Talk:Broccoli

Low in protein?
I'm no nutritionist, but the article says broccoli is low on protein, but here it says the opposite. How come? --uKER (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Reference Daily Intake for protein from all foods consumed (see table) is 50 grams/day, and broccoli (in a 100 gram reference amount) provides 2.8 grams or 6% of the RDI. According to food labeling guidelines, such as here (similar to the USA and other countries), 6% RDI falls within the "low" to "contains" category. The article as stated is correct. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There was a satirical promotion effort in ~2012 that made the (true) point that on calorie-for-calorie basis, broccoli has as much protein as meat. Of course the standard 100 gram serving of broccoli has very few calories as well. It is not "low in protein", but it is not a "good dietary protein source" because it contains too much water. I suspect that amusing contrast has made, and will make, broccoli protein a contentious issue on Wikipedia. I encourage anyone editing to choose their words with precision so that the statement is true. Phytism (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

uh oh ... health claims.
Disclaimer: I like broccoli, and I think it's good for us. (yes, really.)

The 3rd sentence of the article tells us: "Although broccoli is sometimes steamed, it is more nutritious when eaten raw." This is referenced to the blog of somebody called 'Garden Betty', which in turn leads us to an author named Linda Ly, who makes no claim to being a expert at anything other than writing a blog. The blog also makes no claims of medical or nutritional expertise, and is no more than a nicely presented gardening and cooking blog. So maybe broccoli really is more nutritious eaten raw. But this ref doesn't convince me of that.

Where my sceptic radar went right off though was further down, under the heading: "Nutrition". The opening sentence of that section lists some impressive nutritional info about vitamins and what-have-you. It may all be true, but there is no reference in support. Then ... Well, gosh, I thought to myself. That's really important ... maybe. What is sulforaphane, and why is it important? Lets see, ref #14 ... oh ... "Research Says Boiling Broccoli Ruins Its Anti Cancer Properties". I wont drag it all out bit by bit, but that article relates to "glucosinolate", which is then described, in one sentence, as being "...metabolized to cancer preventive substances known as isothiocyanates." (Well, of course it does. Pffft.)
 * Boiling broccoli reduces the levels of sulforaphane, with losses of 20–30% after five minutes, 40–50% after ten minutes, and 77% after thirty minutes.[14] However, other preparation methods such as steaming,[15] microwaving, and stir frying had no significant effect on the compounds.[14]

But ... the WP article on Sulforaphane ends with: "Although there has been some basic research on how sulforaphane might exert beneficial effects in vivo,[3][4] there is no high-quality evidence to date for its efficacy against human diseases.[1][5]"

The WP article on Isothiocyanate is also worth a read. It includes the statement: "The results on the genotoxic effects of the isothiocyanates and glucosinolate precursors are conflicting". As I understand this, it means that the anti-cancer claims are up in the air. That WP article also warns: "The goitrogenic effect of Brassicaceae (to which Cruciferous belong) vegetables, interfering with iodine uptake, is also a concern at elevated doses.[12]"

So, what's my point? ("At last!", I hear you breathe.) I do not dispute one broccoli related claim in the article. I have no problem with 'Garden Betty'. But the use of a gardening blog doesn't cut it as WP:RS, as I understand it. And the other references, by virtue of introducing (albeit indirectly) a suggestion of anti-cancer properties that are not widely documented, leads us down a deep and dark rabbit hole.

