Από τη Νέα Ζηλανδία στον κόσμο

Exposure to Heavy Metals Linked to Dementia Risk

A new study has found that many cocoa products are contaminated with heavy metals—including organic.

Is your favorite dark chocolate bar harboring a hidden health risk? A new study published on July 31 in Frontiers in Nutrition suggests that some popular dark chocolate products may contain concerning levels of heavy metals, particularly lead and cadmium.

The study, conducted by researchers from The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences and ConsumerLab.com, analyzed 72 dark chocolate and cocoa products sold in the United States from 2014 to 2022. Their findings shed light on a potential health concern that has been bubbling beneath the surface of the chocolate industry for years.

Why Study Heavy Metals in Chocolate?

Dark chocolate, long touted for its potential health benefits due to its high antioxidant content, has faced scrutiny in recent years due to reports of heavy metal contamination. Consumer media outlets and independent testing agencies, including Consumer Reports and As You Sow, have previously highlighted this issue.

Consumer Reports found heavy metals in popular chocolate brands including Hershey’s, Theo, Trader Joe’s, Godiva, Hu, and Equal Exchange, according to their 2022 report. A report by As You Sow also revealed elevated heavy metals in various chocolate products tested between 2014 and 2017. These earlier reports raised concerns about the safety of dark chocolate consumption, particularly for vulnerable populations such as children and pregnant women.

Given these concerns, Leigh Frame, director of integrative medicine at George Washington University and co-lead of the study, aimed to explore the significance of this contamination.

“We know chocolate is a plant that is particularly good at absorbing heavy metals from the soil and is grown in areas where there are heavy metals in the soil. So, it seemed like a logical area of concern. Also, often people think of chocolate as a supplement—like I’m getting my daily dose of chocolate because it’s good for me, right? We were interested to see if people consuming chocolate for health benefits really do get those benefits because there is also potentially heavy metal exposure,” Frame told The Epoch Times in an interview.

Study Design

The researchers analyzed popular cocoa-containing products from 2014 to 2022, including Ghirardelli, Hu, Lily’s, 365 Whole Foods Market, Nestle, Now Real Food, Baker’s, and Good & Gather.

All products were produced in the United States or Europe but sold only in the United States. The products were divided into four cohorts based on the year of purchase: 2014, 2016, 2019, and 2022. All products were tested for lead, cadmium, and arsenic content. Two primary standards were used to assess the levels of contamination:

⦁ The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) established interim reference levels (IRLs) with the following allowable intake levels:

⦁ Lead: 2.2 micrograms (mcg) per day for children under 7 years old

⦁ Lead: 8.8 mcg per day for women of childbearing age

While the FDA has established IRLs for lead, it has not set official limits for cadmium or arsenic in food products.

⦁ California Proposition 65 (Prop 65) is a more stringent state-level regulation that established the following maximum allowable dose levels (MADLs):

⦁ Lead: 0.5 mcg per day

⦁ Cadmium: 4.1 mcg per day

⦁ Arsenic: 10 mcg per day

Study Findings

The new study’s findings paint a complex picture of heavy metal contamination in dark chocolate:

⦁ Lead: 43 percent of products tested exceeded Prop 65 limits, but 97.2 percent of the products fell below FDA IRL limits.

⦁ Cadmium: 35 percent of products exceeded Prop 65 limits.

⦁ Arsenic: No products exceeded Prop 65 limits.

For all products tested, mean concentrations of both lead (0.615 micrograms/serving) and cadmium (4.358 mcg per serving) exceeded Prop 65 standards. However, median concentrations of lead (0.375 mcg per day) and cadmium (3.03 mcg per day were below Prop 65 standards, suggesting that a few highly contaminated products may have skewed the overall results. 97.2 percent of all products tested fell below the FDA IRLs for lead.

‍

‍

Trade certifications (such as Fairtrade or Non-GMO) did not significantly affect heavy metal levels. Organic-labeled products showed significantly higher concentrations of cadmium and lead. They were 280 percent more likely to exceed Prop 65’s cadmium limit and 14 percent more likely to exceed its lead limit.

“Our hypothesis was that organic products would be lower in heavy metals because they were not going to have fertilizers or pesticides used on them that were contaminated with heavy metals. But it’s exactly the opposite,” Frame said.

Why organic products had higher levels of heavy metals is unclear. Frame questioned if fertilizers and pesticides may not be adding as many heavy metals to food as previously thought.

“Also, someone that is growing an organic product is likely to treat it more carefully and gently. Perhaps the more gentle processing is allowing more residual heavy metals, compared to being extracted through some of the harsher processing methods that other companies are using. But that is purely a hypothesis” Frame added.

Health Concerns: Lead and Cadmium

There is no known safe level of lead in the blood since even low levels can produce toxic effects, according to a 2021 article in Toxics. The central nervous system is particularly vulnerable to lead, potentially resulting in cognitive decline, fine motor control impairment, and attention-related issues in both children and adults, according to the article.

IQ test scores were lower among children exposed to lead, according to a 2022 review in Systematic Reviews. The authors stated that lead exposure “can have irreversible effects on children’s mental performance.”

While less notorious than lead, cadmium exposure can also pose significant health risks. Cadmium exposure is a “cardiovascular risk factor” that may initiate and promote the progression of atherosclerosis, according to a review in Current Atherosclerosis Reports. Cadmium may also increase blood pressure and risk of kidney damage, according to the review. Increase risk of fracture may also increase following cadmium exposure, according to a 2016 review in Medicine.

Frame and her research team question whether the proposed benefits of cocoa outweigh the possible risk of heavy metal exposure. “It’s hard to say whether these benefits are really truly beneficial for the average human,” she said.

According to Frame, while dark chocolate has been associated with improved cardiovascular health, cognitive performance, and reduced chronic inflammation, these potential health benefits have been modest.

For example, a 2021 review in Nutrients concluded that cocoa products improved triglycerides, however, there was no effect on blood pressure, blood glucose, cognitive function, skin, anthropometry, or quality of life regardless of form, dose, or duration when consumed among healthy people.

“As with anything, it has to do with what is the background diet. So, you have someone that has a very low polyphenol, low flavonoid diet, and chocolate is one of their predominant sources. Then in terms of the flavonoids, it may be very beneficial. That’s why coffee is so beneficial for the average American because their diet is very low in polyphenols. And coffee is very rich in polyphenols and so it’s a really important source,” Frame said.

Frame suggests that potential benefits from cocoa may be similar. “If you have someone who already has a rich source of polyphenols in the diet, the contribution of chocolate is going to be pretty minimal. And then that person is exposing themselves to more heavy metals from the chocolate without getting the health benefits.”

