Talk:Sulforaphane

Article needs clarification: Sulforaphane are not bad
My first impression from the Kale & Sulforaphane article was, that sulforaphane are bad. The respective german wikipedia article clarified that sulforaphane are or are assumed to be rather good than bad. Both english wikipedia articles need to clarify that, as well. Consequences if the english articles are not fixed: People could believe that sulforaphane are highly poisonous and consequently kale must be cooked and is harming if eaten uncooked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.174.108 (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal interests
When citing articles by Talalay, Fahey and others at Johns Hopkins, Wikipedia should notify readers that they are equity owners in Brassica Protection Products LLC, licensee of Johns Hopkins patents and developer of broccoli sprout extract products. See, for example, Science Daily, October 23, 2007, at www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071022171929.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.46.159 (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with 151.199.46.159 on this one. While it is not unusual for researchers to form companies based on their research, I find this article to be very biased toward promoting sulforaphane supplements. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 16:27 2008 May 19 (UTC)

Whilst I am very happy to hear about cutting edge research in this area, the tone of the article makes assertions which appear brazen and untested in the strictest sense. These assertions should be scaled back - partly to preserve the credibility of the actual research!PeterS2009 (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Another problem is that the paper that found a link between broccoli sprout consumption and H. pylori treatment used no control group and extremely small sample size (9 people). --Tweenk (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Tweenk, perhaps this is a trend. I don't work in medical research, and don't feel qualified to comment on the main page, but if you take a look at the PNAS 104 paper, the Abstract claims a long-lasting effect for sulforaphane, which later, so far as I can see, is only based on a part of the work that used only a single volunteer. Meanwhile table 1 makes interesting reading; three out of six volunteers showed no statistically significant benefit (one consistently so, two because the benefit they might have got showed a very random trend in relation to UV dosage). The table legend is hard to understand, as it defines the effect of UV as delta a*, delta being subtracting a value before exposure from that after (because UV exposure led to a constant increment in a* rather than a constant fractional increase); % change is then defined as one delta divided by the other. So what happens if the delta on the bottom is nearly zero? Or are we looking at the effect of sulforaphane on acetone-irritated skin? I don't want to put a spanner in the works of anything that could reduce skin-cancer, but I'd appreciate a second opinion on whether the work is actually good enough to cite here. From PNAS I'd expect it to be good. 149.155.96.5 (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nutrient-enhanced broccoli
I think it would be helpful if editors would add the following to the article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/03/superbroccoli-may-fight-cancer "The new broccoli, called Beneforte, contains two to three times more glucoraphanin than standard broccoli. It will be sold at Marks & Spencer stores from and make an appearance on the shelves of other supermarkets next year." 173.210.125.42 (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

PubMed cite to study: 2/3 reduction of glucosinolates and sulforaphane in fresh broccoli after steaming.
This was the only study I easily found for the often-repeated claim that cooking reduces the goitrogenic properties of cruciferous vegetables.

Conaway CC, Getahun SM, Liebes LL, Pusateri DJ, Topham DK, Botero-Omary M, Chung FL. "Disposition of glucosinolates and sulforaphane in humans after ingestion of steamed and fresh broccoli." Nutr Cancer. 2000;38(2):168-78.

Erratum in Nutr Cancer 2001;41(1-2):196. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 28 January 2012‎ (UTC) (refactored to rm copyvio)LeadSongDog come howl!  19:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Review sources
There have been some decent review sources in the past few years.
 * Joanna Tomczyk, Anna Olejnik "Sulforafan – potencjalny czynnik w prewencji i terapii chorób nowotworowych" [Sulforaphane – a possible agent in prevention and therapy of cancer] (in Polish) ''Postepy Hig Med Dosw' 2010 Nov 29;64:590-603.


 * Clarke JD, Dashwood RH, Ho E. "Multi-targeted prevention of cancer by sulforaphane" Cancer Lett. 2008 Oct 8;269(2):291-304. Epub 2008 May 27.
 * Fimognari C, Hrelia P. "Sulforaphane as a promising molecule for fighting cancer" Mutat Res. 2007 May-Jun;635(2-3):90-104. Epub 2006 Nov 28.

The numerous primary sources in the article should be trimmed back or eliminated. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Microwaving Broccoli and Loss of Sulforaphane?
Where to find reliable data on microwaving broccoli vs. steaming broccoli and any loss of sulforaphane? GeoFan49 (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Regulatory regime vs. review findings?
In this edit softened the findings of the meta-analysis  in light of the fact that (US?) regulatory agencies hadn't regulated in-line with the reviews finding's. Should we do that? Alexbrn talk 15:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Simply, Alex, the cited meta-analysis is only a survey of studies that included sulforaphane, apparently showing only weak evidence for neuroprotection. It is not evident from the abstract that the meta-analysis applied only to human spinal cord injury. As with many phytochemicals under research for potential benefits in humans, the Institute of Medicine and FDA guidelines require "significant scientific agreement" (SSA) and "totality of evidence" to assure a possible benefit has been adequately evaluated before approving the compound with a health claim such as "neuroprotection in spinal cord injury". Sulforaphane has not yet achieved such convincing status for this indication or anything else, so language in the Article needs to be soft while research continues. This SSA qualification applies to all phytochemicals not yet approved with health claims, so adheres to WP:MEDASSESS. --Zefr (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear how "guidance to industry" on the labelling of supplements pertains to Wikipedia's description of natural processes, but it isn't really a big deal in any case. Simply reword to make the situation clear: "Scientific reviewers found XYZ in, but the FDA regulators have not yet ruled on allowing the finding to be shown on packaging." LeadSongDog come howl!  18:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's the solution, with thanks. As I interpret the FDA Guidance to Industry, it's not only about what manufacturers are allowed to say on labels, but moreso about the weight of science that underlies health claim eligibility and provides factual information to Wikipedia users. If a concept is under study and has not yet attained SSA, is it valid to discuss it in a Wikipedia article as fact, e.g., "sulforaphane has a neuroprotective effect that can aid recovery from spinal cord injury"? I would say not, but feel it would be appropriate to state that such a condition is under preliminary research, enabling Wikipedia users knowledge of the background being developed.--Zefr (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please consider using that primary source for ~antioxidant (mostly) benefits
Those attributes listed are evidently well known in the field. Many similar reasons in the review cited above (re cancer). I'll try to use the reference above, another review, or find a textbook reference.

It was random select, double blind, placebo controlled and logical. Potential benefits to autistic kids with positive (to eating sprouts) side effects.

Are you're going to block any mention of the study results? I could just say "under ~intense investigation for treatment of ASD."

I think this article should include text noting that adding dry ground mustard seed (or other uncooked cruciferous) to a meal including cooked cruciferous vegetables (especially cauliflower) will then give you sulforaphane again. Way over my head, but a chemist friend says it isn't hard to reach to dosage in that study with good ole vegetables. No conflict of interest there. Please collaborate by giving me advise, or better yet do some writing.32cllou (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We need secondary sources per WP:MEDRS, and shouldn't sift/select/analyse/use primary sources ourselves. Alexbrn talk 03:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

''' Look here: http://examine.com/supplements/Sulforaphane/#summary12-3

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23411305 ee1518 (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Examine.com is not a reliable source; the primary research might be wrong (which is why we do not use it). Wikipedia only carries settled knowledge. Alexbrn talk 17:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Searching PubMed for "sulforaphane review" finds many recent results.      and  are all quite recent reviews. LeadSongDog  come howl!  13:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The "Research" chapter
At its current state this chapter does not make any sense, because the cited studies are about more specific topics than "mechanisms in vivo" or "human diseaces". I will rewrite.


 * ′′Although there is basic research on how sulforaphane may affect mechanisms in vivo,[1][2] there is no high-quality evidence to date for its efficacy against human diseases.[3]′′


 * [1]
 * [2]
 * [3]

Qtea (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We do not use lab research as encyclopedic information. Please read WP:MEDRS and review this video. --Zefr (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes I completely understand that. I got a bit drifted away while trying to improve the existing text, I am sorry.Qtea (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CHEM 378 - Biochemistry Lab - spring 2023
— Assignment last updated by Bubbstar (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)