Contrasting effects of non-starch polysaccharide and resistant starch-based diets on the disposition and excretion of the food carcinogen, 2-amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (IQ), in a rat model.

It has commonly been believed that increasing fibre in the diet should reduce the incidence of cancers, especially those of the colon and rectum. The earliest definitions of dietary fibre restricted the term to plant cell walls in which non-starch polysaccharides are key chemical components. However, new definitions encompass a wider range of materials, including starches resistant to digestion in the colon (resistant starches). Nevertheless, most definitions require that "dietary fibres" show physiological effects considered beneficial against cancer, including enhanced laxation and faecal bulking. On theoretical grounds, such properties might be expected to dilute the concentration of any carcinogen present and move it more rapidly through the colon, thereby reducing bioavailability. We have compared the properties of two dietary fibre preparations that are primarily non-starch polysaccharides with two resistant starch preparations for effects on carcinogen disposition in a rodent model. Although both preparations enhanced laxation and faecal bulking, only the non-starch polysaccharide preparation reduced carcinogen biovailability. Indeed, carcinogen biovailability was significantly enhanced by resistant starch. We suggest that there may be fundamental differences in the manner by which non-starch polysaccharides or resistant starches affect carcinogen disposition, and express concern that the events seen with the resistant starches [RS] are unlikely to be beneficial with respect to protection against cancer by exogenous carcinogens. Furthermore, the data reveal that the observation of enhanced laxation and faecal bulking does not necessarily imply a reduction in carcinogen bioavailability.