Sign the White House Petition to end Mandatory Flour Fortification with Folic Acid

[Hip]

I know there's a group of people here who've been having good results. Maybe they weren't attracted to a thread about a petition regarding govt regulations of folic acid. There's a very long thread, ActiveB12...something or other. There's another entitled something re High Methylfolate users, which has a real-time account of the detox drama I mention above.. Someone could create a poll thread re methylation.

I did start this thread some time ago, asking whether anyone found that their 23andme SNP results lead to any direct benefits in terms of improving their health or ME/CFS symptoms, but there were few replies, and not much reported really in terms of health benefits obtained.

People talk at great length on this forum about their SNPs and the idea of these helping to optimize methylation, but I have yet to hear of a success story in this area.

 

[Ripley]

@Ripley
If you are supporting this petition, the onus of proof is indeed on you and those who started the petition. You and they need to be diligent enough to spend time surveying the scientific literature, to see if there is any evidence to back up the assertion that folic acid fortification of food leads to increased cancer rates.

Actually no, Hip. I'm sorry but that's not my responsibility. I was just a messenger. Each person is their own individual and each person can decide if they want to support it or not. Some people just don't like supplements being shoved down their throats, even if they are "good for you."

One of the worst health fiasco's in the history of our country? That is a very strong statements, so I would expect to see scientific backing for it.

It is overly dramatic. It appears that the wording in the petition was basically copied, almost verbatim, from the following article, which provides those references you seek:

Flour Fortification with Folic Acid: Good Idea or Bad Idea

But there is none provided. No scientific analysis; no facts and figures; no references; just emotive statements.

Yeah, I noticed all of the petitions don't have much substance to them. It seems the White House only gives people 800 characters when writing a petition. So, there's apparently not much room for substance in those petitions. Such is politics.

"Include additional information or research to support your request. Keep the petition description brief, you only have 800 characters including spaces"
- https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/how-why/step-step-guide

800 characters isn't very much. I guess they ran out of room or didn't care.

The evidence for folic acid causing cancer is weak

As I showed earlier in this thread, folic acid may have a dual role in cancer—protecting before it starts and exacerbating it after it starts. It's a hypothesis. That would explain the mixed results and would also suggest that it might not be a good idea to make everyone eat extra folic acid.

Where is the diligence here?

Huh? I already provided a long list of studies on Page 1 of this thread. Perhaps you missed it. Signing a petition is an individual matter. Each person who chooses to fill out any petition should do their own due diligence and/or feel free to discuss it here if they wish. I'm not going to hold everyone's hand through this. I think people are able to make their own decisions.

If you think everyone should be eating extra synthetic folic acid every day, regardless of their health status, then don't sign the petition. It's as simple as that. Mind you, we are talking about a policy only put in place to prevent a net total of 0.015% of infant births from getting NTDs. It's crazy.

 

[ahmo]

And another thing...sorry this is in dribs and drabs...After reading the GAPS experiences re methylation, my searches led me to pr as the place to go for the best help. I've read other comments to that effect.

@stridor has just commented that methylation gave him an 80% recovery from ME.
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...s-what-would-that-be.35400/page-2#post-564905

 

[Hip]

@ahmo
The improvements you got from taking the L-carnitine fumarate form or carnitine: that is certainly interesting, but I don't think it relates to methylation (in that I can find no link between carnitine and methylation). Probably more a mitochondrial thing.

@stridor has just commented that methylation gave him an 80% recovery from ME.
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...s-what-would-that-be.35400/page-2#post-564905

I saw the PR poll on methylation, and about a quarter of ME/CFS patients report a major improvement from methylation, so this does suggest that methylation can certainly be helpful for some. (Although since vitamin B12 is used in these methylation protocols, the improvements might actually stem from B12, which has long been found to benefit some ME/CFS patients).

Thus from seeing this poll, I have no problem with the idea that methylation can help. It's just the fact that when methylation does not work, people may then start to do an enormous amount of tinkering with their methylation protocol, whereas they don't seem do this with say low-dose naltrexone or other protocols when they don't initially work. OK in your case the tinkering seemed to bear fruit, admittedly. But is it generally a good idea to spend so much time on tinkering with methylation?

 

[Hip]

I already provided a long list of studies on Page 1 of this thread. Perhaps you missed it.

