Talk:Cinnamomum cassia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 25 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TCMexquisite1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Cinnamomum in Vietnam

I just read that Saigon cinnamon has the Latin name Cinnamomum loureirii. Is this correct? Is it actually a separate species? I'd always thought it was just a variety of cassia. Badagnani 22:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

A quick check reveals it to be a distinct, though closely related species (it is already in the species list at Cinnamomum); correct spelling is Cinnamomum loureiroi. I don't know if it differs significantly in flavour, etc. - MPF 10:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on this. Now the next question is, is some or all of the commercially produced cinnamon from Vietnam C. loureirii or C. cassia? And is "Vietnamese cinnamon" the same as "Saigon cinnamon"? If loureirii then the text about Vietnamese cinnamon in the Cassia article will need to be changed.

In my opinion, Vietnamese cinnamon does have a more intense flavor and a slightly more phenolic smell than regular cassia. Badagnani 18:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know! If they are very closely related, I suppose it could even be both mixed. - MPF 01:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a Saigon cinnamon article, and fixed the text of other articles which mention it. Hope I did it right. Since there are two spellings of the species, I don't know which to put in the taxobox because they're both listed as being the name given to it by Nees. Wonder which is the official one. Badagnani 03:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks as if there are many species of Cinnamomum in Vietnam, not just C. loureiroi but also C. cassia and others. So how do we know the actual species of what is being grown and marketed? I had assumed earlier that all the Vietnamese cinnamon was C. loureiroi but that might not be true.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22quang+nam%22+cinnamomum

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22quang+nam%22+cassia

Badagnani 15:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Apparently that pronunciation ("KAH-shuh") is the correct pronunciation. But the original pronuncation is not well known, like the words plantain ("PLAN-tuhn") or consummate ("con-SUM-muht"). Badagnani 04:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Relation to Cannabis

I just edited out at statement that it's related to cannabis, because from the scientific classification, it seems that the only relation is that both are flowering plants. Ccrrccrr 23:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Cassia buds

Cassia buds are redirected here, but theres no description of this commodity.--Juan de Vojníkov 11:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Use scientific name of Cinnamomum aromaticum to title the article....

which will clearify the confusion with genus Cassia.

In the mean time, I would like to call for implementing of plant coding system and subcoding for plant parts, to serve verification purposes. Such practices have been adopted by other disciplines for ages, which including disease coding, chemical coding, DNA coding, enzyme coding, virus and bacteria coding etc in addition to scientific names. More over, book and journal coding systems also have long histories to live for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.21 (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

POV in health section

I think the health section is unbalanced. It discusses positive effects but does not emphasize that the substance is toxic. Ulner (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What <are> the health risks? I've spent the last half-hour searching the web for any body of knowledge about the specific health risks of "The Cinnamon Challenge". There's tons of kerfuffle out there, and some common-sense explanations: it's bad to inhale it and it might make you throw up. But there are no scientific or medical articles that I was able to find that speak to specific health threats, and a total lack of scientific opinion on how much cinnamon, or even cassia, is harmful, either in gross measurements or related to body mass or other physiology. Since I was not able to find much of use, I have not created a section in the article. "The Cinnamon Challenge" has been around since 2001 and has recently (late 2011/Jan. 2012) become an emergent meme on the web (i.e. exponential growth in searches/hits). With this it's becoming important to have proper information on "The Cinnamon Challenge" especially if there is some specific health threat.

Tzf (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Article is hopelessly confused

There are three types of Cassia.

1. Cinnamomum aromaticum: This is native to Southern China. It is sold in broken pieces. 2. Cinnamomum loureiroi: This is native to Vietnam. It is sold in broken pieces. 3. Cinnamomum burmannii: This is native to Indonesia. It is sold in neat quills.

The article constantly refers to Cinnamomum aromaticum being grown in regions where it does not. It is grown solely in Southern China and Vietnam. Cinnamomum burmannii is often sold in the USA in quills or in powdered form as "Cinnamon." All of the discussion about Cassia which is grown in outside of China and Vietnam does not belong on the Cinnamomum aromaticum page.67.169.43.188 (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this article should be titled Cinnamomum cassia. What a tangle! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion before blanking, please

Please discuss here, thoroughly, before blanking many paragraphs of sourced text, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the blanked section, and some of the sources are quite weak (it's not enought that sources exist, see WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE). I replaced the diabetes journal source with a more recent study from a medical association that was checking the anti-diabetic claims, see here. The Richard Andrews information os about chemical processes, and doesn't seem to have anything to do with actual treatment of diabetes patients.

It would be nice to have better sources of its use on chinese TM, but modern study of effects should use better sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There are absolutely no reliable sources that show any reduction of diabetes by cassia. In fact, almost every article written, except for the unreliable ones (I saw one published by a nutraceutical company, ROFLMAO). Just because like three articles say that it MIGHT have an effect, we cannot give weight to that issue. It's fringe. Let's keep the stuff out. And I'm sorry for deleting the chinese stuff, I didn't see it when deleting. Thanks Enric for adding that source. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be re-evaluated. In the first instance, the deleter engaged in misleading arguments to defend his position. Nobody claimed that Cinnamon cured diabetes. (Does insulin cure diabetes?) It was claimed that as a treatment is was helpful for people with diabetes. Secondly, by now, there seems to be a lot more available research. (The deleter restricted his searches only to what was available on the internet eleven years ago.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, its use in herbalism to treat symptoms of diabetes historically is well-attested, and deserves to be recorded in any encyclopedia entry on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Good faith

For the maximum assurance of good faith among your fellow editors, in the future please do not blank many paragraphs without first placing "cite needed" tags or discussing thoroughly at "Discussion." I'll get you started by placing the removed text here:

“ The anti-diabetic effects, which may even be produced by brewing a tea from cassia bark, may be beneficial for non-diabetics to prevent and control elevated glucose, insulin, and blood lipid levels.

Researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara have discovered an extract of common cinnamon that contains a class of small organic molecules that inhibit several key processes in Alzheimer’s disease. The cinnamon extract inhibits the aggregation of tau proteins and disassembles fibers that have already formed, suggesting that neurofibrillary tangles can possibly be reversed by these compounds. The extract exhibits potent inhibitory activity, is orally available, water-soluble, non-toxic, and the bioactive molecules are likely brain permeable. The extract is readily produced in large quantities and can be encapsulated in powder form for oral administration. These properties make the cinnamon extract a highly favourable substance for development into an effective therapeutic to slow or prevent Alzheimer’s disease.

There is also much anecdotal evidence that consumption of cassia has a strong effect in lowering blood pressure, making it potentially useful to those suffering from hypertension. The USDA has three ongoing studies that are monitoring the blood pressure effect.

Though the spice has been used for thousands of years, there is concern that there is as yet no knowledge about the potential for toxic buildup of the fat-soluble components in cassia, as anything fat-soluble could potentially be subject to toxic buildup. There are no concluded long-term clinical studies on the use of cassia for health reasons.

”

Badagnani (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a better idea. Instead of promulgating false science, how about I continue to delete fringe theories until there are reliable sources that verify the claims. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So, I did a quick Pubmed search on "cinnamon alzheimer's". Five articles showed up. None of them supported the claim. All you found was an advertising piece from UCSB to try to find some company to partner with them. There isn't a single published article from UCSB backing up these claims. So, you want to make a medical claim with a single advertising piece? I doubt that qualifies as a reliable source. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

moving new topic to its own section below "consequences of removing reference" --Enric Naval (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I rarely put citation needed on scientific or medical statements, because I can easily confirm if there's anything out there. I delete when I can't find a reliable source. Simple as that. I don't care if you state that cinnamon grows on a garlic-fig tree, because it matters not to me. Put in unverified medical statements, I get picky. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the other text, save for a single issue, resorting to boilerplate "I don't like it," "I don't like the sources," etc. with essentially no specifics. The addressing should have taken place *before* the blanking. Please do so in the future, addressing each in detail. You seem to be knowledgeable about this subject (is that correct?), so if you believe "debunking" is necessary, please do so here. I await discussion of the other issues. Badagnani (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I'm incapable of proving the negative. For example, you could write "Camel urine cures male pattern baldness." I can only disprove it by the lack of sources. There are no sources for anything written above. IF there are ongoing studies, where are they being done? Who's publishing it? Where? I can't find these statements sourced anywhere. That's why they all go. And please do not assume that I either know or don't know anything. I could be the village idiot, or Stephen Hawking's alter ego. In either case, I would expect reliable sources backing up statements. There is nothing available to support your statements. Sorry. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You do not have permission to refer to me as "dude" (and doing so undermines your credibility). It would be much better if you actually addressed the comments above rather than bringing up several strange points that lead me to believe you don't truly possess knowledge about this subject (am I correct?). Badagnani (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Apart from "dude" statements, the point is that those statements need sources (and, in the case of Alzheimer treatment, a better source, since current source is a study of properties that could potentially be useful for development of a treatment, and not a direct study of efficency of cinnamon on Alzheimer treatment, which makes it quite far-fetched for inclusion on the article in absence of more studies of that efficency) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Enric, too many years living near the ocean in California. "Dude" is really a term of endearment, with multiple uses and meanings. In this case, it means "friend, I'm getting frustrated." A lot of what is written is unsourced and becomes original research. For example, the UCSB "source" really is an advert to score a licensing deal, and I cannot trace any research back to UCSB. I think UCSB owns some intellectual property rights that they are trying to market, so since it's not a peer-reviewed source, they make a conclusion that is irrelevant. Frankly, as with most herbs on Wikipedia, editors jump to conclusions that aren't supported by science and published articles. I hope you understand dude. (Meaning, "friend, great comments, and I hope I added to your thoughts.") OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, on the internets it's better to avoid ambiguous terms in the middle of a discussion, because they can be misinterpreted a derail a discussion big time. I have no idea of the intentions of the UCSB, and it would be massively better to have a link to the original study, to see, among other things, where it was published. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, Badagnani did link it above in the huge quote. I think it's [1]. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if editors would actually address all points removed (as, for example, the fat-solubility and danger of bioaccumulation). Would it be possible for editors removing large amounts of text, or commenting on such removals, actually address the text that was removed? Badagnani (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

