Talk:Banana/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Popular Culture

No popular culture references? How many banana songs are out there? And what about that velvet underground album cover? Warkos (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Banana Indigenous to South America

William H. Prescott in History of the Conquest of Peru says that bananas are "indigenous" to South America, in the sense that their leaves are found in ancient tombs in Peru ("ancient" relative to the Incan period). In other words, to the extent that they were introduced from elsewhere, it was done well before the Portuguese visited. This should be reflected in the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.100.33.157 (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Im a banana!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.249.192 (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tree-ripening versus artificial ripening

I find the unsourced claims in the Ripening section to be very dubious—particularly the claim that the bright yellow color of supermarket bananas being due to the artificial ripening process. While ethylene is used in artificial ripening, many supermarket also carry unripened green bananas that will ripen naturally into the characteristic yellow hue. Secondly, ethylene is the active chemical in the natural ripening process of all fruits, including bananas, so it makes no sense that artificial ripening using ethylene would produce different results (e.g. different coloration and poorer taste/texture as the article currently claims) from spontaneous natural ripening. Lastly, there are lots of photos on the internet of unharvested ripe bananas hanging from trees that disprove the claim that the characteristic yellow color is from artificial ripening. For direct evidence see: [1] [2] [3] --Subversive Sound (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed a couple of the unsubstantiated claims, added a citation for the ethylene ripening process, and done some minor rewording. The two claims removed were that bananas can only turn yellow through artificial ripening, and the unsourced paragraph about tree-ripened bananas having slightly different coloration and shelf life. Travelling in thailand I was offered fresh, naturally ripened bananas everywhere I went that were no different from the 'supermarket' bananas that I eat at home. sickmate (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Kalburo (Calcium carbide) and ethylene gas are actually widely used, even out here in Southeast Asia. So just because you got the fruit from Thailand, does not mean it was not treated. And yes, it affects the color of the fruit as ethylene accelerates chlorophyll degradation (an effect known not only for bananas). The source cited does not refute this. Cavendish bananas especially (the most common western 'market' bananas), do not naturally de-green. They naturally ripen while still light green in color, unlike other 'native' cultivars. The yellow color of Cavendish bananas is achieved artificially.

I have reverted it and provided academic sources for the previous claim.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 04:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My wife's mother grows cavendish bananas in her backyard. I actually took some photos of naturally ripened bananas compared to the supermarket yellow variety, but after somebody did a major re-write of this article, there was no longer anywhere to put it. I'll see if I can find them again.

It's not exactly true that green-picked bananas will never ripen either; it depends on how green they actually are. If they are harvested at the point where the skin on some of the bananas is just beginning to lighten, they will normally ripen without further assistance. Call it "original research" if you like, but I know this for a fact. In places like Vanautu, the locals routinely bring boatloads of locally grown fruit to sell to the resorts. The bananas are always the greeninsh-brown colour; I've never seen bright yellow ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elekas (talk • contribs) 23:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Botany

I'm sure many of you are aware that the botany section of this article is pathetic. I don't know how but maybe we could get someone who knows about this from a portal or something to touch it up? And I don't know if it is possible but i think it would look much better if it had a nice neat template on bananas? I'm not too familiar with templates from wikipedia but maybe the one from cucumbers would work? And for all you people who keep complaining about semiprotects, if you are peeing. unsigned comment added by Stinkypie (talk • contribs) 06:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Botany info

I should make an account or whatever to get this in the main article, but i try to give my 5 c. worth:

Banana (Musa x paradisiaca) is a member of the Musaceae family, order Zingiberales. It is a large monocot herb - so not a tree, and related to grasses.

Bananas contain three natural sugars - sucrose, fructose and glucose combined with fiber. A banana gives an instant, sustained and substantial boost of energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hela786 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What makes banana interesting botanically is that it is triploid, so it has three sets of chromosomes rather than the common two: in plants doubling of chromosomes is common so 4 and 8 would also not be out of the ordinary. This chromosomal abnormality makes the plant sterile, but gives the benefit of virtually seedless fruit - there are few varieties that contain, vary rarely, an occasional seed. Cavendish, our familiar mass-grown variety does not. This makes bananas practically impossible to breed in conventional means. Any of the bananas available are as such not a result of years of breeding, but more or less accidental.

There are tow types of bananas in common parlance, plantains and dessert bananas. Botanically the difference is not as clear: most 'cooking bananas' are a varieties of the common banana, just a few belong to another subspecies, one that could be called the 'true' plantain, and what the botanists would call plantains. The red (fehi or fe'i) banana is actually another subspecies entirely, though in taste and appearance it seems very similar to an ordinary dessert banana.

With all this the scientific name of the banana is actually still somewhat controversial, as an excerpt from the taxonomic notes attests:

"It was difficult enough coping with the cultivated bananas but since both Musa paradisiaca and Musa sapientum are rather complex hybrids between two quite distinct species, authors were forced to adopt ever more excruciating contortions to accommodate what were actually true species within a taxonomic framework that included complex hybrids. For example, Musa paradisiaca is seedless. So in order to accommodate plants that were thought to be wild seeded forms the subspecies seminifera was created. But sometimes even subspecies were found not to be sufficient and varietal names had to be added to precisely identify a plant, e.g. Musa paradisiaca subsp. seminifera var. hookeri. A nomenclature system that gives to a seed-bearing diploid species (Musa sikkimensis Kurz) the status of a variety of a subspecies of a seedless triploid is obviously in trouble although, of course, this could be recognised only in hindsight." (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~drc/musa_paradisiaca.htm)

1. The Family Musaceae

Habit and leaf form. Very large herbs (with pseudo-stems constituted by massive leaf bases); laticiferous. Plants (or at least, the the leaf bases) succulent. Perennial; cormous, or rhizomatous. Pachycaul. Mesophytic. Leaves large to very large; alternate; spiral; flat; petiolate; sheathing. Leaf sheaths with free margins. Leaves simple (but becoming ragged and pseudo-pinnate by tearing between the lateral veins); epulvinate. Lamina entire; lanceolate, or oblong, or ovate (large); pinnately veined (the laterals parallel to one another); without cross-venules (i.e. between the laterals). Vernation convolute.