I did see those studies, and they all seem to find a cancer connection with folic acid (though many were animal studies, not human studies), whereas when I did a search on PubMed — and I was not biased in the results I selected — the studies that came up in my search showed little to no cancer connection with folic acid, and in some cases a protective effect against cancer.

 

[adreno]

So in the best case scenario, unmetabolized folic acid (UFA) is just floating around in your bloodstream, doing nothing. But in the worst case scenario, the UFA is disrupting the function of natural folate forms. Why take the chance?

It seems that UFA messes with NK cell function. This should be relevant to cancer and ME alike:

Unmetabolized folic acid in plasma is associated with reduced natural killer cell cytotoxicity among postmenopausal women


Confirmed in 2014:

Our findings corroborate an inverse association between high FA levels and NK cell cytotoxicity and suggest that reduced target cell recognition, evidenced by reduced degranulation in response to cancer cell targets but not in response to mitogenic stimulation, is a likely mechanism behind this inverse association. Our data suggest that impaired NK cell function may be a mechanism behind the purported tumor-promoting effect associated with high FA supplementation.

Plasma folate levels are inversely associated with natural killer cell degranulation in mice


This one shows that supplementing FA, without concomitant B12, impairs immune function:

Vitamin B12 and Folic Acid Imbalance Modifies NK Cytotoxicity, Lymphocytes B and Lymphoprolipheration in Aged Rats

 

[JPV]

If you are supporting this petition, the onus of proof is indeed on you and those who started the petition.

Why should anybody have to offer proof in order to earn the right to petition the government to stop adulterating our food with supplements?

I want my food to just be food. Right or wrong, I want to make my own decisions as to which supplements I take. I don't want that to be mandated by corrupt government agencies that I have no trust in.

 

[Hip]

I want my food to just be food. Right or wrong, I want to make my own decisions as to which supplements I take. I don't want that to be mandated by corrupt government agencies that I have no trust in.

I have some sympathy for that viewpoint, but it also might be construed as a somewhat selfish philosophy. Although educated, competent and motivated people may be able to work out which supplements to take to best support their health or those of their children, there are large sectors of the population who are not so competent and motivated, and it is these sectors which need to be considered as well. Or do you think that these people should not be considered?

There was a recent discussion in Scotland about adding vitamin D to foods, to try to lower the incidence of multiple sclerosis, which is very high in Scotland. (MS prevalence is generally higher at higher latitudes on the Earth). There were arguments both for adding and not adding vitamin D. I myself would have liked to have seen a trial instigated in which certain regions of Scotland had vitamin D added to food, and other regions did not, just to gauge the effectiveness of vitamin D in preventing MS.

Why should anybody have to offer proof in order to earn the right to petition the government to stop adulterating our food with supplements?

Because not everyone sees vitamin fortification of foods as adulteration. Many traditional foods and drinks are deliberately crafted so as to increase their vitamin or nutrient content. For example, Japanese fermented soybeans (natto) are very high in vitamin K, which protects against osteoporosis in the regions where this is eaten. Would you also consider the fermenting process of food. which increases vitamin K levels, adulteration?

In any case, the food we eat has all sorts of added ingredients, from preservatives, antioxidants, emulsifiers, food colorings, flavor enhancers, salt, sugar, artificial sweetens, and so forth. And vitamins and other nutrients may be subtracted from your food by the particular way you cook it. Food may also be treated or processed in certain ways to remove natural toxins present: kidney beans for example must be soaked for many hours in water to remove a natural toxin present in these beans, otherwise you will suffer a nasty poisoning if you eat them in their natural state.

And interestingly enough, it was discovered not so long ago that maize sometimes has a fungus growing on it which produces a toxin called fumonisin, which has been linked to neural tube birth defects such as spina bifida. Fumonisin actually inhibits the mother’s dietary uptake of folic acid. Few people I think would complain if this natural fungal ingredient were subtracted from their food.

So this idea of wanting food to just be food, is all very quaint, but it is a far cry from reality.


Regarding signing a petition: not everyone is happy to add their signature without knowing the salient facts. I myself would consider it bad for folic acid to be added to food if is adverse effects outweighed its benefits. So that's why I would like to have to hand all the health benefits and all the adverse effects.

