Common household spice may interfere with medicines, study suggests
Despite its flavorful and potential health benefits, a recent study suggested cinnamon may pose a health risk in some individuals taking certain medications, according to a report in Food Chemistry: Molecular Sciences.
"Controlled ingestion of cinnamon-containing foods or supplements may have beneficial effects, but overconsumption could induce PXR (pregnane X receptor) or AhR-dependent (aryl hydrocarbon receptor) herb-drug interactions, which can bring deleterious effects on human health, particularly in individuals with chronic health conditions," University of Mississippi researchers said in the study.
The main component of cinnamon – called cinnamaldehyde – activates receptors in the body that metabolize medication, the authors said.
But consuming it in large quantities may reduce the effectiveness of some medicines.
"Overconsumption of supplements could lead to a rapid clearance of the prescription medicine from the body, and that could result in making the medicine less effective," said Shabana Khan, one of the study authors from the National Center for Natural Products Research in Mississippi.
The health risk may depend on the type of cinnamon ingested.
Cinnamon bark, especially cassia cinnamon, contains a high level of a blood thinner called coumarin, the report said.
"Coumarin's anticoagulant properties can be hazardous for individuals on blood thinners," said Amar Chittiboyina, the center's associate director and one of the study authors.
"In contrast, true cinnamon from Sri Lanka carries a lower risk due to its reduced coumarin content."
Elaena Quattrocchi, a pharmacist and associate professor of pharmacy practice at Long Island University in New York, told Fox News Digital that "consuming half to 1 teaspoon of cassia cinnamon powder or 2.5 teaspoons of eylon cinnamon daily is considered safe for most adults."
But Quattrocchi, who was not affiliated with the study, warned that coumarin can cause liver damage with excessive use.
People with pre-existing liver conditions should speak with their healthcare providers before consuming cinnamon.
Cinnamon oil, used in food and drinks and topically as an antifungal or antibacterial, presents almost "no risk of herb-drug interactions," Chittiboyina said, according to the report.
Individuals with chronic illnesses such as hypertension, diabetes, arthritis, asthma, cancer, HIV/AIDS, obesity or depression "should be cautious when using cinnamon or any other supplements," said Khan.
Although sprinkling cinnamon on your coffee is "unlikely to cause an issue, using highly concentrated cinnamon as a dietary supplement might," the study said.
Researchers acknowledged that more analysis is needed to investigate herb-drug interactions with cinnamon and its role in the human body.
For more Lifestyle articles, visit foxnews.com/lifestyle
"We know there's a potential for cinnamaldehyde to activate these receptors that can pose a risk for drug interactions … but we won't know exactly what will happen until we do a clinical study," co-author Bill Gurley said in the release.
Khan said before using any supplements with prescribed medication, people should talk to their healthcare providers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
8 hours ago
- News24
Small win for activists, but SA's HIV projects won't be reopened
The $400 million that the United States Congress removed from a list of programmes from which the Trump administration wants to cut funds, doesn't cancel the cuts to global HIV and TB programmes made in February. HIV projects that have closed in South Africa, which were formerly funded by the US government, won't restart as a result of this decision. The 'limited Pepfar waiver' that President Donald Trump announced in February remains in place. The $400 million that the United States (US) Congress removed from a list of programmes from which the Trump administration will now take back previously approved but unspent funds doesn't mean that the cuts to global HIV and TB programmes in February, including those in South Africa, are now reversed. HIV projects that have closed in South Africa, which were formerly funded by the US government, won't restart as a result of this decision. In fact, quite the opposite. The 'limited Pepfar (President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief) waiver' that US President Donald Trump announced in February remains in place. That means no HIV-prevention activities, unless they intend to stop pregnant and breastfeeding women from infecting their babies, can be paid for with US government money, and projects that make it easier for teen girls and young women in Africa, trans people, sex workers, injecting drug users and gay and bisexual men - groups of people that have a higher chance of getting HIV than the general population - cannot be funded. READ | 'Systemic shock': SA's HIV viral load testing fell 21% in wake of Pepfar cuts - UNAIDS Without a proper explanation for it, the $400 million seems to be a random amount that Trump's administration picked to take back from Pepfar, a US government programme which funds Aids projects in poorer countries with high HIV infection rates, such as South Africa. The amount is about 8.5% of Pepfar's $4.725-billion budget for this financial year and was part of a larger $9.4-billion 'rescissions package' - that has now been reduced to $9 billion and passed as the HR4 Rescissions Act of 2025. Rescissions happen when the presidential administration wants to cancel funding that was approved by Congress and use it for something else. What the decision to remove the $400 million from the package does, however, mean is that activism could finally be starting to pay off. Activists have had hundreds of meetings with US senators and Congress committee chairs. There have been 'Save Pepfar' social media campaigns, and plenty of media coverage about the devastating consequences of the funding cuts. READ | Motsoaledi urges unity, assures HIV/Aids programme stability amid US Pepfar funding pullout Tens of modelling studies have also projected what could happen if the lost funds are not replaced. Opposition from within Trump's Republican Party against nonevidence-based cuts to a programme that has, for two decades, been supported by both the Democrats and Republicans and has saved over 25 million lives, is now at last emerging. 