BACKGROUND: Mandatory folic acid fortification of food is effective in reducing neural tube defects and may even reduce stroke-related mortality, but it remains controversial because of concerns about potential adverse effects. Thus, it is virtually nonexistent in Europe, albeit many countries allow food fortification on a voluntary basis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to examine the effect of a voluntary but liberal food fortification policy on dietary intake and biomarker status of folate and other homocysteine-related B vitamins in a healthy population. DESIGN: The study was a cross-sectional study. From a convenience sample of 662 adults in Northern Ireland, those who provided a fasting blood sample and dietary intake data were examined (n = 441, aged 18-92 y). Intakes of both natural food folate and folic acid from fortified foods were estimated; we used the latter to categorize participants by fortified food intake. RESULTS: Fortified foods were associated with significantly higher dietary intakes and biomarker status of folate, vitamin B-12, vitamin B-6, and riboflavin than were unfortified foods. There was no difference in natural food folate intake (range: 179-197 microg/d) between the fortified food categories. Red blood cell folate concentrations were 387 nmol/L higher and plasma total homocysteine concentrations were 2 micromol/L lower in the group with the highest fortified food intake (median intake: 208 microg/d folic acid) than in the nonconsumers of fortified foods (0 microg/d folic acid). CONCLUSIONS: These results show that voluntary food fortification is associated with a substantial increase in dietary intake and biomarker status of folate and metabolically related B vitamins with potential beneficial effects on health. However, those who do not consume fortified foods regularly may have insufficient B vitamin status to achieve the known and potential health benefits.
BACKGROUND: Mandatory folic acid fortification of food is effective in reducing neural tube defects and may even reduce stroke-related mortality, but it remains controversial because of concerns about potential adverse effects. Thus, it is virtually nonexistent in Europe, albeit many countries allow food fortification on a voluntary basis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to examine the effect of a voluntary but liberal food fortification policy on dietary intake and biomarker status of folate and other homocysteine-related B vitamins in a healthy population. DESIGN: The study was a cross-sectional study. From a convenience sample of 662 adults in Northern Ireland, those who provided a fasting blood sample and dietary intake data were examined (n = 441, aged 18-92 y). Intakes of both natural food folate and folic acid from fortified foods were estimated; we used the latter to categorize participants by fortified food intake. RESULTS: Fortified foods were associated with significantly higher dietary intakes and biomarker status of folate, vitamin B-12, vitamin B-6, and riboflavin than were unfortified foods. There was no difference in natural food folate intake (range: 179-197 microg/d) between the fortified food categories. Red blood cell folate concentrations were 387 nmol/L higher and plasma total homocysteine concentrations were 2 micromol/L lower in the group with the highest fortified food intake (median intake: 208 microg/d folic acid) than in the nonconsumers of fortified foods (0 microg/d folic acid). CONCLUSIONS: These results show that voluntary food fortification is associated with a substantial increase in dietary intake and biomarker status of folate and metabolically related B vitamins with potential beneficial effects on health. However, those who do not consume fortified foods regularly may have insufficient B vitamin status to achieve the known and potential health benefits.
Authors: Keewan Kim; James L Mills; Kara A Michels; Ellen N Chaljub; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Torie C Plowden; Sunni L Mumford Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Daniel A Enquobahrie; Henry A Feldman; Deanna H Hoelscher; Lyn M Steffen; Larry S Webber; Michelle M Zive; Eric B Rimm; Meir J Stampfer; Stavroula K Osganian Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Irina Spacova; Sarah Ahannach; Annelies Breynaert; Isabel Erreygers; Stijn Wittouck; Peter A Bron; Wannes Van Beeck; Tom Eilers; Abbas Alloul; Naïm Blansaer; Siegfried E Vlaeminck; Nina Hermans; Sarah Lebeer Journal: Front Nutr Date: 2022-06-09
Authors: A Giannattasio; M G Calevo; G Minniti; D Gianotti; M Cotellessa; F Napoli; R Lorini; G d'Annunzio Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2010-10-15 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Lynn B Bailey; Patrick J Stover; Helene McNulty; Michael F Fenech; Jesse F Gregory; James L Mills; Christine M Pfeiffer; Zia Fazili; Mindy Zhang; Per M Ueland; Anne M Molloy; Marie A Caudill; Barry Shane; Robert J Berry; Regan L Bailey; Dorothy B Hausman; Ramkripa Raghavan; Daniel J Raiten Journal: J Nutr Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Elizabeth A Yetley; Christine M Pfeiffer; Karen W Phinney; Zia Fazili; David A Lacher; Regan L Bailey; Sheena Blackmore; Jay L Bock; Lawrence C Brody; Ralph Carmel; L Randy Curtin; Ramón A Durazo-Arvizu; John H Eckfeldt; Ralph Green; Jesse F Gregory; Andrew N Hoofnagle; Donald W Jacobsen; Paul F Jacques; Anne M Molloy; Joseph Massaro; James L Mills; Ebba Nexo; Jeanne I Rader; Jacob Selhub; Christopher Sempos; Barry Shane; Sally Stabler; Patrick Stover; Tsunenobu Tamura; Alison Tedstone; Susan J Thorpe; Paul M Coates; Clifford L Johnson; Mary Frances Picciano Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2011-05-18 Impact factor: 7.045