Community Message Boards
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Tangerine peel destroys cancer cells, study says

  1. #1
    DmOrtega Guest

    Tangerine peel destroys cancer cells, study says

    The fact that the article states that the cells are destroyed has caught my attention. I am always hopeful that there will someday be a cure for cancer.

    Tangerine peel destroys cancer cells, study says
    Breast, lung, prostate and ovarian cancer patients may benefit from


    Updated: 1:35 p.m. PT Sept 12, 2007
    LONDON - Tangerine peel could help in the fight against certain cancers, researchers said on Wednesday.

    Human cancer cells, which contain an enzyme called P450 CYP1B1, were destroyed by a compound contained in tangerine peel, Salvestrol Q40, scientists at Leicester School of Pharmacy found.

    The findings may offer a new approach to uncovering a treatment for cancers such as breast, lung, prostate and ovarian cancer, the scientists said.

    Medicinal chemist Dr. Hoon L. Tan said: “It is very exciting to find a compound in food that can target cancers specifically. Salvestrols may offer a new mechanism of dietary anti-cancer action.

    “Indeed, the depletion of salvestrols in the modern diet is due to the fact that many people no longer eat the skin of fruits and this may be a major contributory factor to the increasing incidence of some cancers in the human population.”

    The breakthrough was being presented at the British Pharmaceutical Conference held in Manchester.

    But he warned that the research was still in its early days and many tests will be needed before reaching the clinical trial stage, which could take between five and seven years.

    The researchers have formed a private company, Nature’s Defence Investments, to protect and promote their research, with the potential of designing a natural anti-cancer alternative based on the new technology.

    Copyright 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    645
    That is a very interesting study. I worked as a dietitian in oncology for 12 years. People would be shocked to know just how much diet and activity plays in cancer risk reduction. Yes, the information is out there but I don't think people really get it.

    One thing that drives me nuts is the "Race for the Cure". It is nice in that it provides money for education and for free screening for disadvantaged women (who pays for their treatment if they are diagnosed....hmmm) anyway, so much money is spent on pharmaceutical drugs. If women would do the equivalent of the Komen run or walk each day they would cut thier risk of breast cancer in half. I'm pretty sure there is no drug that comes close to that!

    I was always dismayed to see how the hottest, newest drugs were also crazy expensive. We routinely gave a drug that cost $4,000 per injection and one that was $15,000 per dose and was given about 6 times. I always joked, though it's no joking matter, that when the cure finally comes no one will be able to afford it.

    sorry to ramble but it is a subject near and dear to my heart.

    Lisa

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Heading WEST!!
    Posts
    15,184
    And still, some of us eat right, exercise, have near normal BMIs and still get it...
    I'm convinced there are too many variables to make sweeping statements.

    I also read that people taking tamoxifen (and possibly other cancer treatments) should be careful...tangerine peel/orange peel interferes with their function.
    Thoreau said, 'A man is rich in proportion to the things he can leave alone.'

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    ♥Somewhere between here & there♥
    Posts
    3,573
    Quote Originally Posted by DmOrtega View Post
    “Indeed, the depletion of salvestrols in the modern diet is due to the fact that many people no longer eat the skin of fruits and this may be a major contributory factor to the increasing incidence of some cancers in the human population.”
    This is interesting - do they speculate that humans ate citrus skins at one point? The inner white pith of citrus contains the highest concentration of bioflavinoids, which is easy to eat. I'm curious if this suggests that people ate the rind.

    Foodgirl - you have first hand experience with this topic. I find it interesting that we hear so much in the U.S. about disease, medicines, and treatments yet information pertaining to health and prevention is no where near the same level. As Dr. Andrew Weil has stated, (I'm paraphrasing); we live in a culture of disease rather than health.
    Our local t.v. station has a little show called "Health Update." All they talk about is disease. I wonder if people really know what "health" means.

    This is an interesting topic - it'll be interesting to see what comes of it.
    "If you aren't living on the edge, you're taking up too much space."

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by wallycat View Post
    And still, some of us eat right, exercise, have near normal BMIs and still get it...
    I'm convinced there are too many variables to make sweeping statements.

    Very true. Cancer does not seem to discrimate. You can do all of the right things and it still finds you. I hope that some time soon they find not only a cure, but a prevention too.
    All That's Left Are The Crumbs

    "You can never do a kindness too soon, because you never know how soon it will be too late"

    "Great minds talk about ideas; small minds talk about people" - Eleanor Roosevelt

