XTEND-15sec-NEWSt
5th August 2005
Please click on the summary link of interest:
Some clarity regarding CODEX...n1
The American Herbal Products Association has issued a statement regarding CODEX which also touches on the EU Food Directives for Supplements as well as CAFTA. If you have had concerns about these issues, particularly if you are an American resident this article is well worth reading. Please click here.
Warren Matthews comments: In essence the statement by AHPA reinforces the message that I have been trying to get across for the last few months. Apart from the fact that the upper limits of some nutrients may not be as onerous as many suspect, the new rules will not directly affect US consumers. Basically what it means, is that if manufacturers conform to minimum requirements set out by CODEX then their products cannot be refused for import into countries that are members of the WTO. If the country in question has more liberal rules such as the USA then they are unaffected.
back to top
Questions raised about Echinacea! Are they valid?n2
A recent study funded by the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) recently carried out a study to test the effectiveness of Echinacea for the prevention of various viruses.
The bottom line is that they did not find it effective and accordingly it received wide media coverage. But is it really ineffective? Well as Mark Blumenthal, executive director of the American Botanical Council suggested... was it a study which compared a 'placebo with a placebo?'
The reason for these comments is that they did not use a commercial extract for the purpose and the dose rate was only 1/3rd of the minimum recommended daily dose. There is an interesting commentary about this which you may find interesting. Please click here.
Warren Matthews comments: I sometimes wonder what the real motivation is behind these type of 'studies'. They are doomed to failure before they start and any scientist experienced in these ingredients would know that. Firstly, dose rate is crucial as is the potency of the material used. For example, if you purchase an OTC cough mixture and dilute it and then only take 1/3rd of the dose, do you really expect it to work?
Another point of interest is that Echinacea covers a wide variety of plants and types. The form that they used 'angustifolia' is not the most effective form. I would suggest that you take this study 'with a grain of salt'.
back to top
UIC Researchers Show How Cancer-Preventing Foods Work...n3
Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago are confident that they have figured out the biochemical mechanism by which foods combat cancer.
"Compounds like sulforaphane in broccoli and resveratrol in wine have been shown to prevent cancer," said Andrew Mesecar, associate professor of pharmaceutical biotechnology at the UIC College of Pharmacy. "They do that by signaling our bodies to ramp up the production of proteins capable of preventing damage to our DNA".
"We now have a good idea how that signal works."
The findings are published in this week's Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
To read the rest of this article please click here.
Comment by Warren Matthews: Nothing really new here. What they have done is reconfirm the findings of other scientists over recent years. There are many effective anti-cancer agents and they are all naturally present in various foods…IF…and it is a big if…they are unprocessed, fresh, devoid of herbicides, insecticides and grown in nutrient rich soil! Wish I knew where we could get these!!
The thrust of their research was that it will help develop a drug to combat cancer! It will never work and they have been trying to synthesize such drugs for decades. There is only one sure way to ensure that you never die from cancer and that is to do everything in your power to prevent getting it in the first place.
That means ensuring that your body gets the nutrients that it needs to prevent cancers forming in the first place. If you can't get the right type of foods, and eat them in the right quantities then the only other option is to supplement. Don't wait until you have a health issue before you start. The sooner the better! Our R & D team headed by Prof. Dr.A Munem Daoud has been aware of the mechanisms to help prevent cancers for many years which is why we include the essential active ingredients in many of our products, particularly Total Balance.
So, if you want to give your body the chance of protecting itself against cancer, I would suggest if you are not already taking it, that you use our Total Balance as your foundation supplement. For more details click here.
back to top
Important notice: All material provided within XTEND-15sec-NEWS is for informational and educational purposes only, and is not to be construed as medical advice or instruction. No action should be taken solely on the contents of this publication. Consult your physician or a qualified health professional on any matters regarding your health and wellbeing or on any opinions expressed within this newsletter. The information provided in this newsletter is believed to be accurate based on the best judgment of the editor but the reader is responsible for consulting with their own health professional on any matters raised within.
Editorial: NEJM Examines Echinacea - Does It Mean Anything? (Full Article)f1
2005-07-29 - By Len Monheit, NPIcenter, len@npicenter.com
An already flat botanicals category got another blow it could hardly afford when this week's New England Journal of Medicine published results of an echinacea study (Abstract) on 399 patients conducted by researchers at the University of Virginia School of Medicine and in Austria. The study used Echinacea angustifolia and involved university lab prepared extracts being presented to patients (university students) who had been exposed to rhinovirus. The research itself was funded by a grant from the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) and involved treating the subjects for a period of seven days prior to administering a challenge virus, with extracts in dosage of 1.5 mL three times daily, representing 300 mg per dose or 900 mg per day of Echinacea angustifolia root.
The researchers concluded that Echinacea angustifolia extracts (either alone or in a combination) did not treat or prevent colds (rhinovirus), a result that, quite predictably, got widespread media pickup, as these stories exclaimed that echinacea was useless. Most of the stories, in an attempt to provide some context, did also include comments from Mark Blumenthal, executive director of the American Botanical Council (ABC), who pointed out that the extract used in the study was prepared in the lab and not sold in stores, and added that the herb might work better if higher doses were used. "This is not a definitive trial on the efficacy of echinacea, nor should the results be generalized to echinacea preparations widely available," Blumenthal said. (AP Story on Fox News Channel)
In an attempt to put these results in context, ABC and the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) each issued press releases with ABC observing that the results were based on using a specific rhinovirus, the extract was university lab prepared, the dose and dosing intervals might have been sub-optimal, and the population (university students) were not immune challenged. AHPA noted the concern expressed by one of the researchers that the dose may have been too low to be effective for use in colds, and suggested that dose or brand selection would have improved the study quality.
One Canadian-based company that produces a number of well known and characterized Echinacea-based products, the Factors Grouptook serious exception to the study, saying that it was incorrect on several different levels, including the fact that the dose should have been tripled. According to Dr. Michael Murray, the Director of Education for Factors Group of Nutritional Companies, "What determines the effectiveness of any herbal product is its ability to deliver an effective dosage of active compounds. The specific components of Echinacea responsible for its immune-enhancing effects are the polysaccharides, alkylamides and the cichoric acid. While each of these components is effective alone, the greatest degree of effectiveness occurs when the three active components are combined and at a specific ratio." None of the three extracts used on the 399 study participants actually contained all of the three necessary compounds.
Dr. Murray added that even the National Health Products Directorate of Health Canada, which is known to be very conservative in the area of dosing, recommends a minimum dosage of three grams of Echinacea for therapeutic results. (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpfb-dgpsa/nhpd-dpsn/mono_echinacea_e.html)
It seems that there are a series of observations that can be made about this week's dialogue and coverage.
First of all, research is being done (at least the correct plant and part was used), and industry has long been asking for funding for projects such as this. Secondly, with the good comes also the bad, and we must be prepared to either deal with negative results or to effectively put these results in context - as ABC and AHPA have attempted to do. Unfortunately, the media message was intended to be simply 'It (Echinacea) doesn't work'.
To me the message that can effectively come out of this is that not all products are equal, as well as an awareness of dose and the fact that any product used at a sub-efficacious dose is likely to be either a waste of time and unsuitable for research consideration, is misleading and misrepresentative, or is generally a disservice to the industry as a whole. For those companies deliberately using this type of dose in their finished products, I have no sympathy when studies like this erode product credibility. Unfortunately the pick up on the 'story' tarnishes the entire category. (I can't help but wonder whether, if the researchers had used many of the currently available store brands, they wouldn't have ended up with similar results.)
So what needs to happen?
http://www.npicenter.com/anm/templates/newsATemp.aspx?articleid=13132&zoneid=42.
back to top
UIC News Release (Full Article)f2
University of Illinois at Chicago Office of Public Affairs (MC 288)
601 S. Morgan St., Chicago, IL 60607-7113, (312) 996-3456, www.news.uic.edu
UIC Researchers Show How Cancer-Preventing Foods Work
Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago are unraveling the biochemical mechanism by which functional foods combat cancer.
"Compounds like sulforaphane in broccoli and resveratrol in wine have been shown to prevent cancer," said Andrew Mesecar, associate professor of pharmaceutical biotechnology in the UIC College of Pharmacy. "They do that by signaling our bodies to ramp up the production of proteins capable of preventing damage to our DNA.
"We now have a good idea how that signal works."
The findings are published in this week's Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Two key proteins, Keap1 and Nrf2, are involved in spurring the defense against cancer when disease-preventing foods are ingested, according to Mesecar and post-doctoral researcher Aimee Eggler. Keap1, the sensor protein, detects the presence of dietary compounds like sulforaphane when they link with its cysteine residues, one of the amino acids that make up proteins. Keap1 binds to Nrf2, the messenger that turns on the genes for the protective proteins, averting DNA damage.
"Earlier studies in mice suggested that natural cancer-preventing compounds worked by severing the tie between Keap1 and Nrf2, freeing Nrf2 to take action," Mesecar said. "But the signaling doesn't happen this way in humans."
The scientists found that in humans the connection between the two proteins is not broken. What's important, the researchers said, is the modification of cysteines in Keap1. They found that one particular cysteine was among the most likely to be altered in the interaction with cancer-preventing compounds.
That finding corresponded with results from other researchers. As a result, the scientists are proposing that the alteration of just this one amino acid in Keap1 is the critical step that spurs higher levels of the messenger Nrf2 and, consequently, increased production of the protective proteins.
Keap1 is a promising new target for drugs to fight many different kinds of cancer, Mesecar said.
The American Cancer Society estimates that there will be over 1.3 million new cases of cancer in 2005, and roughly half of these individuals will not survive their disease, Mesecar noted. "One way of preventing cancer may be to eat certain foods rich in cancer-preventing compounds. An alternative is identifying how these compounds work and replicating their modes of action with drugs."
Mesecar's and Eggler's main collaborators in the study were Richard van Breemen, professor of medicinal chemistry and pharmacognosy in the UIC College of Pharmacy, and Guowen Liu, a graduate student at UIC. John Pezzuto, professor of medicinal chemistry and molecular pharmacology at Purdue University, is also an author of the study.
The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute.
To read full article click here.
back to top
