3 ms·
You're conflating turmeric with the bioactive chemical component in turmeric, curcumin: the toxicology figures refer to the latter. (To be fair, the Ars Techni
by perihelions 1y ago
You're conflating turmeric with the bioactive chemical component in turmeric, curcumin: the toxicology figures refer to the latter.
(To be fair, the Ars Technica article fails the reader by failing to use precise language, inviting dangerous misunderstandings).
- esperent 1y agoI carefully read the article before commenting to check in case it was actually curcumin. They clearly call it turmeric supplements, not curcumin, throughout the article. The main source given is this NBC article, which also clearly calls it turmeric supplements, not curcumin: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/liver-damage-turmeric-supplement-woman-hospitalized-rcna217578 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/liver-damage-turm... So why do you think it's actually curcumin?
- perihelions 1y agoIf you follow the linked references in the Ars Technica, those reference curcumin unambiguously. https://apps.who.int/food-additives-contaminants-jecfa-database/Home/Chemical/638 https://apps.who.int/food-additives-contaminants-jecfa-datab... ("...ADI of 0–3 mg/kg of body weight for curcumin...") That's concordant with the "up to 3 mg per kilogram of weight" in Ars, which is phrased ambiguously, as if to refer to turmeric. The Ars editors are in the wrong.
- esperent 1y agoOk, so the WHO recommendation is for curcumin. That makes sense.However, the supplement this woman was taking is quite unambiguously referred to as turmeric in both articles. At this point I'd say we should just write it off as terrible reporting and make a mental note that the quality of Ars Technica is taking a significant drop, if they're allowing these kind of errors in their articles.