suncloud,

you're throwing away a jar of spirulina after listening to 3 minutes of negative video?

marsh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> suncloud,
>
> you're throwing away a jar of spirulina after
> listening to 3 minutes of negative video?

Except that it's not just 3 minutes of a negative video. It's a body of research reviewed by an MD that shows that spirulina causes nerve, muscle and liver damage as well as liver cancer. I'd say chuck it. Take chlorella if you are inclined to but throw spirulina out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2011 03:04PM by pborst.

forgot to add, that MD is a vegan MD to works for the HSUS, Michael Greger. Some of his stuff can get gross but I trust his judgment in general.

Paul

Hi Marsh and Paul.

Yes, I did look at the documents referred to in the videos. I also checked a very informative document called United States Pharmacopeia Safety Evaluation of Spirulina (July 27, 2011), and some other information as well. Here's what I found:

1st video: The study found anatoxin-a in one of 37 spirulina samples intended for human consumption. All samples were from China (Spirulina products come from China, India, Hawaii, and California - possibly more). Two other China samples - intended for animal consumption - were tested and found positive (for anatoxin-a). The study's authors concluded that: "Quality control of cyanobacterial food supplements is required to avoid potential health effects in humans and animals".

2nd video (I couldn't access the study text, but this is from the abstract): "The presence of microcystins in 36 kinds of cyanobacteria Spirulina health food samples obtained from various retail outlets in China were detected by LC-MS/MS, and 34 samples (94%) contained microcystins ranging from 2 to 163 ng g(-1) (mean = 14 +/- 27 ng g(-1)), which were significantly lower than microcystins present in blue green alga products previously reported....The possible potential health risks from chronic exposure to microcystins from contaminated cyanobacteria Spirulina health food should not be ignored, even if the toxin concentrations were low."

3rd video: This study really isn't relevant, because it tested other sources of cyanobacteria, but not spirulina. (This same study is referenced further below [in bold]. See USP SAFETY EVALUATION)

Apparently, the main concern with spirulina is not that spirulina itself produces anatoxin-a, microcystins, or BMAA
(B-N-methylamino-L-alanine). In fact there is some evidence that spirulina may be protective against liver toxins.

The main concern is that other cyanobacteria do produce those toxins, and since those other cyanobacteria grow under the same conditions as spirulina, they have the potential of contaminating the spirulina pool. There is also a concern about heavy metal contamination.

What researchers are recommending is tougher safety standards for the cultivation of spirulina, to ensure that it's free of toxic contaminants.

I can't link the Safety Evaluation, but here are some interesting excerpts (It's long. If you don't have time, maybe just read what's in bold:

USP SAFETY EVALUATION:

USP was founded by physicians in 1820 as an independent, science-based, not-for-profit, standards-setting organization for drugs. It has evolved as an organization setting standards for modern prescription drugs, biologics, excipients, dietary supplements, and food ingredients.

Unless a product is a new dietary ingredient, the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act (DSHEA, 1994) amendment to FDCA does not require FDA approval for dietary supplements before marketing.

Several authors have suggested the need for quality standards for spirulina (Rellan et al., 2009; Eisenbrand et al., 2008).

Correct identification of the cyanobacterial material is an important distinction because of the well-established presence of toxins in certain genera, including Aphanizomenon and Microcystis, (e.g., Schaffer et al., 1999) and the apparent absence of toxins in other genera, such as Spirulina.

Toxin concentrations in genera other than Spirulina are affected by environmental factors such as exposure to sun, depth of the water in which the organisms live, and the types of minerals in the water. Toxin concentrations fluctuate with environmental changes and are not predictable.

Without scientific testing, users have no reliable way to detect the presence or concentration of toxins.

Although spirulina has a long history of recorded use (Ciferri, 1983), a review of the literature up to and including October, 2009, revealed no systematic clinical safety evaluation in the public record. This is surprising because historically spirulina was cultivated from wild open lakes, and contamination with other blue–green algae that produce microcystins was a matter of serious concern.

Health Canada issued a review of toxins in blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria) in 2008. The review stated that “consumers can safely use products made only from Spirulina blue-green algae as these were found to be free of microcystins.” The review also noted that long-term ingestion of microcystins from the toxic cyanobacterial species M. aeruginosa can cause liver damage (Health Canada, 2008a). Children potentially are at risk of exposure to harmful concentrations of toxins if they ingest cyanobacterial products for an extended period of time.

