More on Folic Acid in bread

July 14th, 2009 at 6:47 pm by David Farrar

To give some balance to the debate, here are some extracts from a PR from the Coalition of Parents of Children with Spina Bifida:

Folic acid does not cause postrate cancer in humans. The negative studies referred to involve extreme levels of folic acid fed to rats. Levels humans would never consume.
UK has approved folic acid fortification – the delay is because they are still deciding on the best vehicle ie bread or flour (including pastries/biscuits etc)
Neural tube defects (NTDs) are more common and deadly then meningitis
14 babies were born with NTDs in New Zealand last year. Specialists know this number should be quadrupled because many NTD affected babies are aborted and these are not recorded in the birth register. NTD miscarriages are also excluded.
The level suggested is not the full 400mcg RDI but it works (US data since 1998 implementation) in reducing the number of NTD births, and has been proven to reduce heart disease and stroke, colon and stomach cancers, congenital heart defects in babies and onset of Alzheimers.
Folic acid is a b-group vitamin necessary for healthy cell development and is comprehensively proven as beneficial for general health
The Bakers Association, including president Laurie Powell, have all agreed to the proposal many times during face to face meetings over the past 10 years. Sue Kedgley has also pledged her support as long as organic bread was not fortified
National and Labour MPs over three successive governments have agreed to this proposal – often unanimously
This is the most important preventive health initiative since iodised salt to prevent goiter and the rubella vaccine.

And to balance that, a PR today from the Association of Bakers:

A day after Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson all but accepted that the new folic acid food standard should go, she has now seized on an unpublished study as conclusive proof that her plan to mass-medicate every New Zealander is safe. …

Her turnaround appears to follow statements by Professor Murray Skeaff, of Otago University, regarding his attendance at a conference in Prague at which an as-yet unpublished pooled analysis of all the randomised control trials of folic acid to date were revealed. We welcome the entrance of Professor Skeaff to the national debate on this important issue. However we note this respected academic has changed his mind from his previous view that “mandatory folic acid fortification would represent an uncontrolled clinical trial with all New Zealanders as participants”.

Professor Skeaff previously got to the nub of the whole issue being debated when he asked, in a research paper in 2003: “Preventing even one case of spina bifida is a priceless relief for the afflicted child or family, but is the prevention of four cases of spina bifida each year sufficient justification for accepting the risks of exposing four million people?” …

Her plan to dose every loaf of bread simply to provide folic acid for pregnant women robs New Zealanders of freedom of choice and her own officials have confirmed to her that there will be “unknown effects” of such a widespread medication plan. It’s the exactly the kind of nanny state intervention in their lives that many kiwis thought would change with the new Government.

Kate Wilkinson’s plan to dose every New Zealander is an experiment – an experiment that very few New Zealand voters want. We welcome the Minister’s continued commitment to a review of the standard but suggest it should take place before – not after – its implementation.

Strong views on both sides.

Tags: bread, folic acid, Nanny State

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009 at 6:47 pm and is filed under NZ Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

38 Responses to “More on Folic Acid in bread”

Whaleoil (729) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Great so they want to medicate the entire bread eating population for 14 babies. OVERKILL.

Fricken make supplements available from the doctor and DO NOT medicate me with something I don’t want.

Good Christ Almighty, we aborted 80,000 babies last year and now we are being medicated over 14 babies….sheesh our priorities sure are screwed.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
andrei (2,060) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Folic acid is a b-group vitamin

Folic acid is a chemical which performs the same functions as naturally occurring foliates purportedly.

It may or may not be harmful and/or beneficial to long term human health. Using the human population as guinea pigs in this noble experiment should be an anathema to everybody but what can we do when we have a stupid left wing Government like National which is too wimpy to do what is right but goes along with the Wellington dykocracy – may they burn in hell
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
big bruv (11,201) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
I have not made up my mind on this, can anybody tell me what the Green party policy is on this issue?

I tend to find that if you take the opposite stance to the Greens then you are always right.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
thedavincimode (4,693) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
This is the exception that proves the rule BB.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
hiphip (92) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
What a ridiculous idea to treat us all like children. Anyone needing this supplement can take it. Surely Australians must have the same issues with this nonsense. Why doesn’t the Minister simply ring her Australian counterpart to discuss the issue?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Neilson (5) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Just in reply to Whaleoil.

According to the Abortion Supervisory Committee annual report 2007 the number of abortions in that year was 17,934. Are you saying that either there has been a 3-fold increase in abortions in the last two years or that there are 3-times more abortions performed off the books than are performed on them.

I don’t mind a real debate over priorities however the numbers need to be accurate.

http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5EEE7711-E3BE-4672-839E-2F6F59E798FB/73450/DBHOH_PAP_16195_5831.pdf

Regards
Alexander
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Whaleoil (729) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Thank you Neilson for correcting me.

ok so we are mass medicating all the bread eaters in NZ for 14 babies a year when on the other hand we legally kill 17,934.

Still ass backwards if we are talking about “saving” babies.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
bringbackthebiff (106) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
@hiphip I can assure they don’t. Most Strayans are blissfully ignorant, have I have posted previously. I don’t care a tinkers about the folic acid or not folic acid. What this should be about is people who elect governments being able to tell them they don’t need to be told what is good for them. I for one am pissed off with the constant nannying. They should F@#k off out of our lives or F@#k off altogether.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
trout (818) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
‘prostrate’ (sic) cancer is not something you should take lying down.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Fletch (4,305) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
This folic acid agreement with Australia is left over from the feminist legacy of the Labour Party leaders. Folic acid (by all accounts) isn’t going to affect women detrimentally at all. It’s the men who are at greater risk of prostate cancer.
This from the Herald today –

Animal studies show too much folic acid supplements in pills can spur some cancers.
And one study which tracked 640 men found that 10 years later, folic acid users were more likely to have developed prostate cancer. Professor Skeaff said in terms of cancer risk “there is no reason the proposed fortification should not go ahead”.

Well, Prof, it is enough reason to me not to go ahead.
As I said though, the feminists won’t care – hell, I’m sure they’d just as soon dump estrogen into all our milk. They’ve already tailored the way subjects are taught in primary school to suit the learning style of girls, thus causing boys to lag well behind.

It’s fair enough if women need folic acid to combat fetal abnormalities and birth defects, but women can be given these supplements separately, in the same way as they are given iron tablets and vitamin B supplements during pregnancy.
Why target the whole bread supply? It’s a stupid idea.

If it goes ahead, we’re breaking out the old bread maker again.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
RKBee (1,344) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Whaleoil has hit it on the nail..
I must pay more attention to his site Whaleoil.
Don’t forget the bakers argument… that you would have to eat 11 slices of bread a day 3 months leading up to pregnancy to get the reqiured amount.
Water is free and I can’t drink the reqiured 8 glasses a day to be healthy. Its just not going to happen.
Came on John K hurry up sort it out.. or I will be forced to vote me next election.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Nomestradamus (2,391) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
[Sorry, lengthy comment, but I hope it makes a useful contribution to this debate]

Kiwiblog readers may be interested in this report, entitled Fortification of bread with Folic Acid, by Access Economics Pty Limited for Food Standards Australia New Zealand. The report is slightly historical – August 2006 – but appears to have formed part of the process leading to this new food standard.
A taster (bad pun, sorry) of key points from the executive summary:

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) commissioned Access Economics in Winter 2006 to investigate the costs of a proposal to require bakers to fortify bread with folic acid. Monitoring costs were to be included.

The bottom line — consumers

As far as fortification of bread involves higher costs to industry, and these are passed onto consumers, consumers will face higher prices for bread than they would under the alternative proposal involving fortification of flour.

The bottom line — industry

In Australia, both upfront and ongoing costs appear substantially higher if bread is the regulated fortification vehicle as opposed to flour.

The bottom line — government

Three Australian state and territory governments provided cost estimates that varied widely and so the @RISK program was used to provide a central estimate. The costs are substantially higher for fortification of bread than for fortification of flour. Australian government costs for administering and enforcing the proposal have a net present value of around $27 million over 15 years.

The New Zealand Food Safety Authority estimated costs for monitoring and enforcing the proposal to require bakers to fortify bread that were similar to those of a proposal requiring miller to fortify flour. The New Zealand government costs for administering and enforcing the proposal were similar for fortification of bread and flour.

The costs to governments of monitoring the proposed fortification policy — while outside the brief from FSANZ for the last analysis — have this time been included. The net present value of the draft monitoring program is around $4.5 million over 15 years in both countries.

