaste – LA Times

A few days ago we saw a tweet that just seemed too good to be true:

The gang at #CNN has to retract and revise photo it claimed was child with #measles when it is discovered child was actually suffering adverse reaction to measles #vaccine. #FakeNews #YouCantMakeThisStuffUp https://t.co/tqxTIJdpyL

— The HighWire (@HighWireTalk) February 1, 2019

Recommended: How To Heal Your Gut

Did CNN really post an image of a vaccine reaction instead of an image of the measles?

We saw the original article and remembered that image but we didn’t think much of it at the time. Of course, we trust Del Bigtree’s vaccine reporting, but we still had to verify it for ourselves.

And it’s true.

Scroll down to the bottom of the Washington is under a state of emergency as measles cases rise article and see where it says,

Correction: This article and an accompanying video previously included a photograph of a child with a rash linked to a vaccination. The image has been removed.

And check the Wayback Machine internet archives here to see the original article with the image.

Related: How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children

Almond milk producers are allowed to call their product milk, says the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court agreed with another court dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed against Blue Diamond Growers, makers of the best selling almond milk in the United States. The lawsuit alleged that the company was misleading consumers and subsequently advocated for labeling plant-based milk as “imitation milk” due to their inferior nutritional content. This is not the first time nut milk has found itself fighting to use the term milk, as the dairy industry is using all avenues available to them to deal with a culturally, ethically, and environmentally shifting world.

Ongoing Saga

The initial lawsuit against Blue Diamond Growers was filed in January 2017. the almond thing has been in court since at least 2017. The case was dismissed with prejudice in 2017, and the case was then appealed by the plaintiff in 2018. After the second dismissal due to the lack of proof that consumers would be misled by almond milk’s nutritional claims and information, it seems unlikely that almond milk manufacturers will need to change their labeling practices based this lawsuit. They will, however, need to reconcile this issue with the Food and Drug Administration sooner rather than later.

In a statement released in September 2018, FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb expressed sentiments remarkably similar to those in the case against Blue Diamond Growers.

The wide variety of plant-based foods that are being positioned in the marketplace as substitutes for standardized dairy products has been the subject of much discussion in our initial work on the Nutrition Innovation Strategy. The rising demand for plant-based products, like soy-based alternatives to cheese and nut-based alternatives to milk, has created a growing number of new food choices in supermarket aisles. However, these products are not foods that have been standardized under names like “milk” and “cheese.” The FDA has concerns that the labeling of some plant-based products may lead consumers to believe that those products have the same key nutritional attributes as dairy products, even though these products can vary widely in their nutritional content. It is important that we better understand consumers’ expectations of these plant-based products compared to dairy products.”

It’s comforting to hear that the FDA is paying attention to and invested in the changing nutritional needs of the public. Still, recent studies have found that milk doesn’t provide nearly the health benefits either, especially if you’re unable to easily digest it. Yet the FDA references the nutritional superiority of dairy with the phrase “key nutritional attributes.” Why is the government agency acknowledging new attitudes without making room for the possibility that we might not need milk like previous generations thought we did?

Related: Homemade Vegan Nut Milk Recipes

Dairy Farmers in Crises

The growing interest in relabeling milk alternatives has a direct correlation with the fortunes of the dairy industry. The dairy industry is in a particularly rough spot and has been for decades now. Dairy consumption has dropped by 40 percent since the 1970s, and that shows no sign of stopping. The dairy industry has received two separate bailouts within the last three years, including a billion dollar allotment in a budget agreement signed by the Senate in 2018 and a USDA purchase of 11 million dollars of surplus cheese in 2016. Previous efforts at combating the downward trend include the popular got milk campaign, but the current business strategy of blaming alternative milk for declining milk sales isn’t likely to fix the issues with the dairy industry.

Nut milk appeals to the lactose intolerant, the health conscious, the environmentally conscious, and vegans. The public is also paying more attention to how their food is produced, and several dairy industry practices make consumers less likely to support the dairy industry. These practices include but are not limited to separating mothers and babies less than a week after birth, dehorning cows, and keeping cows constantly pregnant.

In addition to shifting public perceptions, the dairy industry is also dealing with a problem of their own making. While the demand for milk and other dairy products has declined, dairy producers have continued to build their surplus. In 2017, the reported milk surplus was more than four times the amount of the actual consumer demand for milk. This imbalance also negatively effects dairy farmers, who are forced to sell milk for lower prices. Many farmers are subsequently going out of business.

Recommended: How To Heal Your Gut

Milking Nuts

All of this is good news for nut milk producers like Blue Diamond Growers, the defendant in this case. The dairy industry is losing its mojo, and this lawsuit and other stalling tactics are only increasing the whiff of desperation. The dairy industry may not like the competition from nut milk and other non-dairy alternatives, but that won’t change the fact that those products are here to stay.

Sources:

• Federal Court Rules that Almond Milk is Milk – VegNews
• Amongst FDA SOI Conversation, Ninth Circuit Agrees Consumers Are Not Misled by Plant-Based Milks – National Law Review
• Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on modernizing standards of identity and the use of dairy names for plant-based substitutes – FDA
• Dairy Organizations Applaud Congressional Letter to FDA Asking for Stricter Enforcement of Milk Labeling Standards – NMPF
• Big Dairy Is About to Flood America’s School Lunches With Milk – Bloomberg

According to Monsanto’s press release, the company (recently bought by Bayer) is investing $125 million in gene editing technology with Pairwise Plants, a California agricultural startup that aims to develop gene edited corn, soybeans, cotton, canola crops, wheat, and potentially “strawberries or some other fruit.”

My co-founders and I believe the technologies we have each been developing can have a profound impact in plant agriculture and will speed innovation that is badly needed to feed a growing population amid challenging conditions created by a changing climate.” – Pairwise founder J. Keith Joung

Developing foods that will “last longer” on store shelves is said to be the primary goal of this partnership.

People who are increasingly consuming more fresher fruits and vegetables would likely eat even more if they could get items that meet some or all of these criteria — benefiting retailers through increased sales. And with about 40% of the food produced every year in the U.S. thrown away, totaling an estimated $200 billion, CRISPR could potentially cut down on waste — an area of focus for socially minded consumers, manufacturers and supermarkets.” – Food Dive

Because they will be using gene editing technology, under the new GMO labeling guidelines, the products will not need to be labeled.

Specifically, we are deeply disappointed that the final rule does not clearly require the disclosure of all genetically engineered ingredients, including highly refined sugars and oils, and new GMO techniques like CRISPR and RNAi.” – GMO Labeling Explained – What You Need to Know About These Confounding, Loophole-Laden Rules

With traditional GMOs, a gene is inserted from another organism. Gene-editing is different because it finds a gene and then makes changes by amending or deleting the gene.

Already one Columbia University study has shown that this type of gene editing can create “hundreds of unintended mutations” within the target organism. It’s not known whether this extends to gene edited foods, but now the question is, “Do you want to be the guinea pig?” – March Against Monsanto