 

[Maia]

Because not everyone sees vitamin fortification of foods as adulteration.

What about those MTHFR homozygous, in danger of cancer, who clearly do not benefit from folic acid fortification?

What about those with preexisting neoplasia, or on anti-folate chemotherapy? They must be very happy to be eating even more cancer fuel. Thank you very much.

 

[Hip]

What about those MTHFR homozygous, in danger of cancer, who clearly do not benefit from folic acid fortification?

What about those with preexisting neoplasia, or on anti-folate chemotherapy? They must be very happy to be eating even more cancer fuel. Thank you very much.

And what about those who seem to develop ME/CFS from hepatitis B vaccination? Are those adverse effects enough to consider withdrawing the vaccine? Or on balance do the benefits of hepatitis B vaccination outweigh the negatives? These can be difficult questions to answer. Certainly even if you decide to continue using the vaccine, it should prompt more research into understanding why this particular vaccine is, more than any others, implicated in triggering ME/CFS.

Nothing that is introduced (or removed) from the world is without consequences, good and bad. So many decisions have to be based on balancing acts, by weighting up the good and the bad. This can be very complex to do.



Can you provide evidence that those with MTHFR polymorphisms are at greater risk from cancer as a result of folic acid fortification? I could not find any when I looked. But I found this study which suggested that folic acid could prevent colorectal cancer in those with MTHFR 677C-->T polymorphisms. And this study which found that particularly in those with MTHFR 677C-->T polymorphisms, dietary folate reduces the risk of breast cancer.

As for preexisting neoplasia, yes, when folic acid fortification is first introduced, it may well cause a temporary increase in these cancers; but thereafter, it may reduce these cancers if the hypothesis in this study is correct. That study says "dietary increases [in folic acid] initiated before the establishment of neoplastic foci have a protective influence, whereas excessive intake or increased intake once early lesions are established increases tumorigenesis".

Again, complex issues, and complex balancing acts.

 

[adreno]

And what about those who seem to develop ME/CFS from hepatitis B vaccination? Are those adverse effects enough to consider withdrawing the vaccine?

Vaccines aren't mandatory, only recommended.

And why don't you take a break with the crusader mentality, who are you trying to "save" here? What is it exactly that makes folic acid fortification so important? Was it the 0.015% neural tube defects?

 

[adreno]

More "good news" about UFA:

Folate fortification has been associated with the presence of unmetabolized folic acid (PteGlu) in blood, masking of vitamin B12 deficiency, increased dosage for anti-cancer medication, photo-catalysis of PteGlu leading to potential genotoxicity, and a role in the pathoaetiology of colorectal cancer. Increased folate intake has also been associated with twin birth and insulin resistance in offspring, and altered epigenetic mechanisms of inheritance.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4287316/

 

[Hip]

And why don't you take a break with the crusader mentality

Ironic you should say that, because there is a significant crusader mentality from those on this thread with strong anti-folic acid fortification views. I don't have strong opinions on this issue one way or the other, but I do like to see a good rational argument.

If those crusaders here can provide convincing evidence and a rational argument to back up their strong beliefs in anti-folic acid fortification, they might persuade me to join the crusade. But so far I have not seen much in the way of convincing evidence.

But to add to the arguments, I did find this in Wikipedia:

There is growing concern worldwide that prenatal high folic acid in the presence of low vitamin B12 causes epigenetic changes in the unborn predisposing them to metabolic syndromes, central adiposity and adult diseases such as Type 2 diabetes.[35] Another active area of research and concern is that either too much or too little folic acid in utero causes epigenetic changes to the brain leading to autism spectrum disorders.[36][37][38]

One other thing that nobody has mentioned: if in the future evidence is obtained showing that folic acid per se is a problem (for example that presence of unmetabolized folic acid in the blood causes problems), then why not switch to food fortification with folate (such as salt of folic acid) in place of folic acid? I don't know if this is feasible or cost effective, but the possibility may be there.

 

[Undisclosed]

This thread is being closed due to personal attacks which include outright rudeness that is unacceptable and against the rules on this forum.

Please review our "No Rudeness or Personal Attacks" rule which I will post here:

Rule 1: No rudeness or personal attacks

While we honor passionate and informed discussion we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts.

