Printer Friendly
The Free Library
19,607,059 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Beta-carotene: no magic bullet.


"Instead of taking beta-carotene supplements, eat your fruits and vegetables," said Harvard University's Charles Hennekens at a hastily called press conference last January.

The problem: In two major trials--the Physicians' Health Study and the Beta-Carotene and Retinol retinol: see Vitamin A under vitamin.  Efficacy Trial (CARET)--high doses of the popular antioxidant antioxidant, substance that prevents or slows the breakdown of another substance by oxygen. Synthetic and natural antioxidants are used to slow the deterioration of gasoline and rubber, and such antioxidants as vitamin C (ascorbic acid), butylated hydroxytoluene  failed to cut the risk of cancer or heart disease, explained Hennekens and others.

Worse yet, the National Cancer Institute (NCI See Liberate. ) was halting the CARET trial 21 months early because its beta-carotene-takers--almost all heavy smokers or ex-smokers--were showing a higher risk of lung cancer lung cancer, cancer that originates in the tissues of the lungs. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States in both men and women. Like other cancers, lung cancer occurs after repeated insults to the genetic material of the cell.  and heart disease... just like the smokers in a Finnish trial released in 1994.

For years, dozens of multivitamins--and even some breakfast cereals--have boasted "Now with beta-carotene." And now researchers say: "No benefit. Possible harm."

What went wrong?

EARLY EVIDENCE

In one sense, nothing went wrong. "While the results are disappointing," said NCl director Richard Klausner, "the research process, I believe, is working."

Since the 1970s, test tube, animal, and human evidence had mounted that beta-carotene could reduce the risk of cancer and possibly heart disease. In study after study, researchers observed a lower risk of cancer (especially lung cancer) in people (especially smokers) who, on their own, ate a diet rich in beta-carotene--that is, Lots of orange, deep yellow, and green vegetables and fruits.

But the final hurdle was a handful of large "clinical intervention trials," in which researchers randomly assigned thousands of people to take beta-carotene supplements or (look-alike but inactive) placebos and then waited for years to see how many cancers occurred in each group.

"Otherwise, we had no way to know whether it was the beta-carotene or something else in the diet," said Gilbert Omenn, lead investigator of the CARET trial at the Fred Hutchinson
This article is about Fred Hutchinson, the American baseball player and manager. For the medical institution established by his brother in his memory, see Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.
 Cancer Center in Seattle. It could even have been "something entirely different" about people who eat lots of fruits and vegetables that lowered their risk of cancer in earlier studies.

It was in the intervention trials that beta-carotene started to stumble.

BETA-CAROTENE ON TRIAL

The first hole in the beta-carotene bubble came in April 1994. Stunned stun  
tr.v. stunned, stun·ning, stuns
1. To daze or render senseless, by or as if by a blow.

2. To overwhelm or daze with a loud noise.

3.
 NCI researchers reported that in a trial of 30,000 male Finnish smokers, those who were given 20 mg of beta-carotene a day had an 18 percent higher risk of lung cancer and an eight percent higher risk of dying (mostly of lung cancer or heart disease) than those who took a placebo.(1)

Some brushed off the results as a fluke fluke, parasitic flatworm of the trematoda class, related to the tapeworm. Instead of the cilia, external sense organs, and epidermis of the free-living flatworms, adult flukes have sucking disks with which they cling to their hosts and an external cuticle that . We didn't. "Shelve shelve  
v. shelved, shelv·ing, shelves

v.tr.
1. To place or arrange on a shelf.

2.
 the beta-carotene," we wrote in June 1994.

Then, last January, came the news that the NCI was stopping the CARET trial early. "An interim analysis showed that there was a 28 percent increase in the number of lung cancers in the smokers taking 30 mg of beta-carotene and 25,000 IU of vitamin A vitamin A
 also called retinol

Fat-soluble alcohol, most abundant in fatty fish and especially in fish-liver oils. It is not found in plants, but many vegetables and fruits contain beta-carotene (see
 a day when compared to the smokers taking placebo," said Klausner. The vitamin-takers were also 17 percent more likely to die (mostly of lung cancer or heart disease).

