SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the good-for-baby-brain-development dept.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will allow the voluntary fortification of corn masa flour with folic acid, which could reduce the occurrence of neural tube birth defects:
Foods made with corn masa flour — like tortillas, tacos and tamales — could soon play a critical role in the health of babies born to Latina mothers in the U.S. That's because, as of today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is now allowing manufacturers to fortify their corn masa foods with folic acid. That's a synthetic form of folate, a B vitamin that helps prevent severe defects of the brain and spinal cord when consumed by women early in pregnancy. "I think it will be really monumental for the Latino population," says Michael Dunn, a Brigham Young University food scientist.
Since 1988, the FDA has required that breads, pasta, breakfast cereals and other grains made with enriched flour be fortified with folic acid. In the years since, the number of babies born in the U.S. with neural tube defects has dropped by roughly 35 percent — or about 1,300 babies a year. But these birth defects remain "stubbornly higher" in the Hispanic community, says Dr. Edward McCabe, the chief medical officer at the March of Dimes. Researchers have suspected that the reason why might lie in tortillas and other foods made with corn masa flour – a dietary staple for many Hispanic families.
That's because until now, the FDA had banned fortification of products made with corn masa flour. The agency was concerned that the folic acid might not remain stable. Dunn led a study that helped change the FDA's mind. His research involved lengthy testing in the lab – as well as tests at a local facility making corn masa flour in Utah. He and his team found that the heat and production process doesn't significantly change the quantity of folic acid in a fortified product through its shelf life.
The FDA now says that manufacturers may voluntarily add up to 0.7 milligrams of folic acid per pound of corn masa.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 16 2016, @05:41PM
Yes, I don't know how anyone takes nutrition research seriously at all anymore. It is clearly just a series of fads, not science. Stop adding junk to the food supply.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday April 16 2016, @05:58PM
I know, right? Bring back anaemia!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 16 2016, @06:36PM
Thinking that ending folic acid fortification will "bring back anaemia" is just your religious belief. It isn't even specified well enough to be testable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 16 2016, @07:17PM
Apparently it is your religious belief that it was his religious belief.
That you couldn't recognize he was talking about iron fortification is pretty revealing of your ability to understand the topic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 16 2016, @08:15PM
It is possible, but I'm not sure why you would assume that since this discussion about about folic acid...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folate_deficiency [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday April 16 2016, @08:58PM
"Anaemia" doesn't imply iron.
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Anaemia-vitamin-B12-and-folate-deficiency/Pages/Diagnosis.aspx [www.nhs.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 16 2016, @10:25PM
When it is written without "folate deficiency" it does indeed imply iron.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday April 17 2016, @05:15AM
No, When it's written
"iron deficiency anaemia" [wikipedia.org] it implies that a deficiency in iron is known to be the cause.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Saturday April 16 2016, @07:21PM
There might be benefits. But there may also be health concerns as this vitamin is artificial and the process to get that right may be questioned. Especially in the times of "donations", cronies and slimmed organizations.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday April 16 2016, @08:26PM
citation?
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Saturday April 16 2016, @10:00PM
Benefits: "Periconceptional vitamin use, dietary folate, and the occurrence of neural tube defects" [doi.org]
Health concerns: "Folic acid fortification: the good, the bad, and the puzzle of vitamin B-12" [ajcn.org]
Synthetic bad: "The extremely slow and variable activity of dihydrofolate reductase in human liver and its implications for high folic acid intake" [doi.org]
And that taking some shortcuts in regards to quality and safety is standard practice all too often should be a quite well known fact.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Saturday April 16 2016, @07:24PM
There has been talks in some countries to add fluorine to the water supply. Which is a really bad idea due to documented bad health effects. Brush teeth = good, drink = bad. In some places fluorine is naturally included, which is how the substance and its effects was discovered.
The road to sickness is paved with addition of all kinds of good additives for your own good.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday April 16 2016, @08:28PM
any supporting citation?
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Saturday April 16 2016, @10:04PM
"Acute Fluoride Poisoning from a Public Water System" [doi.org]
So yes, it is a real danger. Put it in the toothpaste, not drinking water.
(Score: 2) by schad on Sunday April 17 2016, @01:28AM
Your link is a red herring. It describes a water system that had an incorrect (too high) level of fluoride, but you're arguing that the normal level of fluoride has risks. You haven't presented any evidence to support your argument.
A great many things, including things we need in order to live, are toxic in high enough concentrations. That in no way implies that they can't have health benefits at low levels. Nor does it imply that there can't be benefits to higher, though still sub-toxic, concentrations than would normally occur in nature.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Sunday April 17 2016, @02:24AM
I can probably find articles that proves that sub-acute levels of fluorine in the drinking water is a bad idea if I were willing to invest that time. Point is, fluorine is a poison that the body don't need. So it should not be forcefully ingested. I know A and E vitamin have optimal dosages, but they are also essentials. Unlike fluorine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @07:37AM
Likewise, I could probably prove you're wrong about that if I wanted to. So therefore I'm right.
(Score: 2) by schad on Sunday April 17 2016, @06:05PM
I don't think you can, because those articles don't exist. I'm certain you can find article which claim that fluoridation is dangerous. But you won't find any high-quality, peer-reviewed, reproducible-and-reproduced studies. Well, you will, but they will all say that fluoridation is safe.
Because accidents happen sometimes, people get this idea that fluoridation must be hazardous and that there's a big cover-up. Fluoride is used for mind-control, or to make us docile, or sterile, or stupid. Or maybe it's just that scientists are in thrall to the dentists' lobby, who somehow makes a ton of money from fluoridated water. But despite the best efforts of people on the anti-fluoridation side to prove that it's dangerous, none of them have been able to do so.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday May 13 2016, @09:02PM
The authors of one meta-analysis wrote that "the results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/?report=classic [nih.gov]
I found pro- and anti-fluoridation sites that discuss it:
http://ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/dangers-of-fluoride/fluoride-iqs/ [ilikemyteeth.org]
http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/ [fluoridealert.org]
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Saturday April 16 2016, @09:46PM
What "effects"?
Please supply sources/peer-reviewed studies/actual evidence.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @02:49AM
There is evidence that long-term fluoridation of the water supply is correlated with hip fractures in the elderly.
Fluoride was also given as a treatment for osteoporosis, because early results showed it increased bone density. It is no longer used, because while it increased density it did not increase bone strength.
http://www.fluoridation.com/lee-jr.htm [fluoridation.com]
https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/fluoridation-hip-fractures.pdf [wordpress.com] [pdf]
Also it is really hard to get any decent information on fluoride. It has become so politicised, and there are so many crackpots, that anything reasonable is shouted down by both sides.