http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-090607folicacid-story,0,868233.story

Note it reports that rates of colorectal cancer rose in America about the time bread began to be fortified with folic acid. One study says this could be a coincidence, but a report from Chile says the same thing happened there when fortification began in 2000.

However, a study that indicates a state edict may be dangerous should be taken seriously.

No-one forces conclusions on others in Kiwiblog postings I read, except perhaps for the troll Sonic/Catatonic.

I’m betting you will be unlikely to add folic acid supplement to your diet, if you are male, PDD. Or would you dispute my use of “unlikely” in this context?

Yes, I am suggesting an indeterminate conclusion should be drawn from this study – AS IS THE AUTHOR OF THAT STUDY.

This is hardly a “quibble” – is the study’s author “quibbling”? No. She is highlighting the limitations of the study, as good scientists should.

I’m not trying to obfuscate anything, debate away! I just get annoyed when people jump to, and force on others, conclusions that were never made.

But in the colon they are frequently precursors to colon cancer. That’s why so many people undergo unpleasant colonoscopies – to remove pre-cancerous polyps.

People can make up their own minds on the AFPP study of prostate cancer incidence among 643 men. Is PDD really suggesting an “unlikely” conclusion or even an indeterminate conclusion should be drawn from the estimated prostate cancer risk of 9.7 percent at 10 years in men assigned to folate, compared with 3.3 percent in men assigned to placebo?
This seems a “likely” conclusion to me, and certainly one that demands follow-up study and a halt to any precipitous compulsory addition of folic acid to bread.

PDD’s quibble about the word “likely” strikes me as obfuscation and diversion in the debate on Labour’s Annette King’s move to force bakers to add folate to bread.

When I take into account these statements from the author, and without further trials, I don’t see “an appearance of truth or fact” in a cause and effect relationship between folic acid and colon cancer.

As for the AFPP study: please refer to my earlier comment – polyps, or tumours, do not equal cancer.

And forgive me, but I don’t ever recall condescending the sources you offered. As I’ve said, it was your selective use of them which lead me to wonder whether you’d read them – in their entirety.

This was a serious scientific study, and like most other developments in medicine, needs to be replicated in further trials. From this University of Southern California study it is quite logical for any poster or commentator to describe folic supplements, as in bread, as being likely to increase incidence of colon cancer and prostate cancer. It the study had found the opposite it would be quite logical of them to use the word “unlikely”.

The Aspirin/Folate Polyp Prevention Study (AFPP), was, as reported in the references I gave above, a placebo-controlled randomised trial from 1994 to 1996 to determine the impact of aspirin and folic acid on colon polyps in men and women at high risk. The study observed aspirin reduced the risk of colon polyps while folic acid had a negative effect and increased the risk of advanced and multiple polyps.

In secondary analysis, scientists looked at prostate cancer incidence among 643 men who were randomly assigned to 1 mg daily folic acid supplements or placebo in the AFPP study and who enrolled in an extended follow-up study. The estimated prostate cancer risk was 9.7 percent at 10 years in men assigned to folate, compared with 3.3 percent in men assigned to placebo.

Folic acid supplements may likely benefit some pregnancies. So why not let the mothers who need the supplements take them voluntarily without putting other people, particularly men, at even potential risk?

My reference to the MSM was in response to PDD’s initial condescension to the sources I offered. PDD’s alternative was Wikipedia. Hell’s teeth! Wikipedia!

In fact, what most people seem to be missing is that iodized salt will also be compulsory at the same time as folic acid as all bakers will be required by law to use iodized salt. The excuse of the previous government for this further mass medication program is that people aren’t eating enough iodized salt anymore (no doubt thanks to their anti-salt campaigns).

I haven’t expressed my opinion on whether or not adding folate to the bread supply in NZ is a worthy excercise. All I’ve tried to point out is that the trial (same one in all your links – out of USC) that links folic acid to colon cancers is ‘preliminary’ and possibly down to chance. The author of the study in question says so herself – did you read that bit? You can argue all you like for adding or not adding folate to our bread, but saying it’s “likely” to cause colon cancers IS an exaggeration.

Jack5, in an earlier post you say “It seems to indicate that folic acid supplements may double incidence of prostate cancer.” I’d stick with that…’seems’ and ‘may’ – useful qualifiers.