One small consolation: Death rates were only higher in smokers, not ex-smokers. A bigger consolation came from Harvard's Hennekens, who led the longest trial on beta-carotene, one that ended only weeks before the press conference.

The 22, 000 (mostly non-smoking) men in his 12-year Physicians' Health Study had taken 50 mg of beta-carotene every other day to see if it would reduce their risk of any cancer, not just lung cancer.

"Disappointingly, we saw no significant evidence of benefit," said Hennekens. "But reassuringly, there was also no harm of beta-carotene supplementation on cancer or cardiovascular disease Cardiovascular disease
Disease that affects the heart and blood vessels.

Mentioned in: Lipoproteins Test

cardiovascular disease 
."

Why did one study show an increased cancer risk and the other study show none? And, more importantly, why did beta-carotene fail? "The bottom line is, we don't know Don't know (DK, DKed)

"Don't know the trade." A Street expression used whenever one party lacks knowledge of a trade or receives conflicting instructions from the other party.
," says Omenn.

SEARCHING FOR ANSWERS

It's easiest to come up with reason why beta-carotene didn't protect against lung cancer in smokers. "It's possible we launched the intervention too late," says Omenn. "These men and women had an average of 50 pack-years of smoking each." (That's one pack a day for 50 years, two packs a day for 25 years, etc.)

"The ongoing assault by cigarette smoke may be overwhelming any beneficial effect," he adds. It's also possible that in earlier studies, it wasn't the beta-carotene, but something else in fruits and vegetables--or the people who ate them--that lowered the risk.

But why might beta-carotene have raised the risk of cancer and heart disease? So far, researchers can only speculate.

Once a cancer occurs, suggests Omenn, "loading with an antioxidant [like beta-carotene] might protect these abnormal cells from destruction" by the body's immune system immune system

Cells, cell products, organs, and structures of the body involved in the detection and destruction of foreign invaders, such as bacteria, viruses, and cancer cells. Immunity is based on the system's ability to launch a defense against such invaders.
.

It's also possible that high doses of beta-carotene could interfere with the body's ability to absorb other things in fruits and vegetables--like other carotenoids--that may reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease.

"We'll be analyzing blood levels to see if there's evidence of interference," said Omenn. So will Hennekens's team.

And then there's the puzzling fact that, unlike the Finnish and CARET trials, Hennekens found no higher risk in beta-carotene-takers.

One explanation is that, for some reason, beta-carotene harms only smokers. Only 11 percent of the men in the Physicians' Health Study smoked, compared to all of the Finns and roughly half of those in the CARET trial.

But, says Hennekens, "if beta-carotene raised the risk of cancer in smokers, I would have expected to see something in the 1,200 smokers who took beta-carotene in our trial."

Another possibility: There may be some (so far unknown) difference between the brand of beta-carotene used by Hennekens and the brand used in the Finnish and CARET trials.

BOTTOM LINE

What do these trials mean for consumers? "Don't start to smoke and if you do smoke, stop," says Hennekens. As for diet, "a beta-carotene supplement neither substitutes for a good diet nor compensates for a bad one," he adds.

There's no evidence that beta-carotene in foods is harmful. On the contrary, says the NCl's Klausner, "the many studies that correlate a healthful health·ful
adj.
1. Conducive to good health; salutary.

2. Healthy.



healthful·ness n.
 diet with a reduced risk stand and remain. But beta-carotene is no magic bullet (jargon) magic bullet - (Or "silver bullet" from vampire legends) A term widely used in software engineering for a supposed quick, simple cure for some problem. E.g. "There's no silver bullet for this problem". ."

Should people worry about multivitamins or cereals with small amounts of beta-carotene? Klausner refused to say.

But Julie Buring, a colleague of Hennekens who heads the Women's Health Women's Health Definition

Women's health is the effect of gender on disease and health that encompasses a broad range of biological and psychosocial issues.
 Study, was not concerned about RDA-levels--about three milligrams (5,000 IU) a day. "I don't see any evidence that those levels are harmful. That's what That's What is one of the more idiosyncratic releases by solo steel-string guitar artist Leo Kottke. It is distinctive in it's jazzy nature and "talking" songs ("Buzzby" and "Husbandry").  people are getting in diets that are beneficial."

