Is Fluoride in Private Wells Causing an IQ Decline?

Is Fluoride in Private Wells Causing an IQ Decline?

Excess fluoride, which may damage both brain and bone, is leaching out of granite and into Maine's drinking water—and potentially other New England states

Aug 20, 2014 |By Dina Fine Maron

Credit: NYC.gov

Locals call it the “Switzerland of Maine” for its breathtaking mountains and picturesque waters, yet Dedham is just one of a cadre of communities in The Pine Tree State where tap water may not be as safe as it appears.

Like the majority of the state, many of Dedham’s denizens rely on private wells for the water they drink, bathe in and perhaps use to make infant milk formula. But the water trickling from the tap—unlike water from its public water sources—goes untested and is not subject to any state or federal guidelines. And although homeowners are encouraged to get their water regularly tested to ensure that worrisome levels of bacteria or naturally occurring minerals have not crept in, many residents do not follow that advice.

Yet newly available data, released in recent months, indicates that in some 10 communities in the state wells harbor dangerously high levels of fluoride. In some cases, the wells contain more than double the level that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has deemed the acceptable maximum exposure level.

In small quantities fluoride is known for helping to tamp down the blight of tooth decay; most municipalities in the U.S. add it to their water supplies as a public health measure. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recognizes water fluoridation as one of the top 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.

But at higher levels, fluoride can lead to pitted teeth and discoloration. It also makes bones brittle and more prone to fractures. And recent studies have also linked high levels of fluoride exposure with IQ deficits. A 2012 review article examined some two dozen relevant studies performed outside the U.S.—mostly in China but also a couple in Iran—and found that high fluoride exposures reduce children’s IQs by an average of about seven points. (The studies did not all account for exposures to other potentially harmful substances such as lead, but the sheer volume of them does raise concerns about this association.)

Mainers may be sipping similar amounts of fluoride. “The sort of levels we’re talking about that are high in China are the sort of levels we see in some private wells,” says Andrew Smith, Maine state toxicologist.

In Dedham, for example, data from 37 wells indicates that 37.8 percent of that water is above the state’s maximum exposure guideline for fluoride. Dedham is not alone: in Surry, Prospect, Franklin, Sedgwick, Penobscot, York, Harrison and Stockton Springs, more than 10 percent of the wells appear to have fluoride levels higher than the state cutoff. The level of potential fluoride exposure encountered by residents may be even higher when factoring in fluoride exposures from dental rinses and toothpaste.

The new data on fluoride levels in Maine water is not from a random sampling of homes in Maine nor is it complete. The data comes from homeowners who voluntarily sent water samples into state labs for testing, which potentially skews the sample. But it does provide the first snapshot of what may prove to be a larger problem.

The state’s suggested limit of two milligrams per liter is half of the EPA limit but many public health advocates argue that limit is far too high. The agency is currently considering lowering its cutoff for fluoride exposure, although it does not expect to have completed its review of the issue until 2016. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has proposed adding fluoride to water in concentrations no greater than 0.7 milligram per liter to avoid any unwanted health effects.

Credit: USGS

Why are the Maine levels so high? Geology. Granite—especially certain kinds such as alkali and peraluminous granites—contains high levels of fluoride, boosting the chances of wells drawing it from that water. Certain other New England states such as New Hampshire (known as "The Granite State”) and Rhode Island may also have private wells at risk because they, too, sport large amounts of the potentially problematic rock.

Credit: USGS

People living in areas with high fluoride concentrations can take steps to mitigate the problem—but it is an open question whether they will. Countertop filters like Brita pitchers are not effective but advanced technology such as reverse osmosis systems (which may start around $150 per unit) will capture much of the fluoride.

Unfortunately even people whose water is contaminated with far more harmful chemicals frequently take no action. Researchers recently surveyed residents of central Maine whose well water contains high levels of arsenic—an odorless, tasteless element that can cause maladies including cancer, blindness and numbness in hands and feet. They reported that 27 percent of those Mainers did nothing about it. When asked why not, people reported a lack of concern about arsenic and reluctance to pay for any mitigating action.

Credit: Maine Reporting Network

The potential health concerns around arsenic are so much better publicized than fluoride, suggesting that fewer people will protect themselves from excessive fluoride concentrations. Yet Mainers should. “The studies of high fluoride should be taken seriously,” says Harvard University environmental health professor David Bellinger. “We have a long history of first identifying adverse effects at high levels and then, with further and better studies, discovering that there are adverse effects [milder] at levels that we thought were okay.”

Solving the Gluten-Free Debate

mail

HUFFPOST HEALTHY LIVING

Solving the Gluten-Free Debate

Posted: 03/26/2014 12:51 pm EDT Updated: 05/26/2014 5:59 am EDT

JJ Virgin Become a fan 

Fitness/Nutrition Expert, Author of NY Times Bestseller The Virgin Diet.

"It's like I died and went to legalized processed-carbohydrate heaven," my friend said, pointing to the endless array of cookies, crackers, breads, and other sugary foods that lined nearly an entire prominently labeled gluten-free aisle at my local grocery store.

Remember a decade ago when low-carb reached its zenith (or nadir)? Suddenly, manufacturers created donuts, cookies, and other junk food repurposed as lower in carbohydrates and therefore "healthy." Except that it wasn't.

"Going gluten free" has reached that same laughingstock status these days. You can bastardize any diet plan, and imagining you'll suddenly lose fat and feel better eating gluten-free processed foods will only set you up for serious disappointment.

Experts continue to debate whether ditching gluten is a wise idea, and studies show, "[g]luten sensitivity is a controversial subject, where patients who have neither Celiac Disease nor wheat allergy have varying degrees of symptomatic improvement on the gluten-free diet."

Regardless, manufacturers got the message long ago that gluten-free is big business, even if studies show eating this way costs significantly more. "The business of gluten-free products is expected to grow 50 percent in the next few years to $15 billion in sales by 2016," writes Gerri Willis in Fox Business.

Many of these products contain the same "junk" ingredients and even more sugar than their gluten-containing equivalents.

"Some people who go off gluten to lose weight end up gaining weight instead," writes Dr. Arthur Agatston, author of The South Beach Diet. "That's because they consume gluten-free packaged products that are often just as high in saturated fat, sugar and sodium as other junk food, and these products often contain high-glycemic refined ingredients like white rice flour or fillers like potato starch that can affect your blood sugar and trigger cravings."

So no, going gluten-free does not automatically entail fat loss and becoming healthier if you're stocking up on crackers, cookies, pasta, and other high-carb junk. But do it correctly and ditching gluten can become the needle mover to ditch those last stubborn pounds.

I wouldn't yet call it a sea change, but as gluten-free becomes mainstream, the tide is swiftly turning. A recent study found a smartly designed gluten-free diet reduces your risks for inflammation and insulin resistance as well as helps you lose fat.

"Chronic inflammation is a part of every degenerative disease known to humankind," writes Dr. Jonny Bowden in The Most Effective Ways to Live Longer. "We're familiar with its role in allergies, acne, and asthma ... but what you might not be award of its inflammation's role in obesity, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and cognitive decline -- all the diseases of aging."

Numerous studies link insulin resistance with inflammation, obesity, and eventually Type 2 diabetes.

In other words, going gluten-free can provide fat loss and other immediate benefits, but it can also repay healthy dividends years and decades down the road.

Based on research coupled with years using IgG food intolerance testing, I believe nearly everyone does better on a gluten-free diet.

We can debate ad nauseam the numerous benefits of going gluten-free, but you needn't take my or any other expert's word about doing it. I've developed a more experiential solution: Pull gluten for three weeks and see if you don't notice the difference.

Chances are, you will. In fact, you might feel and look so much better that you go gluten-free permanently.

Many folks see syndromes they've dismissed as "normal" such as headaches disappear. Coupled with an anti-inflammatory diet that includes plenty of wild-caught fish and green vegetables, a gluten-free diet can seriously reduce inflammation. Even with the most weight-loss resistant cases, the scales start moving again.

Even if you don't notice improvements, you've got nothing to lose.

Nature created its own gluten-free menu, but you won't find most of it in the gluten-free aisle. Vegetables, fruits, healthy fats, high-fiber slow-release starchy carbs, and lean protein are all naturally gluten-free: No certification necessary. After all, you never have to worry about a little gluten slipping in broccoli or a sweet potato.

If you've pulled gluten -- either temporarily or permanently -- I'd love to hear from you. Was going gluten-free the magic bullet for fat loss, improved symptoms, and other noticeable benefits? And if you're up for the three-week challenge, I want to hear how it goes. Share your story below.

Additional References

Jonny Bowden, The Most Effective Ways to Live Longer (Minnesota: Fair Winds, 2010).

Follow JJ Virgin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JJVirgin

MORE:

Burst TrainingNutritionist Food IntolerancesFood IntolerancesNutritionist Food SensitivitiesWeight LossFat LossFast MetabolismGluten FreeGluten Free FoodsGluten Free FoodGluten Free ProductsGluten Free DietGluten

Is Fluoride in Private Wells Causing an IQ Decline?

Is Fluoride in Private Wells Causing an IQ Decline?

Excess fluoride, which may damage both brain and bone, is leaching out of granite and into Maine's drinking water—and potentially other New England states

Aug 20, 2014 |By Dina Fine Maron

Credit: NYC.gov

Locals call it the “Switzerland of Maine” for its breathtaking mountains and picturesque waters, yet Dedham is just one of a cadre of communities in The Pine Tree State where tap water may not be as safe as it appears.

Like the majority of the state, many of Dedham’s denizens rely on private wells for the water they drink, bathe in and perhaps use to make infant milk formula. But the water trickling from the tap—unlike water from its public water sources—goes untested and is not subject to any state or federal guidelines. And although homeowners are encouraged to get their water regularly tested to ensure that worrisome levels of bacteria or naturally occurring minerals have not crept in, many residents do not follow that advice.

Yet newly available data, released in recent months, indicates that in some 10 communities in the state wells harbor dangerously high levels of fluoride. In some cases, the wells contain more than double the level that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has deemed the acceptable maximum exposure level.

In small quantities fluoride is known for helping to tamp down the blight of tooth decay; most municipalities in the U.S. add it to their water supplies as a public health measure. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recognizes water fluoridation as one of the top 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.

But at higher levels, fluoride can lead to pitted teeth and discoloration. It also makes bones brittle and more prone to fractures. And recent studies have also linked high levels of fluoride exposure with IQ deficits. A 2012 review article examined some two dozen relevant studies performed outside the U.S.—mostly in China but also a couple in Iran—and found that high fluoride exposures reduce children’s IQs by an average of about seven points. (The studies did not all account for exposures to other potentially harmful substances such as lead, but the sheer volume of them does raise concerns about this association.)

Mainers may be sipping similar amounts of fluoride. “The sort of levels we’re talking about that are high in China are the sort of levels we see in some private wells,” says Andrew Smith, Maine state toxicologist.

In Dedham, for example, data from 37 wells indicates that 37.8 percent of that water is above the state’s maximum exposure guideline for fluoride. Dedham is not alone: in Surry, Prospect, Franklin, Sedgwick, Penobscot, York, Harrison and Stockton Springs, more than 10 percent of the wells appear to have fluoride levels higher than the state cutoff. The level of potential fluoride exposure encountered by residents may be even higher when factoring in fluoride exposures from dental rinses and toothpaste.

The new data on fluoride levels in Maine water is not from a random sampling of homes in Maine nor is it complete. The data comes from homeowners who voluntarily sent water samples into state labs for testing, which potentially skews the sample. But it does provide the first snapshot of what may prove to be a larger problem.

The state’s suggested limit of two milligrams per liter is half of the EPA limit but many public health advocates argue that limit is far too high. The agency is currently considering lowering its cutoff for fluoride exposure, although it does not expect to have completed its review of the issue until 2016. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has proposed adding fluoride to water in concentrations no greater than 0.7 milligram per liter to avoid any unwanted health effects.

Credit: USGS

Why are the Maine levels so high? Geology. Granite—especially certain kinds such as alkali and peraluminous granites—contains high levels of fluoride, boosting the chances of wells drawing it from that water. Certain other New England states such as New Hampshire (known as "The Granite State”) and Rhode Island may also have private wells at risk because they, too, sport large amounts of the potentially problematic rock.

Credit: USGS

People living in areas with high fluoride concentrations can take steps to mitigate the problem—but it is an open question whether they will. Countertop filters like Brita pitchers are not effective but advanced technology such as reverse osmosis systems (which may start around $150 per unit) will capture much of the fluoride.