Moreover, the potential risks associated with heavy metal exposure have not been fully accounted for in previous studies promoting the health benefits of dark chocolate, according to Frame. She suggests a better approach is to look at the individual and ask if they are meeting their flavonoid levels and then use chocolate to increase those levels.

The Epoch Times reached out to Ghirardelli, Hu, Lily’s, 365 Whole Foods Market, Nestle, Now Real Food, Baker’s, and Good & Gather, but they did not respond by publication time.

Where Are the Heavy Metals Coming From?

Cocoa trees can absorb heavy metals that naturally occur in the soil, as well as heavy metals from environmental contamination. The main sources of heavy metal contamination in the soil are livestock manure, irrigation with wastewater or polluted water, application of sewage sludge, use of metallo-pesticides or herbicides, phosphate-based fertilizers, and atmospheric deposition, according to a 2019 review in Environment International.

“We undervalue the soil as a source of heavy metals, particularly in certain regions. There is a huge variation in regions. But, right now, when you buy a chocolate bar, you have no way of knowing where those beans came from because it’s not labeled,” Frame told The Epoch Times.

The presence of heavy metals in chocolate is partly attributed to post-harvesting contamination as well. For example, after fermentation, the cocoa beans are typically spread out to dry in the sun for several days. During this time, they are exposed to environmental contaminants, including lead-laden dust and dirt, according to Consumer Reports. This lead can come from industrial pollution in nearby areas, residual lead in soil from past use of leaded gasoline, or airborne particles containing lead.

As the beans dry, this lead-containing dust can settle on and adhere to their surface. Unlike cadmium, which is thought to be absorbed into the beans through the plant’s root system, lead contamination may be largely a surface-level issue that occurs after the beans have been harvested, according to Consumer Reports.

Frame and her team are advocating for enhanced surveillance of heavy metal contamination in cocoa products and suggest that better quality control practices during harvesting and manufacturing could help mitigate the problem. “Ideally they would test every batch.”

For consumers, Frame envisions a voluntary labeling system that is simple to understand. “The average person needs a stoplight type label that says, this is a moderate risk chocolate versus this is a high-risk or low-risk product. What I hope would happen is the companies that start putting it on there will see that people are more likely to buy their products, and then maybe other companies will follow suit.”

Implications and Takeaways

For most people, eating a single serving (one ounce) of dark chocolate is unlikely to pose a significant health risk, according to Frame.

“The reason we recommend one ounce is because that quantity is often studied for health benefits and you have to imagine that the heavy metals in one ounce are not reaching a level that’s becoming problematic,” she said.

However, consuming multiple servings could lead to excessive exposure.

“It’s very easy to over-consume chocolate. It’s something that can easily go from one to five or six servings. If people are having one ounce a day, maybe it’s okay. But if they’re having five servings a day and are getting astronomical levels of heavy metals, that’s a concern.”

Another potential concern is combining chocolate consumption with other food sources of heavy metals, such as teas and spices, Frame added.

The Bigger Picture: Cumulative Exposure

Dark chocolate is just one potential source of heavy metal exposure in our diets. According to a 2019 review in Environmental International, a growing body of research has identified concerning levels of heavy metals in various food crops, including:

Fruits
Leafy vegetables—green cabbage, spinach, cauliflower, lettuce, kale
Root vegetables—radish, turnip, carrot
Wheat
Rice
Soybean
Corn
Garlic

Heavy metals are also potentially problematic in some marine fish, seafood, herbal medicines, herbal teas, spices, fruit juice, as well as drinking water, particularly in areas with aging infrastructure or natural geological sources of contamination.

“Additional research into cumulative heavy metal exposure from the whole diet is needed. It’s not about excluding any of these foods. There is no zero exposure to heavy metals. You cannot completely exclude them from your diet. What you want to do is make sure your exposure is not too high,” said Frame.

What Can Consumers Do?

This new study serves as a reminder that even seemingly healthy foods can harbor possible hidden dangers. While dark chocolate has been associated with potential health benefits, it faces scrutiny for its heavy metal content. As consumers, we can balance the potential benefits against these risks. According to Frame, chocolate enthusiasts can still savor their favorite treat while reducing heavy metal exposure by considering these strategies:

Be aware that “organic” or other certifications do not necessarily mean lower heavy metal content. In fact, organic products may have higher concentrations, according to the study.
Enjoy dark chocolate in moderation as part of a balanced diet. Frame’s suggested serving size is no more than one ounce per day.
Vary sources of dark chocolate and cocoa products.
Alternate between dark and milk chocolate if you can tolerate lactose. While dark chocolate offers more antioxidants and less sugar, it may contain higher levels of heavy metals due to its higher content of cocoa solids (where heavy metals tend to accumulate). White chocolate has no cocoa solids, making it another good option.
Locate specific cacao brands that regularly test for heavy metals using third-party laboratories and have shown lower contamination levels. Organizations like Consumer Reports and As You Sow provide test results from common chocolate products. Although these results are snapshots in time, they may help identify which products might be safer choices.
Diversify your diet to help minimize the risk of excessive exposure to heavy metals from any single source.
Be particularly cautious with cocoa products if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or feeding young children.

‍

Global News Articles

Understanding Pyramid Schemes, Ponzi Schemes, and Direct Selling

Untrapasteurized Milk and your health

Countless articles have been written on this subject and numerous speeches have been given. Yet borders between these three concepts have generally remained fuzzy in minds. This lack of clarity is important because it leads to unfair criticisms on legitimate businesses.

Pyramid Schemes

According to the World Federation of Direct Selling Associations – WFDSA, "Pyramid schemes are illegal scams in which large numbers of people at the bottom of the pyramid pay money to a few people at the top. Each new participant pays for the chance to advance to the top and profit from payments of others who might join later."

U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) states, "The promoters of a pyramid scheme may try to recruit you with pitches about what you'll earn. They may say you can change your life — quit your job and even get rich — by selling the company's products. That's a lie. Your income would be based mostly on how many people you recruit, not how much product you sell. Pyramid schemes are set up to encourage everyone to keep recruiting people to keep a constant stream of new distributors — and their money — flowing into the business."

Reading all this, it seems pretty straightforward: If a participant's income is not based on exchange of goods or services, but is earned against bringing in new people, then what we see is a pyramid.

So, where does the confusion stem from? Obviously, from the existence of those that are called "disguised pyramid schemes". These businesses operate in a deceptive way in an effort not to be caught by the authorities. Typically, participants are forced to buy large amounts of inventory that they can neither sell nor consume. In some other cases, they are expected to purchase worthless products that no other people would buy under normal conditions. If these exist, it is clear that organization members earn money based not retailing the products but merely on people recruited.

