Would you like that with some cancer on the side?

March 29, 2010 1:38 PM

Is your breakfast giving you cancer? "Chances are, you started your day with a generous helping of folic acid. For more than a decade, the government has required enriched grains — most notably white flour and white rice — to be fortified with folic acid, the synthetic form of the B vitamin folate. Many food manufacturers take it further, giving breakfast cereals, nutrition bars, and beverages a folic acid boost, too. Yet, historic reviews have linked too much folic acid to an increased cancer rate.

"The more we learn about folic acid, the more it's clear that giving it to everyone has very real risks," says folic acid researcher David Smith, PhD, a professor of pharmacology at the University of Oxford in England. If there's a nutrient it's easy to overdose on, it's folic acid. The vitamin is all around us, slipped into the cereal we eat for breakfast, the bread we eat for lunch, the energy bars we snack on, and the supplements that over one-third of us take regularly.

The risk experts worry about most: colon cancer. But there is also increased risk of lung cancer. And prostate cancer. More seriously, it's linked to an increase in deaths from cancer and death from any cause.

The research is fueling fierce debate in other countries about the wisdom of fortifying the food supply. After 2 years of public hearings, a British government advisory panel recommended last October that the United Kingdom proceed with mandatory fortification. In contrast, last summer health officials in New Zealand abruptly delayed that country's plans to begin mandatory fortification of bread products.

posted by VikingSword (62 comments total)

As a woman facing the possibility of getting pregnant within the next few years, thus forcing herself to swallow a folic acid-containing horse pill every morning, fuck all y'all. Will you just pick something and stick with it???
posted by Madamina at 1:42 PM on March 29, 2010 [12 favorites]

And folic acid can mask a vitamin B12 deficiency.
posted by anniecat at 1:45 PM on March 29, 2010 [1 favorite]

Thank you, MSNBC. Thank you for yet another increase of my most pervasive food additive: fear. No calories, and the added anxiety helps me burn off just a little more of what I eat!

This paid advertisement brought to you by Lee Ving
posted by adipocere at 1:45 PM on March 29, 2010 [1 favorite]

Everything kills you
posted by setanor at 1:46 PM on March 29, 2010

Madamina, note that supplements contain folic acid which is the synthetic form of the naturally occurring folate (as one of the links I gave explains). The body (liver) is not able to metabolize folic acid in these doses in the same way and you get high serum levels of circulating folic acid, which may be the problem. I don't believe there is any problem with naturally occurring folate - you can get plenty from good food sources, and that should alleviate your worries about defects. I think the issue here is heedless supplementation, particularly with synthetics.
posted by VikingSword at 1:49 PM on March 29, 2010

If I don't eat fortified Capt'n Crunch or cereals and stay away from bread, I should be okay?

Also, doesn't bread eat your brain? I heard doctors were trying to do research on that, but the powerful bread lobby keeps getting in their way (kidding! it was on 30 Rock!).
posted by anniecat at 1:51 PM on March 29, 2010

Shouldn't it be clear by know that there are a whole host of things wrong with building your diet around white rice, white bread and processed "enriched" breakfast bars?
posted by setanor at 1:51 PM on March 29, 2010 [5 favorites]

I'm not a scientist, so can't comment on how right or wrong this is, but I wouldn't believe the newspapers on what gives you cancer and what does not.

For your enjoyment (because the Daily Mail is the king of this):
The The Daily Mail Oncological Ontology Project (defunct)
Things both cause and cure cancer
The new daily mail oncology
The facebook list of things that the Daily Mail say will give you cancer
posted by seanyboy at 1:52 PM on March 29, 2010 [1 favorite]

This is why I stick to bacon egg and cheese sandwiches.
posted by monospace at 1:53 PM on March 29, 2010 [4 favorites]

Play 'em off, Joe Jackson!
posted by Iridic at 1:54 PM on March 29, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'm not a scientist, so can't comment on how right or wrong this is, but I wouldn't believe the newspapers on what gives you cancer and what does not.