Unfortunately even people whose water is contaminated with far more harmful chemicals frequently take no action. Researchers recently surveyed residents of central Maine whose well water contains high levels of arsenic—an odorless, tasteless element that can cause maladies including cancer, blindness and numbness in hands and feet. They reported that 27 percent of those Mainers did nothing about it. When asked why not, people reported a lack of concern about arsenic and reluctance to pay for any mitigating action.

Credit: Maine Reporting Network

The potential health concerns around arsenic are so much better publicized than fluoride, suggesting that fewer people will protect themselves from excessive fluoride concentrations. Yet Mainers should. “The studies of high fluoride should be taken seriously,” says Harvard University environmental health professor David Bellinger. “We have a long history of first identifying adverse effects at high levels and then, with further and better studies, discovering that there are adverse effects [milder] at levels that we thought were okay.”

5 Reasons to Take Astaxanthin Every Day

Suzy Cohen, R.Ph.

Author, 'œDrug Muggers', 'Diabetes WIthout Drugs' and 'The 24-Hour Pharmacist'

GET UPDATES FROM SUZY COHEN, R.PH.

Reasons to Take Astaxanthin Every Day

Posted: 02/28/2013 2:29 pm

Read more

And Nutrition, Astaxanthin Supplement, Astaxanthin Supplements, Natural Health,Antioxidant, Astaxanthin, Natural Pain Relievers, What Is Astaxanthin, Why Astaxanthin,Healthy Living News

GET HEALTHY LIVING NEWSLETTERS:

SUBSCRIBE

Astaxanthin (pronounced "asta-ZAN-thin") is a naturally-occurring carotenoid found in algae, shrimp, lobster, crab and salmon. Carotenoids are pigment colors that occur in nature and support good health. Beta carotene, for example, is orange. Astaxanthin, dubbed the "king of the carotenoids" is red, and is responsible for turning salmon, crab, lobster and shrimp flesh pink. In the animal kingdom, astaxanthin is found in the highest concentration in the muscles of salmon. Scientists theorize astaxanthin helps provide the endurance these remarkable animals need to swim upstream. For humans, astaxanthin is a powerful antioxidant with broad health implications and unlike other antioxidants, such as beta carotene, zeaxanthin, vitamin E, C, D and selenium, astaxanthin never becomes pro-oxidant in the body. [23, 24, 25, 26]

Astaxanthin has been discussed by Dr. Mehmet Oz and Dr. Joe Mercola and recommended by many health experts, including myself. I take 12 milligrams every morning. I'd like to clarify one myth now: Krill supplements contain trace amounts of astaxanthin, not nearly what you need to achieve the therapeutic benefits discussed today. Here are five reasons to take astaxanthin supplements every day:

1. Astaxanthin Can Help Relieve Pain and Inflammation 
Astaxanthin is a potent anti-inflammatory and pain reliever, blocking different chemicals in your body that make you scream "ouch!" More than that, astaxanthin reduces the inflammatory compounds that drive many chronic diseases. Even though it's 100 percent natural, astaxanthin works like some prescription analgesics, but without the risk of addiction, GI bleeds or heartburn. More specifically, astaxanthin blocks COX 2 enzymes just like Celebrex, the blockbuster drug prescribed for osteoarthritis, Rheumatoid arthritis, acute pain and monthly dysmenorrhea. [1] In fact, astaxanthin works well with Celebrex -- it would be wise to take both together if you want to and if your doctor approves of astaxanthin.

Natural astaxanthin not only affects the COX 2 pathway, it suppresses serum levels of nitric oxide, interleukin 1B, prostaglandin E2, C Reactive Protein (CRP) and TNF-alpha (tumor necrosis factor alpha), and all of this has been proven. [1] Natural astaxanthin was shown to reduce CRP by more than 20 percent in only eight weeks; there is not a prescription drug I know of that does that! [21] Even the American Heart Association claims CRP is a key indicator of heart disease. [22] 

2. Astaxanthin Helps Fight Fatigue
Astaxanthin provides excellent recovery from exercise. [17] Just like salmon making the heroic upstream swim, astaxanthin can help athletes do their best. Pure natural astaxanthin is indicated for recovery of muscles, better endurance, enhanced strength and improved energy levels. [18, 19, 20] 