A related issue here is "internal consumption". This concept refers to products being bought by direct sellers not for the purpose of retailing them to end-users. When considered together with the previous paragraph, this is obviously an important issue. From another perspective though, the existence of internal consumption is inevitable. At the end of the day, direct sellers would naturally buy and consume the products that they recommend to others. Within this context, you might want to read the two brilliant articles Jeff Babener (1948-2020) wrote following the FTC – Herbalife settlement: FTC v. Herbalife Settlement: First Take and FTC v. Herbalife: Post-Settlement Legal Guidance for the Direct Selling Industry.

Ponzi Schemes

These are named as such after Charles Ponzi's fraudulent scheme in the U.S. he ran in the 1920s. In broad terms, a Ponzi scheme is an investors' pyramid. Here, the scheme's operator promises unreasonably high returns to attract new investors. These returns are so high that the founders know from the beginning that they are not economically sustainable. And an investor's source of income is not the return generated by the funds invested by themselves. Income here is derived from the new investments coming in from others.

Needless to say, the chain breaks at a certain point soon after a few people make huge amounts money… and after many lose whatever they have. The most famous Ponzi scheme of the last decades was led by Bernard Madoff who was a former Chairman of NASDAQ stock exchange. It was estimated that the investors had lost about $18 billion in his scheme. In June 2009, Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison.

Direct Selling

Both pyramid and Ponzi organizations are fraudulent, illegitimate and illegal. They are prosecuted and shut down wherever spotted. Direct selling on the other hand, is a legitimate way of making business.

First and foremost, the participants in direct selling earn money not based on others' losses. It is a micro-entrepreneurship model, in economic terms. I believe this draws a clear line.

Consultants take their shares from the commissions pool that accumulates from the sales of goods or services in this model. Looking from another perspective, if the products are not sold, nobody will be able to earn anything. Taking this a step further, registration fees, starter kit sales or anything that a new member is required to make a payment for do not and should not generate income for those who joined before.

So, where to stand on the issues of "personal use"? In my understanding, participants' purchases for themselves in reasonable amounts are just as legitimate as the purchases made for the purpose of retailing. And to me, there is nothing wrong with the upline or the consultant himself / herself earning commissions on them.

Unlike a pyramid or a Ponzi, direct selling is an economically sustainable model. As long as they are managed well, just like in any other industry, direct selling companies successfully survive for decades. While there is no such an example to this among pyramid schemes, there are numerous examples in the direct sales industry.

‍

General HealthJune14

When you enjoy a couple of digestive biscuits with your cuppa – who has just the one? – it probably doesn’t occur to you that you’re consuming salt. So it may shock you to learn there’s about the same amount of salt in that “sweet” snack as there is in a packet of ready salted potato crisps.

It’s not the salt we’re sprinkling on our meals at the table that’s damaging our health, according to campaign group Action on Salt. The hidden salt in sweet and savoury packaged foods is the silent killer; over time and in excessive amounts, it’s raising our blood pressure and causing heart attacks and strokes.

“We were getting the message to cut back on salt 10-15 years ago, but unfortunately it’s started to creep up again,” says Sonia Pombo, a registered nutritionist with Action on Salt. “In the UK, adults are eating about 8.4 grams of salt per day, about 40 per cent higher than the maximum recommended limit of 6g (about one teaspoon).” And most of that is hidden in products we buy at the supermarket, she says.

Salt serves a purpose in food, of course; in manufactured products it prevents spoiling and extends shelf life. And foods containing lower-quality ingredients are often generously salted to add much-needed flavour. “But food manufacturers certainly don’t need to add as much as they do,” Pombo says.

It’s not necessary to try to avoid salt altogether – our bodies need it to function. “It’s a case of scrutinising labels a bit more and switching to products with slightly lower amounts of salt,” Pombo says. “Small subtle changes over time will allow your tastebuds to adapt to eating less salt.”

The following foods are surprisingly high in salt, in many cases comparable to the amount in a 32.5g packet of Walkers Ready Salted Crisps (0.44g).

Sweet biscuits and treats

The McVities digestive biscuits mentioned above contain 0.2g of salt each, so a snack of two contains roughly the same amount as a bag of crisps. And there are even saltier sweet treats out there. Sainsbury’s Belgian White Chocolate & Raspberry Cookies contain 0.34g of salt each. White Ring Donuts from Iceland are covered in icing, so they might seem sugary – but each contains more salt (0.49g) than a packet of ready salted crisps.

Cheese

Salt is essential in cheesemaking, but Action on Salt argues that some manufacturers use much more than necessary. In its recent report into 607 hard cheeses, the organisation found that Asda 30% Less Fat Mature British Cheese was the saltiest cheddar with 2g of salt per 100g. That means there’s 0.6g of salt in the recommended matchbox-size serving (30g) – more than a bag of crisps. Some manufacturers manage to make cheddar with much less salt, Pombo points out. But even the least salty cheddar, Morrisons Savers Mild Coloured Cheddar, contains 1.44g of salt per 100g.

String cheese, which is hugely popular with children, contains worrying amounts of salt at 0.36g per portion, Pombo says. “Manufacturers could make them with a much lower salt content. It’s a missed opportunity to help children develop a lower salt palate.” But plant-based cheeses are the saltiest. One brand – Tesco Plant Chef Alternative to Mature Cheese – contains 2.5g salt per 100g, while Cathedral City Plant-Based Dairy-Free Block contains 2.2g of salt per 100g.

Breakfast cereals

Most of us consider cereal to be a sweet breakfast, but that’s not the whole picture. A bowlful might not taste as salty as crisps, but some brands are even saltier. For example, a 50g serving of Kellogg’s Cornflakes contains 0.55g of salt – significantly more than a bag of crisps – over one-quarter of the recommended intake of salt for a 3-year-old.

Even cereals considered healthy can be salty; one 50g serving of Kellogg’s Bran Flakes contains 0.33g of salt.

Bread

Our daily loaf – the plastic-wrapped supermarket kind - is one of the biggest sources of salt in the British diet, says Pombo. Even apparently healthy options are secretly salty. One slice of Hovis Granary Wholemeal sliced bread contains 0.46g of salt – more than a packet of crisps. A slice of Waitrose White Sourdough contains 0.41g.

If you eat sandwiches, the salt can easily add up. Two slices of Tesco White Bread (0.68g) spread with 4 teaspoons of salted butter (0.3g) and a serving of Marmite (0.86g) contains a total 1.84g of salt. That’s the same amount as in four packets of crisps, around one-third of the maximum recommended salt limit for adults, and the entire maximum daily recommended limit for three year olds.

