Mass medication - our daily bread

[Naki Rat]

Watch out for buns, donuts, pizzas, pies etc...if it has flour in it you get folic acid...LOL

And don't forget pasta

[Skyryder]

The addition of iodine in salt has been proven to reduce the occurrence of goitre, mental retardation, breast cancer, and immunodeficiency in the population for quite some period of time - and unlike synthesised folic acid, everybody needs it in their diet, and it is proven that there are no dangerous side effects from consuming it.

Iodine is not naturally present in the NZ food chain in the amounts required by the human body, I believe this is because NZ soils are deficient in it. Likewise in many other parts of The World.

Therefore, a balanced diet alone will not ensure in this case that one will receive the intake required.

Because of the drive to reduce the salt intake in our diets, and the move many have taken to using plain rock salt (usually in conjunction with wearing sandals, ponchos, and oversize earrings, while hugging trees, letting their legs and armpits get hairy, saving the whales, etc, etc), the potential for a population plagued by the effects of iodine deficiency has returned.

Hence the bread alternative. I guess it would only mean changing from using plain salt to iodised salt where the recipes call for it so it won't add shitloads of expense to the manufacturing process (read - what we pay for it at the supermarket).

Yes, it is mass medication again - however it isn't at all new and it is, in fact, important that it is done through some delivery method or another.

I'm not in disagreement with you but your arguement can equally be used for for the folic acid debate or vice versa.

Where Key and the Nats position begins to unravel is the double standard that they are applying to additives in bread. On one hand they oppose the addition of Vitamin B9 and on the other they approve the compulsary addition of Iodine. But then this typical of Key. Not only does he change his mind but there is no 'consistancy' with the bread that he bakes.


There was some concern in health circles about iodine deficiancy some time back in the eighties and nineties due to the increasing usage of rock salt etc. and as you rightly state this is devoid of iodine unlike the common table salt. I have no reason to believe that this concern no longer exists and I suspect that it does hence the legislative changes for iodised salt to used in bread

I understand that the reason bakers do not use iodised salt is a cost measure. The non iodised' salt is cheaper so I think the cost of bread may go up.


Skyryder

[Shadows]

I'm not in disagreement with you but your arguement can equally be used for for the folic acid debate or vice versa.

Where Key and the Nats position begins to unravel is the double standard that they are applying to additives in bread. On one hand they oppose the addition of Vitamin B9 and on the other they approve the compulsary addition of Iodine. But then this typical of Key. Not only does he change his mind but there is no 'consistancy' with the bread that he bakes.

The point I was making was that the argument can't be used equally in regards both issues.

One scenario
1) Allows for the medication of a small percentage of the population who might need a vitamin because they don't eat well.
2) Ignores the needs those who may not, or will never, require it.
3) Goes ahead even when the experts still cannot agree whether it is safe or not to medicate the entire population with it.
4) Will be ineffective at best in achieving the desired result due to the quantities of bread needing to be consumed every day to meet the RDI.
5) Is a completely new thing.

The other scenario
1) Ensures that the entire population continues to get an essential part of their diet which cannot be guaranteed by any other means than the fortification of a commonly consumed foodstuff.
2) Is proven to be effective in improving the health of the general population.
3) Has already been happening in some form or another for a very long time.

I understand that the reason bakers do not use iodised salt is a cost measure. The non iodised' salt is cheaper so I think the cost of bread may go up.

Salt is so far down the ingredients list I doubt any increase would be for that reason alone.

[jono035]

Salt is so far down the ingredients list I doubt any increase would be for that reason alone.

Yeah, normally something like a teaspoon per loaf? Even buying iodised salt in the plastic canisters from the supermarket it costs around 1 cent per teaspoon so can't be that much worse.

[Skyryder]

The point I was making was that the argument can't be used equally in regards both issues.

One scenario
1) Allows for the medication of a small percentage of the population who might need a vitamin because they don't eat well.
2) Ignores the needs those who may not, or will never, require it.
3) Goes ahead even when the experts still cannot agree whether it is safe or not to medicate the entire population with it.
4) Will be ineffective at best in achieving the desired result due to the quantities of bread needing to be consumed every day to meet the RDI.
5) Is a completely new thing.

1 We all need folic acid or vitamin B9 so the small percentage of the population is incorrect. The most noise that has been coming from those who are pushing this is the for want of a better word ‘the baby industry.’

2 This could equally be argued in respect of iodine as I believe that by far the majority of the population use iodized salt. But you point has been noticed.
3
The most recent study and John Keys scientific advisor hold the view that levels proposed do and will not be a health hazard to the community.