3. Astaxanthin Supports Eye Health
Remember the famous song, "I can see clearly now, the rain is gone..." Well, I associate that song with astaxanthin. It has the unique ability to cross through a barrier and reach your retina. Well-designed clinical trials have shown that astaxanthin helps diabetic retinopathy, macular degeneration, eye strain and fatigue and seeing in fine detail. There are well-designed positive human clinical trials supporting eye health. [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]

4. Astaxanthin Cleans Up the Cells 
Astaxanthin is in a class of its own when it comes to antioxidant coverage, because it filters into every cell of the body. Its unique molecular lipophilic and hydrophilic properties allow it to span the entire cell, with one end of the astaxanthin molecule protecting the fat-soluble part of the cell and one end protecting the water-soluble part of the cell. You might think of it as giving your cell a full-body hug!

Natural astaxanthin is exceptionally powerful in singlet-oxygen quenching. A 2007 study analyzed several popular antioxidants and their antioxidant power. [10] This study found astaxanthin was 6,000 times stronger than vitamin C, 800 times stronger than CoQ10, 550 times stronger than green tea catechins and 75 times stronger than alpha lipoic acid.

5. Gorgeous Skin and Sunscreen Protection
Astaxanthin has been shown to protect the body's largest organ. The studies are clear and consistent and show excellent results for helping with skin moisture levels, smoothness, elasticity, fine wrinkles, and spots or freckles. [12]

I have fair skin that tends to freckle, so I take astaxanthin, in part because it reduces damage caused by ultraviolet radiation from the sun. In fact, if you get a sunburn, which causes inflammation, astaxanthin penetrates the skin cells and reduces UVA damage. Think of it as an internal sunscreen. Other than skin benefits, I love astaxanthin because it relieves my minor aches and pains from yoga, dance, hiking, kayaking and whatever else I get into in the name of fun!

Best Astaxanthin Sources

Wild Pacific salmon, especially sockeye salmon, have the highest astaxanthin content. However you'd have to eat about 6 ounces (165 grams) daily to get a 3.6 milligram dose. [11] Since studies show that doses greater than that provide anti-inflammatory benefits, I always suggest an astaxanthin supplement.

Shop wisely, because you want to make sure that your particular brand has undertaken all the special precautions to harvest it properly, purify it, encapsulate it and protect its potency right up to the expiration date on the bottle.  You can find astaxanthin supplements by many makers at health food stores nationwide.

For more by Suzy Cohen, R.Ph., click here.

For more on diet and nutrition, click here.

References:

1. Lee SJ, Bai SK, Lee KS, Namkoong S, Na HJ, Ha KS, Han JA, Yim SV, Chang K, Kwon YG, Lee SK, Kim YM. Astaxanthin inhibits nitric oxide production and inflammatory gene expression by suppressing I(kappa)B kinase-dependent NF-kappaB activation. Mol Cells. 2003 Aug 31;16(1):97-105. PubMed PMID: 14503852.

2. Kearney PM, Baigent C, Godwin J, Halls H, Emberson JR, Patrono C. Do selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increase the risk of atherothrombosis? Meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ. 2006 Jun 3;332(7553):1302-8. PubMed PMID: 16740558; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1473048.

3. Belknap SM. NSAIDs were associated with increased risk for mortality, regardless of time since first MI. Ann Intern Med. 2013 Jan 15;158(2):JC10. doi: 
10.7326/0003-4819-158-2-201301150-02010. PubMed PMID: 23318332.

4. Iwasaki Tsuneto, Tahara Akihiko. Effects of Astaxanthin on Eyestrain Induced by Accommodative Dysfunction. Journal of the Eye VOL.23;NO.6;829-834(2006)

5. Nagaki Y., Hayasaka S., Yamada T., Hayasaka Y., Sanada M., Uonomi T. Effects of Astaxanthin on accommodation, critical flicker fusion, and pattern visual evoked potential in visual display terminal workers. Journal of Traditional Medicines 2002: 19 (5), 170 - 173.

6. Nagaki Yasunori et al. The Effect of Astaxanthin on Retinal Capillary Blood Flow in Normal Volunteers. Journal of Clinical Therapeutics & Medicines Vol.21;No.5;537-542(2005)

7. Sun Z, Liu J, Zeng X, Huangfu J, Jiang Y, Wang M, Chen F. Protective actions of microalgae against endogenous and exogenous advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs) in human retinal pigment epithelial cells. Food Funct. 2011 May;2(5):251-8. doi: 10.1039/c1fo10021a. Epub 2011 Apr 21. PubMed PMID: 21779563.

8. Ishida S. Lifestyle-related diseases and anti-aging ophthalmology: suppression of retinal and choroidal pathologies by inhibiting renin-angiotensin system and inflammation. Article in Japanese: Nihon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi. 2009 Mar;113(3):403-22; discussion 423. Review. Japanese. PubMed PMID: 19348185.

9. Liao JH, Chen CS, Maher TJ, Liu CY, Lin MH, Wu TH, Wu SH. Astaxanthin interacts with selenite and attenuates selenite-induced cataractogenesis. Chem Res Toxicol. 2009 Mar 16;22(3):518-25. doi: 10.1021/tx800378z. PubMed PMID: 19193053.

10. Nishida Y. et. al, Quenching Activities of Common Hydrophilic and Lipophilic Antioxidants against Singlet Oxygen Using Chemiluminescence Detection System.
Carotenoid Science 11:16-20 (2007)

11. Iwamoto T, et al. Inhibition of low-density lipoprotein oxidation by astaxanthin. J Atherosc Thromb 2000;7:216-22.

12. Camera E, Mastrofrancesco A, Fabbri C, Daubrawa F, Picardo M, Sies H, Stahl W. Astaxanthin, canthaxanthin and beta-carotene differently affect UVA-induced oxidative damage and expression of oxidative stress- responsive enzymes. Exp Dermatol. 2009 Mar;18(3):222-31. Epub 2008 Sep

13. Yamashita, E. Beauty From Within: A Synergistic Combination Of Astaxanthin And Tocotrienol For Beauty Supplements (2002) Cosmetic Benefit of Dietary Supplements Containing Astaxanthin and Tocotrienol on Human Skin. Food Style 21 6(6):112-17.

14. A novel micronutrient supplement in skin aging: a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology Volume 4 Page 277 - December 2005

15. Suganuma K, Nakajima H, Ohtsuki M, Imokawa G. Astaxanthin attenuates the UVA-induced up-regulation of matrix- metalloproteinase-1 and skin fibroblast elastase in human dermal fibroblasts. J Dermatol Sci. 2010 May;58(2):136-42. Epub 2010 Feb 18.

16. Arakane Kumi. Effect of Antioxidant to Inhibit UV-Induced Wrinkles. Journal of Japanese Cosmetic Science Society Vol. 27;No.4; 298-303(2003).

17. Aoi, et al, 2003. Astaxanthin limits exercise-induced skeletal and cardiac muscle damage in mice. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2003 Feb;5(1):139-44.

18. Curt L. Malmsten and Åke Lignell. Dietary Supplementation with Astaxanthin-Rich Algal Meal Improves Strength Endurance. A Double Blind Placebo Controlled Study on Male Students. Carotenoid Science, Vol.13, 2008 ISSN 1880-5671.

19. Aoi W, Naito Y, Takanami Y, Ishii T, Kawai Y, Akagiri S, Kato Y, Osawa T, Yoshikawa T. Astaxanthin improves muscle lipid metabolism in exercise via inhibitory effect of oxidative CPT I modification. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2008 Feb 22;366(4):892-7. Epub 2007 Dec 17.

20. Ikeuchi M, Koyama T, Takahashi J, Yazawa K. Effects of astaxanthin supplementation on exercise-induced fatigue in mice. Biol Pharm Bull. 2006 Oct;29(10):2106-10.

21. Gene A. Spiller, PhD, Antonella Dewell, MS, RD, Sally Chaves, RN, Zaga Rakidzich. Effect of daily use natural astaxanthin on C-reactive protein. Health Research & Studies Center, Los Altos, CA. Study Report, January, 2006.

22. Pearson, Thomas; Mensah, George, et al. Markers of inflammation and cardiovascular disease: application to clinical and public health practice: A statement for healthcare professionals from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Heart Association.2003 Jan 28; 107(3) :499-511.

23. Beutner, S., Bloedorn, B., Frixel, S., Hernández Blanco, I., Hoffmann, T., Martin, H.-D., Mayer, B., Noack, P., Ruck, C., Schmidt, M., Schülke, I., Sell, S., Ernst, H., Haremza, S., Seybold, G., Sies, H., Stahl, W. and Walsh, R. (2001), Quantitative assessment of antioxidant properties of natural colorants and phytochemicals: carotenoids, flavonoids, phenols and indigoids. The role of β-carotene in antioxidant functions. J. Sci. Food Agric., 81: 559-568. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.849.