General anatomy. Plants with laticifers (articulated, with mucilaginous contents). The laticifers in leaves, in stems, in flowers, and in the fruits. Plants with silica bodies (‘trough-shaped’, mostly associated with the vascular bundles). Accumulated starch other than exclusively ‘pteridophyte type’.

Leaf anatomy. Epidermis without silica bodies. Stomata present; tetracytic. Hairs absent.

The mesophyll containing mucilage cells (with raphides); containing calcium oxalate crystals. The mesophyll crystals raphides and solitary-prismatic. Minor leaf veins without phloem transfer cells (1 genus). Vessels absent.

Stem anatomy. Secondary thickening absent. Xylem without vessels. Sieve-tube plastids P-type; type II.

Root anatomy. Root xylem with vessels; vessel end-walls scalariform and simple.

Reproductive type, pollination. Plants monoecious, or andromonoecious, or polygamomonoecious (?). Floral nectaries present. Nectar secretion from the gynoecium (via septal nectaries). Pollination entomophilous, ornithophilous, and cheiropterophilous.

Inflorescence, floral, fruit and seed morphology. Flowers aggregated in ‘inflorescences’. The terminal inflorescence unit cymose. Inflorescences axillary; erect or drooping, thyrses of few flowered cymes; spatheate. Flowers bracteate; medium-sized to large; very irregular; zygomorphic; cyclic; pentacyclic. Perigone tube absent.

Perianth petaline, or of ‘tepals’; 6; joined (five members united, the median inner member posterior and free); rather theoretically 2 whorled (the three outer members and two of the inner members represented by teeth or lobes on a perianth tube, the split coinciding with the inner adaxial, free member); rather theoretically isomerous; petaloid. Corolla (if the perianth is interpreted as such) partially gamopetalous (five members joined, one free). The joined petals anterior (the posterior member free). Corolla more or less bilabiate.

Androecium 5, or 6. Androecial members free of the perianth; free of one another; at least theoretically, 2 whorled. Androecium exclusively of fertile stamens, or including staminodes. Staminodes when present, 1 (the sixth member, opposite the free perianth member, often staminodal or absent). Stamens 5, or 6; diplostemonous; alterniperianthial. Anthers adnate; dehiscing via longitudinal slits; introrse; tetrasporangiate; appendaged (by prolongaton of the connective), or unappendaged. The endothecial thickenings spiral. Microsporogenesis successive. Pollen grains nonaperturate; 2-celled.

Gynoecium 3 carpelled. The pistil 3 celled. Gynoecium syncarpous; synstylovarious, or eu-syncarpous; inferior. Ovary 3 locular. The ‘odd’ carpel anterior. Gynoecium stylate. Styles 1; attenuate from the ovary; apical. Stigmas wet type; papillate; Group III type. Placentation axile. Ovules 10–50 per locule (‘many’); arillate (aril rudimentary), or non-arillate; anatropous; bitegmic; crassinucellate. Embryo-sac development Polygonum-type. Polar nuclei fusing simultaneously with the male gamete. Antipodal cells formed, or not formed (then the three nuclei degenerating early). Synergids pear-shaped. Endosperm formation nuclear.

Fruit fleshy; indehiscent; a berry; 20–100 seeded (‘many’). Seeds endospermic. Endosperm not oily (starchy and mealy). Perisperm present. Seeds with starch. Cotyledons 1. Embryo straight, or curved. Testa without phytomelan; thick, hard.

Seedling. Hypocotyl internode present (fairly pronounced). Mesocotyl absent. Seedling collar conspicuous (in the form of small wings). Cotyledon hyperphyll compact; non-assimilatory. Coleoptile present. Seedling cataphylls present. First leaf dorsiventral. Primary root ephemeral.

Physiology, biochemistry. Not cyanogenic. Alkaloids present (indole), or absent. Proanthocyanidins present; cyanidin, or cyanidin and delphinidin. Flavonols present, or absent; when detected, kaempferol and quercetin (traces). Ellagic acid absent. Saponins/sapogenins absent (?). C3. C3 physiology recorded directly in Musa. Anatomy non-C4 type (Musa).

Geography, cytology. Tropical. Tropical Asia, Africa, Madagascar and Australia. X = 9–11, 16, 17.

Taxonomy. Subclass Monocotyledonae. Superorder Zingiberiflorae; Zingiberales. APG (1998) Monocot; Commelinoid group; Zingiberales. Species 42. Genera 3; Ensete, Musa, Musella.

Economic uses, etc. In addition to banana and plantain products (including alcohol, meal), Musa species and varieties are important sources of fibre (abaca cloth, Manila hemp).

Watson, L., and Dallwitz, M.J. 1992 onwards. The families of flowering plants: descriptions, illustrations, identification, and information retrieval. Version: 25th November 2008. http://delta-intkey.com’.

Banana as a "berry"

The bannana as a "false berry" is mentioned nowhere in the article. Don't know where you'd add itKurtle (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this article blocked?

