In one week's time the federal Government, in collusion with Labor State Health Ministers, will rubber stamp our country's Food Standards agency's, FSANZ, 'suggestion' that all Australian and New Zealand bread be forced to contain a synthetic drug - manufactured Folic Acid.

FSANZ's own data suggests that this MIGHT benefit some 26 Australian women a year who could possibly undergo a pregnancy affected by an NTD (Neural Tube Defect - more commonly seen as Spina Bifida but can also result in brain defects causing fatalities in infancy). FSANZ's data also shows that this is likely to cost bread consumers around $100 million each year after the legislation is enforced (by 2008 if the Minsterial Council agrees when they meet on Oct 25)

As for the other 16 million consumers of bread in Australia it will not give any benefit at all! Quite frankly I'd rather put the extra 2 - 5 cents per loaf this legislation will cost me into health education and medical research and cures for all health disorders than into the bread manufacturers pockets (what could an extra $100 million every year do for our nation's health?)

Tell your local health minister you don't want this compulsory legislation to corrupt the food you eat every day, and do it QUICK! - before it is too late and you get a daily dose of Folic Acid along with your daily dose of Thiamin in your bread (the Thiamin has been there for 15 years to ensure less Alcoholics get Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome - do your own research!)

'drain

Thanks for the info. Another problem with folic acid supplements is that it can be taken up in place of vitamin B12 in people with pernicious anemia causing nerve damage.

I have a personal problem with folate/folic acid it will increase the proliferation of my leukaemic blood cells.

OK email to the Qld health minister coming up.

Good Luck Steve,

don't let them fob you off with the bumph my WA Health Dept spouted when i brought it up with them.

They claim a $125 million dollar a year 'benefit' to the nation from reduced health costs and 'added' lifetime earnings of non-NTD children born following this legislation (resulting from just 21 terminations and 5 live births an average of $5 million a year per child - pure BS!)

The claim that up to 49 pregnancies a year will benefit from this legislation is more 'smoke and mirrors' as such a figure will undoubtedly be in part affected by the current voluntary folate fortifications and supplement takings of educated members of our population and is not as they claim the result of mandatory legislation.

On a slightly diferent matter you might find the following interesting reading?
http://thebraindrain.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!1A8604E1D0140DD1!133.entry

Cheers, and GL with the leukaemia.

Brainy... welcome to OLO.. haven't seen anything from you b4.

(just checked the user list.. you have done a bit)

Anyway.. please join us in many other issues that we are grappling with.

How do they work out the $100,000,000 cost of adding the folate to bread ?
cheers

Thanks for the welcome Bo' (Yesterday was my first day.I do like to contibute where I have an opinion (which I hope is usually based in strong fact ; ) )

The 100 Mill is my calculation but based upon FSANZ's own data supplied on their website in discussing the Folic Acid fortification of bread 'proposal'. It comes from:

Total Australian bread flour production (i.e. non-export) in 2002, 958 000 tonnes and increasing annually (so near as dammit 1 billion kilos post 2002).
Ave weight of a loaf ~ 700g - of which some is water and various other junk, so roughly 500g of breadflour in one loaf.
Therefore close to 2 billion loaves (equivalent*)of bread produced each year.
Est. cost increase of bread due to cost of fortification, monitoring, conversion of plant etc. to producers: 1 - 2 % of the price of a loaf (again - FSANZ and Access Economics's data)
Price of bread to consumer: between $1.80 and $3.80 per loaf, say an ave. ~ $2.50
So cost to consumer equals:

1 - 2 % of $2.50 per loaf x 2 billion loaves per year =

50 - 100 Million Dollars!

Since Access Economics can claim a $5 million 'saving' per year per NTD pregnancy I felt justified in claiming the higher figure as consumer cost. Access Economics produced a report claiming to show a 'Cost Benefit Analysis' of this legislation which made a very slight passing reference to the increase of the bread price to consumers but completely passed it off in their final 'calculations' (as they did their costs in producing the report and the FSANZ's cost of over 4 years preparation for this Standards Amendment for the bread we all eat daily).

* breadflour is also used to make buns, rolls, muffins and the like but in general the purchase cost is higher per kilo of flour for these items than it is for a loaf, so my figure should work out at the low end of the scale as the extra cost to consumers is a percentage figure of the purchase price!