This however is not a newspaper claim. Note, there are a ton of links in the FPP, and most of them go to releases about the actual research studies.
posted by VikingSword at 1:54 PM on March 29, 2010

Historic reviews? Cane someone enlighten me as to what that means, because reading the link makes it look like they've discovered an approximate correlation, time-wise, between the introduction of folate-enrichment in foods and cancer rates.
posted by rocket88 at 1:57 PM on March 29, 2010

Will you just pick something and stick with it???

Well, if the data doesn't stick with it, I'm not sure why we should.
posted by namespan at 2:00 PM on March 29, 2010 [5 favorites]

I knew I shouldn't have believed that my AsbestOs were low fat.
posted by Babblesort at 2:01 PM on March 29, 2010 [4 favorites]

Since 19XX, cancer rates have increased. Around the same time, folic acid was introduced as a supplement.

Out of the thousands of things that have decreased and increased during the past X years, these reporters are quite sure that they've pegged the one that definitely is sort of kind of correlated or linked with this rise in colon cancer rates and/or detection! Now that's what I call SCIENCE.
posted by tmcw at 2:02 PM on March 29, 2010 [1 favorite]

VikingSword: The "kill or cure" website says that the Daily Mail has deemed Folic Acid to both Kill and Cure cancer.

Cause:
Folic acid 'may be linked to breast cancer'
Health warning over folic acid in bread
Folic acid in bread 'could be a health timebomb'

Prevent:
Latest health news round-up: How folic acid could lower the risk of cancer and antibiotics can help appendix pain
Folic acid 'could stop early cancer progression'
posted by seanyboy at 2:04 PM on March 29, 2010

Out of the thousands of things that have decreased and increased during the past X years, these reporters are quite sure that they've pegged the one that definitely is sort of kind of correlated or linked with this rise in colon cancer rates and/or detection!

Actually, it's confirmed that the leading cause is temporal proximity to the introduction and eventual discontinuation of the Sega Saturn.
posted by setanor at 2:05 PM on March 29, 2010 [3 favorites]

I share people's frustration with hearing every day about some new thing that's going to kill you. Thing is, the complexity of the human body is something few of us want to deal with (but something that all of us have to deal with). We pretend it's this simple machine, and that everything you do is either good for it or bad for it. In reality, almost any substance you put in your body is going to do ... stuff. Complicated stuff.

We will continually hear that the same substance is both good for you and bad for you -- because it probably is.
posted by grumblebee at 2:10 PM on March 29, 2010

Remember to pour enough milk on your cereal, just to be sure.
posted by klue at 2:10 PM on March 29, 2010

seanyboy, I don't make a habit of reading rags like the Daily Mail, sorry. The first link is a study looking for effect - no conclusion as yet. The second link is for people with low fa status - of course, if your status is low negative things may happen, and it may help to supplement. But that's not what this is about - it's whether the whole population, regardless of status should be dosed with supplemental vitamins.
posted by VikingSword at 2:11 PM on March 29, 2010

If I may address Cancer directly: Seriously, fuck you.
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 2:12 PM on March 29, 2010 [7 favorites]

ConAgra! Monsanto! McDonald's! Folic acid! Transfats! Partially hydrogenated oil! High fructose corn syrup! Mechanically separated chicken! Grape flavored juice drink! Yellow dye #5! Isn't this a wonderful time in the history of food? We're living in the future, man!
posted by The Winsome Parker Lewis at 2:18 PM on March 29, 2010 [1 favorite]

Recipe for helping to avoid colon cancer: fiber. Seriously. Eat fruits and vegetables, folks. It's not that hard, but apparently it is rare; at an event this weekend, they opened the food table and my son made a beeline for the fruit and ate almost nothing but, and everyone noticed and was amazed. Meanwhile, I have known people who refuse to eat any vegetables at all, as adults, and they got sick all the time. Cleanse cleanse cleanse.