As a precaution, Health Canada recommended that the use of nonspirulina Cyanobacteria by children be discontinued until further studies have been conducted (Health Canada, 2008a).

S. maxima (Spirulina) was reported to possess hepatoprotective activity in a rat model (Torres-Duran et al., 1999; 2006). At 5% concentration in feed, spirulina exhibited hepatoprotective activity against induction of fatty liver by carbon tetrachloride. Similar protective effects are reported in rat models in cadmium induced hepatotoxicity (Karadeniz et al., 2009) and in dibutyl nitrosamine–induced liver toxicity (Ismail et al., 2009).

Administration of spirulina in rat models did not result in any reported adverse effects or organ toxicity (Ismail et al., 2009) and had no effect on pregnancy (Kapoor and Mehta, 1993). The safety of S. maxima in reproduction was observed in several studies at 10%–20% feed levels (Chamorro et al., 1996a; 1997; Salazar et al., 1996; 1998). In animal experiments for acute, subchronic, and chronic toxicity, reproduction, mutagenicity, and teratogenicity, spirulina did not cause body or organ toxicity (Chamorro et al., 1996b). Protective activity of spirulina (up to 800 mg/kg/day; 2 weeks) was reported in cyclophosphamide induced mutagenicity in a mouse model (Chamorro-Cevallos et al., 2008).

The primary concern with respect to the quality of spirulina is the potential for contamination with other blue-green algae, such as M. aeruginosa, that produce toxic microcystins. Microcystins are known to be hepatotoxic and carcinogenic because they inhibit protein phosphatases, PP1 and PP2A, leading to hyperphosphorylation of cellular proteins (WHO, 1999).
Because spirulina is either harvested from natural, warm, alkaline waters or is grown under controlled salinity conditions, the need to monitor spirulina product quality parameters was recognized for the following contaminants: microcystins (Gilroy et al., 2000; Lawrence et al., 2001), heavy metals such as mercury, cadmium, lead, and arsenic (Johnson and Shubert, 1986; Sandau et al., 1996), and microbial content (Wu and Pond, 1981).

Regulatory Status

FDA has not made a determination regarding the generally recognized as safe (GRAS) status of spirulina (A. platensis). However, FDA “had no questions” in response to the submission of a GRAS Notification package to the agency in which a manufacturer concluded that spirulina has GRAS status for use as an ingredient in foods such as specialty bars, powdered nutritional drink mixes, and popcorn, and as a condiment in salads and pasta at quantities ranging from 0.5 to 3 g per serving (FDA, 2003). In November 2008, an Indian company reported that an independent panel of experts affirmed that the company’s organic spirulina was “self-affirmed GRAS” when used at an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 20 g per day and that it has received permission to use the “USP Verified” mark from the USP Dietary Supplements Verification Program (Parry, 2008). A self-affirmed GRAS substance is one whose safety has been evaluated in terms of evidence and scientific procedures performed by qualified experts and determined to be safe under the conditions of intended use (FDA Redbook, 2007). Left unanswered is how these GRAS substances differ, if at all, from the spirulina products that have been associated with adverse events.

A search of the Dietary Supplements Labels Database (DSLD, 2009) reveals that spirulina is found on the labels of more than 80 dietary supplement products
.
Under US regulations spirulina is a “grandfathered” dietary ingredient because it was legally marketed before 1994 (DSHEA, 1994). Accordingly, organized clinical dose escalation studies to observe safety profile are not required by US law for spirulina-based supplements and are not available for review. Another tool to measure the safety of a product is postmarketing surveillance, which provides valuable information about the safety profile of an ingredient in the general population, in those consumers with chronic conditions, in vulnerable populations, and in special populations such as pregnant or breast-feeding women, older people, children, and prescription medication users. DSI-EC’s safety review found very few such clinical study reports…
Contamination of spirulina with other Cyanobacteria (such as M. aeruginosa) is a matter of serious concern because the contaminating culture may produce hepatotoxic microcystins.