To play it safe, though, avoid higher doses. Even if they don't hurt, we can now say that they won't help.

(1) New England Journal of Medicine The New England Journal of Medicine (New Engl J Med or NEJM) is an English-language peer-reviewed medical journal published by the Massachusetts Medical Society. It is one of the most popular and widely-read peer-reviewed general medical journals in the world.  320:1029, 1080, 1994.

RELATED ARTICLE: Nutrition Action Reprints

Here's a chance to get your questions answered before you ask them.

Reprints are photocopied from our collection of back issues. Most run two to three pages. Send a list of the code numbers (they're in bold) along with a check for $2.00 per reprint (plus postage--see below) and a self-addressed, business-size envelope to:

Nutrition Action--Reprints

Suite 300, 1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009.

Postage: Please add to your check:

1 or 2 reprints--32[cents]

3 or 4 reprints--55[cents]

5 or 6 reprints--78[cents]

8 or more reprints--$1.00

RESTAURANT & FOOD STUDIES

Healthier Restaurant Food 11-1295 Sandwich Shop & Deli Sandwiches 1-495 Seafood Restaurant Food 1-1194 Mexican Restaurant Food 1-794 Movie Theater Popcorn 1-594 Italian Restaurant Food 1-194 Chinese Restaurant See:
  • Chinese cuisine
  • American Chinese cuisine
  • Canadian Chinese cuisine
  • Chinese restaurant syndrome
  • Chinese restaurant process (a concept in probability theory)
  • Cantonese restaurant
  • The Chinese Restaurant, a second season episode of Seinfeld
 Food 10-993

BRAND-NAME COMPARISONS

Meat & Poultry 12-1195 Soft Cheeses 12-1095 Hard Cheeses 10-995 Fruit Juices 11-795 Breakfast Cereals This is a list of breakfast cereals. Many cereals are trademarked brands of large companies such as Kellogg's, General Mills, Malt-O-Meal, Nestlé, The Quaker Oats Company, and Post Cereals, but similar equivalent products are often sold by other manufacturers and as store own   11-695 Ice Cream & Frozen Yogurt 10-595 Frozen Dinners 10-395 Fast Food 11-195 Cookies 12-1294 Breads 10-1094 Frozen Yogurt Bars & Fruit Bars 12-994 Canned Fish 12-694 Salad Dressings 12-494 Vegetarian Burgers 10-394 Canned & Dried Soups 10-1293 Chips, Pretzels, & Other Salty Snacks 8-1193 Luncheon Meats 10-1093 Condiments 12-793 Yogurts 12-693 Beans 12-593 Grains 10-493 Spaghetti Sauces 10-393 Seafood 10-1192 Fresh Fruits 10-592 Fresh Vegetables 10-1291

QUIZZES

What's Your EQ (Eating Quotient quotient - The number obtained by dividing one number (the "numerator") by another (the "denominator"). If both numbers are rational then the result will also be rational. ) 9-1095 The Nutrition Action Fat Quiz 5-1094 Safe Eating Quiz 1-1193 How Good is Your Diet? 1-593
COPYRIGHT 1996 Center for Science in the Public Interest
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1996, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:research results do not support use of antioxidant to prevent cancer
Author:Liebman, Bonnie
Publication:Nutrition Action Healthletter
Date:Mar 1, 1996
Words:1331
Previous Article:Olestra: Procter's big gamble.
Next Article:Clues to prostate cancer.
Topics:



Related Articles
Cancer-fighting food additives.
Antioxidants: surprise, surprise.
How antioxidants fight cancer.
How antioxidants defend cells.
Of carotenoids and diabetes.
Antioxidants + heart drugs = bad medicine?
Antioxidants flunk heart test. (Quick Studies).
Antioxidants: no magic bullet.
A safer antioxidant? (Biochemistry).
Antioxidants: still hazy after all these years.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2012 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles