![]() ![]() A better approach may be to just analyze liquid smoke for known carcinogens, chemicals that we know cause cancer. Due to the limitations of the available tests it’s hard to calculate the genotoxic potential of liquid smoke, or any other food for that matter. So it’s hard to know what to make of this p53 data. So, for example, teas and coffees caused p53 activation as well, but their consumption is associated with lower cancer risk. Like exercise is a stress on the body, but in the right amount can make us healthier in the long run. It’s a biological phenomenon known as hormesis – that which doesn’t kill us may make us stronger. Is this because our body sees broccoli as toxic and is trying to get rid of it quicker? Either way, the end result is good, lower cancer risk. Cruciferous vegetables dramatically boost our liver’s detoxifying enzymes. It’s considered a tumor suppressor gene, so if something boosts its activity is that good or bad? It’s like the broccoli story. P53 is considered “Guardian of our Genome,” guardian of our DNA. ![]() ![]() They conclude “If the DNA-damaging activities of liquid smoke were thought to be deleterious, it might be possible to replace liquid smoke with other safer, smoky substances.” Why do they say if thought to be deleterious? That’s because they’re not really measuring DNA damage, they’re measuring p53 activation, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The p53-activating property in liquid smoke was eliminated by standard baking conditions (350☏ for 1h), so if you’re baking something with liquid smoke for long enough, it should eliminate this effect, though just boiling-even for an hour, or slow cooking doesn’t appear to work. Other flavorings didn’t seem as bad, though there was a hickory smoke powder that ranked pretty high, as did the fish sauce, though smoked paprika didn’t register at all. So a big p53 response may be indicative of a lot of DNA damage,and a few of the liquid smoke flavorings activated p53 almost as much as a chemotherapy drug like etoposide, whose whole purpose is to break DNA strands. P53 is a protein we make that binds to our DNA, you can see this illustrated in my video, Is Liquid Smoke Flavoring Carcinogenic?. ![]() This maximum “response” they were measuring was p53 activation. That’s one of the reasons I was so excited about a new study, where they tested-and named–15 different brands of liquid smoke. Unfortunately they didn’t name names of the offending brands. Cigarette smoke is more toxic, but three out of four of the brands of liquid smoke they bought at the supermarket killed off even more cells, leading them to conclude that the cytotoxic potential of some commercial smoke flavorings is greater than that of liquid cigarette smoke, a finding they no doubt celebrated given that the researchers were paid employees of the R. If you drip water on cells, nothing happens, they keep powering away at around 100% survival, but drip on more and more wood fire smoke, and you start killing some of the cells off. A decade later researchers tested to see what effect liquid smoke had on overall cell viability. But, “there is no evidence that mutagenic activity in a particular human cell line is more closely related to human health risk than is mutagenic activity in bacteria.” In other words: just because liquid smoke causes DNA mutations to human cells in a petri dish, doesn’t mean that it does the same thing within the human body.Ī good approach may be to just analyze liquid smoke for known carcinogens, chemicals that we know cause cancer.ĭamaging DNA is just one of many ways chemicals can be toxic to cells. Unlike the bacteria, the mutation rate shot up as more and more liquid smoke was added. A group at MIT tested a hickory smoke flavoring they bought at the store against two types of human white blood cells. Even as more and more smoke flavoring was added, the DNA mutation rate remained about the same.īut the fact that something is not mutagenic in bacteria may have little predictive value for its effect on human cells. We know smoke inhalation isn’t good for us, but what about smoke ingestion? Decades ago, smoke flavorings were tested to see if they caused DNA mutations in bacteria-the tests came up negative. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |