folic acid and breads

mvl

Just seeing this article mentioning new zealand/australia mandating adding folic acid to bread.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10447345


Looking a bit more - appears CA/US are also mandating it.
Have there been any talks about this around here ?
What would people think if this would be the case ?

- I would be concerned ...

Bredabe

mvl wrote: »

Just seeing this article mentioning new zealand/australia mandating adding folic acid to bread.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10447345


Looking a bit more - appears CA/US are also mandating it.
Have there been any talks about this around here ?
What would people think if this would be the case ?

- I would be concerned ...

I can see why it's not ideal(no one in this carb phobic age eats 11 slices of bread) assuming the buy the fortified stuff at all. But I don't see your concern.

mvl

Bredabe wrote: »

I can see why it's not ideal(no one in this carb phobic age eats 11 slices of bread) assuming the buy the fortified stuff at all. But I don't see your concern.

There are people who don’t metabolize folic acid well due to genetics.
While I assume individuals that are aware of the condition would not take acid folic but an alternative, the genetic testing or knowledge may not be accessible to all. Something like this can't fit all needs.
And then, I also prefer to be in control of what/when pharma products go into my food...

Mrs OBumble

mvl wrote: »

And then, I also prefer to be in control of what/when pharma products go into my food...

... and your babies with preventable birth defects?

mvl

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

... and your babies with preventable birth defects?

i think for people who have that genetic condition, the folic acid could be replaced with methylfolate. issue is that too many ppl might not know if they have this condition - as the genetic tests are not accessible.

s7ryf3925pivug

It's not a pharmaceutical, it's a micronutrient. Very different.

s7ryf3925pivug

There have been serious discussions about adding lithium to tap water. The aim would be to reduce suicide rates and/or dementia. I don't think it has ever been done, though it can be present in trace amounts anyway.

alaimacerc

Kairi Ripe Wallet wrote: »

There have been serious discussions about adding lithium to tap water. The aim would be to reduce suicide rates and/or dementia. I don't think it has ever been done, though it can be present in trace amounts anyway.

There's been studies of the effects of different naturally occurring rates of lithium in drinking water. That's some way of short of actual proposals to add it deliberately as a public health measure.

s7ryf3925pivug

alaimacerc wrote: »

There's been studies of the effects of different naturally occurring rates of lithium in drinking water. That's some way of short of actual proposals to add it deliberately as a public health measure.

Yes but there have also been discussions about putting it in the water as a public health measure.

Should we put lithium in the water?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/shortcuts/2011/dec/05/should-we-put-lithium-in-water?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

alaimacerc

Kairi Ripe Wallet wrote: »

Yes but there have also been discussions about putting it in the water as a public health measure.

Should we put lithium in the water?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/shortcuts/2011/dec/05/should-we-put-lithium-in-water?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Fair enough. One shrink at a public meeting is, to say the very least, at the very low end of the "there have been discussions" spectrum, however.

mvl

what i mean is pharmaceutical products, like in ... medicines or drugs. and folic acid as in a synthetic folate.

at least it was discussed in past

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?con=76


A National Committee on Folic Acid Fortification was set up by the Department of Health and Children in 2005 to examine possible options for the fortification of more foods with folic acid. As a result of a public consultation on the issue, the Committee has recommended mandatory fortification with folic acid of most white, brown and wholemeal breads on sale in Ireland and this is now expected to be implemented. This measure is hoped to reduce the nation’s high incidence of neural tube defects.

anyway - the story about lithium is even worse ...

Bredabe

mvl wrote: »

There are people who don’t metabolize folic acid well due to genetics.
While I assume individuals that are aware of the condition would not take acid folic but an alternative, the genetic testing or knowledge may not be accessible to all. Something like this can't fit all needs.
And then, I also prefer to be in control of what/when pharma products go into my food...

I assume that is why they are not mandating it being added to all bread? Tho from my reading on the matter, a high % here is because of improper storage of fruit/veg.

s7ryf3925pivug

alaimacerc wrote: »

Fair enough. One shrink at a public meeting is, to say the very least, at the very low end of the "there have been discussions" spectrum, however.

Indeed, but that is not the case. The one I referenced was in an elected office, and was just the first example I found. Here is another example:

https://bigthink.com/dangerous-ideas/1-drug-our-drinking-water

I'm all for skepticism and critical thinking but you could just google this stuff for yourself

s7ryf3925pivug

mvl wrote: »

what i mean is pharmaceutical products, like in ... medicines or drugs. and folic acid as in a synthetic folate.

at least it was discussed in past

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?con=76


A National Committee on Folic Acid Fortification was set up by the Department of Health and Children in 2005 to examine possible options for the fortification of more foods with folic acid. As a result of a public consultation on the issue, the Committee has recommended mandatory fortification with folic acid of most white, brown and wholemeal breads on sale in Ireland and this is now expected to be implemented. This measure is hoped to reduce the nation’s high incidence of neural tube defects.

anyway - the story about lithium is even worse ...