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Gecko View Post
    Very true. Cancer does not seem to discrimate. You can do all of the right things and it still finds you. I hope that some time soon they find not only a cure, but a prevention too.
    I have my own little theory on this, based on personal experience. Both of my parents smoked for years--at least 30 years each. My mother got throat cancer at the age of 54. My father, though he did quit when my mom was diagnosed, never got any form of cancer.
    Which leads me to my theory. I believe that some of us are predisposed--or are born with a higher risk--for cancer. The way we live our lives improves or diminishes our odds of getting it.
    Of course, the example of my parents is no double-blind study. Nothing scientific about it. But my reasoning is the only way I can explain what happened. Why would my mom get sick and my dad not get sick? Sure, there are other factors. But for the most part, they were both healthy, ate well, stayed active, etc.
    It's difficult to explain a case like yours, Wallycat. It seems like you live a very healthy life. At least my parents smoked, so there's a REASON for the diagnosis.
    Anyway, a very interesting topic. I believe that even though we can't always control the state of our health, we should at the very least, try to be as healthful we can be in the choices that we make. It would be great if this tangerine study turned out to be an important breakthrough over the long run.
    TKay

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    654
    I lost a dear friend to cancer earlier this year and this subject is near to my heart. Adopting a healthy lifestyle may not protect us entirely against cancer but it may still improve the odds. I have read several books and study on the subject and my favorites are Foods to Fight Cancer ( http://www.amazon.com/Foods-Fight-Ca...9689587&sr=1-2 ) and Cooking with Foods that Fight Cancer ( http://www.amazon.com/Cooking-Foods-...9689587&sr=1-3 ) - both were written by Dr. Richard Beliveau, a Canadian cancer researcher. His approach does not dismiss the importance of medical treatment but he also explores the preventive power of food. His recommendations are very realistic and pleasurable (I love that he advocates eating a small piece of dark chocolate daily )

    To celebrate the research findings related to tangerine peel, here is a delicious way to enjoy it on your salads:

    Sesame-Ginger Vinaigrette
    Fields of Greens

    1 tsp minced tangerine zest
    2 Tbsps fresh tangerine juice
    2 tsps grated fresh ginger
    2 1/2 Tbsps rice wine vinegar
    2 Tbsps light olive oil
    1 Tbsp dark sesame oil
    1 tsp soy sauce
    1/4 tsp salt

    Combine everything in a jar and shake well.

  8. #8
    DmOrtega Guest
    The fact that some cancers are being "destroyed" by a chemical in tangarine skins is great news. Diet and excersise is important. Eating whole foods and foods that are left in there natural state, not processed to the point that we don't know what food it was originally, is important for our health. We eat to survive.

    We get a produce bin delivered, every other week, to our house. When we first started, the first thing that we noticed was the carrots. We compared the carrots to the ones we had leftover from the local store. What we saw was the carrots had color, a lot of color and that they tasted like carrots. The others had no flavor at all. And they weren't huge. Right then I was concerned that what we were buying and eating was really lacking what we needed to be eating, but why? We trust that the farmers are feeding us the best they have to offer.

    Over the years I've gone more and more to local organic produce and now I'm working towards finding out more about meat and fish. I'm learning a lot. It seems to me that this article printed in todays paper, below, is just another reason why we should be looking for minimally processed food. Whole foods and foods close to there original form are by far better for us but not when they are supersized for the sake of having more. More is not always better. It makes me think that we are creating our own h*ll because we are surrounded by an abundance of beautiful food that will not have any taste or give us any nutrients for our survival.



    Last updated September 12, 2007 11:48 p.m. PT

    Taste, nutrients decline as size of crops grows
    By ANDREW SCHNEIDER

    P-I SENIOR CORRESPONDENT

    When it comes to eating fruits, vegetables and grain, bigger is not better for you.

    A report issued this week examined several recent studies by food scientists, nutritionists, growers and plant breeders. It found clear evidence that as the produce we eat gets larger, its vitamins, minerals and beneficial chemical compounds significantly diminish, as do taste and aroma.

    Growing bigger tomatoes and ears of corn leads to a bigger yield for the producer, but the trade-off is the lower nutritional value.

    Some say the gutting of the nutritional value of what we eat could affect public health, particularly in poorer countries. "There is no sinister villain behind this," said Chuck Benbrook, chief scientist for the Organic Center, which commissioned the report. "Increasing the amount of food grown per acre, by itself, is a good thing.

    "The problem is that until recently, no one ever checked to see what was happening to the nutritional value of these much larger tomatoes, bigger grapefruit and the rest of the crops.

    "Now we're in trouble. Not just the U.S. but almost every Western country that is using improved growing methods," Benbrook said.

    Because of the work of plant scientists and crop breeders, farmers have doubled or tripled the yield per acre of most major fruits, vegetables and grains over the past 50 years.

    Agriculture's "almost single-minded focus on increasing yields created a blind spot" in nutritional content, said Brian Halweil, author of the Organic Center's report, "Still No Free Lunch."

    "Almost more alarming, this decline has escaped the notice of scientists, government and consumers," wrote Halweil, a senior researcher at the Worldwatch Institute and a member of the Organic Center's scientific advisory board.

    The report said studies found:


    The more a tomato weighs, the lower its concentration of lycopene, a natural anti-cancer chemical that makes tomatoes red. There is also less vitamin C and beta carotene, a nutrient linked to vitamin A.


    Milk from high-production dairy cows has lower concentrations of fat, protein and other nutrition-enhancing components than the milk from dairy operations of 20 years ago or more.


