# Talk:Red yeast rice

In reference to:
"ConsumerLab.com found large variation in the active compounds between red yeast rice supplements, and also found that some of them were contaminated with citrinin, a nephrotoxic mycotoxin.[2][3] Evidence about the side effects of red yeast rice is limited, but it may have similar side effects to the drug lovastatin, which include kidney problems and other side effects.[4] Regular medical monitoring is needed to detect such effects."
The site linked to in [4] makes no reference to risk of kidney problems induced by lovastatin, nor does the lovastatin page, and indeed multiple clinical trials seem to show lovastatin producing moderate improvements in patients with kidney problems. So why does this say lovastatin causes kidney problems? Was it perhaps a mistake in wording and in reference to the citrinin contaminated batches which were toxic to the kidneys?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auxin (talk • contribs) 05:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 
I agree that citrinin is the culprit for kidney problems, and will clear that up as part of my major rewrite.David notMD (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(Originally posted by Jlo131 in the article's body)
To Authors: maybe some confusions between Ang-chau (i.e. in singapore for dessert) and Angkak (i.e. fungkiuk).  See http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/blog/daimond/index.php?cmd=showentry&eid=7841
Hope to get more correct information. Also the color is a bit dark for Red Yeast Rice (as shown in the webpage)
Flowerysong (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Changed mevastatin to lovastatin.  Several sources said that Red yeast rice contained mevastatin, but the authorative ones said it was lovastatin.  (including the citations already in place.) David.Throop 20:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's unbelievable to me that this natural herbal supplement that actually worked has now been forever ruined by the FDA's slavish allegience to the profit goals of the patent drug companies.  Instead of worrying about such things as RYR, the FDA should be focused on insisting on better testing and monitoring of the patent drugs they approve.  If they discovered a naturally occuring statin in oranges, would they also remove oranges from the market? Unbelievable. Thus, all currently sold RYR supplements are now required, BY LAW, to be entirely ineffective.  Your tax dollars at work.  Economy1 (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, people die who cannot afford the prescription version of what would have otherwise been available to them through nature. DavidPesta (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia used to say
"In 2006 Liu et al published a meta-analysis of clinical trials (Chinese Med 2006;1:4-17). The article cited 93 published, controlled clinical trials (91 published in Chinese). Total cholesterol decreased by 35 mg/dl, LDL-cholesterol by 28 mg/dl, triglycerides by 35 mg/dl, and HDL-cholesterol increased by 6 mg/dl. Zhao et al reported on a four-year trial in people with diabetes (J Cardio Pharmacol 2007;49:81-84). There was a 40-50% reduction in cardio events and cardio deaths in the treated group. Ye et al reported on a four-year trial in elderly Chinese patients with heart disease (J Am Geriatr Soc 2007;55:1015-22). Deaths were down 32%. There is at least one report in the literature of a statin-like myopathy caused by red yeast rice (Mueller PS. Ann Intern Med 2006;145:474-5). An article in the June 15, 2008, issue of the American Journal of Cardiology found that red yeast rice may provide benefits beyond those provided by statins. The researchers reported that the benefits seemed to exceed those reported with lovastatin alone.[1]"
The fact of the matter is that there are numerous studies showing that Red yeast rice is safer and more effective than pharmaceutical drugs and there is practically nothing showing any harm from it (other than the possibility of a contaminated batch, such a possibility exists with any food or anything you buy though).
Jan 2010 and I am in the process of rewriting this section and adding citations. In addition to new trial reports from China there are clinical trials in the lit by DJ Becker, Univ Penn.David notMD (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Liu 2006 replaced with a more recent meta-analysis. The results from the large and long duration trial conducted in China are presented and referenced. RYR safety also presented in more detail and adequately referenced. On the latter, there is clear evidence that RYR can have same adverse effects as lovastatin. Lastly, patents have expired on some of the statin drugs (including lovastatin), so generics are available and costs are low, even if not covered by medical insurance.David notMD (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal:  Merge Red yeast rice into Monascus purpureus.  Badagnani 22:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Make M. purpureus a species page and move the rest of the info into RYR. Sjschen 22:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Sjschen.  MP and RYR are as different (and as similar) as oats and oatmeal. – David.Throop 03:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Why does the middle character of the traditional name mean "yeast," but the middle character of the simplified name is an entirely different character (with the same pronunciation) meaning "crooked" or "sheet music"?  Badagnani 19:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This has much to do with the way chinese characters were simplified. The most commonly used words have a one-to-one trad->simp mapping. Less commonly used words (such as 麴) are either left the way it is or is are all mapped to one simple character. Thus a character like 曲 is used to write 麴 and thus in turn gains the additional definition of "yeast". As you can see herein lies one of the problems with SCCs.