I know, bananas are a funny subject, but come on! This block even prevents serious edits. Other, similar pages (such as Cucumber, Carrot, Candle or Bournemouth) are not restricted in such fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.72.230 (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I find your comment unintentionally amusing. :) Was your examples of unblocked articles truly random? I was expecting something like cucumber, carrott, candle, celery... Most longish objects with only one not edible. Does Bournemouth have any significance to the other things? :D 204.191.239.189 (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with the first comment. Could someone please tell us why it's protected? I suggest you become a user! I could help you get started. :) --LCoolo (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the most recent block is listed as "Excessive vandalism," which is pretty much what it always is. It's move protected (green lock) because the page was renamed ".ł-ł...A...G...G...E...R.?" for some reason. I wish I could tell you what that means. The user's explanation for changing it to that name was "Grawp’s massive cock hits banana." I have no clue. All of the logs are here. --Friginator (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My better half informs me that there is a Harry Potter connection, albeit a weak & lewd one. Whophd (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

More info, but it is locked

This article openly requests more info on certain topics, but then it is locked up. Is that self-contradictory or not? I say, "yes".72.146.52.71 (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This article goes into a good deal (especially early on) about the use of the banana in Asia, the Americas, and Europe, w/o even mentioning Africa. Is this a right thing to do? Especially since the banana is a tropical fruit that growns in the open all around the tropical region of the world. It's insulting to Africans not to at least mention them, and logically incorrect, too.72.146.52.71 (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This article makes little or no mention of bananas grown in greenhouses. It is illogical to state that bananas are grown in "N" number of countries w/o even mentioning greenhouse bananas - as if they absolutely, positively have to be grown outdoors. Another example of this notion is where it says that in the United States, bananas are grown in Hawaii and Florida - implying nowhere else at all. Well, bananas are grown in greenhouses all over. And growing bananas in Canada isn't mentioned at all.72.146.52.71 (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have personally seen bananas grown in tempetate climates elsewhere. Banana plants can be grown outdoors in warm weather, and then dug up and kept in warm places like basements and barns in the wintertime. Next, when warm weather comes again, they respond well to be re-planted.72.146.52.71 (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

---

I have seen a rubber tree grown in a greenhouse, that does not make it a greenhouse crop: while apprently in Iceland they grow them commercially in greenhouses, of the millions of tons of bananas grown yearly only an insignificant fraction would come from a greenhouse - so it is not much of an oversight. After all practically anything CAN be grown in a greenhouse.

On the other note, in Uganda the main source of carbohydrates in the diet banana/plantain. In many other African countries it forms an important part of the diet; in India massive quantities are consumed as well. While banana is mostly starch, eaten as a staple it provides the RDA of many nutrients and vitamins. (If you doubt me there is information in WHO pages.)

TuraSatana

Unprotection

This article has been protected for a month. Any objection to unprotecting it? --Richard (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Unprotect it on a basis of I love bananas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.159.122 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, it appears this article has been locked since 2008; as we're about to hit 2011, I'd personally like to see it unlocked. Thank you. 67.87.113.82 (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, the article can be edited by serious editors. The fruit articles that are not semi-protected get a lot of vandalism from anonymous IP addresses. Why not begin the process by making a signon for yourself? Nadiatalent (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Banana chips

"Banana chips are a snack (and a healthy alternative to potato chips)"

Is there any reason to think that deep fried bananas are healthy? In my experience they're far greasier than a good quality potato chip, does anyone have a source for this? Chrissy Bee (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I presume this is referring to dried banana chips, not deep-fried. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the other edits here, I doubt we'll find a source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banana&diff=194414838&oldid=194393532. --rw (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted that statement because of a) Chrissy's point and b) the user who inserted that comment (Spartand117) has a long history of vandalism. --rw (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a dumb deletion. The article now makes no mention of dried bananas as snacks at all.

This is the dumbest deletion i have seen in ages. You are deleting something because it is greasy? Can't you just keep the section in and just change it? And on the article on the chips says that you can have fried and/or dried ones. Anyway i don't think it's a good idea to delete stuff just because a vandal made the edit. --Stinkypie (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Koeppel NYTimes article 18jun08

Yes, We Will Have No Bananas; By DAN KOEPPEL, June 18, 2008; NY Times. Dan Koeppel is the author of “Banana: The Fate of the Fruit That Changed the World.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/opinion/18koeppel.html -69.87.203.196 (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks.24.47.216.175 (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

dramatic rise in price of bananas predicted as a result of fuel cost

Could somebody maybe find a source that verifies this? I think it was maybe in NYT, but I don't have an online subscription.24.47.216.175 (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

historical info without citations

I've just removed this section from the history section:

The banana is mentioned for the first time in written history in Buddhist texts in 600 BCE. Alexander the Great discovered the taste of the banana in the valleys of India in 327 BCE. The existence of an organized banana plantation could be found in China in 200 CE.

This because nobody seems to have been able to find a citation for these statements in a period since at least last september. I've looked a few times myself but couldn't find good sources. If people want to give it another try, please do. If these could be validated these would be very interesting historical bits of information after all. Martijn Faassen (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.gazlannathai.com/eye/2010/09/kamphaeng-phet-province-sart-thai-tradition-banana-festival/ or this

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~atai/loykrathong.htm פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Slipping on banana peels

This story might or might not be totally fictitious: Supposedly a man went over Niagara Falls in a barrel and survived to tell about it. He went on a world tour to give lectures and tell his tale. While in New Zealand, he was walking down a sidewalk. He slipped on a banana peel, fell down, broke his leg, and died of an infection afterwards. Of course, this story dates back to when people really did make world tours to tell their tales (no TV, etc., existed), and antibiotics hadn't been invented, and people really did die from infections from broken limbs. 72.146.52.71 (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's actually reported to have been an orange peel? 58.107.95.127 (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah it was a used dinger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.184.2.1 (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Peel

I was surprised to see no mention of banana peels being used as a hallucinogenic drug. I first heard about drying, pulverizing and smoking banana peels back in 1969, but I always thought is was an urban legend. Here's a web page with detailed instructions/recipe for preparing the peel for smoking : Smoking Banana Peel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbdude99 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a well-known hoax. It came from the Anarchist cookbook and contains a lot of blatant falsehoods and logical inconsistencies that should tip you off to its spuriousness. Even Lycaeum has it posted under the "Humor" section.--Subversive Sound (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a good source of potassium