24. Spallholz JE. Free radical generation by selenium compounds and their prooxidant toxicity. Biomed Environ Sci. 1997 Sep;10(2-3):260-70. Review. PubMed PMID: 9315319.

25. Koren R, Hadari-Naor I, Zuck E, Rotem C, Liberman UA, Ravid A. Vitamin D is a prooxidant in breast cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2001 Feb 15;61(4):1439-44. PubMed PMID: 11245448.

26. Pearson P, Lewis SA, Britton J, Young IS, Fogarty A. The pro-oxidant activity of high-dose vitamin E supplements in vivo. BioDrugs. 2006;20(5):271-3. PubMed PMID: 17025373.

Major Study: Monsanto GMO Corn Can Cause Damage to Liver and Kidneys, and Severe Hormonal Disruption

FOOD  

The Ecologist / By Oliver Tickell

 816 COMMENTS

Major Study: Monsanto GMO Corn Can Cause Damage to Liver and Kidneys, and Severe Hormonal Disruption

Key study has passed through three peer reviews.

Photo Credit: meandar

July 9, 2014  |  

 

 

 

A scientific study that identified serious health impacts on rats fed on 'Roundup ready' GMO maize has been republished following its controversial retraction under strong commercial pressure. Now regulators must respond and review GMO and agro-chemical licenses, and licensing procedures.

A highly controversial paper by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini and colleagues has been republished after a stringent peer review process.

The chronic toxicity study examines the health impacts on rats of eating  a commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize, Monsanto's NK603 glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup.

The original study, published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) in September 2012, found severe liver and kidney damage and hormonal disturbances in rats fed the GM maize and low levels of Roundup that are below those permitted in drinking water in the EU.

However it was retracted by the editor-in-chief of the Journal in November 2013 after asustained campaign of criticism and defamation by pro-GMO scientists.

Toxic effects were found from the GM maize tested alone, as well as from Roundup tested alone and together with the maize. Additional unexpected findings were higher rates of large tumours and mortality in most treatment groups.

Criticisms addressed in the new version

Now the study has been republished by Environmental Sciences Europe. The republished version contains extra material addressing criticisms of the original publication.

The raw data underlying the study's findings are also published - unlike the raw data for the industry studies that underlie regulatory approvals of Roundup, which are kept secret. However, the new paper presents the same results as before and the conclusions are unchanged.

The republication restores the study to the peer-reviewed literature so that it can be consulted and built upon by other scientists.

The republished study is accompanied by a separate commentary by Prof Séralini's team (alsopublished on The Ecologist) describing the lobbying efforts of GMO crop supporters to force the editor of FCT to retract the original publication.

The authors explain that the retraction was "a historic example of conflicts of interest in the scientific assessments of products commercialized worldwide."

"We also show that the decision to retract cannot be rationalized on any discernible scientific or ethical grounds. Censorship of research into health risks undermines the value and the credibility of science; thus, we republish our paper."

Paper subjected to extraordinary scrutiny and peer review

Claire Robinson, editor of GMOSeralini.org, commented: "This study has now successfully passed no less than three rounds of rigorous peer review."

First the paper was peer reviewed for its initial publication in Food and Chemical Toxicology, andaccording to the authors it passed with only minor revisions.

The second review involved a non-transparent examination of Prof Séralini's raw data by a secret panel of unnamed persons organized by the editor-in-chief of FCT, A. Wallace Hayes, in response to criticisms of the study by pro-GMO scientists.

In a letter to Prof Séralini, Hayes admitted that the anonymous reviewers found nothing incorrect about the results, but argued that the tumour and mortality observations in the paper were "inconclusive", and this justified his decision to retract the study:

"A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence. Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups."

"The rationale given for the retraction was widely criticized by scientists as an act of censorship and a bow to the interests of the GMO industry", says Robinson.

"Some scientists pointed out that numerous published scientific papers contain inconclusive findings, including Monsanto's own short (90-day) study on the same GM maize, and have not been retracted. The retraction was even condemned by a former member of the editorial board of FCT."