On another note, the better translation of 麴 is more " fermenting stuff that grows on grain" rather than just "yeast", which in turn is usually called 酵母 (lit. mother of ferment). Interestingly 曲/麴 is also called 酒母 (lit. mother of wine/liquor) in chinese. Sjschen 01:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow, heavy.  This important stuff should be added to the Wiktionary articles for these characters.  Not sure if you work there.  Badagnani 03:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, feel free to C&P. Sjschen 03:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Please consider adding something similar to the following either in the opening paragraph or in the "Chinese medicine" section:
In China it is widely available as XueZhiKang 血脂康, and in Singapore it is available as Hypocol™.  
--Ming
Both Xuezhikang and Hypercol now mentioned in the section on medical uses but not in the intro.David notMD (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see a ton of characters in the first paragraph because they are in a different language. I just see squares. I think we should get rid of those because the vast majority of people will not have a chinese language pack on their computers. [[TheAngriestPharmacist]] 07:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding (and I am no expert) that it is the yeast that holds the lovastatin properties. Although a google search yields more hits for RYR, isn't RRY a more accurate name for the product? I feel if there is some need clarification, WP would be the place. It seems that when the product is produced and grown, the yeast and rice become inseparable. Is it true that the product used as a HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor is a blended mix of the rice and yeast? Or is there a way to deliver the yeast on its own. Thanks! --travisthurston+ 18:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The product that is traditionally sold is rice that contains red yeast: "Red yeast rice"  I suppose the yeast itself could reasonably be called "red rice yeast" but it's a less popular term: Google stats give "rry" ~ 51,900; "ryr" ~ 729,000.  I also am not an expert on this product, and I don't know whether the distinction I made is commonly done. --Slashme (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This section in the article attempts to capture the complex link between red yeast rice as a dietary supplement and 'statin' drugs such as lovastatin and simvstatin.  The marketing of RYR infers that it contains cholesterol lowering activity, which was true for Cholestin when it was introduced to the U.S. market around 1997. In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration semi-successfully stops sales of RYR products that contain monacolin K, as it is identical to the drug, lovastatin. RYR products that do not claim to contain monacolins and do not explicitly claim to lower cholesterol do not trespass on the FDA's turf.David notMD (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's sad that the bought govt and the FDA has turned into a turf war between corporate profits and my freedoms. If the government manages my health as well as they manage everything else I'm in huge trouble. I want to manage my own health and I want the government to get out of my way. and if you want to give me this nonsense about 'doctors know best, so I need a prescription for everything and I need to pay for their potential approval' or 'government knows best', it's funny how the government lets people smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol (though the tobacco companies have a monopoly on that) but they don't let people choose their own medicine. The health freedom argument only applies when it facilitates corporate profits and, more specifically, the profits of government established monopolists. I don't care if you think you know better than me what's best for me, if I want to take unadulterated RYR for my health problems it is none of your business. and if I want to wear a magnetic bracelet around my wrist because I think it will somehow magically prevent cancer who are you to force me not to wear it against my will. Mind your own business, no one is telling you what to do with your life. The FDA should be limited to ensuring that labels are complete and accurate (ie: that all ingredients are labeled and that nothing is labeled that isn't present) and perhaps to ensuring that certain possible contraindications are listed (though the seller of a product could optionally note that this is the FDA's opinion and not the opinion of the seller, the FDA shouldn't be allowed to put words in your mouth against your will).
The key point is that it is illegal in the U.S. to sell a prescription drug as an over-the-counter dietary supplement. Hence, no selling RYR that works. Ditto stuff that clams to be an herbal treatment for erectile dysfunction but is really just Viagra. It is immoral but not illegal to sell RYR that does not work, but if a label or website claim is made that it lowers cholesterol, then the Federal Trade Commission may step in.David notMD (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As of 2017, many supplement companies offer red yeast rice products. Majority make no mention of monacolin content nor cholesterol lowering (or any other health benefit). A guess here is that the yeast strains used and methods of fermentation do not yield monacolins.David notMD (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
It appears that the ruling was overturned in 1999 but I don't know if there were later developments. The fact that the supplement is so widely available makes me think that that might have been the end of it... -- Phyzome (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

With updating and adding refs, question is whether this article is a plausible candidate for Good Article. Any opinions? David notMD (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Cleaned up dead refs and have nominated. Vis-a-vis my User page COI: As of 12/31/18 I am no longer an industry consultant = retired.  David notMD (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC).

It is unclear from the article, and from Google searching (because of all the results for supplements rather than food uses) whether Red Yeast Rice is ever eaten as rice. I.e. is it only used as a spice/colouring or is it sometimes eaten as cooked rice? The section on preparation suggests not, but it is unclear if this is simply an omission or if it would never be eaten as a rice dish in China/Asia. When I say eaten as a rice dish I basically mean: does anyone cook red yeast rice and then eat that as you would normal rice? Someone with knowledge of east Asian cuisine (or better Google-fu than me) should clarify this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.209.130 (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 

Takes time and trouble to ferment the rice with red yeast, so typical uses are dried, ground to powder, and used as a coloring or flavoring agent. Try search on "cooking with red yeast rice" for food and drink uses (example, turns rice wine pink). David notMD (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Red yeast rice/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 22:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I will be taking a look at this article.  RecycledPixels (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
This review is based upon this version of the article as it appeared on 13 June 2019

Other notes: in the "safety" section, the article has "Ingredient suppliers have also been suspected of "spiking" red yeast rice preparations with purified lovastatin. As evidence, one published analysis reported several commercial products as being almost entirely monacolin K - which would occur if the drug lovastatin was added - rather than the expected composition of many monacolin compounds.".  Why would they do that?  Would be it cheaper to include synthesized pharmaceuticals rather than natural red yeast rice?   I was left confused by that, but there's no approprate GA criteria category to put that question under. Yes, cheaper to add synthetic monacolin K to a red yeast rice product made with a yeast M purpureus strain that has no natural monacolins content (proper use as a food coloring agent) than to use the bioactive strain. "Spiking" of dietary supplements with drugs is a common problem with supplement ingredients sourced from China.  Following up on this (doesn't affect the GA status, and you don't even need to answer).  Why?  Is the M purpureus strain that produces natural monacolins harder to obtain, harder to propagate, more time consuming to actually produce the monacolins than it is to produce the coloration that simulates the real deal?   Might be a good point to include in the article, if you know (I don't know is a perfectly acceptable answer).  RecycledPixels (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I will leave this open for now in case you want to dive into improving the article starting with what I've listed, but if you don't have the time, I can close it and you can re-nominate it later.  I'm aware of how long the GA backlog is, however, so I don't mind putting it on hold.  RecycledPixels (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do not close it. This GA nomination has been waiting for a reviewer for a very long time. I will tackle all the review comments as fast as I can. David notMD (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It can stay open as long as you need, please leave me a note when you want me to do a re-reading.   The examples I listed in the areas to be improved were intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive, so if you tell me you are ready for me to re-read the article, I hope you will not assume that once you clear up the items I have specifically identified, that I would think the article is ready.   I am watching this page as well as the article page and I can see the improvements you are making to the article, but am not adding or revising any of my comments until you tell me you are ready for me to come back and take another look. I'm willing to work on this article in my role as long as you are in your role- it's a good subject matter that I find interesting. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


### Second review
This second review is based upon this version of the article as it appears on 15 August 2019.  RecycledPixels (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have ended up needing to deal with several real-life issues that I had not anticipated when starting this review, and that looks like it will continue for at least the next several weeks and it has meant that the amount of time I have available to contribute here is severely limited.   I have requested a second opinion in case someone else is free and can take over for me, but my current situation means it is unlikely I can give this article the attention it deserves at the moment.   If nobody else has been able to pick it up in the time between now and when I come back, I will of course resume the review.  I apologize for the unanticipated delay.  RecycledPixels (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I am back from the real world and am ready to undertake this review.  RecycledPixels (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)