Talk:Phytochemical

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Phytochemical is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

TonyClarke, can you change the wording in this phytochemical entry so that phytochemicals become the subject in your recent edition? For example, instead of saying "people believe" can you say "phytochemicals are believed" and change the rest of the grammar accordingly? It just seems more "encyclopedic" to have the subject of the sentence be the subject of the entry if possible. Thanks for your time and input on this entry. - Plautus satire 15:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

TonyClarke, I made some very slight changes to the wording, I don't think what you put there was inaccurate, I just wanted to emphasize phytochemicals as the subject instead of people's belief as subject, and also I changed it to reflect the lack of challenge to this evidence, so far as I know there is agreement so unless somebody else wants to challenge I think it's okay to just say "it is believed". It's a shame we have to pick over our words so carefully, so that these entries read almost like a legal disclaimer. - Plautus satire 16:37, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your care and readjustment of my hasty additions. I think it is a really important subject, so I get carried away and perhaps my insertions to maintain NPOV are a bit cursory!

TonyClarke 22:51, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for watchdogging this entry, silsor, perhaps you can fix the format so the table doesn't look so ugly. - Plautus satire 03:33, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


This article needs some untangling, for example if common foods are the most usual source for these micronutrients (as the table in the article suggests) then it seems odd to say that Africa is the commonest source and America the greatest consumer of phytochemicals. Unless we're talking here about the artificial extraction of phytochemicals, and their marketing as supplements. But I don't know if there is a lot of that going on, it's nutritionally unsound anyway, IMHO.

TonyClarke 22:45, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Selenium is a pre-cursor of Glutathione, a potent and important antioxidant manufactured primarily in the liver."

This statement needs sourcing, and makes no sense to me, as it may be necessary to catalyze the formation of Glutathione, but is not a precursor, since Glutathione contains no Selenium.

Symcoxkd (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Vegetarians

The re-inserted sentence is still, to me, just as POV as the prior version. This article is about a class of nutrients; there is zero reason to mention vegetarianism or veganism in it. In addition to the POV issues, there's no verification for this sentence, and there's no reason why a meat-eater couldn't get just as many phytochemicals in his diet if he eats lots of fruits and vegetables. That section is propaganda for a pro-vegetarian viewpoint and it doesn't belong. | Klaw ¡digame! 21:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, with respect. To say it doesn't beong is itself POV. Phytochemicals most often are discussed in books or contexts which are regarding vegetarianism, and a meat eating traditioin would always see phytochemicals as marginal.

But they are not, they are absolutely essential for health, and their decline in our food has been blamed for lots of illnesses. So vegetarianism and phytochemicals are inextricably linked. Perhaps that is what needs spelt out, but that level of detail would truly be out of place in the entry. I think the mention of veganism and vegetarianism is enough, and justified imo

TonyClarke 23:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

To say it doesn't beong is itself POV. That's nonsense. It doesn't belong because it has no verification. Is requiring verification now POV?
To the point, can you provide any data whatsoever to demonstrate that vegetarians and vegans get more phytochemicals than carnivores who eat a lot of vegetables? That's the crux of this argument. I asked for verification and got a lot of rhetoric in return. The mention comes out until it's sourced. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ketchup IS a vegetable

If ketchup is indeed a good source of lycopene as the article says, that means that Ronald Reagan was right--ketchup is a vegetable! I doubt that! Keraunos 06:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't mean that at all. As this article clearly states, phytochemicals come from plant foods. Ketchup is indeed a plant food because tomatoes are a primary ingredient. But just because ketchup is a source of lycopene doesn't mean it is reasonable to substitute it, a la Reagan, for fresh fruits or vegetables. Especially not in the diets of children, which was the original context of Reagan's sadistic remark (lower the cost of school lunches with French fries and ketchup). Ketchup also contains toxins such as refined sugar and/or corn syrup. funkendub 16:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous... Wiki wiki1 04:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acai left out?

I was reading about the acai palm and much of the article is on its phytonutrient value. I then came to this page and the acai is not mentioned at all. Is the goal of this article to mention more common foods that Americans eat? Apparently Brazilians eat acai on a regular basis. Ambienthealth 20:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you add it? Qaz 20:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It's there now. -- Beland 03:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beta-carotene in Cancer section

But studies of supplementation with large doses of beta-carotene in smokers have shown an increase in cancer risk (possibly because excessive beta-carotene results in breakdown products that reduce plasma Vitamin A and worsen the lung cell proliferation induced by smoke)

This should be deleted or reworded. The results of this study were from the testing of synthetic beta-carotene and thus this study has no bearing on the effects of actual phyto-nutrients.

I wouldn't say it has "no bearing" if the two are chemically identical or very similar. I added the word "synthetic" to the article. But this and many other claims still need references, so this sort of thing can be fact-checked. -- Beland 03:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)