Processed meats like bacon

Another big contributor to salt intake in Britain is processed and cured meat, including sliced ham and bacon. It’s not surprising they contain salt, as it’s used in the curing process, but the quantity they contain is sobering. For example, two slices of Sainsbury’s British Honey Roast Cooked Ham contain a total 0.55g of salt – significantly more than a packet of crisps. But bacon pulls an even saltier punch. Two rashers of Aldi Specially Selected Dry Cured Smoked Back Bacon contain 2.3g salt, more than in five packets of crisps.

Sausages are salty, too. Two Macaulay’s Irish Pork Sausages from Aldi contain 1.96g of salt – more than in four packets of crisps. Two Waitrose Cumberland Pork Sausages contain 1.58g of salt – more than three packets of crisps.

Plant-based meat

Like plant-based cheese, vegan meat alternatives are often high in salt to boost the flavour. “Eating less meat can and should be good for you, but people often conside plant-based alternatives as healthier when that’s not necessarily the case,” Pombo says.

Beyond Burger plant-based patties each contain more than 0.75g of salt – almost the same as in two bags of crisps, while two Richmond Meat Free Sausages contain 1.3g of salt – three bags of crisps.

Salad dressings and sauces

It’s easy to overlook the salt content of condiments because we only use small amounts, but some are laden with it, and it all adds up. One tablespoon of Hellmann’s Fat Free Vinaigrette Salad Dressing contains 0.11g of salt, while Tesco French Style Dressing contains 0.2g.

Ketchup is even saltier. One 15g serving of Heinz Tomato Ketchup contains 0.3g of salt, so if you smother sausages with it, you’re not far off the amount of salt in a bag of crisps – and that doesn’t include the salt in the sausages. But brands vary. Morrisons Tomato Ketchup contains only 0.12g per 15g serving, while Sainsbury’s Tomato Ketchup and Batts Tomato Ketchup (Lidl) contain 0.15g and 0.2g of salt per serve respectively.

Ready meals and soups

Food manufacturers have reformulated their recipes over the past few decades to drastically reduce the salt content in ready meals and soups. But some are still saltier than you might expect. Sainsbury’s Sausages and Mash contains 2.29g of salt – equivalent to the salt in more than five packets of crisps and almost half the recommended maximum daily limit for adults. Tesco Finest Spaghetti Carbonara isn’t far behind at 2.22g per serving.

Supermarket soups can also be incredibly salty. Cully & Sully Chicken and Vegetable Soup (available at various supermarkets) contains 2.4g of salt per serving, while M&S Chunky Chicken & Vegetable Soup contains 2g.

The Telegraph

Any opinions, views and beliefs represented in this article are personal and belong solely to the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the opinion, views and beliefs of the organisation and employees of New Image™ International

‍

Once thought to be a bygone disease, measles is making a comeback in the United States and globally as folks shun a safe, surefire way to prevent it: The measles vaccine.

But what is measles, and how easily does it spread? Drs. Aaron Milstone and Lisa Lockherd Maragakis, two infectious disease experts at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, provide answers to your common measles questions.

What is measles? How easily can it spread?

Measles is a viral illness that's one of the most easily transmitted infections known to medicine. "Nine out of 10 un-immunized children who are in contact with an infected person will contract the virus," the Hopkins experts wrote, and "the virus can linger in the air for about two hours after a person with measles has left the room."

How serious a disease is it?

Many people may believe that measles is just an uncomfortable but transient illness, but the truth is that it can prove very severe -- especially for kids.

Even in its "uncomfortable" form, measles is not easy, Milstone and Maragakis said. Besides the hallmark rash, which begins on the face and can cover the body, measles can involve high fever, cough, conjunctivitis (red, runny eyes) and congestion.

Without complications, measles typically runs its course in a week. When complications do arise, things can get much worse, however. Complications "can include ear infections, pneumonia and encephalitis, or inflammation of the brain, that can lead to permanent neurologic damage and even death," the two doctors wrote. "On average, measles kills between one and three of every 1,000 infected children."

Prevention is easy: Vaccination

The measles vaccine is one of the most effective known to medicine: 95% effective after one dose and 99% effective after two doses, the experts said.

Currently, the measles vaccine is recommended for all children. The first dose should be given between the ages of 12 and 15 months, and the second between the ages of 4 and 6. If you plan to take your kids to an area where measles is a risk, the second dose can come as soon as a month after the first dose, the Hopkins experts added. The vaccine is deemed to be less effective for babies between 6 months and one year of age, so any baby who receives their first shot that young should get two more boosters.

Is the measles vaccine safe?

Don't believe internet rumors: The measles vaccine has a long track record of safety, Milstone and Maragakis said.

First of all, "scientific research has shown unequivocally that the measles vaccine does NOT cause autism or other permanent neurologic or developmental problems," the two experts wrote.

The measles vaccine is made with a live but weakened form of the measles virus. As with any vaccine of this type, rare side effects can occur. "Some children -- about 10 percent -- will develop a fever about six to 12 days after vaccination, and an even smaller percentage will have a rash that can last a few hours to a day or two," the experts said. "In extremely rare cases, the fever can precipitate a seizure in children predisposed to fever-induced seizures."

In typical kids with healthy immune systems, getting the vaccine will not trigger measles-like illness. For children with weakened immune systems vaccination could spur such illness, so "if the immune deficiency is diagnosed in time, these children should not be vaccinated," Milstone and Maragakis advised.

Protecting your child - and others

Most children will not have any vaccine side effects, however, and getting vaccinated can spare them a potentially severe illness.

Getting vaccinated shields others, too.

"Because infants and a small number of other people cannot receive the vaccine, it is critically important that the rest of the population be vaccinated to prevent outbreaks and spread of the disease," the Hopkins experts said.

MedicineNet

‍

Is Ultrapasteurized Milk Hurting Your Health?

I was unaware of the risks associated with this product and feel it's important to share my concerns with you and why I suggest you seriously consider avoid ever using this product.