4 Do not have any figures on this (do you?) but was listening to National radio on this subject and someone said that by introducing folic acid to bread will reduce neural defects by 50 percent.

5 So is adding iodine to bread



There was a bit in the Chch Press that said the reason that bakers do not use iodized salt was due to cost. Non iodized salt being cheaper.

We can argue the differences for and against but the simple fact is that Key has made the addition of iodine added to bread by law but refused to do the same for vitamin B9. Call it what you will but to me that is clear case of inconsistency.

Skyryder

[MSTRS:Me]

We can argue the differences for and against but the simple fact is that Key has made the addition of iodine added to bread by law but refused to do the same for vitamin B9. Call it what you will but to me that is clear case of inconsistency.

Skyryder

The problem, though, is that yes, we all need iodine and B9 etc...but due to particular individual's diets, they don't get the recommended sufficiency.
B9 is in all sorts of foods, but iodine is not.
Eat a good balanced range of foods and your B9 needs are addressed.
Iodine has been available as a salt additive for as long as I can remember, without harmful effects. Yet with the 'experts' having campaigned to reduce our salt intake, now we have the situation where iodine is again lacking in our diet.
No inconsistency on Key's part. Just realism.

[Badjelly]

The point I was making was that the argument can't be used equally in regards both issues.

One scenario
1) Allows for the medication of a small percentage of the population who might need a vitamin because they don't eat well.
...
The other scenario
1) Ensures that the entire population continues to get an essential part of their diet which cannot be guaranteed by any other means than the fortification of a commonly consumed foodstuff.
....

Interesting discussion. But, please, if you're going to call B9 supplementation "medication", then use the same term for iodine supplementation.

[Skyryder]

The problem, though, is that yes, we all need iodine and B9 etc...but due to particular individual's diets, they don't get the recommended sufficiency.
B9 is in all sorts of foods, but iodine is not.
Eat a good balanced range of foods and your B9 needs are addressed.
Iodine has been available as a salt additive for as long as I can remember, without harmful effects. Yet with the 'experts' having campaigned to reduce our salt intake, now we have the situation where iodine is again lacking in our diet.
No inconsistency on Key's part. Just realism.

I think you have missed the point. It's not about realism or for that matter the need for iodine to be added to bread. As a reminder Key was on record of allowing folic acid to be law with a review coming later. (September of this year) It was not until Katherine Rich got herself on TV as an advocate for the Bakers Association and Key seeing a change in public opinion changed his mind.


It's Keys inconsistency in that on one hand he refuses to add vitamin B9 as a compulsory ingredient to bread and on the other makes iodine a compulsory ingredient for the product. The reasons are immaterial. Each side can argue the merits of their beliefs either for against but how do argue choice (bread free from the addition of vitamin B) as against compulsion (iodine). The two are incompatible.

I don’t have a problem with the addition of folic acid as the benefit outweighs any disadvantages, I don’t see any, but then I do not have any problems with the addition of iodine either. On this score my philosophy is consistent as both are of benefit.


Skyryder

[MSTRS:Me]

Look, you horrible little man, B9 is available in all sorts of food, iodine is not. People seem to accept that too much salt is a bad thing, or are using rock salt in grinders. You seem to accept that iodine is necessary, so in the absence of 'sufficient' treated salt in our diets, does it not seem logical to change which (staple) foodstuff it is added to?

[Skyryder]

Look, you horrible little man, B9 is available in all sorts of food, iodine is not. People seem to accept that too much salt is a bad thing, or are using rock salt in grinders. You seem to accept that iodine is necessary, so in the absence of 'sufficient' treated salt in our diets, does it not seem logical to change which (staple) foodstuff it is added to?

See now you have got personal.

You have based your opinion on the availability of B9 in the food as against the absence of iodine. As previouse stated each arguement, that is for or against the addition or absence of B9 and iodine, is not the issue. It is Keys inconsistancy of the prohibition of one and the compulsion of the other.


Mr Key says the next three years should be spent examining the issue and seeing whether a voluntary code could be set up. He says if bakers could introduce folic acid to some bread voluntarily, it may change the direction New Zealand takes.


Skyryder

[MSTRS:Me]

See now you have got personal.

You have based your opinion on the availability of B9 in the food as against the absence of iodine. As previouse stated each arguement, that is for or against the addition or absence of B9 and iodine, is not the issue. It is Keys inconsistancy of the prohibition of one and the compulsion of the other.

Mr Key says the next three years should be spent examining the issue and seeing whether a voluntary code could be set up. He says if bakers could introduce folic acid to some bread voluntarily, it may change the direction New Zealand takes.

Skyryder

Yep, that cap fits well. As does yours when addressing anything that John Key is remotely connected with. Or even not, as the case may be.
When iodine was added to table salt, was it done voluntarily on the salt producers part? I doubt it. Logic tells me that some Govt working group (Health, no doubt) got a compulsion order to do so. And at no time was there ever no plain salt available, right there on the s/market shelf beside the iodised version, so we have always made up our own minds on which one we wanted.
Your quote from Key shows the measure of the man...that he is open to all ideas, and won't order this sort of thing carte blanche, which is a good thing. Everybody knows that big decisions made quickly and under pressure, often turn out to be badly flawed. This gives space to investigate other ways of ensuring that 'vulnerable' woman get their B9, or publicity of he problem can reach them and they take better care of their diet, all by themselves. Which is how most of us do it.

[Ixion]

Personally, I would oppose the *compulsory* addition of iodine to bread, on the same basis as I oppose the *compulsory* addition of folate (or anything else, actually).

Note the word *compulsory*. I support having bread with folate available. And having bread with iodine available. Just so long as bread WITHOUT iodine, and bread WITHOUT folate is also equally available.

m'self, I'd buy the bead with iodine, and pass on the folate. Unless I get pregnant.

The pinch is not the addition of any of the substances. It's the compulsion, the withdrawal of the right choose NOT to be medicated.

[Skyryder]

Personally, I would oppose the *compulsory* addition of iodine to bread, on the same basis as I oppose the *compulsory* addition of folate (or anything else, actually).

Note the word *compulsory*. I support having bread with folate available. And having bread with iodine available. Just so long as bread WITHOUT iodine, and bread WITHOUT folate is also equally available.

m'self, I'd buy the bead with iodine, and pass on the folate. Unless I get pregnant.

The pinch is not the addition of any of the substances. It's the compulsion, the withdrawal of the right choose NOT to be medicated.

Which is excactly th epoint I'm trying to make. compulsion on one addition and volintery with the other. Yep spelling shit. but I'm about to get tea and this is a quick post.


Sadly by the time some get pregnant and they are short on folic acid it's too late. Bad things can happen real early.

On the same radio show that I mentioned earlier it was mentioned by far most pregnancies are unplanned. The same woman mentioned that there would be a 50 percent reduction in nueral deficiincies if folic acid was added to bread. I don't have any stats to back any of this up.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Yep, that cap fits well. As does yours when addressing anything that John Key is remotely connected with. Or even not, as the case may be.
When iodine was added to table salt, was it done voluntarily on the salt producers part? I doubt it. Logic tells me that some Govt working group (Health, no doubt) got a compulsion order to do so. And at no time was there ever no plain salt available, right there on the s/market shelf beside the iodised version, so we have always made up our own minds on which one we wanted.
Your quote from Key shows the measure of the man...that he is open to all ideas, and won't order this sort of thing carte blanche, which is a good thing. Everybody knows that big decisions made quickly and under pressure, often turn out to be badly flawed. This gives space to investigate other ways of ensuring that 'vulnerable' woman get their B9, or publicity of he problem can reach them and they take better care of their diet, all by themselves. Which is how most of us do it.

Yes Key’s an arshole but I don’t recall giving you any shit, and I seem to recall you responding in a like manner with Clarke as I do with Key.

Voluntary= able to act on ones own free will.
Compulsory=unable to act on ones own free will.

Inconsistency=acting at variance with ones own principles=Key or as I call him the Jandal man. Flip flop flip flop.


Skyryder

[davereid]

Which is excactly th epoint I'm trying to make. compulsion on one addition and volintery with the other. Yep spelling shit. but I'm about to get tea and this is a quick post.


Sadly by the time some get pregnant and they are short on folic acid it's too late. Bad things can happen real early.

On the same radio show that I mentioned earlier it was mentioned by far most pregnancies are unplanned. The same woman mentioned that there would be a 50 percent reduction in nueral deficiincies if folic acid was added to bread. I don't have any stats to back any of this up.

Skyryder

A person on a normal diet won't be short of folic acid. But NZ soil is deficient in iodine, so no diet gives you adequate iodine.

And adding folic acid to bread is NOT a cure - the average persons bread consumption would leave them short by 50%.

I my opinion the additive should be optional in both cases.

Nonetheless medicating 4,000,000 people to treat a deficiency suffured by 4,000,000 is way more sensible than medicating 4,000,000 people to half treat a deficiency suffered by 10 people who eat badly.