    Sweet corn, potatoes and whole-wheat bread show double-digit declines in iron, zinc and calcium. The time span of the decline varies depending on the product studied but generally ranges from 20 to 100 years.

    Over the years, improvements in seeds and plant stock not only grew larger plants but permitted them to be grown closer together and crop yields soared.

    "Of course we're now capable of feeding more people, but what's happened is that unintentionally, the nutritional value of our food supply has been eroded," Benbrook said.

    Nutrient decline is also found in some organic crops.

    "I wish I could say that there is no loss in organically grown crops, but that's just not the case," Benbrook said.

    "Organic farmers face the same laws of nature and economic pressures as conventional growers, and pushing yields upward often increases profits."


    Vital chemical missing

    Donald Davis, a senior researcher at the University of Texas, did some of the most illuminating research into the disappearing nutrients.

    He compared Agriculture Department figures on nutrient content for 43 common fruits and vegetables.

    Davis says historical data spanning 50 to 70 years show apparent declines of 5 percent to 40 percent or more in minerals, vitamins and proteins in groups of foods, especially vegetables.

    Higher-yield crops also decrease the concentrations of cancer-fighting chemicals and anti-toxins -- known as phytonutrients or phytochemicals. Food scientists have identified the benefits of only a few of these.

    "We are beginning to understand how valuable these phytochemicals actually are," Davis said. "We can only guess what the loss of these from high-yield farming will mean to the health of the consumer."


    Surprise in the wheat fields

    Washington State University professor Stephen Jones and researcher Kevin Murphy, who are involved in the school's century-old wheat-breeding program for Northwest farmers, decided to see how the grain's nutritional value has changed in 100 years.

    "Kevin's research showed that today's modern wheat has less nutritional value," Jones said. "It is a concern, and the differences are easy to understand.

    "You would have to eat twice as many slices of modern bread as you would of the older variety to get the same nutritional value. How did this happen? The breeders and growers and all the rest of us never looked at whether the nutritional content stayed the same as the yield increased."

    Instead, researchers focused on "how good a cookie the wheat made, how nice a loaf of bread it produced or how the pizza dough acts," Jones explained.

    "That's all related to protein," he said. "It's not related to iron and zinc and selenium and other essential vitamins and minerals."

    Jones and Murphy are concerned because 25 percent of the wheat in the world comes from the United States.

    "None of that has ever been bred for nutritional value," he said. "In this country we get our nutrients by spreading on the peanut butter or a cheeseburger, and we call it good.

    "In many countries that import our wheat, the mainstay of the diet may be bread alone. The lack of nutrients becomes a far more serious issue."


    Solutions by accident

    In July, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Horticultural Science, international horticulturalist and plant breeders gathered for the first time to discuss the problem.

    They realized there is a way to reverse the decline in some, if not all crops, food researcher Davis said. It's already happening, albeit by accident.

    Consumers want their carrots bright orange, he says, so breeders found a way to intensify the color to sell more carrots. With the new brighter color came an unexpected increase in vitamin A.

    Marketing experts said pineapple should be sweeter. So growers bred for added sweetness, and with it came a higher level of vitamin C.

    Meddling to make watermelons a brighter red was accompanied by an increase in lycopene, which may have cancer-fighting properties and help control macular degeneration, which can cause blindness.

    "All these just happened as a side effect to making crops more marketable," Davis said. "If the consumers demand that nutritional content be added to their favorite food, it will happen."

    Jones says his wheat growers are already discussing breeding wheat that has the vitamins, minerals and protein of the past.

    "There would be a good market for their wheat with a greater nutritional value in the Seattle and Portland area. Small millers and bakers would work together to produce a more nutritional bread that consumers could get excited about."

    Davis acknowledges that the findings are troublesome but says consumers should not be discouraged.

    "Vegetables are still our very best sources of many nutrients and phytochemicals. Just eat more!"

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    645
    Wallycat, I am careful to always say "risk reduction" not "prevention" because we do see people who do everything right and still get cancer. Then there is Keith Richards I do wonder about how long you can delay cancer by eating right. I saw many, many young twenty-somethings with cancers that had horrific eating habits. One even bragged to me that she had never eaten anything green.

    Smoking is an odd one, it affects so many things, not just the lungs. It increases risk for almost every other kind of cancer. I saw many women with lung cancer who had never smoked but their husbands were heavy smokers.

    One thing that I noticed was the incidence of increased breast cancer in women who were thin, exercising, eating right... and drinking 2+ glasses of wine per night. You can say I said it first. There has got to be a correlation. It seemed that the overweight, non-exercising, junk eaters just weren't big into wine. Socioeconomics perhaps? Anhoo, that's my anectodal study.

    Lisa

  10. #10
    DmOrtega Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by DmOrtega View Post
    ...
    Davis acknowledges that the findings are troublesome but says consumers should not be discouraged.

    "Vegetables are still our very best sources of many nutrients and phytochemicals. Just eat more!"

    I find this statement interesting. If we look at number of servings that we should be eating; I wonder what does this statement mean to us, especially in light that our produce is getting supersized.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •