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?