And because I notice that the article has been the subject of edit protection in the recent past, I'm not going there. Cheers all. (And eat your greens!) Wayne 06:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good critical analysis, . I checked the other Brassica articles, made changes by adding a review on cooking effects, and removed the weak (Betty) refs. The nutrition table comes from the USDA National Nutrient Database (as sourced), and is a standard reliable source for nutrient content of many WP articles on foods. Checking the clinical review literature, I find no evidence as of 2019 that Brassica vegetables lower risk or prevent diseases. The Brassicas should just be enjoyed for their sharp flavors and high contents of vitamins C and K. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That section has been zapped, so I can't see it any more. But for the record, there is a substantial literature on the anti-carcinogenic effects of sulforaphane on carcinogenesis. The biological effects in humans have been documented following broccoli consumption. As far as specific health effects of foods, this is one of the best documented. Wikipedia seems to be a lousy source, though. If you want to read a few dozen reviews in the scientific literature take a look at this link: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=broccoli+sulforaphane+review&num=50&btn=Scholar+Search
 * Wiki needs a good policy on health claims for foods, because a lot of them are silly or marketing fluff. Some are real, but not compelling reasons to change from a healthy diverse diet to one unbalances toward that food. Phytism (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing is "zapped" on Wikipedia. Check the article history. There are no WP:MEDRS-quality reviews to support broccoli, sulforaphane, or any one food as having anti-disease properties. The articles in your Google search are WP:PRIMARY and not usable in an encyclopedia. See WP:WHYMEDRS. The assembly of nutrients from a diet is what counts for supporting health. Zefr (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, the articles the search uncovers are largely the "review articles published in the biomedical literature" that are required. You do a good job (as does WP:WHYMEDRS) describing the sensitivity to such claims in Wikipedia. The sulforaphane story is one of the few dietary health claims that reaches the threshold that would pass muster. The price of the extra conservatism is that some legit information does not appear in the current version of foodstuff articles. I can live with that. But the history and talk pages can provide clues ;-).Phytism (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Cyanide?
Why is broccoli listed in Categories: Cyanide-containing foods? Cyanide is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Ruralgal (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Cruciferous vegetables - among which broccoli is one - contain the phytochemical, isothiocyanate (shown in the Taste subsection), which is metabolized by the enzyme, myrosinase, and so isothiocyanate may be converted to a small amount of cyanide. In food science and medicine, discussed partly in this in vitro study PMID 25271103, this is considered a normal biochemical process which in my opinion is too trivial (and unencyclopedic) to discuss in the article. --Zefr (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Cyanide-containing food is an incorrect description, thus is is appropriate to remove it from the article. Crucifers contain glucosinolates that can be broken down to isothiocyanates (not cyanide). The isothiocyanate is volatile, so any further conversion will happen outside the plant. Free cyanide is not a direct product of breakdown. Consuming crucifers does not expose the eater to any cyanide. Phytism (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

revert
viz. WP:HEALTHRS

q.v. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Broccoli&oldid=1028530231

there is a list of references page 543: c.f for example 2. Steinmetz and Potter 1991 A Review of Vegetables Fruit and Cancer published 1991 (contested source published 1993), regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC) 2 minor change after signature 14:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC) 14:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

specifically: "...A lower lung cancer risk was also seen for all fruit (adjusted OR = 0.75 for high consumption), high vitamin C vegetables and fruit (OR = 0.75), carrots (OR = 0.71), and brocolli (OR = 0.72) and for the nutrients beta-carotene (OR = 0.81) and vitamin C (OR = 0.81) (all 95% confidence intervals included 1.0). Lung cancer risk was unrelated to consumption of the..."

regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC) minor change after signature 14:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