It is a common misconception that bananas are a good source of potassium. A thin 2000 calorie/day person would have to eat 2.5 pounds of unpeeled bananas before they got the RDA (about 7 bananas). They would have to eat ONLY bananas to get 160% of the RDA. Many more common foods are a better source: beans, carrots, prunes, soybeans, fish, definitely potatoes, yogurt, squash, clams, and beets rank better. Yet most people can only identify bananas as being a good source of potassium, which is clearly false if you compare it to what is typically taken to mean a "good source". Wiki is being used to promote a common misconception. 24.214.120.227 (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Just reading straight from the info boxes. 100g of banana contains 358mg of potassium. 100g of potatoes is 421mg; and that's for unpeeled ones. The difference is significant but only by less than 20%. In addition the article on wiki states that although it is urban legend that potatoes do not have all their nutrients in the peel it states that 50% of the nutrients are in the flesh. Thus you can arguably say that without the peel, bananas are much better than potatoes. Do you have peel in your fries? You said definetly potatoes, I'm not bothered to check all of them but if you say that potatoes are a good source i think you might be wrong in the others. The only thing that you might have a point at is that people are more likely to eat large amounts of potatoes than bananas. Oh and i don't think the wiki would let such a major urban legend escape the attention of thousands of users. Please don't underestimate the wiki and before you post stuff on the talk page please check your content first.Stinkypie (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Stinky for finding an error in my comments. But if all my comments are to be discarded without further reflection, then by your reasoning, all comments with a single error should be discarded in their entirety. Your reasoning also states that we should never edit wiki articles because thousands of people have already checked them. Please provide a thoughtful argument that indicates bananas are a good source of potassium rather than initiating an ad hominem attack based on a single factual error. You say you are not bothered to check all of my data, so please do so. 24.214.120.227 (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you go to potassium they've already done the leg work for the both of you. "The USDA lists tomato paste, orange juice, beet greens, white beans, bananas, and many other good dietary sources of potassium, ranked according to potassium content per measure shown" with reference to [4] To 24.214.120.227, good source of potassium doesn't mean that it will provide all dietary requirement in one small serving as far as I know - think balanced diet 62.31.149.64 (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

7 bananas is not "one small serving". One orange provides I believe 300% rda vitamin c verses one banana providing 8% of potassium. Clearly bananas are not a good source of potassium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.81.137.154 (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Errm well sorry about that. I'm still pretty new here. Now that i think of it it might be classified as a personal attack sorry about that. I don't think an orange has as much as 300%, on the template thing for oranges it says 75% for 100g, i'm pretty sure that an orange is a lot more than 100g. I think an important fact that you are forgetting is that for your average person, 1 large banana would be enough for one serving. But when you consider the fact that in some countries eat bananas as a staple food, you can say that a lot of their potassium would come from bananas. It does have quite some potassium in it and as such i think it should be considered a good source of potassium. Stinkypie (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A peeled medium banana has 105 calories and 422 mg potassium. RDI for potassium is 4700 mg for a 2000 calorie/day diet. So 1 banana has 9% potassium and 5% calories for a 2,000 calorie/day diet. So bananas are a better source of potassium than they are for calories. But they are not a "good source" of potassium because they do not provide a wide enough variety of other nutrients. To explain by example: let's say you eat 11 bananas to get 100% RDI of potassium and 55% of the 2000 calories/day. So now everything else you eat has to be jam-packed with nutrients if all your other RDI's are going to be acquired in the 900 calories remaining for the day. Compare this to oranges: 1 medium peeled orange without seeds has 116% of your vitamin C and 3% of the 2000 calories. You would have to eat 13 bananas to get as much potassium as 1 orange has of vitamin C. But the situation is even worse than that: "good source" means on a nutrient/calorie basis. By this measure, an orange has 22 times more vitamin C than a banana has of potassium (116%/3% divided by 9%/5%). Bananas are such a bad source of potassium, that bananas themselves have almost twice as much the RDI of vitamin C as they do potassium. On a per-calorie basis, oranges are as good as bananas for potassium.Ywaz (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Standards for what defines a "good source" for nutrient content are actually codified in US law §101.54(c)(1): "'Good Source' claims. (1) The terms “good source,” “contains,” or “provides” may be used on the label and in the labeling of foods, except meal products as defined in §101.13(l) and main dish products as defined in §101.13(m), provided that the food contains 10 to 19 percent of the RDI or the DRV per reference amount customarily consumed." You shouldn't confuse the term "good source" with an "excellent source" as defined in §101.54(b)(1): "'High' claims. (1) The terms “high,” “rich in,” or “excellent source of” may be used on the label and in the labeling of foods, except meal products as defined in §101.13(l) and main dish products as defined in §101.13(m), provided that the food contains 20 percent or more of the RDI or the DRV per reference amount customarily consumed." (See: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=8c5344f04a8ae103e5b0ff5a17c7fa97&rgn=div8&view=text&node=21:2.0.1.1.2.4.1.1&idno=21) USFDA specifically identifies bananas as being a "good source" of potassium as they are rated as having 12% of the RDI. (See: http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/food/pdfs/hhs_facts_sodium.pdf) If this is an urban legend, then the experts of one of the world's largest food and drug regulators have it all wrong, and this talk page would not be the appropriate place to debate that. Heliostellar (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Heliostellar, it's only by the "skin of its teeth" that the law allows advertising that a medium banana is a "good source" of potassium. Wiki is not an advertisement and relevance is important. Of the 21 foods listed in your source, only soybeans had a worse potassium-to-calorie ratio. Bananas were near the bottom even on the "per serving" measure. Only 5 of the 19 foods listed in your reference (with wiki articles) mentioned something like "good source" for potassium. The other 4 all had better ratios.

