Hi all,

Here's an email I just sent in to Dr. Mercola (hope it reaches him!) regarding his recommended probiotic supplement. I researched it after receiving an email from one of my readers, asking me what I thought about it:

For those of you who would find it tedious to wade through the entire email, the important point is that the bacterium listed in Dr. Mercola's product is "Lactobacillus Sporogenes". However, according to the American Society for Microbiology, no such thing exists. And so they point out:

"If the identity of the bacterium is in question, no conclusions about its safety can be made. Although B. coagulans is not considered pathogenic, neither is it an organism normally associated with food production (although Bacillus subtilis is used in the production of "natto," a Japanese food), a status enjoyed by many members of the genus Lactobacillus. Presumably the products on the market are consumed without undue risk. However, no independent panel of experts has evaluated the safety of B. coagulans for human consumption as has been done for the lactobacilli. Erroneously calling this organism a lactobacillus incorrectly associates it with the same safety record as lactobacilli."

Bacillus (as some of you may recall) is a genus of bacterial soil organisms - see LTYG for why I do not think humans should consume bacterial soil organisms.

************************
Hi There,

I received a query from one of my readers (I write books on natural healing for digestive diseases) asking my opinion of Dr. Mercola's new product, "Complete Probiotic".

After researching this, I wonder if Dr. Mercola is aware that there is actually no such species as Lactobacillus Sporogenes? Which then leads us to question what exactly is in the capsule?

Here is an excellent summation of this issue from ASM (American Society for Microbiology) that I strongly suggest you pass on to Dr. Mercola. As health writers, we all make mistakes and it's very hard to stay on top of every single subject. Therefore, it's nice if we can catch errors (especially those with the potential for harm) before they "go public".

I'm available at the email and phone number listed if anyone wishes to contact me. I would also appreciate acknowledgement that this email has been recieved and passed to Dr. Mercola. I am a big fan of his work and urge my database (of over 10,000 readers) to sign up for his newsletter. Here is the article:

"Lactobacillus sporogenes" Is Not a Lactobacillus Probiotic

Microbes have proven their value in a plethora of industrial settings, including their use as probiotics, or health-promoting microbes. Within the probiotic industry, there are those who disregard the conventions of bacterial nomenclature. Perhaps the best example of this is the use of the name "Lactobacillus sporogenes" on probiotic labels, instead of the proper nomenclature, which assigns this bacterium to the genus Bacillus (Bergey's Manual, 1974).

The name "Lactobacillus sporogenes" appeared in the scientific literature in 1932 (L. M. Horowitz-Wlassowa and N. W. Nowotelnow, Cent. F. Bak., II Abt., 87:331, 1932). However, this name was never recognized by the scientific community, and was described as a misclassification in Bergey's Manual in 1939. The bacterium described by Horowitz-Wlassowa and Nowotelnow was a spore-forming bacterium, and as such could not be included as a species of Lactobacillus, which are non-spore-forming rods. This assertion was confirmed in the 5th, 6th, and 8th editions of Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology. The 4th and 7th editions do not mention the name "Lactobacillus sporogenes," nor does the Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology (1986). The name is not listed on the official bacterial nomenclature list, the List of Bacterial Names with Standing in Nomenclature. Clearly, the name "Lactobacillus sporogenes" has no scientific validity. Although there is no official classification of bacteria, the names given to bacteria are regulated through the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (Bacteriological Code).

However, this name still appears on the labels of probiotic supplements worldwide and in a few publications of Asian journals. The implications of the persistence of this mislabeling should be considered. The most important of these is safety. Since "Lactobacillus sporogenes" is not recognized as a species, a product labeled with this name confirms nothing about its contents. It may be a Bacillus coagulans, as marketing literature from at least one company claims (Sabinsa Corp., Piscataway, N.J.), but is it prudent to make this presumption, especially with products making no assertion of correct nomenclature? If the identity of the bacterium is in question, no conclusions about its safety can be made. Although B. coagulans is not considered pathogenic, neither is it an organism normally associated with food production (although Bacillus subtilis is used in the production of "natto," a Japanese food), a status enjoyed by many members of the genus Lactobacillus. Presumably the products on the market are consumed without undue risk. However, no independent panel of experts has evaluated the safety of B. coagulans for human consumption as has been done for the lactobacilli. Erroneously calling this organism a lactobacillus incorrectly associates it with the same safety record as lactobacilli.

Another implication of mislabeling is related to probiotic product efficacy. Unlike probiotic species of lactobacilli, members of the genus Bacillus are not considered normal members of the intestinal flora and do persist in the mammalian gastrointestinal tract. Published literature supporting the role of Bacillus coagulans in enhancing human health is sparse, especially as compared to literature published on Lactobacillus use as probiotics.

To continue to persist using this taxonomically incorrect name leads to speculation about the advantages of willingly mislabeling a product. It is likely that companies hope to benefit from association with the large aggregate of published literature and history of use on the safety and health benefits of the genus Lactobacillus. This "halo effect" would disappear if products were labeled as containing Bacillus instead of Lactobacillus. Furthermore, a marketing advantage can be achieved by using shelf-stable Bacillus spores instead of more labile Lactobacillus. The perpetuation of intentional mislabeling in the long run will serve to erode consumer confidence and undermine the credibility of the probiotic industry. Furthermore, the implications of mislabeling may have negative regulatory implications for the entire probiotic category. The FDA convened an information-gathering meeting in September 2000 on probiotics, suggesting we can expect closer regulatory scrutiny of this product category in the future (Clemens, R., Food Technol. 55:27, 2001). The industry should act to correct the issue of mislabeling before the FDA or consumer watchdog groups do it first.