· Ultrapasteurized milk arose in response to the emergence of pasteurization-resistant pathogens like Listeria and antibiotic-resistant Salmonella that couldn't be killed using lower temperatures

· The shift toward grain-based diets for dairy cows, encouraged by the U.S. Department of Agriculture since the mid-1980s, fosters antibiotic resistance and exacerbates milk contamination issues

· Ultrapasteurization, which uses temperatures significantly higher than traditional pasteurization, has detrimental effects on milk nutrients, enzymes and proteins

· A 2019 study found that all forms of milk processing tested caused "formation of protein oxidation products which impair spatial learning and memory in rats." That includes boiling, microwave heating, spray drying and freeze-drying, and ultrapasteurization exposes the milk to far higher heat than boiling (284 F compared to 212 F)

· For optimal health benefits, opt for organic, grass fed raw (unpasteurized) milk, ideally certified by the American Grassfed Association (AGA), which ensures the highest quality grass fed products

Last winter, I spent nearly a month in Mexico and aimed to maintain my daily habit of drinking a glass of milk. My preference is organic milk, but the only type I could find was ultrapasteurized milk, which is widely available in grocery stores there. I was unaware of the risks associated with this product and feel it's important to share my concerns with you and why I suggest you seriously consider avoid ever using this product.

In a recent article,1 Sally Fallon Morell, author of "Nourishing Traditions" and president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, discusses the implications of ultrapasteurization of milk, which arose in response to the emergence of pasteurization-resistant pathogens like Listeria, and antibiotic-resistant Salmonella. It began in 1983 when an outbreak of listeriosis sickened 49 individuals, resulting in 14 fatalities. The outbreak was traced back to pasteurized milk, yet inspections of the plant where the milk was made uncovered no evidence of improper pasteurization. Regulatory officials involved in the investigation noted that Listeria is notably resilient to heat and that the intracellular nature of L. monocytogenes might allow it to survive pasteurization. "These results ... raise questions about the ability of pasteurization to eradicate a large inoculum of L. monocytogenes from contaminated raw milk," they wrote.2

Antibiotic-Resistant Pathogens That Survive Pasteurization

Further outbreaks occurred in 1984 and 1985, linked to Salmonella typhimurium. Disturbingly, investigations revealed this pathogen had developed resistance to commonly used antibiotics. An estimated 168,791 and 197,581 people were sickened and at least five people died in these outbreaks.

"Health officials concluded that the milk was contaminated after pasteurization by Salmonella, which persisted in the plant despite efforts to eradicate it," Fallon writes.3 But just how did the Salmonella become so hardy?

As explained by Fallon, in the mid-1980s, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) started urging dairy farmers to enhance their efficiency by confining cows to barns and providing them with grain-based diets, which necessitates the use of antibiotics to keep the animals healthy. This, in turn, set the stage for antibiotic resistance to develop.

"Large amounts of grain are not a natural diet for cows," Fallon explains,4 "nor is it natural for cows to live in close quarters with no way of distancing themselves from their fresh manure. To keep the cows alive in such conditions of filth, antibiotics became necessary. It was a recipe for antibiotic resistance and stronger, mutated pathogens.

With the outbreaks of the mid-1980s, the dairy industry realized that under these new conditions, pasteurization was not working. Unfortunately, their solution to the problem was not to go cleaner, but to go hotter. Enter UHT-ultra-high temperature processing.

Old-fashioned, 'low-temperature' pasteurization takes milk to 150 F — hot enough to destroy most of the enzymes in milk, many of which protect against pathogens, while others attach to vitamins and minerals in order to make them easy to absorb. High-temperature pasteurization (also called flash pasteurization) takes milk to 161 F, hot enough to kill all the enzymes and denature some of the proteins. Ultrapasteurization takes milk to 284 F — hotter, much hotter, than the boiling point — by rushing this most fragile, delicate food past superheated stainless steel plates. The process kills bacterial endospores — tough, dormant structures produced by many pathogens, which allows them to 'hibernate' and come back to life when conditions are sufficiently favorable (such as the small intestine). The process also kills everything else, including nutrients, enzymes, and proteins."

Ultrapasteurized Milk Is Harmful to Your Health

According to Parmalat,5 which sells ultrapasteurized milk in Europe, the product is "the same as fresh milk" and "contains a lot of nutrients that are good for your body, just like fresh milk." Scientific studies, however, strongly suggest otherwise. For example, a 2019 study6 from China found that all forms of milk processing tested caused "formation of protein oxidation products which impair spatial learning and memory in rats." That includes boiling, microwave heating, spray drying and freeze-drying, and as noted by Fallon, ultrapasteurization exposes the milk to far higher heat than boiling (284 F compared to 212 F). So, clearly, ultrapasteurized milk doesn't even come close to real milk.

"All four techniques (even freeze-drying) caused 'various degrees of redox state imbalance and oxidative damage in plasma, liver, and brain tissues,'" Fallon writes.7 "Feeding damaged milk proteins to rats resulted in learning and memory impairment — why would any parent want to give UHT [ultra-high temperature] milk to their kids?"

According to the authors of that study, the industry ought to "control milk protein oxidation and improve the processing methods applied to food." Other researchers have come to similar conclusions. A 2021 study8 in the journal Polymers noted that "The major protein modifications that occur during UHT treatment are denaturation and aggregation of the protein, and chemical modifications of its amino acids."

Damaged milk proteins may contribute to allergic reactions, Fallon notes, and milk allergy is now commonplace. According to the Asthma and Allergy Network, an estimated 20 Americans die each year from anaphylactic shock caused by conventional milk9 — a shocking reminder of just how far modern milk has strayed from real, raw milk, which rarely causes any allergic reactions.

One-Third of Conventional Milk Contains Risky Contaminants

Nonorganic pasteurized milk also has other downsides. Aside from potentially hazardous pathogens, conventional milk has also been found to contain a variety of drugs and agricultural chemicals, including:

· Antibiotics such as amoxicillin, oxytetracycline and sulfadimethoxine, as well as sulfathiazole and sulfamethazine, both of which are banned for use in dairy production due to human health concerns, which include acute and potentially life-threatening allergic reactions.

· Pesticides such as chlorpyrifos (an insecticide known to disrupt brain development and cause brain damage, neurological abnormalities, reduced IQ and aggressiveness in children), atrazine (linked to reproductive harm in animals, birth defects and cancer), diazinon, cypermethrin and permethrin (a synthetic pyrethroid13 insecticide linked to behavior problems in children).

None of these pesticides and antibiotics were found in organic milk samples, however. As noted by the authors

"Among the conventional samples, residue levels exceeded federal limits for amoxicillin in one sample (3%) and in multiple samples for sulfamethazine (37%) and sulfathiazole (26%). Median bGH and IGF-1 concentrations in conventional milk were 9·8 and 3·5 ng/ml, respectively, twenty and three times that in organic samples. Current-use antibiotics and pesticides were undetectable in organic but prevalent in conventionally produced milk samples, with multiple samples exceeding federal limits. Higher bGH and IGF-1 levels in conventional milk suggest the presence of synthetic growth hormone."