with regards to:, regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no compelling clinical evidence that broccoli specifically has any health effects - it is just a food with high content of vitamins C and K, but otherwise has a limited amount of nutrients. Zefr (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/316448 "How does broccoli help prevent cancer? Study sheds light Researchers from Oregon State University...", regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC) minor correction after signature 15:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/about, regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC) added number 15:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2. https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/12/06/broccoli-and-cancer-a-response-from-the-institute-of-food-research/ "Other studies that have used more informative cohorts have reported statistically valid links between prostate cancer risk and cruciferous vegetable intake. So that’s why we’re continuing our research efforts to understand the science behind this phenomenon, which will hopefully end up benefitting men in the long run. – Professor Richard Mithen, Institute of Food Research", regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC) minor change after signature 15:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC) added number 15:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 3. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/05/beth-israel-researchers-uncover-anti-cancer-drug-mechanism-in-broccoli/ (Harvard Gazette Powell 2019) "Pier Paolo Pandolfi at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center’s Cancer Center and Cancer Research Institute" - "New research has linked a compound found in Brussels sprouts, broccoli, and other cruciferous vegetables to one of the body’s most potent tumor-suppressing genes...", regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC) added number 15:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC) minor change 15:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31250356/ Broccoli sprout supplementation in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer is difficult despite positive effects-results from the POUDER pilot study Vladimir J Lozanovski, Georgios Polychronidis, Wolfgang Gross, Negin Gharabaghi, Arianeb Mehrabi, Thilo Hackert, Peter Schemmer, Ingrid Herr PMID: 31250356 PMCID: PMC7211206 DOI: 10.1007/s10637-019-00826-z "...Broccoli sulforaphane is a promising new treatment due to the results of recent epidemiological, experimental and patient studies...", regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC) minor change after signature 15:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 5. https://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/16/9/2580 Sulforaphane, a Dietary Component of Broccoli/Broccoli Sprouts, Inhibits Breast Cancer Stem CellsYanyan Li, Tao Zhang, Hasan Korkaya, Suling Liu, Hsiu-Fang Lee, Bryan Newman, Yanke Yu, Shawn G. Clouthier, Steven J. Schwartz, Max S. Wicha and Duxin Sun DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-2937 Published May 2010, American Association for Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research eISSN: 1557-3265 ISSN: 1078-0432, regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 6. Zhang Y, Talalay P, Cho CG, Posner GH. A major inducer of anticarcinogenic protective enzymes from broccoli: isolation and elucidation of structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1992;89:2399–403.
 * 7. Clarke JD, Dashwood RH, Ho E. Multi-targeted prevention of cancer by sulforaphane. Cancer Lett 2008;269:291–304.
 * 8. Fahey JW, Zhang Y, Talalay P. Broccoli sprouts: an exceptionally rich source of inducers of enzymes that protect against chemical carcinogens. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1997;94:10367–72.
 * 9. Zhang Y, Tang L. Discovery and development of sulforaphane as a cancer chemopreventive phytochemical. Acta Pharmacol Sin 2007;28:1343–54., regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC) minor changes after signature 15:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 10. https://www.aicr.org/cancer-prevention/food-facts/broccoli-cruciferous-vegetables/ Broccoli and Cruciferous Vegetables: Reduce Overall Cancer Risk updated on April 6, 2021 American Institute for Cancer Research, 1560 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1000 Arlington, VA 22209, regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC) added address after signature 15:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 11. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/paul-talalay-death-preventing-cancer-broccoli-john-hopkins-university-a8829956.html Emily Langer Sunday 24 March 2019 Independent newspaper Paul Talalay: Scientist who found in broccoli sprouts an aid to preventing cancer - But Talalay was keen to avoid hype. “Do I tell everybody to eat broccoli sprouts? No, and we can’t say that eating sprouts will guarantee you won’t get cancer or heart disease. But I believe they are protective.”,regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC) "..Fahey founded Brassica Protection Products to market broccoli sprouts and other edibles with health benefits supported by their research..." https://truebroc.com/brassica/ Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * None of those sources is a WP:MEDRS review, but rather primary research or news releases on preliminary studies. There are many foods more nutrient-rich than broccoli (e.g., kale, spinach, others), yet no medical claims for anti-disease activity exist for them. No individual food has been shown to prevent diseases or solely contribute to health. We are constructing an encyclopedia, not a student term report on preliminary research. Read and adhere to WP:WHYMEDRS and WP:MEDSCI. Zefr (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

contest on the veracity of broccoli as associated with anything that is classifiable as anti-cancerousness
I think the proceeding text conforms to your necessitated WP:MEDRS:WP:BMI:Reference work: encyclopedias:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Encyclopedia_of_Vitamins_Minerals_an/upI55jwytpQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Paul+Talalay+broccoli&pg=PR21&printsec=frontcover The Encyclopedia of Vitamins, Minerals, and Supplements by Tova Navarra · 2014 ISBN 9781438121031 published by Facts On File p.xxi - "the findings of Paul Talalay, Dr Gary H. Posner and other research scientists at John Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland sulforaphane blocks the growth of cancerous tumours in rats and stimulates the production of anticancer enzymes in mouse cells ... originally published in the March 1992 issue of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and subsequent research has confirmed these findings...",

regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC) - https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Berries_and_Cancer_Prevention/-D80drLgt-0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Paul+Talalay+broccoli&printsec=frontcover

pp.137-8 Berries and Cancer Prevention by Gary D. Stoner, Navindra P. Seeram · 2011 ISBN 9781441975546 published by Springer New York

Oberyszyn T, 3.2. Role of Chemopreventive/Chemotherapeutic Agents on Skin; "...Additionally more recent studies have described the preventative effects of broccoli sprout extracts, green tea polyphenols, goji berries, and topical isoflavanoids on UV on cutaneous damage and tumour formation (Bandara et al. 2010; Dinkova-Kostova et al. 2010; Katiyar et al. 2010; Reeve et al. 2010)..."

regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC) - https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Epigenetics_and_Cancer/Mr0tFpw_RpEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Paul+Talalay+broccoli&printsec=frontcover

Epigenetics and Cancer 2013 ISBN 9789400766129 Publisher:Springer Netherlands Editor:Fazlul H. Sarkar

p.242 Thakar, VS; Gupta, S Plant Polyphenols as modulators of Glutathione... 13.2 Agents Modulating GTSP1 expression 13.2.2 GSTP1 Inducers "Sulphur containing phytochemicals known as isothiocyanates occur naturally as glucosinolate conjugates in cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, radish, etc [111]. These include methylsulfinylalkyl isothiocyanates like sulforaphane (SFN) and aromatic isothiocyanates, phenethyl isothiocyanates (PEITC) and benzyl isothiocyanates. Isothiocyanates exert chemoprotective effects partly by inducing phase II enzyme, thus enhancing the elimination of activated carcinogens. SFN has been shown to increase GTSP1 and other phase II enzyme expression, at mRNA, protein and activity levels in cell culture study utilizing human prostate cancer cells [112, 113] ... (p.243) In a population based case-control study, intake of cruciferous vegetable consistent with high isothiocyanates exposure reduced breast cancer risk...[118]

regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC) change after signature 20:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC) - https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Phytochemicals_in_Health_and_Disease/CfNdp1hCfQEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Paul+Talalay+broccoli&printsec=frontcover

Phytochemicals in Health and Disease by Roger Fenwick · 2004 ISBN:9780203021408 Publisher:Taylor & Francis 24 May 2004 editors:Roger Fenwick, Yongping Bao

6 Cancer Chemoprevention with Sulforaphane, a Dietary Isocyanate Yuesheng Zhang Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA

pp. 121-141

with regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are not understanding MEDRS or WHYMEDRS. The sources provided above are years/decades away from proof of anti-cancer effects, which would need to be demonstrated in multiple, large randomized controlled trials, then published by experts as a systematic review in a medical journal. Your examples are primary research from in vitro and lab animal studies, leading to speculation of actual in vivo effects which are unproven and unencyclopedic. Slow down and read the guidelines provided. Zefr (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC

- WP:MEDRS:WP:BMI:Review article

https://watermark.silverchair.com/nutritionreviews56-0127.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAtMwggLPBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggLAMIICvAIBADCCArUGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMKxjmqxGwCix05exUAgEQgIIChoLC81CXNSV1E4Rt9Z3blWWkYIMp27SSydc62cd1_h9I2Y-lBskA4egHLpSt302FU4TD6ELbfNoFo0lDLGvhog-FnpslnNOI5_9mMYv-hNovbtZjgTdYb__JneJDqy4x9h4Ppprm06l8Rm_pUplo-_7-c4H7YfIxFqsg99TWV-ZPnMVybb__nZEfY2hGB0F249x49KwRzbMfQpqyYLIO4h_oHcXeaY66_6Xh6n7vmjo1Hg8JktBo8DV7Ivzn9VBARYLe6ad1lXCbXSzEs1NEabeKPxW_1p3OKYVll-N1EDEETDOxLXc9qaS9OhdBJ5nwMYt4-2PVmzMFpfCh47DVaSQ7M88k_7O5IiG5migPoDWzav0Qd_faXam0vSsvBv7sqddOgorUO66CUz4Dlv8cNB0H9UObMGXk9xk_KFBo_Etztf_UJrRDMPl4YUYO33R3SSav2h4SfjD3v2BbFUlgrRIr7O4N3KYQhGhbE1KZQHS8FeoX2KR6btVXe6SUzjMCZYGwm6BFuOyjXuPNj7H0xkwvEGGtln2wpeHlLEJmi0973Hz4xh7zMY9GMThYF_bYNeDU3b2iSuzHKymodW2kqUIfpBgmjlGvTuhK7vPpm2LKESDIsMrDOhfU1yI8IdYUF1rdLvJ_-k0Y3HXF8_kc6Y5YrXFokUs27VyfrM-YPOrrX3T2k5lOjxQ8Uf402sGA6tdNyEmcuqav1wHGMZKZPTX8_Aa6EXd70xJ84YhzDL9pn1TurmwiTTKG2OBclYDIs66EPpDEvj6iZh9Uxu3Tn-0keh4kOi4uZgSacWQoe8aNfujBzT4V4zf0Ad7WrjPROsOlNaZlpM3tHYrQOgZ2EST_7Uf_PDc