Synthetic nutrients are still nutrients and not medicines.

alaimacerc

Kairi Ripe Wallet wrote: »

Indeed, but that is not the case. The one I referenced was in an elected office [...]

... "was" being the operative tense, as in, "was more than two decades ago". And "by accident", at that.

and was just the first example I found. Here is another example:

https://bigthink.com/dangerous-ideas/1-drug-our-drinking-water

Great, a bit of controversialism on some random website that sets the idea up just to knock it down.

I'm all for skepticism and critical thinking but you could just google this stuff for yourself

I did, I found "studies". Your "discussions" are just randomers sounding off about those very same studies. Given the vagueness -- and as it transpires, frankly, inaccuracy -- of your statement, I felt that was sufficient investment of my LMGTFY skilz for the time being.

If someone states "there were discussion to do X", I think the reasonable presumption is that implies a) actual discussions, as in not just straws in the wind, and b) that they're happening among people with the competent to do X.

Otherwise I could go around saying there have been discussions about Famke Janssen and myself being an item.

alaimacerc

mvl wrote: »

anyway - the story about lithium is even worse ...

Well, it might be, if there were government departments looking into actually adding lithium. As against, scientists studying the effects of natural variation, and pretty much in the same breath saying "there's no way anyone would on this basis even consider adding it artificially".

alaimacerc

Kairi Ripe Wallet wrote: »

Synthetic nutrients are still nutrients and not medicines.

The significant of this repeated point being?

If you were living on an unrelieved diet of polar bear liver, "vitamin D is a nutrient, not a medicine!" wouldn't be a great argument for taking it as a dietary supplement.

s7ryf3925pivug

alaimacerc wrote: »

... "was" being the operative tense, as in, "was more than two decades ago". And "by accident", at that.


Great, a bit of controversialism on some random website that sets the idea up just to knock it down.



I did, I found "studies". Your "discussions" are just randomers sounding off about those very same studies. Given the vagueness -- and as it transpires, frankly, inaccuracy -- of your statement, I felt that was sufficient investment of my LMGTFY skilz for the time being.

If someone states "there were discussion to do X", I think the reasonable presumption is that implies a) actual discussions, as in not just straws in the wind, and b) that they're happening among people with the competent to do X.

Otherwise I could go around saying there have been discussions about Famke Janssen and myself being an item.

I said there were serious discussions about it and there have been. What you choose to exprapolate from that is up to you. Nothing inaccurate in what I said.

More discussions about the idea:

https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/qvjae7/youve-probably-drunk-lithium-without-knowing-it

s7ryf3925pivug

alaimacerc wrote: »

The significant of this repeated point being?

If you were living on an unrelieved diet of polar bear liver, "vitamin D is a nutrient, not a medicine!" wouldn't be a great argument for taking it as a dietary supplement.

More stupid irrelevant analogies.

The point is that adding it is just putting an ingredrient into a food. It's not mass medication because it's not a medicine.

alaimacerc

Kairi Ripe Wallet wrote: »

More stupid irrelevant analogies.

The point is that adding it is just putting an ingredrient into a food. It's not mass medication because it's not a medicine.

More mindless abuse rather than responding to a perfectly cogent and and to-the-point comparison.

Your "medicine vs nutrient" dichotomy fails to correctly analyse the cost::benefit of the one vs the other. "Oh, you weren't overmedicated -- you were toxically overnourished!" would be a comfort only to prescriptive grammarians, not to those potentially affected.

mvl

Not getting into the debate about what pharmaceutical means.

Point I was trying to make is that you cannot mandate folic acid to general population in bread/flour unless you're certain folic acid is good for everyone.

And it appears its not, but in same time, the required genetic tests (including in this country) to get this confirmed are not as accessible.
Hence my reason to be concerned.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250974/

Dr. Greenberg: Is l-methlyfolate a better option than folic acid for prenatal care?
Ms. Bell: It may be. Taking the bioavailable form of any nutrient guarantees that adequate amounts are being provided. About 40% to 60% of the population has genetic polymorphisms that impair the conversion of supplemental folic acid to its active form, l-methylfolate...

s7ryf3925pivug

alaimacerc wrote: »

More mindless abuse rather than responding to a perfectly cogent and and to-the-point comparison.

Your "medicine vs nutrient" dichotomy fails to correctly analyse the cost::benefit of the one vs the other. "Oh, you weren't overmedicated -- you were toxically overnourished!" would be a comfort only to prescriptive grammarians, not to those potentially affected.

Because you imagine something doesn't mean it is possible or relevant. You can safely take a great number of times the rda of folic acid. Therefore you are not going to reach toxic levels of it if they fortify bread with it. You can reach toxic levels of vitamin a relatively easily, and you would by eating polar bear livers, but as I say, that's totally irrelevant.

alaimacerc

Kairi Ripe Wallet wrote: »

I said there were serious discussions about it and there have been. What you choose to exprapolate from that is up to you. Nothing inaccurate in what I said.

Are we now splitting hairs between "inaccurate" and "uselessly imprecise and wildly misleading"?

More discussions about the idea:

https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/qvjae7/youve-probably-drunk-lithium-without-knowing-it

Same as previous link, low-grade clickbait that immediately knocks down its own straw man. You'd have been better advised to try back-peddling from "discussions" to "frivolous discussions", rather than upping the ante to "serious". Who in the public policy arena is "discussing " actually doing this? Shall we say no-one, +/-3%?

s7ryf3925pivug

alaimacerc wrote: »

Are we now splitting hairs between "inaccurate" and "uselessly imprecise and wildly misleading"?



Same as previous link, low-grade clickbait that immediately knocks down its own straw man. You'd have been better advised to try back-peddling from "discussions" to "frivolous discussions", rather than upping the ante to "serious". Who in the public policy arena is "discussing " actually doing this? Shall we say no-one, +/-3%?

It's not clickbait they refer to ny times editorial and interview with head of psych at john hopkins. The first link was a psych and td putting forward the idea seriously in ireland. If you actually read the papers about it they discuss potential in them too.

No idea where you're getting 'mindless abuse' from. I've supported every assertion I've made. You've made nonsense comparisons, dismissed things without reading them and argued against things you imagined instead of what was said.

alaimacerc

Kairi Ripe Wallet wrote: »

Because you imagine something doesn't mean it is possible or relevant.

No, it's relevant and possible because it's relevant and possible. No imagination on anyone's part required.

You can safely take a great number of times the rda of folic acid. Therefore you are not going to reach toxic levels of it if they fortify bread with it. You can reach toxic levels of vitamin a relatively easily, and you would by eating polar bear livers, but as I say, that's totally irrelevant.

It's entirely relevant to your broad-spectrum "it's a nutrient" -- insinuating, quite incorrectly, as it does "... and therefore completely fine to supplement, regardless of the specifics". And if it's not seeking to insinuate that, as you're doubtless about to tell us, what relevance does it have?

So, to return to the actual specific case, rather than the pointless over-generalisations: it's entirely possible, and on the basis of the studies I'm aware of, likely, that it'd be a net benefit. But given the country's propensity for anti-government conspiracy theories, and horrendous litigation if there's any sniff of a health slip-up, you can see why officialdom is erring on the side of dragging its feet, waiting for the evidence to mount up to be still-more-robust, and ending up being a late-adopter.

Mind you, I do wonder if, demographically speaking, bread is the most effective delivery method. In order to get an effective dose into the fashionably gluten intolerant, what sort of amounts might we end up putting into them'uns that're tucking away a loaf-and-a-half a day.

alaimacerc

Kairi Ripe Wallet wrote: »

It's not clickbait they refer to ny times editorial and interview with head of psych at john hopkins. The first link was a psych and td putting forward the idea seriously in ireland. If you actually read the papers about it they discuss potential in them too.

If you actually read my posts, you'll note he stopped being a TD over twenty years ago. Are you suggesting that every pronouncement from him is to be regarded as "serious discussion" of public policy, as some sort of lifetime appointment? And one-man "discussion" at that, surely a some sort of first.

Your other links are standard exercises in "how do we get a controversial-sounding web article out of this rather dry piece of research?" i.e., propose something that no-one else -- least of all the people making the study that provides the excuse for the article -- did, stick a question mark on the end of it, and then conclude the article with "... well actually, answer to the question only we were asking is 'no'".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines


Or in brief, clickbait.

No idea where you're getting 'mindless abuse' from.

Perhaps "More stupid irrelevant analogies" counts as "top bants" down your local. You'll find my characterisation is the more objectively accurate.

I've supported every assertion I've made. You've made nonsense comparisons, dismissed things without reading them and argued against things you imagined instead of what was said.

You've certainly just tried to summarise the discussion in a manner favourable to yourself. Not so much favourable to the actual facts, mind.

Why any of this even purports to be pertinent to the folic acid issue is a head-scratcher in itself. At best, it seems to be some sort of whataboutish, relativising, golden-mean construction. I'm agog to be enlightened otherwise, of course.

Capt'n Midnight

In recent years the amount of food fortified with folic acid has dropped and birth defects have gone up.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/birth-defects-up-after-fall-in-folic-acid-fortified-food-397592.html

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland found the number and type of foods fortified with folic acid, as well as the amount added, had fluctuated in recent years.

The FSAI also found the incident rate of neural tube defects (NTDs), such as spina bifida and anencephaly, rose from 0.92 per 1,000 births in 2009 to 1.17 per 1,000 in 2011.