Why You Shouldn't Avoid Milk

While it may sound as though avoiding milk altogether might be your best bet, that's not the case at all. As detailed in "The Amazing Benefits of Dairy Fat," whole or full-fat dairy contains the odd-chain saturated fats (OCFAs) pentadecanoic acid (C15:0) and heptadecanoic acid (C17:0), which have significant health benefits.

These OCFAs are primarily found in dairy fat, and your body cannot make C15:0, so you must get it from your diet. This fat is so beneficial that researchers now speculate that it may be an overlooked essential fat. Higher circulating levels of OCFAs in the blood is associated with lower risks of obesity, chronic inflammation, cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, Type 2 diabetes, NASH, COPD, pancreatic cancer and all-cause mortality.

And, importantly, OCFAs do not have an inhibitory effect on glucose burning because they are not converted to acetyl-CoA; rather, they enter the Krebs Cycle as succinyl-CoA. What this means in practical terms is that you don't need to restrict your consumption of full fat dairy, as it won't affect your ability to burn glucose. Raw organic grass fed milk also has important immune-boosting benefits. According to a 2015 study15 in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, children who drank raw organic grass fed milk had 30% lower rates of viral and respiratory tract infections, including regular colds, then those who drink ultrapasteurized milk. So, milk can indeed "do your body good," as the old marketing slogan used to say, but you must drink the right kind of milk.

Organic Raw Grass Fed Milk Is the Safest Option

The healthiest and safest variety of milk is raw, unpasteurized milk sourced from organically raised, grass fed or pastured cows. Contrary to widespread belief, raw milk is significantly less likely to harbor hazardous bacteria linked to foodborne illness compared to pasteurized counterparts. Despite assertions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration16 and the USDA17 regarding the increased health risks associated with raw milk consumption, empirical evidence from foodborne illness data contradicts these claims. According to an investigation by Dr. Ted Beals,18 the likelihood of falling ill from raw milk is 35,000 times lower than from other food sources.

Similarly, a 2012 investigation by Mark McAfee, CEO of Organic Pastures Dairy — which included a FOIA request to the CDC for data on deaths claimed to be related to raw milk — revealed:

· Zero deaths attributed to raw milk consumption in California over a 37-year span

· The two deaths the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists as being related to raw milk were actually due to illegal Mexican bathtub cheese, and not raw milk produced in the U.S.

· The last people to die from milk died from contaminated pasteurized milk

· According to a Cornell study which used CDC data, 1,100 illnesses were linked to raw milk between 1973 and 2009. Meanwhile, 422,000 illnesses were traced back to pasteurized milk. And, while no one died from raw milk, at least 50 Americans died from pasteurized milk or pasteurized cheese

Both FDA and USDA caution against the potential presence of disease-causing bacteria in raw milk, yet fail to acknowledge that these pathogens stem from industrial farming practices, which contribute to animal health issues. Animals raised on pasture under healthier conditions typically do not harbor harmful levels of pathogenic bacteria.

Their cautionary stance on raw milk consumption would only be warranted if explicitly targeting unpasteurized milk from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), where risks are indeed elevated. Raw organic grass fed milk, when handled according to proper sanitary protocols, seldom poses health hazards as organic dairy farms are mandated to adhere to stringent guidelines, enhancing safety measures

Consider Goat Milk as an Alternative

I, along with many others, have a distinct preference for raw goat's milk over cow's milk. This choice isn't just about taste; it's also influenced by the nutritional and physical properties of goat milk. One of the notable differences between goat's milk and cow's milk is the composition of fat. Goat milk has smaller fat globules and a different type of fat, which means it naturally remains more homogenous.

Unlike cow's milk, which often requires mechanical homogenization to prevent its fat from separating, goat milk naturally maintains a consistent mixture. This characteristic not only affects its texture and taste, making it smoother and more palatable, but it also makes goat milk easier to digest for many people. Additionally, goat milk predominantly contains A2 casein. Unlike most cow's milk, which can have both A1 and A2 casein, goat's milk, along with sheep and buffalo milk, generally contains the A2 type of casein that is considered to be easier to digest for some people and less likely to cause the adverse effects associated with A1 casein. This makes goat's milk a preferred option for those sensitive to dairy products derived from cows with A1 casein.

Most Store-Bought Milk Is Ultrapasteurized

Upon its introduction to the U.S. market in the early 1990s, ultrapasteurized milk was sold in specialized sterile containers, originally developed in Europe. This product required no refrigeration and boasted a shelf-life of up to nine months. However, American consumers were leery about buying unrefrigerated milk. Consequently, the industry reverted to traditional packaging methods and relocated the product back to the refrigerated aisle. Fast-forward to today and most of the milk sold is ultrapasteurized, even if it's organic.

Fermented products like sour cream and cheese, however, are typically made from pasteurized milk, but not ultrapasteurized, as milk that has undergone ultra-high heat treatment cannot ferment. "That's another way of saying that UHT milk is indigestible, as fermentation is a form of digestion," Fallon notes. She goes on:20 "A recent listeria outbreak causing two deaths and more than 20 hospitalizations initiated a Feb. 5 recall of pasteurized cheese, yogurt, and sour cream — an indication that pasteurization doesn't ensure safety in fermented dairy foods. UHT milk has served as a temporary fix for the dairy industry, but it will ultimately be its undoing. Milk consumption in the United States has declined by half since 1970, and the dairy industry has been unable to reverse the trend. It blames competition from sodas and plant-based 'milk' but won't admit that UHT processing makes milk unpalatable, allergenic, and indigestible."

Where to Find Raw Milk

Though organic milk stands as a preferable option compared to conventional counterparts, it's crucial to recognize that any organic milk sold in mainstream grocery stores is either pasteurized or ultrapasteurized, thus compromising some of its advantages. Pasteurization, responsible for eliminating harmful bacteria, also eradicates beneficial bacteria and may harm essential enzymes. To learn more, see RealMilk.com's article, "The 15 Things That Milk Pasteurization Kills."21 What's worse — regulatory loopholes permitting CAFO dairies to produce "organic" milk, even though the cows are not grass fed on pasture? I discuss this in "How Organic is Your Organic Milk?"

For optimal health benefits, opt for organic, grass fed raw (unpasteurized) milk, ideally certified by the American Grassfed Association (AGA), which ensures the highest quality grass fed products. The AGA website allows you to search for AGA-approved producers22 certified according to strict standards that include being raised on a diet of 100% forage; raised on pasture and never confined to a feedlot; never treated with antibiotics or hormones; and born and raised on American family farms.

Other resources that can help you find raw grass fed milk locally include Raw-Milk-Facts.com23 and RealMilk.com.24 They can tell you what the status is for legality in your state, and provide a listing of raw dairy farms in your area. The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund25 also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws.26 California residents can also find raw milk retailers using the store locator available at www.rawfarmusa.com.27 As noted by Fallon:28

"My prediction: Within 20 years UHT milk will be a thing of the past, recognized as a misuse of technology, a rust belt solution that ruins the goodness of Nature's perfect food. We have many elegant technologies today — stainless steel, on-site testing, a national cold chain, and moveable electric fencing that makes grazing feasible — which allow us to get clean raw milk safely to every person in America. 'Get bigger, go hotter' is not the future. The future is small and medium grass-based farms selling raw milk directly to grateful customers."

Dr. Mercola

‍

Global News

FDA on food packaging

FDA Removes Harmful Chemicals From Food Packaging

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, "this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated," the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. "Today's announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments," according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called "forever chemicals" are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA's announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science. "IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding," they said in the report.

"Endocrine disrupting chemicals" are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases. The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It's an update to the Endocrine Society's 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children's products containing arsenic. At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report's lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, "A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions."

Added Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society's Board of Directors, "These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health." While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven't kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven't dealt with that aspect. Moreover, "the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs," according to the report. Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about "EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle" and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change. The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world's most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity. Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.

'Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary'

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that "may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics," the report said.

The authors added, "While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals."

MedScape

‍

Inflammation with aging

Here's how inflammation affects you differently as you age

When faced with joint pain, or even an injury, applying heat or alternating heat and cold are popular treatments that can be effective. But as we age, chronic inflammation—and enduring pain—can set in, a development so common it has a name: "inflammaging."

As we grow older, aches and pains can become a chronic part of life. But experts say it doesn't have to—and solutions are on the way.

It happens to everyone. With age come discomforts: achy joints, wounds that heal more slowly, and a rising risk for cancers, heart disease, dementia, arthritis, and other illnesses. Those changes follow an uptick in inflammatory molecules over the course of a lifetime, according to a large and growing body of research. The link between age, inflammation, and disease is so well established, it has a name: inflammaging.

Now, researchers are unraveling the details of how the inflammatory process changes over the lifespan, what instigates the shift, and how it might be possible to interfere with the process. The work suggests interventions ranging from new drugs to new motivations for healthy habits like exercise that can slow the aging process, says Ron DePinho, a cancer biology and aging researcher at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Research on inflammaging also illustrates the nuanced challenge of taking the reins of inflammation to sustain health later in life. Although many people fixate on the need to reduce inflammation, it is more important to sustain the appropriate amount of it as a means toward extending quality rather than quantity of life, says Judith Campisi, a cell biologist at the Buck Institute for Research on Aging, an independent research facility in Novato, Calif. “What happens with age is you lose control of inflammation,” she says. “Even if you're five years old, you will never heal a wound without an initial inflammatory response. It’s not always bad. It's sometimes good.”

Hallmarks of aging

As people age, according to numerous studies, increasing amounts of pro-inflammatory cytokines and other inflammation-related molecules circulate in the blood alongside a rise in localized inflammation. When the shift occurs depends on the person, DePinho says, but 50 is generally when inflammation starts to increase, with a dramatic shift after 60.

That uptick tracks closely with disease trends. Beginning in the early sixties, risks rise substantially for the most common chronic diseases of aging: cancer, diabetes, heart disease and dementia, DePinho says. Starting at 65, the number of people with Alzheimer’s doubles every five years. In the U.S., 80 percent of adults over 65 have at least one chronic condition. By age 85, a third of people may have Alzheimer’s, while a third of men and one-fourth of women have had cancer. People with more inflammation in their bodies have a higher risk of disease.

Scientists have identified a dozen biological changes that correspond with age. All of those hallmarks of aging are associated with inflammation, and inflammation is considered a pillar of aging, says Luigi Ferrucci, a geriatrician and epidemiologist at the Intramural Research Program of the NIH’s National Institute on Aging in Baltimore, Maryland.

For example, as people get older, their immune cells lose their protective functions and stop doing the job of fighting off invaders, turning into what scientists call senescent cells. Other kinds of cells can also become senescent in response to stress. They cease replicating, no longer do their jobs, and start to secrete powerful inflammatory molecules that cause yet more cells to become senescent in a self-perpetuating cycle.

A relentless loop

Meanwhile, DNA damage inside cells accumulates over time, especially at the tips of chromosomes in protective regions called telomeres, which are long stretches of bunched-up DNA. Each time a cell divides, its telomeres become shorter until they reach a critical length that is perceived by the cell as DNA damage or instability, which may induce cellular senescence.

As telomeres become damaged, they initiate a signaling process through proteins that turn certain genes on and off. Some of the genes affected support the function of mitochondria (the cell components that produce energy). As a result of the gene disruption, mitochondria become defective and leak their DNA into cells, sparking inflammation.

Scientists used to consider telomere shortening, mitochondrial damage, inflammation, and other processes as separate theories of aging that could contribute to diseases like cancer, DePinho says. Now it is clear that all of these changes are connected and that inflammation acts like a “co-conspirator” in the aging process.

As chronic inflammation sets in, it becomes harder for the immune system to perform routine tasks, like detecting and eliminating cancer cells and pathogens, which could make people more likely to develop diseases. Inflammation in the body may also activate immune cells in the brain called microglia, according to one theory, causing inflammation, weakening the blood-brain barrier, and destroying nerve cells, ultimately contributing to the development of Alzheimer’s.

This burgeoning understanding of inflammaging as a relentless circuit of steps that all exacerbate inflammation is revealing new ways to break the cycle.

Aging better

Efforts to develop anti-aging interventions that target inflammation are challenging because they need to be specific to avoid causing more harm than good, Ferrucci says. Trying to tackle the chronic inflammation of aging with general anti-inflammatory drugs, for example, could make people more susceptible to disease by impairing the inflammation that our bodies need for staying healthy. “When you have an infection, if you don't have inflammation, you're going to die,” Ferrucci says. “Shutting down inflammation with a bomb like a corticosteroid or some monoclonal antibodies works. It's also quite dangerous.

One of the most promising new strategies for dealing with inflammaging is attacking senescent cells, experts say. In mice, a low-dose combination of two drugs, called Dasatinib and Quercetin, appears to be particularly effective at getting rid of these deadbeat cells and reducing inflammation in the intestines with the potential to extend lives. Clinical trials are now underway with these and other so-called senolytics to see if the same kinds of compounds might kill senescent cells and break the cycle of inflammation and disease in people too, says DePinho.