'It's a small win within the bigger context, but nonetheless, a huge win for advocacy, and a reminder that activism is powerful and alive, and making an impact,' Jirair Ratevosian, a former head of staff at Pepfar and fellow at Duke University's Global Health Institute, told Bhekisisa at last week's Conference on HIV Science in Kigali. Around $8 billion of the money was for foreign aid and development programmes, including global health, and just over $1 billion for public broadcast stations that the Trump administration has accused of being biased because they're too liberal. Marko Milivojevic/Pixnio via Bhekisisa But the Rescissions Act is, in itself, bad news. 'It opens the floodgates for the Trump administration to say: 'We don't want this or that in the budget that Congress approved,' says Mitchell Warren, the head of international advocacy organisation, Avac. 'It's trying to take the congressional power of the purse and put it in the executive branch to usurp the role of Congress in deciding how much money - and on what to spend it.' So how did this all happen, and does it hold any good in the long term for South Africa? We break it down. 1. How did we get here? In the US, Congress - which consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives - decides how much government money goes to who, just like Parliament does in South Africa. Both the Senate and the House have to pass budgets. But, as analysts at the Centre for Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, DC point out, Trump wants more control over how his administration's money is spent. In March, he signed the 2025 budget that Congress approved into law. Three months later, in June, he decided he wanted to change some of that and submitted a $9.4-billion rescission request, which the House of Representatives (it has five more Republican than Democrat members) passed on 12 June. When it was the Senate's turn to vote on this, some Republican senators weren't happy with the $400-million Pepfar cut, signalling they wouldn't sign off on the deal unless the Pepfar part was removed. Because there was a danger of them swinging the vote, the Republicans removed the $400 million from the Rescissions Bill and got the House to pass that too. All that's left is for Trump to now sign the Act. 2. What was the $400 million that was removed from the Rescissions Act for? In short, no one really knows, because the Trump administration hasn't said what it was for - or what it plans to do with it. But what we do know is that the US law that governs rescissions, the Impoundment Control Act, says that the president can only request that Congress takes back funding that it previously approved, if the money has not yet been obligated - that means funds hadn't yet been given to a particular recipient, for instance, an HIV project in South Africa. We also know that the $400-million was part of the financial budget for 2025, says Warren, but because the law gives Pepfar permission to spend money over five years, that money doesn't have to be legally spent until 2029. 3. What will the $400 million now be used for? Again, no one knows. We don't even know if it will be used, because over the past few months, the Trump administration's main strategy has 'simply been to illegally impound funds - by announcing a 'funding freeze' or 'programmatic review' with no public notice at all - and force those harmed by the impoundments to pursue relief in court', the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities explains in an analysis. But we do know what the money can't be used for. Unless the rules of Trump's 'limited waiver' are changed, Pepfar funds can mostly not be spent on any of the evidence-based strategies it paid for before Trump was elected in January. Pepfar used to focus on groups of people and areas where people have the highest chance of getting infected with HIV - that way, the programme got the biggest bang for its buck. In South Africa, for instance, Pepfar worked in the 27 districts with the highest infection rates and groups known as 'key populations' - sex workers, gay and bisexual men, trans people, injecting drug users and African women between the ages of 15 and 24 - that are much more likely to get newly infected with HIV than other South Africans. Now those projects, which studies show stopped many new infections, have been closed down and the Trump administration says it's not prepared to buy HIV prevention medicine for any group other than pregnant and breastfeeding women. 'It used to be all about evidence,' Warren says. 'Now it's all about ideology.' 4. What do scientists and activists want the $400 million to be used for? Ratevosian says this moment should be used to gain Republican support to change the waiver rules, so that Pepfar money can cover more of the populations and services needed for HIV prevention. Lenacapavir, a pricey twice-a-year anti-HIV jab, which scientists believe could help to stop HIV in its tracks if it's rolled out properly, could be used to convince Republican Congress members, says Ratevosian. 'Pepfar has long wanted to get countries to transition to taking more ownership [read: Pay more] for their HIV responses. So now activists are arguing: 'Preventing more new infections with the jab, will make it easier for countries to take ownership because the pandemic will be easier to manage.'' In December, Pepfar said it would join another organisation, the Global Fund for HIV, TB and Malaria to buy enough lenacapavir for two million people over three years. But in July, the Global Fund had to go ahead with the deal by itself, because Pepfar seemed to no longer be on board. Warren says: 'If I were in charge, I would take the $400 million and double the two million people the Global Fund is planning to cover, because that's how you build a market, prevent new infections more quickly and drive the price down.' 5. What will Pepfar look like in future? Trump's funding cuts didn't kill Pepfar - at least not in theory, but it's a shell of its former self. What it will look like, will depend on the size of its next budget (the Trump administration wants to cut it by 40% but, so far, the House hasn't agreed to that, (the Senate still needs to sit on it) and how much support Republicans who believe in Pepfar can gain to have waiver rules changed. But, Warren points out, 'we're not going to get pre-January projects back; we have to build something different. 'This has been the most seismic shift in democracy. We didn't think we lived in an earthquake zone, but January 20 (when Trump retook office) taught us: You need to be prepared for that earthquake and you therefore need a different infrastructure. 'In an earthquake you don't build back the same thing. You build better, something that is more resilient.' Show Comments ()
New York Times
a day ago
- New York Times
U.S. Quietly Drafts Plan to End Program That Saved Millions From AIDS
The federal program to combat H.I.V. in developing nations earned a reprieve last week when Congress voted to restore $400 million in funding. Still, officials at the State Department have been mapping out a plan to shut it down in the coming years. Planning documents for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, obtained by The New York Times, call for the organization to set a new course that focuses on 'transitioning' countries away from U.S. assistance, some in as little as two years. PEPFAR, as the program is called, would cease to exist as an initiative to provide medicines and services needed to treat and prevent the spread of H.I.V. in low-income countries. It would be replaced by 'bilateral relationships' with low-income countries focused on the detection of outbreaks that could threaten the United States and the creation of new markets for American drugs and technologies, according to the documents. 'With targeted investment, PEPFAR's H.I.V. control capabilities in these countries could be transformed into a platform for rapid detection and outbreak response to protect Americans from disease threats like Ebola,' the plan says. A State Department spokeswoman said the document had not been finalized. 'The referenced document is not reflective of the State Department's policy on PEPFAR and was never cleared by Department leadership,' she said. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Associated Press
a day ago
- Associated Press
Looking Back to the Future: Gilead's Long-Standing Commitment To Help End the HIV Epidemic
In June 1981, news of a mysterious disease first began making headlines out of San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York. People who were impacted developed unusual infections and grew sick as their immune systems failed. Those early days of what we now know as the HIV epidemic were marked by great fear and loss. By the time the first medicine was introduced in the United States in 1987, more than 5,000 people had died and the number of people impacted continued to balloon. In the decades since then, Gilead has been committed to relentless innovation to treat and prevent HIV – and its scientific advances have helped reshape the course of the epidemic: The company created the first single-tablet daily HIV treatment in 2006. Prior to this innovation, the first therapies to treat HIV required people to often take more than 20 pills a day and deal with potentially numerous side effects. Six years later, in 2012, Gilead again brought another tool to fight the epidemic when its first HIV prevention medicine was approved. Still a host of social factors, including stigma and access, have continued to contribute to the human toll and economic impact that HIV has had around the world. In the U.S. alone, 100 people die from HIV-related illnesses and 700 people are newly diagnosed each week. Thus, Gilead remains steadfastly committed to helping end the epidemic. Gilead is at the forefront of pioneering innovations in HIV, providing prevention and treatment options that help meet unmet needs. The company closed out 2024 earning the Breakthrough of the Year honor by Science magazine for one of its innovations in HIV. For Gilead, this new chapter of innovation in HIV is driven by two primary themes: putting people first and long-acting prevention options. Putting people first means, in part, partnering with communities early in the clinical development process. Researchers worked with the community in the design of its groundbreaking PURPOSE HIV prevention program. For example, researchers worked with the community in the design of its groundbreaking PURPOSE HIV prevention program, which is considered to be the most comprehensive and diverse of any HIV prevention program conducted. 'To make substantial progress, we must be intentional about both the scientific and community-based factors that help shape the epidemic,' says Moupali Das, Vice President, Clinical Development, HIV Prevention & Pediatrics. 'It's critical to focus on groups who are disproportionately affected by HIV and who most need new options for prevention.' Gilead also goes beyond investing in world-class science and putting people at the center of the drug development process. It also works with community organizations and global partners to reduce barriers to care and help enable access to its medicines. 'To help stop HIV, we need to help enable access to our medicines to everyone who could benefit, no matter who or where they are,' says Janet Dorling, Senior Vice President, Intercontinental Region, and Gilead Patient Solutions (GPS). Staying true to the company's heritage of pioneering access programs, Gilead is committed to supplying its medicines where the need is greatest. Ultimately, it will take a combination of bold, scientific innovation coupled with partnerships to help end the epidemic that has taken the lives of more than 42 million people since the 80s. 'We have a responsibility to help end one of the greatest public health challenges of our time,' says Daniel O'Day, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. 'The opportunity to end the HIV epidemic has never been greater.' Originally published by Gilead Sciences Visit 3BL Media to see more multimedia and stories from Gilead Sciences