So, according to Access Economics, the results of implementing the proposal are:

- consumers will face higher prices for bread;
- industry participants incur “substantially higher” upfront and ongoing costs (in Australia, $4m upfront costs and $24.5 ongoing costs; in New Zealand, nearly $1m in upfront costs and $4m in ongoing costs). Remember, these are costs incurred by industry participants.
- Australian and New Zealand governments projected to spend $4.5m over 15 years on an expensive government monitoring programme.

Incidentally, given the spotlight on BERL at the moment, Access Economics didn’t pluck these figures out of the air:

The costs of mandatory fortification quantified here include the costs to government of administering and enforcing the modified fortification proposal, the costs to bakers of fortification and the costs of monitoring the impact of the policy on population health. Other potential costs not estimated here include restriction of consumer choice, potential adverse health effects from excess folic acid intake (health risk-benefit assessment suggested at the concentration proposed, there would be no adverse risks to health), and the introduction of policies complementary to fortification but which are outside the purview of FSANZ (for example, public health advice for pregnant women on the need to supplement their folic acid intake).

Cost estimates were obtained from a sample of bakers in Australia and New Zealand. The sample included large plant bakeries and franchise bakeries in both countries, a wholesale baker in Australia, and an ingredients manufacturer in New Zealand.

Australian jurisdictional government costs were based on indicative estimates from three jurisdictions and New Zealand government cost estimates were provided by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority.

The costs of monitoring were based on estimates provided by FSANZ.

Bringbackthebiff posted an interesting comment yesterday:

bringbackthebiff Says:
July 13th, 2009 at 6:29 pm

I just want to throw something into the discussion, as I have heard nought about flolic acid over here in Oz. One of my mates owns a Bakers Delight store and knows nothing of compulsory Folic Acid addition in bread, nor in flour. He told me they are advised of any recipe or ingredient changes. He had no idea what I was talking about. Is Australia being used as an excuse not to change a decision made by a previous administration? Does my friend have no clue?, I’d like someone to clear this up. It would be greatly appreciated

I think the answer, apparently, is that “Food Standards Australia/New Zealand has mandated that all bread other than organic loaves will be required to include folic acid from September this year“. But, assuming Bringbackthebiff’s mate is genuinely in the dark, what does that say about the process? Shouldn’t those bakers directly affected by this change – let alone the downstream consumers – be properly informed?

There’s a simple solution to this nanny-state madness: buy a breadmaker.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Jack5 (3,019) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
The first statement from the PR, about concern being based on experiments with rats, is untrue. It’s a PR lie, or ignorance. The objection this year comes from a California secondary study of an extremely extensive American study of human beings, See the following link:

http://news.nurse.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009104200003

For for other recent human concerns about folic acid and colorectal cancer see:

http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/Folic-acid-and-colorectal-cancer-Chilean-study-adds-to-concerns

Both these are recent reports. They do not prove that folic acid supplement increases incidence of prostate cancer and perhaps colorectal cancer, but raise concerns that it may do this.

This mass medication of Labour’s Annette King that National up to now still seems bent on forcing on us, may well save a dozen children a year from being born with spina bifida, but at what cost? Don’t the parents group give a damn if the cost is another 100 NZ men dying each year from prostate cancer? (More than 500 NZ men die from this a year now.) It’s not if there’s were no other preventive available. Those pregnant, or hoping-to-be pregnant, or at risk-of-being pregnant can take food supplements at reasonable cost. And the bakers have offered to make special bread for them if there is a demand.

I repeat my suspicion posted on an earlier thread: if the researchers’ concerns were about possibly increased breast cancer, the move to doctor our bread with folic acid would stop dead in its tracks.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Grizz (244) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
I am waiting for the creator of this whole law to defend it, but Annette King is keeping very quiet here. Has she already dug her own grave. Will she try to stand up for her own bill and defend it?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Alan Wilkinson (1,538) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
The unconsidered risks are those of requiring unqualified low-level staff to act as pharmacists and measure and distribute doses of chemical additives accurately and consistently. It won’t happen.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
anonymouse (488) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
IF you are worried about folate being added to bread in NZ,
Then you had better watch out for any pasta or cereal (Flour)products from OZ, (Which is certainly alot of the supermarket brands)
where folate will be added at the flour stage and be present in all these products….. These products will be legal in NZ and as much danger as any folate in bread.

