TVNZ has an extended interview with Peter Gluckman – Key’s new science adviser – about the folic acid debate. Gluckman makes a strong case in favor of supplementing bread and laments the level of ignorance and stupidity displayed over the issue. Dr Gluckman must be less than thrilled to see that the Prime Minister values Sue Kedgley’s opinion on scientific matters over his own.
It’s inevitable that as soon as the Green Party gets involved in a scientific debate the level of hysteria will quickly drown out any rational discussion, and it’s unfortunate that National’s Food Safety Minister turned out to be yet another ineffective lightweight. Labour could have made a case in favor of folic acid (King has been invisible on the issue) but didn’t want to because they’re trying to shake their nanny state label – a very astute move politically but not very good for the country.
I suspect we’ll switch to folated bread in a few years when Australia’s rate of neural defect births plummets and ours doesn’t – hopefully the government will have a half-competent Minister handling the Food Safety portfolio when the debate swings around again.
I’m conflicted on this one.
I’m all in favour of iodised salt, or fluride in the water and vaccinations etc because of the major benefits to virtually anyone, but vitamin B9 for just a dozen or so babies each year?
Yep, its a tragedy for those babies, but the principle of Govt intervention and regulation for such a tiny number seems way out of proportion, and leads the way to more such regulation for little gain to the vast majority.. especially when mothers can fix the problem themselves with supplements for the short period before gestation.
JC
Comment by JC — July 20, 2009 @ 9:04 am
Huh, I was about to ask someone online what the PM’s Chief Science Advisor had recommended given his expertise. Thanks for the tip.
Incredibly, incredibly depressing that our PM who is so keen to make us productive and high-value prefers to manage by PR of course, but thanks.
Comment by Gareth W — July 20, 2009 @ 9:23 am
Iodised salt isn’t compulsory, fluoride is depending on where you live, vaccinations aren’t compulsory. This stuff in bread is all bread buyers paying extra to be folate-d for the benefit of a few, who can get folate other ways if they want to (course it helps if they know about it, which if nothing else this little episode has probably helped with).
Comment by StephenR — July 20, 2009 @ 9:30 am
When do foetuses need the boost of B9?
Can midwives not jab the mum w a shot of it?
Can condoms be lubed w it?
Can tampons be impregnated w it?
Can it be placed in casks of cheap wine or bottles of bubbles?
Can the Johnkey not distribute it over the populace w his sprinkly anti-resession wand as he flies above it all surveying his Great Wall of bicycles?
Comment by ConorJoe — July 20, 2009 @ 9:56 am
…hopefully the government will have a half-competent Minister handling the Food Safety portfolio when the debate swings around again.
Every time I’ve seen Wilkinson on the news talking about this, she tells us it was a commitment by the previous govt as though that were some kind of relevant argument for not doing it. The phrase “bag of hammers” came to mind, and yet again we’re left to ponder the talent drought National seems to be enduring.
Comment by Psycho Milt — July 20, 2009 @ 10:02 am
Gareth, the folate thing is simply a political distraction that can be happily argued about in good times when there’s nothing more important to do. It, like some other issues, is slow wanking with one finger.
JC
Comment by JC — July 20, 2009 @ 10:02 am
I’m not sure if it’s more depressing that they feel “there’s nothing more important to do” or that they are happy to ignore their own Chief Science Advisor and the lives/heath of babies to play political wankery with.
Either way… *sigh*
Comment by Gareth W — July 20, 2009 @ 10:09 am
“slow wanking with one finger” – do you have to be very, ahem, small, to be able to do that…?
Comment by Sam — July 20, 2009 @ 10:10 am
“Can condoms be lubed w it?” – Uh, condom users are the ones who generally don’t get pregnant…
Comment by Sam — July 20, 2009 @ 10:11 am
“do you have to be very, ahem, small, to be able to do that…?”
In my case its like stroking an oak tree with a straw.. but thats probably a contestable statement.
JC
Comment by JC — July 20, 2009 @ 10:47 am
Sam, you obviously don’t use condoms like ConorJoe does…
Comment by David — July 20, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
Maybe JC’s a chick?
Comment by Phil (not Goff) — July 20, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
wait, ignore that…
Comment by Phil (not Goff) — July 20, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
(In spite of perceptions of “social problems”) a small amount of alcohol each day has been shown in studies, France and Italy to have beneficial effects. When will this gummint mandate the addition of quantities of alcohol to all fruit juice, soft drinks and water? People are needlessly dying of heart disease whilst this gummint sits idly by.
The state should make everyone go to the gym; this would cut obesity and heart disease. The gym would be state run at no cost* to the workers.
The state should be providing “Light Centres” so that we workers can all stop off on the way home in winter and get bombarded by white light. The state should be doing all of these things, because it is good for us.
The state should teach us all how to ride a horse, because it is good for us to know these things and is good for our confidence.
Where will it stop you silly socialists?
I guess we’ll start using the bread maker a little more often when it comes in! (Or will the gummint ban these? LOL)
PS love (not) the undertone in the interview of “no one likes deformed babies” so folate or abort seem to be the options. How about fecking parents-to-be taking some fecking responsibility? Next the fecking parents will want me and my family to provide them with food, housing and healthcare.
Wait a minute…
Comment by Clunking Fist — July 20, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
do you have to be very, ahem, small, to be able to do that…?
Not at all, you just need a bold spirit of experimentation. Perfecting a range of wanking techniques is why the good Lord gave us the teenage years, after all – I forget the chapter and verse but it’s in the Bible somewhere, I’m sure of it.
Comment by Psycho Milt — July 20, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
Why does bread have to be the delivery mechanism for medicating a small, specific subset of the population?
Comment by Miro — July 20, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Why does bread have to be the delivery mechanism for medicating a small, specific subset of the population?
It’s vitamin b, not cyanide. You’re (not) getting a vitamin supplement that used to be in wheat but is removed by the milling process. Folate is good for you in general, it happens to be very good for you if you’re trying to concieve.
Comment by danylmc — July 20, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
Fine, then let the bakers introduce a range of bread which has folate in it so if people thinking of getting pregnant want that, they can choose. Afterall there are many different types now. It aint all Vogels. Seems simple to me.
Comment by David — July 20, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
Well thank god we haven’t joined the socialist medicators like the USA, Canada, the UK (on the way), Australia (on the way) etc etc. Axis of Evil that lot.
Comment by Gareth W — July 20, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
Umm, this is about people who get pregnant accidentally.
Comment by George D — July 20, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
Except that isn’t folate a pre-preganancy vitamin? So only women who are having carefully planned pregnancies will be seeking it out.
Comment by Margaret — July 20, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
“Umm, this is about people who get pregnant accidentally.”
Ah.. so we need birth control pills crunched up in the flour.
JC
Comment by JC — July 20, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
The govt’s gutlessness on this issue is unbelievable. I edited the Food Safety Authority’s first discussion paper on this issue in 2004. That’s right, the issue has been kicking around at least that long. It was a thoughtful, balanced paper which mounted strong evidence in favour of fortification. Interestingly the only downside noted back then was a slight chance that the folate could mask a Vitamin B12 deficiency in older people – something not mentioned in the current debate. The govt has no right to claim they need more time to consider the issue – it’s been on the table quite long enough. Kedgley and her science expert buddies Christine Rankin and Alison Roe managed to derail a useful piece of legislation a couple of years back, that would have seen some kind of accountability for the claims made by the thousands of health supplements on the market. Of course they screamed blue murder at the time – how dare we try and regulate ‘natural’ remedies – but seem quite happy to torpedo an initiative like this that could actually help people. Their hypocrisy is breathtaking, but with a gullible media on their side, that presents no problem. Guyon Espiner summed it up in the TVNZ News last night when he signed off with something like: “I’ll leave the science to someone else.” That’s right, Guyon, it’s actually about the science, but you’ve made it about politics. I hope Peter Gluckman is giving John Key a good earful on this one.
Comment by Phil — July 20, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
I think you’ve hit the hammer with the nail, and found the real issue here, JC. We need to look at selectively sterilising the population so that every baby is planned, and of optimum health and genetic stock.
Comment by georgedarroch — July 20, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
the only downside noted back then was a slight chance that the folate could mask a Vitamin B12 deficiency in older people
Also, if you eat a hundred loaves of folic fortified bread a day you increase your chances of developing prostate cancer. Maybe.
Comment by danylmc — July 20, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
If you’re a rat…
Comment by Psycho Milt — July 20, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
@psycho
“touch not; taste not; handle not” colossians 2:21.
you, are going to hell.
otoh
“Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labor of love.” 1 thessalonians, 1:3
i think you can, as always, interpret the bible how you like.
Comment by Che Tibby — July 20, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
can i wriggle away from my error w
‘Can turkey basters not be lubed with it?’
Comment by ConorJoe — July 20, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
Why did we not hear from the public servants who first suggested the addition?
Perhaps next time, rather than call it “fortification”, the proponents will point out that some of the addition is to “replenish” folate that was lost during processing to white flour.
Obviously, the recently-raised potential toxicity issue of using synthetic folic acid instead of folate will have to be assessed.
The USA and Canadian experience to date from their folic fortification suggest benefits outweigh adverse effects. We have the luxury of learning from them, and selecting optional additions.
If NZ bakers can’t make a homogeneous mixture, maybe they should not be in the business. There’s obviously going to be a market for pre-fortified flour.
It’s interesting how folate in dietary/herbal supplements is promoted, but the same people consider the chemical mandated in processed food is evil because choice has been removed….
Sadly, it’s almost impossible to have rational scientific debates in these days of 30 second news, tweets, and blogs.
Science advice is rarely unanimous, so vested interests will always find opposing scientific views. Climate change is another unfortunate example.
However, politicians should be able to seek suitable wise advice from experts, and implement it, rather than procrastinate for 3 years.
There will now be avoidable tragedies visited upon some unfortunate families.
Comment by Bruce Hamilton — July 20, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
danylmc said: Dr Gluckman must be less than thrilled to see that the Prime Minister values Sue Kedgley’s opinion on scientific matters over his own.
I don’t dispute Professor Gluckman’s opinion on the science Danyl, and I don’t think Sue Kedgley does either.
But this debate is not just about the science. It is about the Government mass-medicating its citizens. That is a moral issue, not a scientific one.
I’m happy about there being folate added to some bread. As long as it is not required to be added to all bread. And as long as bread is labeled so consumers know whether it contains it or not. That way, people have the choice as to which bread they buy.
I’m all for strict food standards as far as the safety of the food is concerned. But making it mandatory to add a chemical that has nothing to do with the safety of the food is something I find unacceptable. I’d get rid of the mandatory iodisation too – that also has nothing to do with the safety of the bread.
Comment by toad — July 21, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
Yay: toad the libertarian!
Comment by Clunking Fist — July 21, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
Yeah, but I know it’s been “toad the communist” on other things on various blogs CF. Like response to climate change, which requires strong regulation because it is far too serious a threat to all of us to leave to individual responsibility.
Comment by toad — July 21, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
Although it seems most studies actually show folate may be GOOD for reducing risk of prostate cancer…
Comment by Gareth W — July 21, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
…and I don’t think Sue Kedgley does either.
Presumably that’s some other Sue Kedgley than the one who’s been trying to link folic acid with cancer? Because the Green Party one seems to be peddling exactly that which Gluckman calls “bad science.”
Comment by Psycho Milt — July 21, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
But this debate is not just about the science. It is about the Government mass-medicating its citizens.
Do you think that fruit and vegetables should have all their vitamins removed? If not, why not? After all, aren’t you claiming that vitamins are ‘mass medication’? Shouldn’t consumers have a choice as to whether they have oranges with or without vitamin c?
Comment by danylmc — July 21, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
danyl – folic acid that is added to bread is not a naturally occurring folate.
Comment by toad — July 21, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
danyl – folic acid that is added to bread is not a naturally occurring folate.
So what? Virtually nothing about white bread is ‘natural’. These breads are full of salt, preservatives and sugars, none of which are natural and all of which are bad for you. So why not add a vitamin that happens to be good for you?
Comment by danylmc — July 21, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
If you’re not disputing the science, and Kedgley isn’t either, then why are you and Kedgley raising the spectre of prostate cancer?
This is one thing that pisses me off about the Greens. You’re willing to stand behind the great mass of science on climate change, and rightly have a go at those who selectively use small bits of evidence to ignore the big picture. Yet you go and do the same and ignore the great majority of evidence of the safety of GE in food, and the large majority of evidence on cellphones, and now folate. By overstating your concerns, ones which deserve consideration, you blow the whole thing.
Comment by George — July 21, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
Oh, and “natural”. As Danyl has noted, “natural” is a remnant from the past that is now an essentially meaningless construct, able to be applied to whatever item needs to be imbued with normative weight as good and worthy.
Comment by George — July 21, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
I agree, the danger of GE in food should not be an issue. The danger of GE should be the danger to the environment of which food is but a subset.
Comment by cj_nza — July 21, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
It’s refeshing to see so many commenters supporting the reduction in babies with birth defects. Presumably, the same commenters want to see fewer women die from breast cancer and therefore support their right to take Herceptin, right?
Comment by ross — July 21, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
You never know what to believe.
I read somehwere that salt is primarily sodium chloride. The same article suggested that sodium is one of the body’s primary electrolytes and essential for human life.
Comment by cj_nza — July 21, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
Want to see fewer women die, yes. Support a massive percentage of all health funding going to a single drug? Not so much.
Personally I support a good cost/benefit analysis in health. Fortification of bread has one. Herceptin seems not to.
Comment by Gareth W — July 21, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
So, it would be OK then if people were adding ‘natural folate’ to bread rather than folic acid? Chemophobia strikes again.
Comment by chiz — July 22, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
(In spite of perceptions of “social problems”) a small amount of alcohol each day has been shown in studies, France and Italy to have beneficial effects. When will this gummint mandate the addition of quantities of alcohol to all fruit juice, soft drinks and water?
The claim that small amounts of alcohol is beneficial to you is not universally accepted by the scientific community.
Comment by chiz — July 22, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
There is no threat to the environment from GE. This is just green scaremongering and pseudoscience.
The problem with the greens, and not just with them, is that they suffer from the dunning-kruger effect – they lack the ability to tell that their grasp of the science isn’t what they mistakenly think it is.
Comment by chiz — July 22, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
“The claim that compulsion is beneficial to you is not universally accepted by the community.”
Comment by Clunking Fist — July 23, 2009 @ 7:01 am
“The claim that human emmissions of CO2 are causing global warming is not universally accepted by the scientific community.”
“The claim that global temperatures are increasing is not universally accepted by the scientific community.”
“The claim that warming global temperatures will increase extreme weather events is not universally accepted by the scientific community.”
Boo: toad the alarmist luddite!
Comment by Clunking Fist — July 23, 2009 @ 7:05 am