With no sources it's difficult to assess anything. I would look for sources myself, but I have already a list of articles where I need to address similar issues. Get sources for the statements, and we can discuss them. Sources for the USDA studies, articles on toxic buildup. Try searching on pubmed.com. I found a USDA studies on five minutes [1] by searching for "cassia fat" (without quotes)

For re-adding, I suggest a format like "There are three ongoing studies by USDA on effects of cassia on glucose intolerance [2], on xxxxxx [link to second study] and on yyyyyyyyy [link to third study]" --Enric Naval (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing--the blanking editor simply chose to make a few very rude jokes, over and over, rather than do what you did--actually search and find sources in this subject area. Your work shows good faith and I hope that other editor will choose to edit in such a manner in the future. Badagnani (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Rude jokes? Keep up the personal attacks, and you won't get far. I stated my reasons about as carefully as I can. Choose to read them, choose not, my patience is gone. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

References

consequences of removing reference

moved from above section to avoid confusions, since it starts a new topic in the middle of a thread

If the claims of the effect of the water-soluble component of cinnamon on tau protein aggregation is true, removing this reference will result in the needless suffering and deaths of millions. The effect is real. It works. Those in the Alzheimer community that have used it know it. It's anecdotal evidence at this point, but why should Wikipedia keep people in the dark just because there hasn't been time for governments to fund studies yet? This information is on the very cutting edge of research. People need to know that these claims exist. Instead of just deleting all of these unconfirmed claims of cinnamon's medicinal uses, it would be better to include them in a section entitled "Unconfirmed Medicinal Uses".Swarfmaker (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's anecdotal evidence then I'm afraid that it falls straight into the WP:FRINGE guideline for non-mainstream theories. Wikipedia is not for the cutting edge of research, but for published established stuff, and people should not expect to find such a thing on the articles. There are journals specialized on publishing this sort of research.

Now, if its use as a unproven remedy for alzheimer was notable, like being recommended by a national or international Alzheimer association, then it could be included as such. Bonus points if the recommendation gets discussed on a medical journal. (btw, I see that you are the one that originally inserted the information on the article [3]) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Back to camel urine, I guess. It's funny that the article Alzheimer's disease fails to mention cinnamon. Hmmmmm. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Places of production

Where exactly in China and Vietnam is cassia produced? Badagnani (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be Guangxi, Guangdong, and Yunnan. Badagnani (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it also produced in Taiwan? Badagnani (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Benzaldehyde and Natural Almond Extract

I found reference to cassia bark use in the production of almond flavor (benzaldehyde) in On Food and Cooking by Harold McGee (ISBN 0684800012). Benzaldehyde is apparently a byproduct of hydrogen cyanide production in bitter almonds but is also produced in cassia bark and synthesized chemically. Dose anyone else know anything about this or have additional references on this? Ndklassen (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Cassia and Cinnamon

Hi. The fact that in the US most "cassia" is labelled as "cinnamon" does not mean that we have to use the term "cinnamon" if we mean "cassia". The article is about "cassia" - there is a separate article on "cinnamon". --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it in fact true that "Most of the spice sold as cinnamon in the United States and Canada is Chinese cinnamon (C. cassia)."? (There's no citation on that statement at present.) My rough understanding is that C. verum is much easier to grind to a powder than C. cassia, but enormous quantities of ground cinnamon are used in North America (cinnamon buns, anyone?). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It might have been true in the 1980's, but it's not true now (however, C. verum is and has been rare in the US). I've been meaning to get back to the cinnamon articles where I first started doing serious Wikipedia editing (and I've had a good reference sitting on the side of my desk for the last year). In recent years, ~90% of US cinnamon imports have come from Indonesia (i.e. Cinnamomum burmannii). The reference I have suggests that there's some misidentification with Cinnamomum loureiroi; this species is an uncommon forest tree and not commercially exploited. Cinnamon/cassia from Vietnam is C. cassia. Plantdrew (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Flavor difference between Cassia and Cinnamon

Is there a difference in flavor between Cassia and Cinnamon? I've found one source which claims that Cassia has a stronger flavor, but that source sells the stuff, so I can't trust it. 63.87.189.17 (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Traditional Chinese Medicine

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sr14werb (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sienasaint13 (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)