Soil & Health
Association of New Zealand Inc (est 1941) Healthy
Soil - Healthy Food - Healthy People |
New Zealand's leading source of information on Organics & Sustainable Living
Members' respond about Folic Acid19-10-2006Soil & Health Member's respond to the folic acid debate.Dear Minister, I am writing regarding the decision of Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to mandatory fortify bread with folic acid and/or iodine. This decision will leave the consumer wishing to eat unfortified bread the choice to purchase unleavened breads or will require them to make their own bread using retail purchased unfortified flour. As certified organic producers (BioGro 209 since 1990), we would confer with the opinion of the Soil & Health to seek an exemption from mandatory fortification for certified organic products. An exemption for organic bread will give all consumers a choice of a fortification free product while still accessing a healthy option. Heather and Ian Atkinson Why are you fighting about that, doesn’t seem a huge deal comparatively speaking. yes it would be nice. But shouldn’t increasing awareness about organics and encouraging people to grow organics. not scare them away with this. isn’t it already organic bread? Remember we are all working towards a wonderland of wonder but we are not there yet. Asking this is nit picky. fortification sounds good. Peace out Tom Baker Dear Ms King, We are writing to express our strongest opposition to the mandatory fortification of bread with folate, and potentially, iodine. We do not believe that it is acceptable to require the entire population to eat fortified bread in order to increase the folate levels of women of childbearing age. It is well known that folic acid supplements should be taken when pregnant. There is no need to provide the entire population with added supplementation simply to slightly increase the folate levels of the target group. While providing fortification to bread may get increased levels of folate into the diet of women who fall pregnant accidentally (and therefore do not know to take folic acid during the 2 weeks from conception to finding out they are pregnant), this will not overcome the risks to the unborn child from the pregnant woman continuing to drink alcohol and smoke while she does not know she is pregnant. The argument for fortifying bread does not stack up on this basis. If there is no way that people can convince you not to require fortification of bread, you must at least allow organic products to be exempt. Consumers must be given the choice to avoid synthetic additives in their foods, and organic breads by definition are made without additives – and that should include fortification with folate. It is not enough to say that people who do not want fortification can make their own bread. Why should people who want to have some sort of choice be forced to behave so very differently to the rest of the population? Most current legislation is trying to remove discrimination of people, but this legislation would be creating discrimination against people who have a philosophical or health reason for not being able to eat fortified foods. Would you require fortification with something that was objectionable to people on religions grounds? No, we don't think you would, so why should the rest of us not be able to have a say just because it is not a religious reason for objecting? Exactly the same argument applies to fortification with iodine. We presume you are aware that some people are not able to eat iodine at all? If you have an overactive thyroid you are not able to have iodine as it increases the hyperactivity of the thyroid. What are people who cannot eat iodine (including iodised salt) supposed to do if you decide that all bread (including organic bread) is to have iodine in it??? This sort of mass treatment of people on the grounds that a small number may benefit is not acceptable. We are not cattle. Your government has decided that it is not acceptable for people to be exposed to passive smoking in the workplace, so why would you decide that it is acceptable for the whole population to be exposed to passive supplementation? At least with smoke you know you are breathing it in and can move away - with fortification in this manner you cannot know that you are eating way above the maximum safe daily intake of iodine (yes, there is a maximum that you should have, not just a minimum). We are very much in favour of nutritional supplementation products being easily available in the market place, as supplementation is of great benefit to people when it is targeted to the things that the individual needs, and is taken in doses appropriate to the individual for a length of time appropriate to correct the deficiency. No one says that one type of nutritional supplement is appropriate for everyone, which is why some are formulated for children, or women, or men, or pregnant women, or only have a few very specific vitamins or minerals in them. We are in no way objecting to supplementation of individuals, we are objecting to mass inoculation of the population with non targeted, non specific, non controllable doses of specific vitamins or minerals that the individual may well already be getting a perfectly adequate supply of themselves, or may not be able to take at all. How would doctors be able to monitor the iodine supplementation levels of a patient that they are treating if all bread also has iodine - they would have to limit the amount of bread a person ate a day to compensate for the fortification - which is ridiculous! Why are you, on the one hand, trying to limit the easy access to nutritional supplements through the ANZTPA, and saying that supplements should be treated like medicines and thoroughly tested; yet on the other hand saying that it doesn't matter how much of these things people have, and there are no people who should not have them and fortification of all bread is safe for everyone and is entirely acceptable? Your positions are entirely contradictory. With supplementation, people can select the precise vitamins and minerals that they themselves need, and can avoid those that are not appropriate to them. This is impossible if all bread is fortified. We expect a reply to this email, with a detailed explanation as to why you believe that it is acceptable to mass treat the population of this country and leave us no real ability to avoid it. We expect you to specifically address the items raised in this letter. Yours faithfully, [Name withheld at request of member] I believe that we in our mission to create an environment where sustainability and care are a necessary ingredient just as choice is then we must treat people accordingly. I fully understand that this will take more time than we have at times but I believe this is one ingredient that we can never scrimp on with each other. I will read now the information you have sent and will send a mail to Annette. I will say now that I agree with the position that Soil and Health have taken. I agree also that we must fight for the freedom which choice allows. As importantly that we are given all of the information so as we can make informed choices. Na reira ka mihi ahau ki a koe me tou roopu tiaki. Mauri ora. Wayne Petera |
|
Soil & Health
Association of New Zealand Inc (est 1941) Healthy
Soil - Healthy Food - Healthy People |