Broccoli Sprouts in Cancer Prevention Recent research has aimed to identify specific phytochemicals in Brassica vegetables, such as sulforaphane in broccoli, that may confer protection against cancer. Clinical, dietaty, and policy implications are discussed. This review was prepared by Marion Nestle, Ph.D., M.P.H., Chair, Department of Nutrition and Food Studies, New York University, New York, NY 10012- 1172, USA. It is adapted from an article originally published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 1997;94:11149-51. 0 1997 National Academy of Sciences, USA. Nutrition Reviews, Vol. 56, No. 4

"..existing data are more than sufficient to promote greater consumption of broccoli and its sprouts along with other vegetables.." (p.130)

Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC) -
 * If you remember the first inclusion to the article that was reverted, I didn't state de facto broccoli is anti-cancerous - that content shows (or paraphrased here) "an inverse relationship", "seems to indicate"... and at that time all that was present was one source. I'm not attempting to overcome rationality here, looking at the sources, and there are more than 15 sources listed, all but one (Encyclopedia of Vitamins, Minerals, and Supplements by Tova Navarra · 2014, reliably published by Facts on File) is verifiably scientifically authored (that is by universities), your stringency is of course admirable and worthwhile, to defend the truth from any influx of corrupted, biased motivated, etc sources - but you cannot expect me to ignore the high quality of the sources presented - really there shouldn't be a problem, and the article could simply present the sources taking into account your (and mine and wikipedias) necessary boundaries for inclusion, by stating the sources aren't representing a current reality (as would be the case by the randomized controlled trial standard), but provide preliminary findings which indicate strongly to the favour of the anticancerousness of sulforaphane - especially with regards to having fulfilled WP:MEDRS twice, as is reviewable here at Encyclopedia of Vitamins, Minerals, and Supplements by Tova Navarra · 2014 and Marion Nestle, Ph.D., M.P.H., Chair, Department of Nutrition and Food Studies, New York University. I understand your reticence, and that it represents a valid policy, but I'm not trying to break the policy, only trying to adapt the sources to the existing policy, while it seems you would like to entirely discredit the sources for the sake of upholding a principle, which at it's value is to provide reliable information, not to withold information. with regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Autonomous agent 5, sources can't be "adapted" to fit policy. In addition, there are huge problems here in the formatting (as well as the writing) which make this extraordinarily difficult to parse. There is a huge-ass URL that starts with "watermark.silverchair", and that entire URL produces nothing more than "Your session has timed out. Please go back to the article page and click the PDF link again." And of course all your posts here are just a gigantic mess, full of weird formatting and disregard for talk page convention. Now, there's that article in Cancer Research (journal)--, I don't understand why you rejected that citing MEDRS, but Autonomus again, that article lists "broccoli" as one of many items that may help with this or that--but the operative sentence here actually does not prove your point: "The inverse association with broccoli consumption (not statistically significant in this study) has been seen in two previous case-control studies (9, 11) that reported on broccoli consumption specifically" (bolding is mine). Now it is possible that somewhere in here you cited what are references 9 and 11, but I am not going to go through the references of that article to find out what it is, and whether they are cited somewhere in these talk page posts. To put it briefly, the one article you cited that (I think) meets the guidelines does not prove your point, and what you are doing on this talk page is not helping. You've been here for over 1200 edits, and one would hope that by that time an editor would have developed the necessary skills to engage in this sort of discussion--but both the content of the matter (the very simple question of whether something meets MEDRS) and the argument about the matter suggest that you need to work on some things. In the meantime, Zefr was correct in reverting your edits. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Drmies, what I'm trying to say by "adapting sources", is the same as saying that I'm not trying to make a point via the sources, I don't have a point to make - the sources lead me, not I lead with sources. By adapting I mean the evidence is obvious of something being indicated by university sources, and here we see the sources don't fulfill the policy at wikipedia, but the universities think the research is good enough to publish, so, the article here could use the sources without stating anything which isn't shown in the sources - i.e. not to state outlandish, unwarranted, unfounded etc claims of the health benefits of broccoli, simply to provide a synopsis of the current studies and research, with respect to all the necessary guidelines on factual accuracy Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * here is another url of the time-out link "watermark.silverchair", with regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia is not a student term paper, thesis or discussion section of a journal article on lab research. WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-8. Zefr (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * just to summarize, reverted @ 14:32, 14 June 2021 "Source is not about broccoli and is not a WP:MEDRS review" although we see now there are a number of sources about broccoli, or more specifically sulforaphane, WP:MEDRS in a nut-shell is Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. This guideline...", is the entire prescribed reality (the bolded text that is) which is therefore "In scholarship, a secondary source[1][2] is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere...", which would disallow the list of journal study articles, but would include:
 * Encyclopedia of Vitamins, Minerals, and Supplements by Tova Navarra · 2014 (WP:MEDRS:WP:BMI:Reference work:encyclopedias, as I've already indicated)
 * Marion Nestle, Ph.D., M.P.H., Chair, Department of Nutrition and Food Studies, New York University. (WP:MEDRS:WP:BMI:Review article, which I've already indicated also), and, "position statements from national or international expert bodies" = "adapted from an article originally published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA ... existing data are more than sufficient to promote greater consumption of broccoli")
 * Berries and Cancer Prevention by Gary D. Stoner, Navindra P. Seeram · 2011 ISBN 9781441975546 published by Springer New York Oberyszyn T, 3.2. Role of Chemopreventive/Chemotherapeutic Agents on Skin (WP:MEDRS: intro: "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers")
 * Epigenetics and Cancer 2013 ISBN 9789400766129 Publisher:Springer Netherlands Editor:Fazlul H. Sarkar p.242 Thakar, VS; Gupta, S Plant Polyphenols as modulators of Glutathione... 13.2 Agents Modulating GTSP1 expression 13.2.2 GSTP1 Inducers (WP:MEDRS: intro: "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers")


 * so why do you think the article shouldn't include these sources? obviously they should... "You are not understanding MEDRS or WHYMEDRS. The sources provided above are years/decades away from proof of anti-cancer effects..." (@  Zefr (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2021 response to Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)): my response to that direction of criticism is to reiterate that: the sources could be included to indicate only the factual aspects that actually are within the sources, as I've already indicated at my comment to Drmies 23:02, 14 June 2021. Taking into account the positions currently, and including my bias for my own position, I fail to see how your position is representing policy as it is, instead of your interpretation of policy - taking into account also, any policy is part of a complete general policy which is to state that WP:MEDRS is part of WP:5P2:" verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources". I think your focus on the minutiae of policy is the same expression of sacrifice of the good which the annuling of inclusion to the article is the potentially sacrificial choice of the failure to provide something to readers of wikipedia which would be of benefit to those people, for the greater benefit that is (i.e. health), rather than simply academic interests, with regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for, User:Autonomous agent 5, and I did not come at this from the MEDRS angle, but since you insist on that, I will take that into account. My first concern, however, is that you don't actually say what material you wish to include, and following on that, what the value is of it. 1. I have already indicated that the article by Steinmetz et al. says that in that study broccoli did not have a statistically significant effect. So when you wrote, in the edit reverted by Zefr, "A 1986 study of 41,837 woman aged within their 56th year - 69th year, all living in Iowa, found an inverse relationship between eating broccoli and incidence of lung cancer (i.e. eating broccoli seemed to indicate a reduction in lung cancer).", you were actually being if not outright wrong then at least misleading: it was two other studies that indicated a connection. But you didn't follow up on that, nor on the fact that that article is from 1993, and the two studies that indicated the connection were from 1988 and 1989 (see, I did to the work for you). That's really, really old. 2. The Navarra book essentially says "some scientist claim that sulforaphane blocks tumors in rats and so broccoli may prevent colorectal cancer", which again is next to nothing; it adds that a test is ongoing, which we shouldn't be reporting on yet. In addition, Navarra is a nurse who happily speaks of including various alternative "substances", which she acknowledges may have detractors, and the introduction is by a "holistic health consultant". I don't see a board of professionals listed in that book by Facts on File (which is not, as far as I know, a medical publisher). 3. Nestle (whose article is called "Broccoli Sprouts in Cancer Prevention"--please cite properly so that you save other people time) does indeed say what you said, ..existing data are more than sufficient to promote greater consumption of broccoli and its sprouts along with other vegetables..", but that sentence started with "From the standpoint of public health policy" (in other words, something other than "science has proven that"), and if you want that in the article, you are going to have to cite that as well--by the way, that article is also old, from 1998. But I'm getting a bit tired of this. There's two more sources you mention, books by Springer--not a publisher known for medical studies, but more for dissertations, and known to be somewhat hit-or-miss in the academic industry, but these weren't even in your first edit. You keep saying "BUT THESE STUDIES ARE ACCEPTABLE" when they weren't even in that edit, and on top of that the sources don't seem to say exactly what you want them to say, or they're really not as acceptable as you think. You give a quote from one Springer book, the Stoner one--and that's also cited incorrectly: Stoner is not the co-author, but the co-editor, and the quote seems to be from Tatiana Oberyszyn's article. But the book is on berries, for crying out loud, and if this is so valuable, why don't you get the studies that Oberyszyn cited? But that's the same thing I asked you earlier, for the Steinmetz article, and you didn't do that. I can't read page 242 from the other Springer book, but "broccoli" is just one of a number of veggies in your quote. This conversation is becoming a time sink. Arguing things about studies you didn't cite and so weren't reverted as failing MEDRS is really a strawman. The things you did cite are cited incorrectly or incompletely. One of them (Navarra) is pretty clearly not an acceptable source; the other two articles are old. You wouldn't get the actual studies that underlied the claims you quoted, which is really just intellectually negligent. I think I've indicated what I think you might include here, and I must respectfully ask you to not waste my time and to prepare your homework better than you did. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