Other ongoing approaches include efforts to identify drugs that could restore telomeres, enhance mitochondrial function, and activate anti-aging genes, a strategy DePinho is working on. Some over-the-counter supplements claim to boost levels of proteins called sirtuins, which help cells respond to stresses, and a molecule called NAD+, which helps mitochondria function, among other roles, and dwindles in half from youth to middle age. Although evidence has been seriously questioned and these products have been over-hyped, DePinho says, further study may illuminate new anti-aging properties of sirtuins.

Scientists are hopeful that they are getting closer to understanding which interventions will help most, and studies in mice illustrate the tantalizing possibilities. “Tissues retain a remarkable capacity to renew themselves if you remove the underlying instigators of the aging process,” DePinho says.

Advances in immunology are lending new insights into how we can allow good inflammation to proceed while squashing the bad that can come from too much of it, Ferrucci adds. “As we discover the nuances of inflammation,” he says, “then it may be possible to find drugs that do not shut down inflammation completely.”

Age-fighting behaviors

For now, there are simple steps people can take to address inflammaging in their own bodies, experts say, including exercise. Regular physical activity enhances DNA repair, improves mitochondrial function, activates sirtuins, and, studies show, can reduce the risk of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s. Regular vigorous activity is best, but as little as 15 minutes a day can make a difference, DePinho says, and even leisure activities help.

Dietary choices, too, can improve the chronic inflammatory state of inflammaging, according to a variety of studies that support eating a Mediterranean-style diet with an emphasis on whole grains, produce, nuts, and fish. Eating a wide variety of vegetables may also help sustain the gut microbiome, which tends to become less resilient and contribute to rising levels of inflammation with age. Each Saturday, when Ferrucci goes to the market to shop for the week, he buys 10 different kinds of vegetables, based on this emerging evidence. “That is something that has been suggested in the literature,” he says. “And I think that's a simple way of following that advice.”

Body fat releases cytokines that promote inflammation, DePinho adds, so using exercise and diet to control weight can have extra benefits. He also advises people to avoid or quit smoking, a habit known to increase DNA damage and drive inflammation. Finding ways to relax is another useful goal, as chronic stress has been linked to shortened telomeres, accelerated aging, and inflammatory diseases. Adequate sleep and meditation can help reduce stress, DePinho says.

Healthy habits like these are important throughout life, Ferrucci says, but they become especially important as the mechanisms that protect our cells from damage become less functional with age. That accumulating damage is a key source of inflammation. “Intervening in any possible way becomes more important as you become older,” he says.

National Geographic

‍

Hidden sugars in everyday foods

From choosing what to have for breakfast to making sweet treats 'healthy', here are the tips you need to navigate the tricky world of sugar. Unless you've just arrived from Mars, it won't come as news that in Britain we consume too much sugar, with terrible consequences for our health. That much seems straightforward, yet these days, sugar is a hot and confusing topic.

Scientist, gut health expert and Telegraph columnist Professor Tim Spector recently sparked a heated debate on social media by claiming orange juice was "just as bad" as cola.

Meanwhile, nutrition experts have lambasted some of Pret a Manger's apparently healthy granola breakfast bowls for containing more sugar per serving than a Mars bar. Even Pret's new kids' meal deals are in the firing line, with experts saying the yogurt pots contain more sugar than a packet of Haribo sweets.

Those of us with a sweet tooth – and that's most of us, at least occasionally – can only scratch our heads. Are all types of sugar the devil's work? Are we really damaging our health by reaching for a sweet treat occasionally? Only in our dreams would kids choose an apple over sweets, so what do we do in the real world when they badger us for a treat? We asked the experts.

What types of sugar are least healthy?

To make informed choices about sugar, it's important to understand the basics. There are two types of sugar in food: intrinsic and free. Intrinsic sugars are naturally present in the cell structure of whole foods such as fruit, vegetables and milk. Free sugars, on the other hand, have been 'freed' from the cells through processing, such as squeezing for juice or blitzing into purée. Free sugars include the white stuff we stir into our tea, as well as all the brown sugars, which are widely and wrongly thought to be healthier. But many free sugars are less obvious: fruit juice, fruit juice concentrate, fruit purée, honey and syrups all count.

These "free" sugars are the ones the Government advises us to limit our intake of. This is because they damage our teeth and are quickly absorbed, causing spikes in blood sugar. And they don't fill us up, so leave us wanting more. Eating too much sugar is also linked to a range of serious health conditions, such as diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease. In contrast, there's no evidence that intrinsic sugars – the kind in, say, apples – are damaging. "They take longer to digest and don't spike your blood sugar as quickly as free sugars because they come with extra nutrients, like fibre and other compounds that are good for us," says nutritionist Sam Rice.

How much sugar should we consume?

The Government recommends we limit our intake of free sugars, not intrinsic sugars. For adults and children aged 11 and above, that means a maximum of 30g a day; for those from seven to ten, it's 24g a day; and from four to six, 19g a day. Unfortunately, as a nation, we ignore these recommendations.

According to the latest National Diet and Nutrition Survey, overall average intakes of free sugars are roughly twice the recommendation. And we're potentially seriously risking our health as a result.

"Excessive consumption of sugar can increase the risk of tooth decay and Type 2 diabetes," says registered nutritionist Valeria Folco. "It can also promote a higher intake of energy, which in the long-term may lead to weight gain." What's more, free sugars trigger sharp rises and falls – spikes – in blood sugar levels. Emerging evidence suggests that over the long term, frequent and extreme spikes can cause chronic inflammation – cell damage – and associated conditions such as heart disease, Alzheimer's and potentially even cancer.

The hidden sugar to look out for

Sometimes we don't know how much free sugar we're consuming, so it's important to be able to spot it on labels. This isn't necessarily easy, as it can be disguised under many names. Look out for the words syrup, nectar, molasses, fruit juice concentrate, fruit juice, fruit purée and anything ending in 'ose' (such as fructose, glucose, dextrose and maltose). Some recent studies have suggested fructose may have a particular role to play in weight gain, but Folco says the evidence for this is "conflicting".

Also look for the "carbohydrates of which sugars" figure on the nutrition label. Products are considered to either be high or low in sugar if they fall above or below the following thresholds - high: more than 22.5g of total sugars per 100g; low: 5g or less of total sugars per 100g.

Misleadingly, "no added sugar" on packaging doesn't mean it's free from all "free sugars", just table sugar. Manufacturers are technically allowed to use the term if they've added free sugars such as fruit purée or concentrate

The Telegraph

‍

The everyday foods that contain more salt than a packet of salted crisps