The Bakers are pi$$ed cause they have to add it as an additional incredient, rather than it being in the flour,

Also as an aside bakers in NZ will be forced to use salt that is fortified with Iodine from September.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Richard Hurst (633) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Kate Wilkinsons press release:

“The Government sympathises with the New Zealand Association of Bakers’ frustration over Labour’s legacy of mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid, says Minister for Food Safety Kate Wilkinson.
“Annette King led the charge to have mandatory fortification throughout New Zealand and Australia and ignored widespread public opposition, as well as advice from industry.
“New Zealand is part of a joint standard system with Australia, which is enshrined in both treaty and legislation and we take these responsibilities seriously.
“Once a standard is in place, there is a long process to amend or withdraw it.
“We are currently assessing our options to address this legacy issue and are more than happy to work with the bakers as implementation of the standard nears.”

Yes Kate it will be a long process but I didn’t elect you and the national govt to simply throw up your hands and say ‘too hard’ whenever you strike an obstacle to overcoming another disaster inherited from the previous government. So Kate, John etc- get the relevant ministry officials together, a phone line, email connection, large pot of coffee and dial Canberra. You’ve got some work to do.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Alan Wilkinson (1,538) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Let those who don’t want to eat folate fortified bread do so and those who want it also have a choice.

Label it “His” and “Hers”. Problem solved, $4M annually saved, do-gooders peeved.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
thedavincimode (4,693) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Why is there any discussion about whether this is safe or unsafe?

Isn’t the point mass medication per se, and the individual’s right not to be forced to take somebody else’s medication. Its one thing to be able to save the world by consenting to take folic acid, but something entirely different to be told that I’m actually going to save the world by being FORCED to ingest something I would otherwise choose not to.

I don’t actually give a rat’s folically acidic arse whether a rat that is drowned in the stuff otherwise remains healthy. Just don’t force your shit down my throat.

Thankyou.
PS So do the rats.

cops a hefty applicationIf I was asked to consume folic acid to save the world, then I would consider. But
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
kaya (1,360) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
This really is one of those no brainers. Mass medication via the food chain must never become the norm. NEVER EVER! My partner is pregnant and takes the supplement but that is her choice. Fuck I can’t believe we are even discussing this!!

Good to see Key is stepping in to this debate, it shows a bit of common sense before Wikinson allows it to spin out of control. (If not too late). She has come out of this looking weak and pathetic, flip flopping from Sunday to Monday after obviously being dealt to overnight by the policy krats ensconced in Wellington. One to keep an eye on for a possible early dropkick unless she improves substantially. On the other side of the coin, what a loss Katherine Rich is! Her TV appearances on behalf of the bakers has been excellent.
Realistically this is not a biggy but it has the ability to do a lot of political damage to Key and the Nats. I have been concerned recently about his apparent fear of taking action on anything that moves half a degree from the perceived middle. Nice to see him find his spine again. People want him to take decisive action. Now for the anti smacking referendum…………*goes and finds old scuba tank from garage as doesn’t think will be able to hold breath that long*
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Whafe (642) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
I would think that this topic has the potential to send John Key into the brown steamy stuff….

It gets very tiring hearing these topics rise to the surface from the past clowns running the show, why on earth does it take so long for our now government of which we elected to sort this shit…. Come on John HTFU!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Steve (3,644) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
John Key, get rid of that woman.
She brings the National Party down with the pan faced regulation stance look. Put her on the unemployment benifit.
I thought Socialist bullshit stopped on Nov 9th last year, you are carrying excess baggage John
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
PaulL (5,195) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
thedavincimode – “this is the exception that proves the rule”. Note that prove in this context is the old english meaning of “test” – in the sense of proving a loaf of bread. Not proving in the sense of proof.

Kate is screwing up here in allowing this to be her problem – it isn’t, it is Annette King’s problem.

Here’s a question. In our household, and many others I’m aware of, it’s predominately the men who eat bread. Chicks don’t eat much bread. Why the hell put something targeted at women in bread? Surely there is some other vehicle (chocolate maybe?)
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
francis (711) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
All good but, hey, when you sign an international treaty you don’t get to pick and choose what parts of it you enforce. The treaty needs fixing. That can’t happen unilaterally.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Fletch (4,305) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
There are other products with folic acid that women can take, such as Complan - a powder you mix with warm milk that comes in 4 flavours. Available at supermarkets.