O, and I don’t know what you mean about me criticising your use of the MSM. All I take issue with is your selective approach to it.

About 500 New Zealanders die each year from prostate cancer. If the California study’s results are replicated, this will be solid evidence that as many as another 500 NZ guys could die a year (depending no level of folic acid added to bread, bread consumption and such variables).

Why put NZ men at risk? Just more misandry from Labour (albeit in danger of reaching final implementation under National)?

First read this:

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/549887/

and about the fifth or sixth item in the following:

http://medicineworld.org/cancer/prostate/prostate-cancer-blog.html

The articles refer to the Aspirin/Folate Polyp Prevention Study (AFPP) at the University of Southern California. The results were published in March.

Note this finding:” A study led by scientists at the University of Southern California (USC) observed that men who took a daily folic acid supplement of 1 mg daily had more than twice the risk of prostate cancer compared with men who took a placebo. ”

The use of the word “likely” in my post is not an exaggeration. An important experiment has raised the question.n It’s also a bit ironic for someone basing their post on Wikipedia criticises using the MSM as a source.

It would be madness to put folic into bread until this finding has been refuted, if it can be refuted, by further research. I think you will find, pdd, that the Irish Republic has either abandoned or delayed adding folic acid to bread.

Let’s not forget the folic acid move was initiated under Labour’s Annette King. It’s another heavy-handed Labour stuff-up.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/589506_print

Whoops! That one seems to be password locked. Try this one

http://www.newsmax.com/health/folic_acid_prostate_cance/2009/03/11/190656.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article976033.ece

It was branded as aiming to catch those who didn’t know the limits and it was argued that it wouldn’t catch the average person who chose to use physical discipline. So a law that, as sold to us, was proscribing the activities of the many so as to get a result for the few.

Next, there is reasonable doubt about whether the impact on the majority is good or bad. Many studies show that use of excessive force is definitely bad for children. But if we exclude from the study that discipline that was already illegal, then the answer becomes an arguable one – some studies found physical discipline more effective, some no impact, and others that non-physical discipline was more effective. As such, there is no overwhelming evidence that the government should intervene in parenting decisions. This is quite similar in concept to the concerns about whether excess folic acid consumption in those not in the target group is a bad thing – studies are unclear, which means that the govt shouldn’t be forcing it on us.

I’m also waiting for the law that prohibits “emotional” discipline of children. You know, excessively yelling at them, ostracising them, telling them they are bad, when correctly a parent should only tell a child that their behaviour is bad, not that the child is bad. These are also all things that parents shouldn’t be doing, and are arguably just as harmful as mild physical discipline (of the sort that was legal under our old law).

Because of the way the S59 changes were sold, there was never any debate about these other forms of discipline. The argument was that we were targeting the behaviour of those who were already breaking the old law. I know that was just a stalking horse, I think you do too given your statement above that this is all about stopping any form of physical discipline.

If the debate had been framed around “we would like to stop the forms of physical discipline that are currently legal” then it would have been interesting to debate whether a smack on the bottom when a child does something wrong is more or less harmful than some parent telling a child they are “bad” or that if they don’t behave better “mummy won’t love them any more.” Personally I think the smack on the bottom is way less likely to cause long term damage, but for some reason we’re not targeting the emotional blackmail.

George Adams, Coca-Cola Amatil (NZ) Ltd

Vice Chair

Sylvia Burbery, Mars New Zealand
Sarah Kennedy, Vitaco Health Ltd

Board Members

Scott MacKay, Tosco Communications Ltd
Peter McKinney, George Weston Foods
Doug Paulin, Hubbard Foods Ltd
Paul Rose, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare
Pierre van Heerden, Sanitarium Health Food Company
Tristram Wilkinson, Kimberly-Clark New Zealand

We all know what is in Coca Cola dont we. but if they told you they would have to kill you.

These are the people we can trust when others try and force Vitamin B down our throats.

It’s an industry group.

“How dare bureaucrats try to doctor our bread when there is evidence that this will likely increase incidence of colon and prostate cancer.”

‘Likely’ is pushing it. Excess folate may promote tumor initiation, but tumors do not equal cancer. In fact, there is a whole bunch of evidence that shows increased levels of folic acid help PREVENT these cancers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folate#Cancer