Mary Ellen Sanders
Dairy and Food Culture Technologies
Littleton, Colo.
mesanders@msn.com

Lorenzo Morelli
Instituto di Microbiologia UCSC
Piacenza, Italy

Scott Bush
Rhodia Inc.
Madison, Wis.

This article is located at:
http://newsarchive.asm.org/aug01/letter2.asp

take care,
Jini Patel Thompson
http://www.JiniPatelThompson.com

Here's an Email from a Reader:

Personally the best way to tell if it's a good probiotic is put it in a
glass of milk for 8 hours and see what happens to the milk.
I don't use probiotics at all they are either just marketing mumbo jumbo
or they are too strong for sensitive guts plus they are way over priced,
they are as greedy as the pharmacutical companies.

Natrens probiotics are not much better than any of them, personally I
get the best results from making home made goats milk yoghurt and
letting the bacteria to breed for 30-40 hrs so all the lactose gets used
up.

The same goes for Absorb plus, its got a way too high content of
fructose in it, if you have candidiasis you are in big trouble taking
absorb plus and no amount of oregano oil or other anti-fungals is going
to help. The best way to get all the nutrients is eat a healthy diet
free of alergens and eat good healthy fats in place of the carbs. Plus
the bacteria loaded home made yoghurt a couple of times a day and say
goodbye to bad bacteria and goddbye to candida.

I think the absorb plus mixture would work if it replaced the carbs with
healthy fats. Taking absorb plus helped me gain weight initially and I
followed the protocol to the T, taking my anti fungals too. But I got
worse over time and my fatigue got worse and my absorbtion got worse. It wasn't until I stopped taking the absorb plus that I got better, I
figured out that I had a candida infection and changed my diet, steamed
veggies and fish, plus good fats, I cut out the carbs!, I would make my
homemade yoghurt and add sour berries to it for antioxidants. Within 6
weeks I had regained my energy and vitality and now I have my yoghurt
with a 1/2banana, berries, good oil, and a scoop of whey protein
isolate. Plus I can add some carbs to my diet and slowly making a
complete recovery. But the answers are not in taking chemicals and
artificial vitamins, they just poison your system.


Best Regards,
j.

Hi J.,

Thanks so much for your email. This is GREAT information and would probably be very helpful to people.

Regarding Absorb Plus, I hear you. I've been testing a stevia-sweetened version, but it's hard going as you simply cannot mask the strong stevia aftertaste. And there are hundreds of customers who really like the current Absorb Plus. I think Imix will be doing a poll in the near future to see how many people would be interested in a fructose-free version.

But still, as you've pointed out, it is a highly processed food source, so if you can tolerate yoghurt with whey, then I agree, that is a better way to get your nutrients. Absorb Plus is primarily for people who have lost tolerance for whole foods, and the only way they can absorb any nutrients is to ingest them in pre-digested form. It is not meant to be used long-term, but merely to get people out of the danger zone, then, once they are more stable, they address the candida overgrowth. Also, keep in mind that each serving of Absorb Plus contains the same amount of fructose as one medium-sized apple, so if you're having one shake a day (for example) and taking wild oregano and probiotics, it's unlikely to trigger candida (unless you're super highly sensitized). Anyway, health is often a balancing act and we have to address the most serious issues first and work our way up to the less serious.

I'm so glad your current diet is working well for you - it sounds excellent. And since you can tolerate yoghurt, here's another idea for you... You may want to try this shake:

Jini's Sustained Energy Shake

1-2 cups of homemade yoghurt
1 black banana (black means it's pre-digested carbs)
2 raw organic eggs
raw manuka honey to sweeten (if needed)
(you can also add your oil to this if desired)

- Put banana, honey and 1/4-1/2 cup of yoghurt in the blender and puree until smooth
- Then add the rest of the yoghurt and raw eggs and blend on LOW speed for just a few seconds (egg protein and the bacteria in the yoghurt are fragile, so you don't want to damage them)
- Pour into a glass and drink.

This is even more "whole foods" than using whey protein, but still highly digestible and should keep you going for 3-4 hours!

If you try the shake above, please post what you thought of it and how it felt for your body.

all the best,
Jini

I would love to be able to eat a whole banana at one sitting ***sigh*** I haven't done that in years. Carbs and fructose seem to feed the bacteria.

Yes, but have you tried a BLACK banana - in a shake with yoghurt or whatever you can tolerate?

By the time a banana's ripe, most of the carbs have been pre-digested, so uptake to the bloodstream is a lot faster.

Course, eating it this way may be worse for your Candida - only way is to try it and see. But if you don't take it with yoghurt, then add some of the Natren powder probiotics to your smoothie (stir in with spoon, don't put probiotics in the blender) - the good bacteria also protect against Candida.

take care,
Jini