Having said that: yeah, pregnant women now have another thing to worry about. Just what they needed.
posted by davejay at 2:20 PM on March 29, 2010 [2 favorites]

We pretend it's this simple machine, and that everything you do is either good for it or bad for it.

We do? I don't. I'm just sick of being bombarded by just that.
posted by setanor at 2:26 PM on March 29, 2010

ConAgra! Monsanto! McDonald's! Folic acid! Transfats! Partially hydrogenated oil! High fructose corn syrup! Mechanically separated chicken! Grape flavored juice drink! Yellow dye #5! Isn't this a wonderful time in the history of food? We're living in the future, man!

Yeah, and caring about the food you eat is trendy bullshit for hipsters amirite?
posted by setanor at 2:27 PM on March 29, 2010 [1 favorite]

If I may address Cancer directly: Seriously, fuck you.

Can we please not do this?
posted by davejay at 2:28 PM on March 29, 2010

More seriously, it's linked to an increase in deaths from cancer and death from any cause.

What, like meteorites? That's crazy tal*SPLORTCH*
posted by Halloween Jack at 2:28 PM on March 29, 2010

yeah, pregnant women now have another thing to worry about.

Weren't women in the fifties living on Jello and Fluffernutter? I think babies are pretty resilient. Worrying about cancer won't help. Just accept that we'll all probably die from it if not something else, like heart disease or rabies.

Eat fruits and vegetables, folks. It's not that hard, but apparently it is rare;

I'm worried about all the genetically modified fruits aren't as nutritious as the fruits of yesteryear were, not that I would, as a vegetarian, stop eating them. I just happened to be listening to an interview from the Food Inc. guys on NPR and they said something like fruits and vegetables have been changed so much due to farming techniques that they no longer have the same nutritional content they used to? Maybe I'm misremembering this....
posted by anniecat at 2:29 PM on March 29, 2010

setanor: Yes. Clearly, I was being literal and not at all sarcastic. I really do believe this is a wonderful time in the history of food, clearly. I also think blind consumption with utter disregard for what we're consuming is the highest of human virtues. Clearly.
posted by The Winsome Parker Lewis at 2:35 PM on March 29, 2010

setanor: Yes. Clearly, I was being literal and not at all sarcastic.

Egh, sorry, that wasn't about you. I was more thinking about the butcher thread from a few days ago... My tone was that of yours.
posted by setanor at 2:38 PM on March 29, 2010

Kent Brockman works for MSNBC now?
posted by drjimmy11 at 2:40 PM on March 29, 2010

I'm worried about all the genetically modified fruits aren't as nutritious as the fruits of yesteryear were, not that I would, as a vegetarian, stop eating them. I just happened to be listening to an interview from the Food Inc. guys on NPR and they said something like fruits and vegetables have been changed so much due to farming techniques that they no longer have the same nutritional content they used to? Maybe I'm misremembering this....

I haven't heard the NPR bit, but generally it's true that fruits and vegetables have been altered through the ages. In general, fruit cultivars were preferred where the taste was sweeter (higher amount of fructose), so for example, most apples today have only a very faint resemblance to the original apple as eaten by our ancestors. Sometimes the taste of vegetables that has been found to be objectionable (like broccoli or kale) has been modified in more modern versions - where the bitterness was removed or downregulated - only trouble, it's precisely the bitter components which were responsible for certain health benefits. Or fruit being developed for the look, rather than the taste or anything else. Or fruit/vegetables being developed for their ability to look good for long periods of time (to aid in transportation etc.), rather than any health benefits.

Then there are of course all sorts of arguments about soil quality etc. - a lot of health promoting nutrients are taken up by plants directly from the soil, but if the soil is exhausted or stripped due to industrial farming practices, you will not have the nutrients you were banking on in your vegetables and fruit. And so on.

This is not to argue against eating fruits & veggies - just that modern life is complicated.
posted by VikingSword at 2:40 PM on March 29, 2010 [3 favorites]

Back in the good old days we...........I forget
posted by Postroad at 2:56 PM on March 29, 2010

releases about the actual research studies.