The FDA says the DRV is supposed to be used for macronutrients which is only 3500 mg whereas better sources say 4700 mg. So yes, the FDA is wrong compared to better experts and this is exactly the place to debate it. FDA is not an nutrition and health expert. They are focused on preventing injury and accuracy in claims. Size and power does not equal truth, accuracy, or relevance. The billy club of power and law should not be used to dictate what is placed in a wiki article. Wikipedia has already decided to go against the FDA regulations you are citing by using "per 100 g" on various food articles rather than "per serving" which is notoriously problematic. For example, it makes bananas appear to be a good source of potassium.

Bananas are not a good source of potassium and the article is still promoting an urban myth that has FDA support as you've described. But in fairness to all other foods and nutrients, potassium should not be mentioned in the introduction to bananas unless it is to explain the FDA/urban myth. Ywaz (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We have the published reports and we have your personal opinion. Guess which one is valid to use in a wikipedia article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you would like to fix the wiki article because it says a banana serving gives 8% potassium whereas 10% is required by the FDA before it can be called a "good source". But I disagree with the whole perspective of using FDA regulations as the definition of the phrase "good source" in a wiki article. Wiki is an international reference with visitors who do not automatically know "good source" as it is being used here is based on a USFDA regulation, nor do they have the ability like many U.S. readers to know the inherent errors, primarily with defining a serving size. Even the USDA disagrees with the FDA, saying only half a banana is a serving size (6% of the DV) rather than a full 140 grams used by the FDA RACC you two are demanding we follow.Ywaz (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Under the heading 'Potential Health Effects', which might be better put as 'Potential Health Benefits', the author states that bananas are a good source of Manganese. While this is true, it might be better to highlight the benefit of getting Magnesium in your diet from eating a banana, with its more direct link to health than Manganese.

Banana history section

The people that presumably brought the banana to Africa were Austronesians. Polynesians are a subdivision of Austronesians but their voyaging was in a different direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.235.244 (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Some recent discoveries of banana phytoliths in Cameroon dating to the first millennium BCE[21] have triggered an as yet unresolved debate about the antiquity of banana cultivation in Africa. There is linguistic evidence that bananas were already known in Madagascar around that time.[22] The earliest evidence of banana cultivation in Africa before these recent discoveries dates to no earlier than late 6th century AD.[23] In this view, bananas were introduced to the east coast of Africa by Muslim Arabs.[20]" (Italics mine) The italicized portion doesn't make sense. There were no Muslims in the late 6th century AD. A recent history of Madagascar written by Solofo Randrianja and Stephen Ellis says that on archaeological evidence, Madagascar was settled no later than the 5th century AD by Austronesian settlers (as the poster above mentions). The authors also suggest that these settlers may have stopped at various places along the way, such as Sri Lanka, Comoros and the East African littoral-- given the vast distance between Madagascar and their homes at the other end of the Indian Ocean, it makes sense that they would need to stretch their legs every now and then. They also write that there could have been Austronesian settlements in the latter two locales, a possibility hinted at by the early incorporation of Bantu words into Malagasy rather than by archaeological evidence. These settlers are known to have brought rice with them, so it makes sense they'd bring other foodstuffs like bananas. I therefore suggest that the italicized portion of the above quote be amended and a short mention of possible/probably Austronesian importation to Africa be added. D.E. Cottrell (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't disregard the "Muslim Arabs" just because of the term. (Islam was introduced to the world by Mohammed in the 8th century, only 1300 years ago...) Rather I would attribute it to a cultural mistake in calling Arabs (of Arabia) Muslim. And try to find the source of this theory, since Arabs where known traders (I once saw a picture of an African village along a river with huts for the Africans and tin roof houses for the Arab traders side by side) . פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Radioactivity

The natural radioactivity in Bananas is well-documented and worth including in the article. Please see http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm, also Ref: Handbook of Radiation Measurement and Protection, Brodsky, A. CRC Press 1978 and Environmental Radioactivity from Natural, Industrial and Military Sources, Eisenbud, M and Gesell T. Academic Press, Inc. 1997. PolarYukon (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As bananas grow from cuttings, not seeds, they are more vulnerable to genetic malfunction, as there is no sexual mechanism to shed negative traits. I wonder if the presence of radioactive potassium in the fruit could exacerbate this problem, accelerating chromosonal damage. In a sexually reproducing organism, an increase in mutation rate as a result of exposure to radioactivity could paradoxically speed up the rate of evolution, but (if my hypothesis is correct), in the banana, this same stimulus can only lead to an early demise for the species. (In fact, non-sexually reproducing organisms have far shorter life spans as a SPECIES, than do their sexual counterparts.) Myles325a (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The topic of natural radioactivity in bananas deserves its own subheader. We also ought to include a link to Banana equivalent dose, which is used in nuclear industries to compare the natural radioactivity present in bananas with the exposure received from other radiation. For now, I have put it under "Other Uses". I am too occupied currently to give this the attention it deserves, but I sincerely hope that this can be incorporated into the article by someone - maybe even you! --Strangerer (Talk) 02:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If the topic of radioactivity in bananas occurs. I hope [Castle_Bravo] is included. "The fallout spread traces of radioactive material as far as Australia, India and Japan, and even the US and parts of Europe. Though organized as a secret test, Castle Bravo quickly became an international incident, prompting calls for a ban on the atmospheric testing of thermonuclear devices." Could the worlds hundreds of nucleur bomb tests and accidents increased the "natural" radiation of bananas? I think it highly likely. [List_of_military_nuclear_accidents] April 21, 1964 – Indian Ocean – Launch failure of a RTG powered satellite A U.S. Transit-5BN-3 nuclear-powered navigational satellite failed to reach orbital velocity and began falling back down at 150,000 feet (46 km) above the Indian Ocean. The satellite's SNAP-9a generator contained 17 kCi (630 TBq) of 238Pu (2.1 pounds), which at least partially burned upon reentry. Increased levels of 238Pu were first documented in the stratosphere four months later. Indeed NASA indicated that the SNAP-9a plutonium release was nearly double the 9000Ci added by all the atmospheric weapons tests to that date.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Name Banana

The name Banana came from the Professor Alistair B. Broom. The century is hard to locate but he came up with the name when he was researching in Papua New Guinea.