James Bond Broccoli family
The etymology section states: "The Broccoli family, whose members include Albert R. Broccoli and Barbara Broccoli and are known in the 20th and 21st century for producing the James Bond films, also claim that the vegetable is named after their ancestors, the Broccolis of Carrara." and cites two sources. Obviously I'm convinced that some members of the family have made that claim - but I'm skeptical that making that claim is itself relevant. What's the bar here for how likely the claim has to be true before it's relevant here? I could definitely understand putting this claim in an entry on Albert Broccoli, but to me it feels strange on the entry for the plant itself. The articles that are linked provide pretty thin evidence for the claim. This is the entirety of the evidence: "According to research done in Florence by Broccoli’s wife of 30 years, Dana, the brothers were descended from the Broccolis of Carrera, who first crossed two Italian vegetables, cauliflower and rabe, to produce the dark green, thick-stalked vegetable that took their name and eventually supported them in the United States." This research is clearly not published or widely accepted as true. I do not see it referenced even in online articles specifically about the origins of broccoli where it's always just attributed to Etruscans. Sample from thespruceeats.com: "It was engineered from a cabbage relative by the Etruscans—an ancient Italian civilization who lived in what is now Tuscany—who were considered to be horticultural geniuses." It seems to me that if we generally agreed that there was no truth whatsoever to the claim the family was making, that the claim would not meet the bar for inclusion in this article. And if it were thought to be 99% likely to be true, then it would make perfect sense to be listed here. But there's no way at all to verify the claim from the evidence and links given, and I would submit that there's no particular reason to trust private "research done by Dana Broccoli". Should this claim stay? AngolaMaldives (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree and revised here. Zefr (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

2019 Sulforaphane review
This revert was justified because 1) the journal Molecules is an MDPI journal that is likely compromised by predatory publishing practices, i.e., the authors may have paid to have the paper published, and editorial review of the publication may have been thin or absent - see disclaimer on WP:CITEWATCH where Molecules is listed among MDPI publications; 2) there is nothing in the review on human studies to give confidence about any in vivo effects of sulforaphane or glucoraphanin. The paper mainly covers lab studies and weak clinical trials, and does not satisfy as a WP:MEDRS review. See WP:MEDASSESS which encourages use of a high-quality review (e.g., a Cochrane review) of Phase III clinical trials to imply an anti-disease effect in the encyclopedia. No such late-stage clinical trials or review exist for sulforaphane. There is no good evidence presented in a reputable review or clinical guideline that eating broccoli or using sulforaphane supplements can affect the risk of cancer or any disease. Zefr (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Did you mean to also remove the thing about carotenoids in the same edit? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The carotenoids statement and source remained as the last sentence, although only beta-carotene was mentioned in the PDF. Only a few carotenoids were assessed in that 2009 study; other than beta-carotene (which converts in metabolism to vitamin A), the remaining ones are not pronutrients, so are of no interest to nutrition. Zefr (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)