P.S. "Brainy" as a nick night imply some level of superiority on my part to some people, while "Drainy" could similarly falsely imply a certain 'sewer level mentality' (ok so that might not be entirley false! ; ) )

Call me B D ! : ) (rhymes with Speedy)

Just wondering?

Am I the only person in Oz, of the 16 million or so who eat bread every single day of their lives, who is upset that on Wednesday our government will rubber-stamp an amendment to our food standards (that they instigated and have been planning for over 4 years now) that means no-one will be able to buy a loaf that has not been forced to contain around 2 mg (dfe*) of synthetic folic acid?

Folic Acid is a B group vitamin (when found in nature) and is a source of folate which helps cells grow. It is found in many vegetables, fruits, nuts and in the livers of animals. It has almost uniformly been added to our morning cerals (the 'healthier' ones) so that anyone in the US who eats a bowl of Special K gets more than 150% of the recommended daily dose of Folate!)

Synthetic Folic Acid is more 'refined' than the natural sources and means that half the quantity provides a person with as much folate as twice the quantity of the natural form we should all be eating in cheap foods.

I want to have the choice of deciding to buy drugged or non-drugged bread for my toast and sarnie's. Anyone else peeved that Little Johnny and Tony Abbott is taking that choice away from us by stealth?

Has anyone even heard of this plan before now?

Since the publication of randomised trials showing firm evidence of prevention of neural tube defects with periconceptional folic acid, there have been population health promotion programmes to encourage women to take folic acid supplements, and the introduction of voluntary fortification of some foods with folic acid in Australia. In order to evaluate these two strategies, we collected data by self-administered questionnaire from a random sample of recently pregnant women in Western Australia between September 1997 and March 2000. Response to health promotion was measured in three ways: (1) knowledge of the association between periconceptional folate and prevention of spina bifida (the 'correct message'); (2) use of periconceptional vitamin supplements of folic acid daily in the periconceptional period; and (3) daily folate intake from fortified foods in the 6 months before pregnancy. We examined the relationship of maternal demographic and behavioural characteristics with these three measures. Overall, 62.3% of women were aware of the correct message before pregnancy, 28.5% reported taking 200 microg or more of folic acid from supplements daily in the periconceptional period and 56.6% of women obtained 100 microg or more of folic acid from fortified foods. Women who first became aware of the correct message during pregnancy or who were unaware of the correct message before or during pregnancy were more likely than women aware before pregnancy to be younger, having their first pregnancy, be single or in a de facto relationship, have no tertiary education, and be a public patient. .

Women who were unaware of the correct message and did not take folic acid supplements were more likely to have smoked, not to have engaged in exercise, and not to have planned their pregnancy, whereas there was no association with these behavioural characteristics and intake of folate from fortified foods. These results indicate that health promotion strategies have not reached all segments of the target population.

So why not run a health campaign (maybe instead of wasting money on the T3 sale).

Same result but safe bread for me and pernicious anemia sufferers.

BrainDrain,

Yes, more people care than you might think, but there is a limit to the number of fights that can be fought at any one time. I must admit to having been utterly unaware of this proposal, and consequently have no knowledge of its implications beyond those claimed by those promoting it. I note from his previous post Steve Madden is potentially adversly affected. I wonder what effects this might have on the numerous other people with other blood disorders? Mass (unadvised) medication of millions of persons to achieve effective preventive medical intervention in just 26 cases? Would I be correct in guessing that many times 26 persons with pernicious anaemia might be adversely affected?

To be fair to John Howard, and even to Tony Abbott, this is probably driven by interests of which they may have been at best merely dimly aware, interests that may be deliberately cloaking their real agenda. I can only speculate that it is in some way connected with reducing the number of times that medico-ethical issues relevant to actual cases in which termination of pregnancy could legitimately be considered as an option must be confronted. (I could simplify this sentence, but it means exactly what it says.) In whose interest the avoidance of that confrontation may be I leave to the judgement of the reader. People like Steve, and for all I know, myself, are certainly hostage to the decision that looks like it has already been taken.

Do you know whether breadmixes for home bakers ovens are subject to this adulteration? If they are not, changing over to a breadmaker may be an avoidance method for people in Steve's position. Should you do so, could I recommend the Laucke premixes, not just because they are produced by the last remaining Australian-owned flour millers producing these products, but because they are the best. (The poster has no connection with Laucke and has received no remuneration in connection with this endorsement-this announcement appears as a matter of record and because the bread made with their mix is damn good.)

Forrest you make some good points.

I have to admit my opposition is purely driven by self interest, but the criteria is “Health Ministers have agreed that vitamins and minerals can be added to food where there is evidence of potential health benefit, and fortification will not result in harm. “

There is evidence of harm.

It appears to me that the problem is that a certain proportion of women are unaware that they should be taking folate supplements if they are considering pregnancy.

Spina bifida is horrible and it can be removed from our society but how many women who give birth to children with spina bifida have a defect in folate absorbtion?

I can find no studies in peer reviewed journals to suggest anyone has ever looked.

Thanks for the bread tip. I will try it. :)

Thanks Steve and Forrest, after the discussion with Wayne Smith on a nuclear future it is refreshing to see there is still intelligent life on this planet (and forum ; )

Sadly it is not in strong evidence at FSANZ, as evidenced in the response i got from the General Manager, M Fisher.

After reading a 58 page report from Access Economics which purported to show a nett $1.65 billion dollar benefit following the first 15 years of introduction of this bill (does that explain why John and Tony approve?) I had serious issues with the data they were claiming as 'savings', as well as the figures for lives saved and pregnacies terminated and wrote to FSANZ detailing them.

I got a virtually 'generic' reply explaining that i had raised 'broad issues' when in fact i had numerous highly specific, detailed questions - not one of which were addressed - and was given a very brief 'explanation' of double counting in accountancy proceedures to justify the fact that they did not include the cost of some $100 million dollars resulting from the costs manufacturers passed on to end consumers (most of which gets paid to supermarket chains) because it arises from some $1 million annual ongoing cost to actually put the stuff into the bread at the right rate, which was included in their cost benefit analysis, and they can't count the same cost twice! (the $1 mill).

I have been researching this matter (folic acid in bread) in detail since July (when a second round of public comment was called for - anyone ever hear the call??) That was your last 'official' chance to have any say. It ended July 31. (cont.)

THE US has banned Vegemite, even to the point of searching Aussies for jars of the spread as they enter the country.

The bizarre condiment crackdown was prompted because Vegemite has been deemed illegal under US food laws.

The great Aussie icon -- faithfully carried around the world by travellers from Down Under -- contains folate, which under a technicality, the US allows only to be added to breads and cereals.

Australian expatriates in the US said enforcement of the ban had been gradually stepped up and was now ruining lifelong Vegemite on toast breakfast traditions.

Former Geelong man Daniel Fogarty, who now lives in Calgary, said he was stunned when searched for Vegemite while crossing the US border on a trip to Montana recently.

"The border guard searched our car and asked us if we were carrying any Vegemite," Mr Fogarty said.

"I was flabbergasted.

"The official said Vegemite wasn't permitted in the US."

Now this is weird, who makes the money by producing folic acid supplements and why are they producting their market so vigourously?

The only area of health concern with published data I can find is in relation to excess folic acid masking Vitamin B1 deficiency in the elderly. It is unclear how much folate would need to be consumed for this to be a problem. As for pernicious anaemia sufferers adversely affected? I confess i have not seen any data or even guesses. Steve's posts were the first i had any indication this was another reason for concern - I'll see what i can find out.

As for the breadflour you buy - up until the very final report by FSANZ (pre-Sept this year) the 'plan' had been to put folate in all bread flour so you could not make your own folate-free, but magically, after four years, the plan suddenly changed and the new law will state that BREAD, not breadflour, must contain between 80-180 micrograms of folate /100g. Presumably this gives flour manufacturers the 'choice' to add folate to their breadmaking products.

The problem here is: At what stage of the milling/manufacturing process will it be added? If it is at the milling stage for ease and low costs, then the breadflour they add to bread and the stuff you buy in a pack to make your own will either need to be made in two separate processes or it will all have the added folate. Runing two processes will add to costs so be prepared to pay more for your flour/bread either way.

Why?

Because J H and his ministers (and labor state health ministers!) want you to!
(because they are being told doing so will save the health budgets over $125 million each year. This is a LIE!)

Steve is exactly right - the problem is with women not being aware (or not caring) of the potential (one in a thousand) risk to their child that insufficient folate in the diet brings.

Vitamin Research, Sir Patrick Duns Trinity College Laboratory, St James Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.

Periconceptual consumption of folic acid has been shown to decrease the incidence of neural tube defects. The strategy of universal fortification of staple foodstuffs with folic acid presents the possibility of life-long exposure to unmetabolized folic acid. Chief among the risks of exposure to folic acid in the circulation is that of masking the diagnosis of cobalamin deficiency in pernicious anemia and the progression of neurologic disease. Other effects are unknown. For instance, the effect of in vivo chronic exposure of adult and fetal cells to the synthetic form of the vitamin has never been investigated at the population level.

Department of Human Nutrition, University of Otago, Dunedin.

AIM: To identify a folic acid food fortification programme that will maximise the percentage of women of child-bearing age receiving at least 400 microg folic acid/day, the amount shown to reduce the risk of neural tube defect-affected pregnancies, while not putting population groups at risk of excessive intakes. METHODS: 1997 New Zealand National Nutrition Survey data and a computer modelling programme were used to estimate folic acid intakes from simulated fortification scenarios. RESULTS: Breads fortified with folic acid at 150 microg/50 g, white flour at 100 microg/35 g and liquid milk at 200 microg/200 ml, were found to be the best fortification scenarios. Thirty one percent, 21% and 18% of women of child-bearing age received > or = 400 microg folic acid/day from the fortification of bread, white flour and milk respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The most effective scenario for folic acid fortification is bread fortified at 150 microg/50 g. However, it is impossible to fortify food at a level that ensures the majority of women of child-bearing age receive more than 400 microg folic acid/day without exposing some people to excessive amounts of folic acid. The current public health message encouraging women to select folic acid fortified foods and take folic acid supplements, needs to continue.

I have never heard of a Govt. campaign to advise people about folate.

Good research Steve.

I have to correct a previous error - it's a B12 not B1 deficiency and that's also known as.... pernicious anaemia (embarrased grin).

There have been education campaigns aimed at pregnant women, mostly through GP's, in Oz since the early 90's.

The problem is that lack of sufficient folate in our normal diet can result in pregnancy's affected by NTD's that arise within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy - many women do not become aware they are pregnant before the defect has developed so education does little benefit if they (all women who could become pregnant) don't eat a decent diet BEFORE getting pregnant.

This is part of an ever growing problem: we just don't care that what we eat is kiling us in ever growing numbers - 'That's my choice!' - who cares if it costs billions of dollars a year to the healthcare system we all pay for? I wanna Burger with fries and coke - supersize me! - as often as humanly possible and then some.

Our government's answer - education camapigns don't work well enough - we'll just mass medicate and charge you for the priviledge and not give you a say or choice! (because we can't be trusted to make the right one!)

How many people still smoke knowing the danger to their health and cost to our medical systems despite the 'Quit' campaign?

As for vegemite being banned in America because it contravenes the folate supplementation law.

I tried to find the US regulation on cereal, rice and grain product fortification - without success - but i believe it states the levels of supplementary folic acid allowed in certain foods. I don't believe it provides for the discrimination of a product that contains natural FOLATE (not a synthetic acid) from yeast extract in a food spread - I stand to be corrected if someone can show the legislation.

BTW the cost of folic acid being added to all bread in Australia is less than $60,000pa so i think that rules out any conspiracy to increase drug company profits?

For anyone unsure about why i am concerned with our governments plan see the following data from the US scheme introduced in 1996:

"(d) Folic acid may be added, at levels not to exceed 400 micrograms per serving, to breakfast cereals, as defined under Sec. 170.3(n)(4) of this chapter.
Dated: February 28, 1996.
David A. Kessler,
Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
[FR Doc. 96-5012 Filed 2-29-96; 12:04 pm]" Then from...

"USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 18
Folate, Content of Selected Foods per Common Measure, sorted by nutrient content DFE (Micrograms):

Cereals ready-to-eat, GENERAL MILLS, Whole Grain TOTAL 3/4 cup (807)
Rice, white, long-grain, parboiled, enriched, dry 1 cup (797)
Cereals, Malt-o-Meal, plain, prepared with water, without salt 1serving (756)
Cereals ready-to-eat, QUAKER, Honey Nut Heaven 1 cup (735)
Cereals ready-to-eat, QUAKER, CAP'N CRUNCH'S P/BUTTER CRUNCH 3/4 cup (711)
Cereals ready-to-eat, QUAKER, CAP'N CRUNCH 3/4 cup (711)
Cereals ready-to-eat, QUAKER, QUAKER OAT LIFE, plain 3/4 cup (703)
Cereals ready-to-eat, QUAKER, CAP'N CRUNCH with CRUNCHBERRIES 3/4 cup (684)
Cereals ready-to-eat, KELLOGG, KELLOGG'S Complete Wheat Bran Flake 3/4 cup (682)
Cereals ready-to-eat, KELLOGG, KELLOGG'S PRODUCT 1 cup (676)
Cereals ready-to-eat, GENERAL MILLS, FROSTED WHEATIES 3/4 cup (676)
Cereals ready-to-eat, KELLOGG, KELLOGG'S SPECIAL K 1 cup (676)
Cereals ready-to-eat, GENERAL MILLS, TOTAL Raisin Bran 1 cup (673)
Cereals ready-to-eat, KELLOGG, KELLOGG'S ALL-BRAN Original 1/2 cup (659)
Cornmeal, self-rising, enriched, yellow 1 cup (518)
Cornmeal, degermed, enriched, yellow 1 cup (501)
Turkey, all classes, giblets, cooked, simmered, some fat 1 cup (486)
Cereals ready-to-eat, GENERAL MILLS, Wheat CHEX 1 cup (404) "

NOT more than 400 micrograms per serving?

The WHO 'safe' UPPER limit for folate/day from ALL sources is 1000 micrograms (=1mg) - The RDI for Aus was 200 microg. but has very recently been 'upped' to 400!

We have fortified cereals here but you cant trust what is on the label! According to Kelloggs (Aus) they ensure their figures are a MINIMUM to meet gov't 'requirements' and rather than be fined for failing to meet them they add extra, as the above US table proves is common practice world wide.

OK I have just read the 274 page final report from FSANZ.

"In addition to the potential health risks described above, there remains some uncertainty about other potential adverse health effects (e.g. cancer incidence and an increase in multiple births) from increased folic acid."

How does this stack up to the stated criteria: Health Ministers have agreed that vitamins and minerals can be added to food where there is evidence of potential health benefit, and fortification will not result in harm."

Their own report states there may be harm.

OK now I am really on the case.

I said i'd follow up on how many people may be adversely affected by this legislation to add folic acid to all bread.

The most commonly stated adverse effect of taking too much Folic Acid is the masking of Vitamin B12 deficiency (also known as pernicious anemia) in the community.

Steve can probably fill us in on the gorier details but PA is a long term developing illness that can be congenital (both parents must pass on the recessive gene) but may take 30 or more years for symptoms to develop.

It is estimated that one in 50 people over the age of 60 have the Vitamin deficiency due to lack of 'intrinsic factor' in the body, which cannot be solved in PA sufferers by taking pills - it needs injections of vitamin B12 for life.

That means there are significantly more people with an increased risk of health problems because of this legislation than FSANZ are claiming will benefit from it. (26 a year on ave. 14 - 49 on best available estimates. I find these estimates incredibly dubious and the 'proofs' proponents claim ignore data that shows decreasing levels of NTD's in communities where this legislation was introduced long before the legislation was mandatory)

I urge all Aussies to do their own research and look beyond the simplistic 'proof' being offered as evidence that we need our bread adulterated for all time, as we have already had for 15 years with thiamin and soon will face with iodine also.

Coming soon to a supermarket/bakery near you - Bread - The Wonder Pill !

Oh yes one other detail... The 'Upper Limit' for daily 'safe' consumption of 1000 mcg/day Folic Acid has been defined so as to be safe for "Almost All individuals in a society" I believe they define 'almost all' as a minimum of 98% of a population. Hence as much as 2% of any population could expect an adverse result from consuming LESS than any UL (1000 mcgs/day for Folic Acid) by standard experimental sampling techniques.

BrainDrain,

Have you considered this pushing of folate may be a stalking-horse for the recent attempts to regulate the vitamin and health food industry? I have done no research in this area, but I think I am starting to see connections with what I think may be the interests I suspect of being behind the scenes. Could the idea be to very publicly prove how deadly dangerous such vitamins and other dietary supplements THAT ARE TAKEN KNOWINGLY may be? To prove it by the unobtrusive but very deliberate mandatory addition of a substance known with certainty in medical circles, but less so amongst the public, to pose a health threat to a known significant part of the population?

During the recent fracas over the ratification of the NAFTA, the US negotiators (and I think the US pharmaceutical interests) were highly critical of the Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme. This was and is a matter of domestic Australian political concern, and that alone. The PBS was emplaced after provision for it, and a raft of other Commonwealth government social service programs, by means of a Constitution alteration referendum held in 1946 followed by appropriate legislation over the years since.

At no stage did I hear a single peep from either side of our political fence highlighting to the US negotiators that this scheme existed by courtesy of a specific Constitutional provision, and that it was consequently off-limits to the discussion. It worries me that if our politicians did not see and shout out about assaults by a foreign country on our Constitution, then they may be missing what this folate administration may all really be about.

Forrest, when i first began researching the government plan to corrupt further our bread i had the inklings of a conspiracy of powerful unseen groups within a world society.

Nothing like a little healthy paranoia huh? - Hey, I'm not paranoid because they really are out to get me.

Hard proof for a secret agenda can only be gathered if the conspirators make errors. Circumstantial proof is hard to trust unless the quantity and quality is overwhelming.

My focus has been to raise awareness of our government's plan to corrupt our bread with yet another compulsory vitamin supplement, while challenging the highly dubious conclusions and reports they quote to support their rationale. (accurate data is developed but the conclusions derived are often inaccurate.) No media has been interested to date.

For anyone who wishes to persue a conspiracy theory:

There has been a decades long plan to supplement wheat worldwide with added iron, folate and other B vitamins. The number of companies and government agencies involved is staggering as are the quantities of money involved.
The US led the way in modifying bread as a vehicle to medicate the public with thiamin (to prevent Beri Beri! We followed suit in 1991 - only as we had no beri beri we claimed it was to reduce an extremely rare condition of alcoholics - wernicke-korsakoff syndrome.) I said previously the wholesale cost of Folic Acid needed to medicate ALL of Australia at the 'recommended' level is only 60 grand p.a. but add the cost of thiamin and iodine and the thin end becomes a rapidly thickening 'wedge'. Then add the US costs and the 50 other country's that copied them and then add countries in Europe like the UK and Rep of Ireland who are considering similar legislation right now and the money trail becomes very long indeed.'

What other countries do does not overly concern me. That the Australian government under both liberal and labor can do this without asking us first appals me.

...and on a final note: The possibility that individuals outside of Australia can instigate successful attacks on our diet and constitution without major public concern being raised and with willing or unconscious collusion of our government leaders just shows what a pathetic excuse of a democracy we currently live in.

Not that a better example could be found today - at least not one i am aware of. That in no way denies the fact that we need a better one.

Suggestions?

Maybe our democracy is not quite as pathetic as i postulated?

The Ministerial Council who were to make a final decision on the mandatory fortification of bread with synthetic folic acid on Oct25 have actually had a temporary change of heart and requested FSANZ look again at 'their' 'Final' proposal (as designed by the Ministers and their lobby masters) because of 'technical issues' and 'concerns'.

They still remain 'committed' to mandatory fortification of course, but 'just want to be sure'? (read: test the waters of public opinion now that their plot is being revealed for what it is - Bunkum!) Apparently four years of intensive investigation and two rounds of 'public' submissions were not quite enough to convince these 'committed' folic acid supporters of the righteousness of their cause.

The war ain't over folks but the good guys have had a minor victory. Let's make sure it is not a temporary one and let the Ministers know you can see the truth - that supplementing the daily bread of 16 million Aussies with a synthetic pill that they claim could help prevent 5 people a year (on their best figures) from being born with an NTD (but will ensure 160 000+ receive more than the daily UPPER limit for Folic Acid consumption at a cost to consumers of around $100 million a year and rising) IS NOT ON!

"Thank you for your email dated 18th October 2006 to the Honourable Stephen Robertson MP.

The Minister has requested that I seek advice in relation to this matter and inform you that a detailed response will be provided in the near future.

Once again, thank you for your letter and please be assured you will receive a full reply as soon as possible."

Lets see what his response will be.

Steve,

Well done for taking action. I am pretty sure i can tell you the initial response from your rep. Don't take bs for an answer!

It will be in line with Tony Abbott's mantra that 'overseas data shows mandatory fortification to be an effective way of significantly reducing NTD's' (Cough - !bullsh1t! - cough)

Hopefully they will not try to use the same line my state Health Minister quoted that this proposal will provide a 124.5 million dollar per year benefit (pure crap) while at the same time there is no evidence (yet reported or perhaps even investigated) world wide of any health concern resulting in countries where similar legislation was enacted.

The Ministerial policy guidelines for FSANZ's proposals for food supplementation make interesting reading and can be found here: http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/standardsdevelopment/ministerialcouncilpo1603.cfm

Waaaayyyyy down at the very bottom of page in a .pdf
I have copied tonnes of other useful data, if you want a squizz - let me know.

Oh and one other point.

It seems to have passed virtually unnoticed or commented upon that this year FSANZ modified the long-standing criteria for 'recommended daily intake' of Folic Acid/folate by 100% from 200 micrograms per day to 400!

You can prove this for yourself by watching cereal packets.

Curently (under previous legislation requirements) most advertise 100 micrograms of added folate as being 50% of the RDI.

My bet is they will soon start to say either '200 mcg' or '25% of RDI'.

The other thing to be careful of is the alteration of mcg of folate to mcg DFE (dietary folate equivalent)

Folic Acid is not found naturally in food - folate is.

200 mcg of folate = 200 mcg of DFE

HOWEVER 200mcg of FOLIC ACID = 320mcg of DFE !! This is because Folic Acid as synthesised is twice as absorbable by the body as regular folate (167% as much when taken with/in food)

So if 2 slices of fortified (with folic acid - not folate) bread contains up to 180 mcgs of folic acid this equates to 300mcg of DFE (75% of the RDI and 30 % of the daily Upper Limit for folate) so 7 slices a day by themselves can put an adult over the daily UL even if they eat nothing else containing folate or folic acid!

That's two slices of toast for breakfast and two sandwiches for lunch plus one other slice. If you dare to put vegemite on any you are seriously overindulging!

How come no-one else challenged the RDI increase?

btw... in the US, one bowl of Special K contains more than 150% of our NEW RDI levels! Can we expect such careful 'monitoring' here?

Sufficient folate in your diet IS important.

If you are not getting enough then change what you choose to eat to get more naturally, it will benefit you in many ways - don't allow the government to modify all bread instead. (again)

BrainDrain,

I know it was paranoid to impute an anti-health food industry motive to this sort of covert mass medication. On reflection, it really is too indirect an approach. Hard to believe, really.

The thought has subsequently crossed my mind: Could it be that the adverse effects of excess folate are well and truly known with respect to those suffering such conditions as pernicious anaemia, and that the administration of such additives is a public health budgetary tool targetted on such sufferers? The idea perhaps being, in a purely statistical sense of course, to shorten the duration of the treatment phase of the condition, and thus reduce the financial impact upon health care provision. Help people on their way, as it were. Much more direct.

I don't suppose there might exist any incriminating studies relating to such possible impact, might there?

Forrest,

You can never be too paranoid in my opinion. it is important to check your facts however to make sure you are not just being delusional or conned by the experts in conning. ( and there are MANY out there).

Consider this: FSANZ state by their own research, adding this much folic acid to bread will likely put 1% of consumers (around 16 million of us eat bread daily) over the internationally approved Upper Limit of FA consumption (1000 mcgs of DFE). The UL is defined as that which is safe for at least 98% of the population ( and they incorporate a significant safety 'factor' in the UL ) This means however that for the remaining up to 2% the UL could be UNsafe!

So by medicating us with FA 160,000 AAussies are likely to take over the UL for FA of which up to 2% will statistically be 'unsafe'.

That 2% equates to over three thousand of us!

Now take the FSANZ's estimates of benefits for Australia and it equates to 5 live births a year, 3 still births and 19 pregnancy terminations a year not affected by an NTD ( and quite frankly i challenge their WALD model for accuracy of those figures based upon the research i have read!) A total of 26 Aussies affected ( directly)

Now you tell me: 3000 potential adverse effects of adding folic Acid to bread vs 26 positive effects potentially?

Which makes better sense to you? Modify or not to modify?