Just read this and thought may be of interest. xxx

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...ry-cancer-risk

Although it does state that it risk has been assessed for long term use, what does everyone think about them adding folic acid to food such as flour. xxx

[Mietziecats]

Hmm, I might be a bit bias towads people taking Folic acid as I had a child who was born with spina bifida and died as a result of complications caused by it.

I do think it should be added to food, not all women are able to plan their pregnacys and many people don't have the best of diets. The article wasn't clear on how much the folic acid the people took although it did say it was in safe limits.

Folic acid may also help other conditions such as depression, schizophrenia, arthrosclerosis and diarrhea. It can also be helpful in treating epilepsy gingivitis and gout.

I suppose it all about weighing up the risks and the benefits, but I for one would deff like to see it added to more food.

x

[iolaus]

Ended up with my bone marrow shutting down due to a folate Anaemia (well and B12 and iron - I don't do things by half) so seems lke a good idea to me even when taking pregnancies out of this

[RebelDiamond]

well its interesting because Im currently reading through Ian Greer's Pregnancy:The Inside Guide. He says in there that in the USA since 1998, folic acid has been added to all flour for bread and pasta and consequently since that time, the number of babies with neural tube defects has fallen by almost 20%.

So I think on that evidence, it should be definately considered here. Interesting article too

[arwenevenstar]

I was very interested in finding this guardian article as the point in question came up in an antenatal class the other week and I was interested to read it. However, in my research I found other info which might be significant. I also understand that has hit the media again because a recent University of Adelaide study has suggested a link between taking folic acid in pregnancy and allergic asthma in children aged 3 - 5. Because of this new research the previous scare of a link between folic acid and breast cancer (2004) has been brought up again. However, glancing on the Guardian article, it's taken from the BMJ in 2009, so presumably a new study.

Interesting...

Am going to go off to read it properly! Thanks and sorry for the next bit being so big, I've just copied and pasted!


Cancer link to folic acid played down
'No evidence' of supplements' risk to health

• 
  

• James Meikle <
• Friday 10 December 2004 02.22 GMT
• 
  

Women in the early stages of pregnancy were last night advised to continue taking folic acid supplements despite tentative research suggesting they might raise the risk of mothers later dying from breast cancer.

Checks on women 35 years after they took part in trials using different doses of the synthetic vitamins revealed higher mortality rates for those who took supplementation than those who did not.

But the numbers involved were small and researchers said the differences might be explained by chance. In addition, the timing and size of the supplementation now recommended are significantly different from those used in the trial of expectant mothers in Aberdeen in the 1960s.

Both the researchers and the government were determined to quell any panic reactions from mothers to be. Official health advice is that women considering conception and in the first three months of pregnancy should take 400 micrograms a day in supplements to cut the risk of their babies being born with birth defects.

This is in addition to the 200 micrograms of similar compounds found in foods including vegetables, potatoes, milk, dairy products and cereals.

Stephen Ladyman, the health minister, said: "There is no evidence that folic acid supplements, in the early stages of pregnancy and at the levels we recommend, do any harm at all and plenty of evidence of what damage can be done if a woman's diet is deficient."

Research up to now has suggested that more folic acid is likely to reduce the risk of breast cancer rather than raise it, and one of the authors of a paper detailing the new findings in the British Medical Journal, Andy Ness, from Bristol University, said: "It is important we don't confuse women about the need to take folic acid supplements early in pregnancy."

However, he added: "If confirmed, these findings have important implications for breast cancer research, namely that exposures in pregnancy may modify breast cancer risk. But as it stands, the message to the public is carry on taking the supplements, particularly as dose and timing in the 1960s trials were different from the advice given now to prevent neural tube defects."

A similar message was given by Marion Hall, an emeritus professor at Aberdeen University, who was involved in both the new checks and the original study, which had been designed to see whether low folate levels were linked to complications in pregnancy.

The new finding was "very preliminary", she said, and further research was needed. "No pregnant woman needs to change their current practice with folic acid but the study suggests that our findings should be taken into account when policies are being developed for advising pregnant women to take anything during pregnancy and at other times."

Dr Ness pointed out that the diet of women in Aberdeen in the 1960s was low in folates and that diets have changed. It might be that sudden high supplementation could induce effects different from long-term consumption of folates.

The original study involved 2,928 women, and most of those taking the supplements began to do so well after the time they would now be advised to stop. Of these, 1,977 were given dummy pills, 466 took folic acid at 0.2mg a day and 485 at 5mg a day.

The risk of death from cancer in subsequent years among those taking the higher doses was twice that of those on the dummy treatment. However only 17 in the placebo group died from breast cancer (0.9%), compared with 8 (1.6%) in the 5mg group and 6 (1.3%) in the 0.2mg group.

In an accompanying commentary, Godfrey Oakley and Jack Mandel, from Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, point out that this in total represents only 31 breast cancer deaths. "We believe the most likely explanation for the reported association is chance," they say.

[niteowl]

Thanks for posting that, really interesting. xxx