Now the study has passed a third peer review arranged by the journal that is republishing the study, Environmental Sciences Europe.

Let the critics carry out their own studies

Dr Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist based in London, commented, "Few studies would survive such intensive scrutiny by fellow scientists.

"The republication of the study after three expert reviews is a testament to its rigour, as well as to the integrity of the researchers. If anyone still doubts the quality of this study, they should simply read the republished paper. The science speaks for itself.

"If even then they refuse to accept the results, they should launch their own research study on these two toxic products that have now been in the human food and animal feed chain for many years."

Dr Jack A Heinemann, Professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics, University of Canterbury New Zealand, said: "I applaud Environmental Sciences Europe for submitting the work to yet another round of rigorous blind peer review and then bravely standing by the process and the recommendations of its reviewers, especially after witnessing the events surrounding the first publication.

"This study has arguably prevailed through the most comprehensive and independent review process to which any scientific study on GMOs has ever been subjected."

'Significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures'

The study examines the health effects on rats of eating Roundup-tolerant NK603 genetically modified (GM) maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup application, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb of the full pesticide containing glyphosate and adjuvants) in drinking water. It found:

• "Biochemical analyses confirmed very significant chronic kidney deficiencies, for all treatments and both sexes; 76% of the altered parameters were kidney-related.
• "In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher. Marked and severe nephropathies were also generally 1.3 to 2.3 times greater.
• "In females, all treatment groups showed a two- to threefold increase in mortality, and deaths were earlier.
• "This difference was also evident in three male groups fed with GM maize.
• "All results were hormone- and sex-dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable.
• "Females developed large mammary tumors more frequently and before controls;
• "the pituitary was the second most disabled organ;
• "the sex hormonal balance was modified by consumption of GM maize and Roundup treatments.
• "Males presented up to four times more large palpable tumors starting 600 days earlier than in the control group, in which only one tumor was noted.
• "These results may be explained by not only the non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup but also by the overexpression of the EPSPS transgene or other mutational effects in the GM maize and their metabolic consequences.
• "Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations."

The paper concludes: "Taken together, the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work reveal the pathological effects of these GMO and R treatments in both sexes, with different amplitudes.

"They also show that the conclusion of the Monsanto authors that the initial indications of organ toxicity found in their 90-day experiment were not 'biologically meaningful' is not justifiable.

"We propose that agricultural edible GMOs and complete pesticide formulations must be evaluated thoroughly in long-term studies to measure their potential toxic effects."

Regulators must take these results seriously

Dr Heinemann commented: "The work provides important new knowledge that must be taken into account by the community that evaluates and reports upon the risks of genetically modified organisms, indeed upon all sources of pesticide in our food and feed chains."

According to Patrick Holden, Chief Executive of the Sustainable Food Trust (SFT) the study highlights the inadequacy of current safety testing:

"The most obvious deficiency relates to the fact that the current approval process is based on animal feeding trials of only 90 days, a totally inadequate duration when one considers that chronic diseases in animals and humans do not usually manifest until mid-life."

A second deficiency, he added, relates to the newly emerging science of epigenetics - which demonstrates that endocrine systems can be seriously disrupted by the presence of chemical residues at concentrations as low as a few parts per billion.

"This turns on its head the logic of an approval process based on MRL (maximum residue levels), since it is becoming increasingly apparent that these chemicals have patterns of non-linear response."

An 'urgent review' of pesticide licensing is needed

Given these concerns, said Holden, "there is a strong case for an urgent review of the regulatory process for licensing both the herbicide Roundup and the neonicotinoid class of insecticides. A fundamental review of the entire process for licensing agricultural chemicals is required to ensure that in future the public interest is better served."

Professor Pete Myers, Chief Executive of Environmental Health Sciences and scientific advisor to the SFT points out that only "the tiniest fraction of agricultural chemicals" have been studied for health effects by independent scientists:

"Over the last two-decades there has been a revolution in environmental health sciences that suggests the proportion of diseases attributable to chemical exposures is far bigger and more significant than previously understood.

"The tools we have available to us to say what is safe and not safe are deeply flawed. They are not based on two decades of development in the fields of endocrine disruption and epigenetics, but instead on tests developed in the 1950s.

"They do not reflect the complexity of mixtures, or the way in which chemicals interact."