Bread is the “staff of life”, the most basic food that people eat – in no way should it be messed with.
It’s just wrong.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Cerium (17,596) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
More from Skeaff:

” The addition of folic acid to bread will not increase the risk of cancer, the head of the University of Otago’s department of human nutrition, Prof Murray Skeaff, says.

He said last night he had formed the view after attending a conference in Prague two weeks ago where he heard the results of an as-yet unpublished British analysis of the effects of the vitamin.

Prof Skeaff said the Oxford study was the one British health officials wanted to see before making a decision to proceed with fortification. ”

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/65147/folic-acid-has-no-cancer-link-prof
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Repton (769) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Since people were talking about scientific papers, I thought I would have a quick poke around on PubMed, which is the best medical paper database on the internet. I posted some links in the last post on this topic, here: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/07/the_folic_acid_controversy.html#comment-583480

A few quotes from various papers I found in my quick search:

“Among the 643 men who were randomly assigned to placebo or supplementation with folic acid, the estimated probability of being diagnosed with prostate cancer over a 10-year period was 9.7% in the folic acid group and 3.3% in the placebo group”, which is a fairly strong argument against fortification. OTOH, these people were talking folic acid supplements — thus getting a much higher dose than you would get from a few slices of bread a day. I believe that in government fortification programmes such as this, the idea is generally to fortify to a level that ensures the majority of people won’t get too high a dose.

Two more quotes from different papers:

“Prospective cohort and case-control studies suggest an association between low folate intake and increased risk of colo-rectal adenoma and cancer.”

“In adult life folate deficiency has been known for decades to produce a characteristic form of anaemia (”megaloblastic”). More recently degrees of folate inadequacy, not severe enough to produce anaemia, have been found to be associated with high blood levels of the amino acid homocysteine. [...] High blood levels of homocysteine have been linked with the risk of arterial disease, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.”

So, in other words, too little folate in your diet is a health risk also — this is not just about babies with spina-bifida. What’s your preferred risk — colon cancer and dementia, or prostate cancer?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Poliwatch (330) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
OK so a woman has to eat 11 slices of bread a day to gain any benefit from this additive.

It is suggested that this might also cause prostate cancer. Can someone please tell me how many slices of bread I would have to eat to have a chance of getting a measurable increase in my chances of getting prostrate cancer. Surely the bakers will have this number.

I have stayed out of this debate because just like Annette King I am just too confused by it all.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
kaya (1,360) Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Cerium – “He said last night he had formed the view…..”

Therein lies the problem, it is a view. More importantly let’s go back to the basics. Why this medium (bread) that affects so many for the benefit of a few? It’s using a cruise missile to kill a mozzie. Why use a method where there is no possible way to control the dosage? 1? slice, 2?, 12? Never mind the fact that foodstuffs imported from Oz with flour in them (substantial amount) will have folic acid in them. How much of the stuff are you actually going to be ingesting? As a male, even if their is a remote, eensie weensie, infinitesimal chance of my having to piss in a bag for the rest of my life because of it they can fork off.
What is the most scary is that it’s making me want to agree with Sue Kedgley about compulsory food labeling. Oh shit no……….

“the idea is generally to fortify to a level that ensures the majority of people won’t get too high a dose.” WTF????
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
ross (1,454) Says:
July 15th, 2009 at 7:05 am
This issue reminds me of the debate over meningococcal disease and the introduction of the MenB vaccine. The Health Ministry spent $250 million on the vaccine – the most expensive health initiative ever – and told us that it was necessary to prevent untold deaths among young people. The reality was that only a handful of young people died from the disease and your chances of getting the disease have always been slim. And what was the result of this hugely expensive experiment? The Ministry says that the vaccine “might have” saved one life. No mention of the side-effects of the vaccine. Enough said.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Glutaemus Maximus (2,207) Says:
July 15th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Folks, just take your medicine. There will be an Apprentice in the Bakery charged with adding this Acid.

Deep Joy!

Unless this is stopped, we might as well all ask to voluntarily limit our shower pressure, and gift our worldly goods to Kiwirail on our demise.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
toad (3,545) Says:
July 15th, 2009 at 7:36 am
big bruv said: I have not made up my mind on this, can anybody tell me what the Green party policy is on this issue?