Review of the toxicology of cyanobacteria suggests that microcystins are not produced by spirulina, in contrast to some other blue-green algal species (Health Canada, 2008a). The use of other non-Spirulina species of Cyanobacteria as blue-green algae, including A. flos-aquae and M. aeruginosa, which also grow in natural, warm, alkaline waters is a safety concern. Gilroy et al. (2000) and Lawrence et al. (2001) showed that a significant portion of the commercially available spirulina products exceed the limit of microcystins beyond 1 ?g/g (1 ppm). The recent opinion from the Senate Commission on Food Safety of the German Research Foundation (Eisenbrand et al., 2008) expressed concerns about the concentrations of microcystins in algal products used as food supplements. Cox et al. (2005) reported isolation of neurotoxic ?-N-methylamino-L-alanine (BMAA) from 77% of the Cyanobacteria tested, but the study did not include spirulina

DSI-EC reviewed literature relating to the safety and toxicology of spirulina to determine whether spirulina could be admitted into USP–NF as a quality monograph…

The Committee determined that the proposed monograph would need to include a method to test for the presence of microcystins and that the microcystin content should be limited to NMT 1 ppm based on a review of the available safety literature. Considering the range of the data reviewed and because of the limited information available in the AERs (Adverse Event Reports), DSI-EC unanimously voted for a Class A safety assignment for S. maxima and S. platensis, indicating that the available evidence does not indicate a serious risk to health or other public health concern that precludes admission of quality monographs into US–NF when these dietary ingredients are properly identified, formulated, and used.

-------------------------------------------------

One final concern: In 2002, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB ) issued a decision that the use of mined Chilian Nitrate would no longer be acceptable as an "organic" fertilizer, because the mining of it is an unsustainable practice.

Hawaii and California spirulina producers appealed the decision, but it was finalized in 2005.

So now, there is only 1 Spirulina product (that I'm aware of) that's certified organic, and that's Parry (mentioned above in the Safety Evaluation.)So if I were going to use spirulina, that's the product I would buy Here's a paper on it:

[www.parrynutraceuticals.com]

(Mine is from Hawaii and was cultivated with the Chilian nitrate [sniff], although the company assured me over the phone that every batch is tested for microcystins and heavy metals, and they've never found contamination. Also, they say they use plastic liners in their ponds to prevent groundwater contamination. OK then, my thought is, what about PCBs? I'm waiting for a phone call from HOFA [Hawaii Organic Farmers' Association], but I'd rather suppo



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2011 09:38PM by suncloud.

wow. That's pretty thorough, suncloud. I feel this food quality, like many others, has much to do with the source. I try and make sure to source the very best, no matter what food or supplement it is. I don't take massive amounts of spirulina on a daily basis, so I'm not concerned with the potential heath hazards that are cited here. For me, the benefits far outweigh the potential problems. Thanks for the link to another brand, my next purchase, I may check out Parry's.

Hi marsh,

Yes, I agree about the quality having to do with the source. Until there are better standards in place, I also agree that Parry is the safest option - plus buying the Parry supports the organic standards, which is a good thing, IMO!

Yes suncoloud, good point! Let's definitely support organic with this.

2 questions:

what in particular are the nutrients or value added of the spirulina?

I noticed no mention of muscle toxicity or muscle wasting. That was clearly one of the risks that Greger identified. Any thing in the monograph or research? Just asking. Otherwise, agreed if the issue is cross contamination and there is really value added then getting a pure source would take care of it.

ive said it a few times before ..but i want to say it again

i just cant see myself mozeying up to a pond of algae and putting my lips down and slurping it up .. it just doesnt seem like something id do

so i dont bother with overhyped (in my opinion) algaes

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

Word Jo. I'm not a pond scum sucker either, that doesn't appeal as food.

Hi Paul,

It looks like from the research so far, studies have confirmed that these symptoms definitely do come from the other cyanobacteria (whether spirulina is present or not); and those cyanobacteria are known to produce the associated toxins. My understanding from reading the documents is that tests so far on known pure sources of spirulina haven't found those toxins. But contamination of spirulina with those other cyanobacteria is a real concern.

LOL, the the pond-sucking thing is funny! I remember you saying that before Jodi!

Apparently though, people have eaten spirulina for thousands of years. I don't think they knew about the nutrients in it (although there's no way for us to know now what they knew then). I'm guessing they liked it.

I don't know what the fresh stuff tastes like, but I like the taste of the dried Spirulina. It's a little too strong for me usually, but then I have the same trouble with all greens. I'm working on a new solution, and considering attempting the spirulina again.

I'm glad we're going over all this.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2011 09:26PM by suncloud.