Doubtful. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary says possibly from Wolof via Spanish or Portugese. Sounds a bit unlikely as Wolof country (Senegal) was French since the mid of the XVIIth, and Senegal is no major banana producer. Word rather sounds bantu. French Wikipedia refers to Bantu languages in Guinea. Riyadi (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Blue fluorescence of ripening bananas, a recent discovery

Just a fun and amazing recent finding. A photograph of this phenomenon would be appreciated. Cheers Shinkolobwe (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A publication in Angewandte Chemie by Moser et al. (2008) mentions a recent and surprising finding. Ripe bananas exhibit a blue fluorescence when exposed to ultra-violet (UV) light (Dark light). This property has been overlooked for a long time. Green bananas do not show any sign of fluorescence. The cause is attributed by the authors to the degradation of chlorophyll giving rise to the accumulation of a fluorescent product in the skin of the fruit. The chlorophyll breakdown product is stabilized by a propionate ester group. Banana-tree leaves also fluoresce in the same way. A possible consequence in nature is that animals capable to see in the UV spectrum would also be able to detect quicker the ripened fruits.

Actually, I personally dispute these results. Since the article, I have observed tons of bananas from green to brown. They do NOT glow as the article states. I have 36 feet of blacklight in my room. The only part of a ripe banana that *actually* fluoresces is the EDGES of the black spots. The rest is clearly just the blue light REFLECTING off the banana, not fluorescing. In real life, the pictures do not look like any of the pictures in the science articles; they are clearly doctored. I've lived around blacklights daily for 15 years and know what fluorescing looks like. The scientists must have missed something. I think when they tried to translate it into layman speak, they messed up not because they don't know their science, but because they don't know blacklights. ClintJCL (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The journal article says that yellow bananas absorb at around 350 nm and emit at around 450 nm. I don't work in a lab any more so I can't test it out myself, but the journal looks legit to me. The part about animals seeing bananas using uv detection is not right: if the banana emits blue light, it will look bright in the sun for those who can see blue light (an effect like [Bluing (fabric)|laundry bluing]) but will be dark in the uv. Daniel Kellis 23 March 2009. —Preceding undated comment added 23:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC).

References

Shinkolobwe (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Walking Bananas

I think the fact the bananas appear to walk as they grow is an interesting fact. The routes underground grow laterally which cause the plant to move laterally on the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by jonholland99 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are under the influence of The Day of the Triffids.Myles325a (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Editorial correction proposed

God only knows why this article is locked, but I imagine you have your reasons. In any event, the following sentence needs editorial improvement/repair: "A possible consequence in nature is that animals capable to see in the UV spectrum would also be able to detect quicker the ripened fruits." One possibility would be: "A possible consequence in nature is that animals capable of seeing in the UV spectrum would also be able to more quickly detect the ripened fruits."

212.202.28.10 (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV UV Section

I believe the UV Section isn't written in a neutral point of view.Hereford 20:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Reply

I think that the term "neutral point" of view is poorly chosen. When I discovered this surprising information in a scientific paper recently published in Angewandte Chemie by Moser et al. (2008) my aim was only to share it on Wikipedia. I have no connection with the authors and I expressed no biased opinion, being not involved in this study. These observations are published in an international peer-reviewed and well accepted journal and I do not suspect their veracity, nor the scientific approach followed by the authors. ClintJCL may personally dispute this observation, but before to further criticize the phenomenon, I would simply suggest him and other readers to carefully read the paper of Moser et al. (2008).

To quote the remark of ClintJCL: "The only part of a ripe banana that *actually* fluoresces is the EDGES of the black spots. The rest is clearly just the blue light REFLECTING off the banana, not fluorescing", I do not say anything else in my text. The fluorescence is clearly present around the black spots. "Ripened bananas (left, under sunlight) fluoresce in blue when exposed to UV light (right). Note the steep chemical gradient of fluorescent dye developing around the black spots (right)". To conclude, I think that the applied (POV-section|date=December 2008) banner is not merited and should be removed. Thank You for reading the original paper.

Shinkolobwe (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

But it just makes no sense. How could fluorescence help animals with UV sight to find fruit?--88.101.76.122 (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've edited that section - there was some POV language as well as some time-sensitive stuff as well. I have also moved the information into the "Properties" section where I think it fits better. I believe the current version is neutral and fairly presents what was in the referenced paper, so I have removed the POV tag. - Eron^Talk 00:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

History of Cultivation

This article is vague on what is one of the most interesting things about bananas, and that is they are a mutation that can no longer reproduce by seeds. I THINK that mutation occured about 10,000 years ago, and since then, the plants have been grown from cuttings, and are thus genetic clones of their ancestors. I THINK that the initial cultivation was in South East Asia and PERHAPS New Guinea (which is now recognised to have originated their own version of agriculture thousands of years ago). The article does not deal with new information from genetic analysis which demonstrates banana's susceptibility to disease ( a susceptibility to which all organisms that reproduce asexually are prone, as there is no mechanism for quickly moving resistant traits to the wider community of plants). There was a very good article on this in New Scientist a couple of years ago which I will try to dredge up. Meanwhile, this article needs some restructuring and tidying up. Myles325a (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Multiple websites such as this make the claim that the yellow "sweet banana" was discovered in 1876. I don't know if this is true or not, but it appears to have become a common belief. This claim should be confirmed or disputed, and regardless of whether it is true or not, it ought to be mentioned in the article. 71.105.92.203 (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I read that it was cultivated recently to the seedless banana, but cannot find the source. The website you quote does not claim 1876 as the cultivation date, nor does it claim recent cultivation. It says that around 1402 Portuguese sailors cultivated it in the Canary Islands...

I'm still looking for the "recent" cultivation claims פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

``The bright yellow bananas that we know today were discovered as a mutation from the plantain banana by a Jamaican, Jean Francois Poujot, in the year 1836. He found this hybrid mutation growing in his banana tree plantation with a sweet flavor and a yellow color-instead of green or red, and not requiring cooking like the plantain banana. The rapid establishment of this new exotic fruit was welcomed worldwide, and it was massively grown for world markets. (article source: the website I sourced from was blocked, which seems to support the urban legend view!) It sounds like nonsense. I don't think the article itself needs to include this if it isn't true, unless there's a popular misconceptions part. Of course if it's true it should be in (though Jean Francoise Poujot looks suspiciously like an anagram!). I think the original source is a cooking website. Grj23 (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not true. They are probably referring to a very specific banana cultivar which did originate from a population of bananas on the Canary islands (which in turn was introduced from Africa by the Portuguese) - the Cavendish bananas. And Cavendish bananas, while being the most familiar dessert bananas to most westerners, are not the first bright yellow or sweet bananas. They are in fact, already natural polyploids (i.e. seedless), being descendants of far more ancient clones all the way from Southeast Asia.

And yeah, bananas basically originated from accidental mutations of the wild seeded banana species Musa acuminata that were discovered and cultivated thousands of years ago in the Malesian ecoregion (triangular shaped region in SE Asia bounded by Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, and Indonesia). They are actually one of the earliest known cultivated plants, and one of the oldest examples of agriculture and selective breeding.

They were then spread north by human activity. Musa species readily hybridize with one another, and in this case it hybridized with a local species, Musa balbisiana of South Asia and Indochina. These two became the ancestors of virtually all modern seedless banana cultivars today. Dessert bananas generally come from seedless clones of M. acuminata, plantains generally come from hybrids of the two.

In addition to spread within Asia, bananas were also introduced very early into Africa and Oceania, again by human activity. In Africa (through Madagascar), they became the ancestors of the genetically distinct East African Highland bananas of Uganda and neighboring regions. In Oceania they became the ancestors of the Maoli and Popoulu bananas. They may have been spread into S. America from Polynesia, but evidence of this is sketchy.

From Africa, they were introduced into the Canary islands by the Portuguese. From there they were introduced into the Americas into Haiti by the slave trade. That's basically it. Convoluted and certainly far more ancient than the 1800s. Clones of clones.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 13:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The article suggests the greatest variety of banana forms is in SE Asia. Growing up in the Gulf Province of Papua New Guinea, I was familiar with at least 25 varieties of banana growing in local gardens - the local people knew the varieties well and had their own terms for them, which suggests long acquaintance with the level of variety. The varieties included a number of "eating bananas" of varying size, colour, texture and taste; and a number of "cooking" bananas, also of considerably different colour, size, taste and texture (from starchy dry and almost tasteless after cooking to sickly sweet and sloppy when cooked). As I understand it, the greater the diversity of forms, the greater the likelihood of antiquity. I have not noted anywhere near this level of varieties in SE Asia... Ptilinopus (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Taste

The banana is really good and good 4 you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.228.87 (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Banana is actually a vegtable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluezoo44 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There isn't 4 of myself...--Kurtle (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Health benefits

I think it was time to add some health benefits to the article. The only health references before were pests, diseases, natural disasters and allergic reactions, and I think it gives the banana a non-neutral defamation, so I don't think I need to be any fanatic banana worshiper to argue the new section was needed. Anyhow, I didn't find any fully scientifically peer reviewed summary of the effects of bananas, but I think those sources I found were pretty sufficient - their lists of primary sources seemed reliable at a glance, and I find the risk of bias is low, since it is a general fruit we're talking about and not some "new fantastic" product. Anyhow, feel free to add to it, or remove still dubious claims. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Bananas in Pyjamas

You should add Bananas In Pyjamas in See Also and Culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.229.212 (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Fruit or Herb

First line it says it is a fruit then a herbaceous plant. is it a fruit of herb???????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XX EOIN XX (talk • contribs) 11:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's the fruit of a herbaceous plant. What's the problem? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the banana fruit is the swollen flower of the plant; the same is true of strawberries (and both of these have been heavily modified through cultivation). See, "fruit", "nut" and "berry" are not defined quite the same way by botanists and ordinary people. In ordinary language, it's decided from the general look of the edible parts, but to botanists who have to consider taxonomy, the vital thing is what part of the plant it is that's grown into something edible: seeds, flower bottoms, flower leaves and so on. Strausszek (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a true fruit. If comes from a flower that has an inferior ovary. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since fruit by definition grow on trees with woody trunks/stems, bananas are not a true fruit. Being an aberrant grass-like plant, perhaps it might be more accurate to refer to is as a form of grain!!! Ptilinopus (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of Banana Leaves

Mention of broad banana leaves as food plate/tray in S. India (perhaps other regions as well?) would be a nice addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.185.157 (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Health benefits: POV tag

I added a POV tag to the "health benefits" section. In my opinion, this section reads almost as if it has been written by people with an interest in promoting Bananas (I haven't thoroughly checked the edit history so I am not making any accusations of conflict of interest--this is solely on the basis of reading the text). My main issue is that the bulk of the section focuses on benefits that apply to fruit in general. For example, fruits and vegetables in general are characterized by high potassium and fiber content. Sentences and discussion like "In contrast, large consumption of highly processed fruit juice increases the risk of kidney cancer.[31]" seem only tangentially relevant--and seem to belong on a page like Fruit rather than here.

I think it's important to write this section in such a way that clearly distinguishes (and communicates to the reader) which of the benefits of bananas are common to many fruits, which are common to many fruits and vegetables, and the degree to which each of the benefits stands out in comparison to typical fruits. For example, do bananas contain appreciably more potassium or fiber than other commonly consumed fruits? What about carotenoids or other antioxidant effects?