The Greens opposed it when Annette King first proposed it (lapdogs to Labour that they are), and still oppose it.

I have to say that my opposition is somewhat stronger than Sue Kedgley’s – mandatory mass medication such as this is imo purely and simply wrong in principle – whatever the health benefits. I’d get the fluoride out of drinking water too, but can’t persuade the Green Party to go there. Democratic policy-making can be annoying sometimes.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
AG (1,575) Says:
July 15th, 2009 at 8:09 am
kaya,
“Cerium – “He said last night he had formed the view…..”
Therein lies the problem, it is a view.”

In the same way as the engineers who maintain Air NZ’s planes only “form a view” that the plane will be able to fly … based on their skills, training, and knowledge of aeronautic science. Yet I’ll bet you (or your loved ones) routinely accept that this “view” is trustworthy, by buying tickets from Air NZ, boarding the plane, and flying to your destination.

So when a professor of Human Nutrition reports on a combined study of 35,000 people taking high levels of folic acid (far higher than you’d get from eating the fortified bread), and says that this study reveals NO LINK AT ALL between folic acid intake and prostate cancer, I think this represents more than “a view” on the safety of the matter.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Repton (769) Says:
July 15th, 2009 at 8:56 am
@Poliwatch: “OK so a woman has to eat 11 slices of bread a day to gain any benefit from this additive.”

As I understand it, this is not strictly accurate. A woman needs to eat 11 slices of bread to gain her folate requirement _from bread alone_. I think that folate is present in other foods (though I don’t know which, or how much).
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Ryan Sproull (5,540) Says:
July 15th, 2009 at 9:11 am
OK so a woman has to eat 11 slices of bread a day to gain any benefit from this additive.

It is suggested that this might also cause prostate cancer. Can someone please tell me how many slices of bread I would have to eat to have a chance of getting a measurable increase in my chances of getting prostrate cancer. Surely the bakers will have this number.

Around 25 slices a day, for months, to match the levels in the study.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
david (2,299) Says:
July 15th, 2009 at 9:17 am
If it is so important for women to take extra folate prior to conception, we should supply vitamin supplements (like Centrum or Complan) to all girls from age 12. A bit like the school milk program. A pill a day keeps … at bay. Comwe to think of it how about providing compulsory contraceptives to all girls from age 12. No babies, no Spina Bifida, no DPB, several problems solved in one hit.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Owen McShane (1,226) Says:
July 15th, 2009 at 9:56 am
If you are not pregnant you will get enough Vitamin B9 from a decent diet including green vegetables, orange juice, nuts and cereals.
If you are about to be pregnant you will probably only be getting 65% of your need and 2 to 3 slices of the folate bread would bring you up to the required level.

Or you could take a pill or eat more broccoli, lettuce, spinach and nuts and orange juice.

Pretty simple really but the MSM have spread this myth that we need to eat eleven slice of folate bread to get the necessary dose.
CRAP.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
moon2810(1) Says:
July 17th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
It is indeed important to have sufficient levels of folate before getting pregnant. So getting pills from your doctor once you are pregnant will not lower the risk of having a baby with a neural tube defect. A birth defect like Spina Bifida occurs within the first 25 days of a pregnancy. At a time when many women don’t know yet that they are being pregnant, even when they are planning a pregnancy. Yet, despite all the information and contraceptives available to all, there is still a substantial number of unplanned pregnancies. And a large number of women who do not take Folic Acid supplements before getting pregnant or make sure they eat healthy, either not knowing about the importance, or perhaps just thinking that because they are healthy, their child will be healthy. The number of abortions in New Zealand has been rising considerably over the years, from about 10,000 in 1988 to about 18,000 in 2008. Prenatal screening can detect NTDs and other conditions, like Down syndrome, and there are statistics available that a majority of parents choose to terminate a pregnancy when they learn their baby will be born with a disability. Not all 18,000 abortions may be prevented with mandatory flour or bread fortification, but it’s clear that this is not about “just” 14 babies. Talk to people who have been in this position, after the initial joy of finding out that they are going to parents, there’s suddenly talk of disabilities and being presented with one very tough choice… It could happen to anyone.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Kiwiblog

More on Folic Acid in bread

Share this:

Related posts:

38 Responses to “More on Folic Acid in bread”

Leave a Reply