'Rudeness' means deliberately discourteous comments directed at another member. 'Insulting posts' are those that treat another member with deliberate rudeness and contempt. 'Purposeless inflammatory posts' are posts that are designed purely to provoke a reaction and cause an unpleasant argument.

Such behaviour is not tolerated here.

We take a very firm line on these forums regarding personal attacks, so it is important for all members to understand the difference between disagreeing with the content of another member's posts, and making a personal attack on someone.

Our definition of a 'personal attack' includes:

• attacking a member's motivation for a post
• attacking a member's character
• referring to a member in a contemptuous manner
• referring to a treatment that a member finds helpful in a contemptuous manner
• belittling a member using sarcasm
• questioning why somebody is present on the forum (accusing them of being a "mole" or a "troll")
• questioning a member's affiliation with other groups
• mocking a member's username
• making negative or rude statements about administrators or moderators
• attacking people or groups based on race, age, gender, sexual orientation or religious beliefs.

Disagreeing with comments made in another member's post does not constitute a personal attack. Members are allowed to refute the comments of other members and provide reasons why they don't agree. A member may also choose to contradict a comment and provide very little evidence to support their comments, and this does not count as a personal attack either. When a member chooses to attack the author of a post rather than the content of the post, that is a personal attack. Please keep your focus on the facts of the topic under discussion - not on the person with whom you disagree.

The diagram below illustrates the definition of a personal attack. It is obviously best to aspire to arguments at the top of the diagram, but provided you stay within the green area (Contradiction) and above, you are unlikely to trouble the moderators. Posts in the yellow zone (Responding to Tone) are likely to attract the attention of moderators, and may be removed. Anything in the orange zone (Ad Hominem) or below will be removed, and persistent posts of that nature may result in a suspension or ban.

The remarks that are problematic on this thread fall under Ad Hominem's. The rule breaches will be removed and the thread will be re-opened. Any member who persists in posting rude comments and personal attacks will be removed from this thread.

Thank You.

Kina (Moderation Team Lead).

 

[Undisclosed]

The thread is now open again for posting.

 

[Asklipia]

I am so happy that this is being discussed.
I have no studies to offer. I did everything to get out of this terrible problem with visualization and my trusted pendulum.
All I can tell is that I feel cured now. I suppose this is not really allowed here and I am just attracting anger by stating this, but I accept this anger to give evidence of hope.
From the start I kept warning others in my signature:
Beware of FFP
Meaning : Beware of Fake Folate Poisoning.
Good luck to all!
Asklipia

 

[dannybex]

But I found this study which suggested that folic acid could prevent colorectal cancer in those with MTHFR 677C-->T polymorphisms. And this study which found that particularly in those with MTHFR 677C-->T polymorphisms, dietary folate reduces the risk of breast cancer.

With all due respect @Hip, "suggested" is the operative word in that first study.

"Epidemiological studies suggest that a diet rich in fruits and vegetables protects against colorectal cancer. This effect may result from their high levels of folic acid (pteroylglutamic acid)."

To my knowledge, there is no 'folic acid' in any fruit or vegetable. And the second study mentioned dietary folate, so I'm not sure if they were specifying 'folic' or folinic/methylfolate.

 

[dannybex]

One other thing that nobody has mentioned: if in the future evidence is obtained showing that folic acid per se is a problem (for example that presence of unmetabolized folic acid in the blood causes problems), then why not switch to food fortification with folate (such as salt of folic acid) in place of folic acid? I don't know if this is feasible or cost effective, but the possibility may be there.

One has to wonder why a more natural form of folate wasn't used in the first place, that's for sure.

 

[dannybex]

My original point was that folate and folic acid are the same thing - which is confirmed by the fact that many of the papers cited above use the words interchangeably (as in 'folate may play a dual role in tumorigenesis).

That's your proof that they're the same thing? Really?

 

[adreno]

Ironic you should say that, because there is a significant crusader mentality from those on this thread with strong anti-folic acid fortification views. I don't have strong opinions on this issue one way or the other, but I do like to see a good rational argument.

No. We are arguing for the default state, that is no fortification. You are arguing for fortification, a governmental parenting policy, to "save" people from their (assumed) incapacity to take care of their own health.

The only "strong beliefs" I have in this context, is in having responsibility for your own life. I don't need a government parent.