I think bananas are very healthy and there is likely a wealth of evidence out here--I'm not "anti-banana". I just want this to be written in NPOV. As a side note, the section also relies very heavily on a single source--while it's a decent, independent source, I think more would be helpful here. Cazort (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Varieties?

Unless I missed it, I do not see any mention of the various varieties of bananas in the world. I'm sure out there somewhere is a list of different named kinds, with all types of sizes, etc. Would be helpful if someone could find a source and add it to this article. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering about the same thing. It turns out, the different species are described in the article Musa (genus), which is for all bananas, while this article seems to have been from the onset vague about whether it is about all bananas, or just about the dessert banana. It is strange that nobody caught that in seven years! I'm wondering if we could solve this like German Wikipedia did, by renaming this article to "dessert banana", and keeping "banana" as a disambiguation page. (That is in our case, merging it with Banana (disambiguation).) — Sebastian 01:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It is almost pointless to list all the varieties. It could only refer to commercial cultivar varieties - while there are possibly countless varieties known in different parts of the world grown traditionally in subsistence culture gardens - most of which are not "named". In Papua New Guinea alone I knew of at least 25 varieties in local gardens - and few if any would have been formally named. Ptilinopus (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep there are thousands of banana cultivars. Nevertheless there's a list of the most common economically and culturally important cultivars in Banana cultivar groups.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of external links

I added a link to an organization working on bananas from the perspective of small farmers. It was removed with a comment that it didn't follow Wikipedia guidelines for external links and another comment saying "Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion."

The implication is that I was trying to promote an organization as opposed to adding a link to a legitimate source on bananas that Wikipedia readers might find useful. The Huffington Post article on the politics of bananas, United Fruit, etc. has remained there however, despite the fact that it appears to be "just" another such link and is promoting a particular point of view about banana production.

I've added links to a number of Wikipedia pages that I thought Wikipedia readers would find useful and have never had them removed before.

Could someone please explain to me why this link was removed?

Bob Thomson Bthomson (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Calorific content of bananas?

In the article it says this:

" In a 2001 study <Hamilton & Jensen> it was established that all bananas contain the same number of calories. The study determined that the calorific density varied depending on the size of banana to keep the calorific value at a constant 163 Kcal."

Is this REALLY true? It hasn't been referenced properly in the article, and google searches of the Hamilton & Jensen study come up with absolutely nothing apart from links to this page. Has someone put this in as a joke or do all bananas really have the same amount of calories? It's causing a bit of a debate in the office so need to find out!

Thanks

User:Dannyk86 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.83.99.224 (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Anticancer properties (sources included)

In my opinion, the following information (with sources) should be definitely added to the article:

• banana consumption is protective against breast cancer - Zhang CX, Ho SC, Chen YM, Fu JH, Cheng SZ, Lin FY. Greater vegetable and fruit intake is associated with a lower risk of breast cancer among Chinese women. Int J Cancer. 2009 Jul 1;125(1):181-8.
• banana consumption is strongly protective against colorectal cancer - Deneo-Pellegrini H, De Stefani E, Ronco A. Vegetables, fruits, and risk of colorectal cancer: a case-control study from Uruguay. Nutr Cancer. 1996;25(3):297-304.
• banana consumption is protective against oral cancer - Zheng T, Boyle P, Willett WC, Hu H, Dan J, Evstifeeva TV, Niu S, MacMahon B. A case-control study of oral cancer in Beijing, People's Republic of China. Associations with nutrient intakes, foods and food groups. Eur J Cancer B Oral Oncol. 1993 Jan;29B(1):45-55.

I can't edit the "health benefits" section myself because the article is apparently protected. Regards, --95.49.66.65 (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC).

formatted for readability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There's not a lot there to recommend much in the article, but I've integrated two articles stating bananas have been associated with reduced risk of two specific cancers. I also removed the terrible section on health benefits that was there before, based solely on two unreliable sources. The birch allergy I can't find anything more reliable than the website, so I have removed pending a medical source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What about the oral cancer study? It's worth mentioning I guess. They do suggest banana consumption as a protective factor (quote: "increased consumption of grapes, bananas, oranges, tangerines, peaches and pears were associated with reduced risk"). And here is another study showing that banana intake is protective against lung cancer (quote: "green vegetables and bananas were found to have a protective association with lung cancer"): Sankaranarayanan R, Varghese C, Duffy SW, Padmakumary G, Day NE, Nair MK. A case-control study of diet and lung cancer in Kerala, south India. Int J Cancer. 1994 Sep 1;58(5):644-9. Regards, --95.49.18.203 (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC).

The ones used highlight the effects as strong and significant, while the oral cancer one was merely "associated". I wouldn't use the Kerala study either for the same reason. Really, since these are primary sources, it is dubious to cite them at all. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Another one:) - Rashidkhani B, Lindblad P, Wolk A. Fruits, vegetables and risk of renal cell carcinoma: a prospective study of Swedish women. Int J Cancer. 2005 Jan 20;113(3):451-5. Quote: "within the group of fruits, the strongest inverse association was observed for banana". Regards, --95.49.62.14 (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC).

Done. It would be easier if you would provide the pubmed number (PMID). Also, these articles can only be cited with caution, review articles would be much better choices. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find any relevant review articles on bananas, but here's an interesting 1995 study, in which banana intake has been shown to be significantly inversely related to pancreatic cancer cases in men and in women. This information is not mentioned in the abstract however, so you need to check the full text, which is freely accessible.

Ji BT, Chow WH, Gridley G, Mclaughlin JK, Dai Q, Wacholder S, Hatch MC, Gao YT, Fraumeni JF Jr. Dietary factors and the risk of pancreatic cancer: a case-control study in Shanghai China. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1995 Dec;4(8):885-93. PMID 8634662.

Regards, --95.49.67.166 (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC).

why not include abaca as this plant is a specie of banana native to the Philippines. See your wikepedia page on abaca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.53.170 (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)