Still not overly great, especially when dealing with an epidemiological issue that's still far from settled. Your most recent link, the MSNBC article, mischaracterizes the debate in some fairly nuanced but nonetheless important ways and makes recommendations for which there isn't really any solid clinical evidence.

For instance, the MSNBC article states that "Since 1998, the number of [neural tube defects (NTDs)] dropped by about 19 percent," which borders on fabrication, as the only data I've seen on NTD incidence is this study, which suggests a 15-50% decrease in the US, and this study which suggested a 40% decrease in Chile. Add to this the fact that the article hides other suggested, more population-wide benefits (pdf) of folic acid fortification on its second page, and you've got a less-than-unbiased look at a potential public health problem.

I'd suggest that anyone who wants a good, balanced, and up-to-date analysis of the folic acid issue should read this article from The Lancet, published in September. Sadly, it's behind a paywall (the bastards), so I'll do my best to give you the highlights here:

The article was published in advance of the FSAB reevaluation (which upheld mandatory fortification) first summarizes the history of folic acid's use on a public-health scale to prevent NTDs, proposes two potential mechanisms by which folic acid could possibly promote cancer, and reports (as I did above) surveillance data on NTDs.

It continues by giving the recommended daily folate allowance of 400 micrograms (240 micrograms synthetic), and sets an upper limit at 1000 micrograms. It then quotes a study that found the average folic acid intake in the USA to be 220 micrograms, roughly double where it was before mandatory fortification.

The article then gets to the heart of the issue-- "trends of increasing incidence rates of colorectal cancer in several countries that had adopted mandatory fortification with folic acid, including the USA, Candada, and Chile," qualifying almost immediately that "[c]onversely, death rates from cardiovascular disease have fallen... during the past decade," and then qualifying their qualification by noting that this drop was concurrent with decline in smoking rates, transfat bans, HTN treatment, and folate fortification.

The article concludes that long-term followup studies are needed to assess the safety of high folate intake, and that countries should forestall further mandates until the data is available, offering alternative strategies such as the "addition of folate to oral contraceptives" as a way to bridge the gap.

Anyway, I'd say that this is something of which to be cognizant, but the OMGCANCER stuff might be a little premature, especially if you're still in that 400 microgram range.
posted by The White Hat at 3:27 PM on March 29, 2010 [1 favorite]

Weren't women in the fifties living on Jello and Fluffernutter? I think babies are pretty resilient.

Rates of spina bifida have declined by 75% since folic acid supplementation became common. Babies are pretty resilient, but I'll gladly take an increased risk of cancer myself over a decreased risk that my baby will be born with an open spinal column or without a brain.
posted by KathrynT at 3:31 PM on March 29, 2010 [1 favorite]

setanor : Everything kills you

My hypothesis has been that everything is lethal in large enough quantities or when accelerated to a sufficient velocity.

Thus far, my testing has proven this to be an accurate statement.
posted by quin at 3:35 PM on March 29, 2010 [2 favorites]

Do you want the can sir?
posted by The Deej at 3:45 PM on March 29, 2010

TWH, didn't PMID: 19766871 you referenced come out earlier than the Nov. 18 JAMA Norwegian study by Ebbing? The study itself was finished by 2007, so perhaps they contacted them for comment? In other words were these results incorporated in the review? I provided a link to the press release in the FPP, but despite the B12 confounder, it seems to be somewhat suggestive:

"The two randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials included 6,837 patients with ischemic heart disease who were treated with B vitamins or placebo between 1998 and 2005, and were followed up through December 31, 2007. Patients were randomized to receive oral treatment with folic acid (0.8 mg/d), plus vitamin B12 (0.4 mg/d), plus vitamin B6 (40 mg/d) (n = 1,708); folic acid (0.8 mg/d) plus vitamin B12 (0.4 mg/d) (n = 1,703); vitamin B6 alone (40 mg/d) (n = 1,705); or placebo (n = 1,721). During study treatment, median (midpoint) serum folate concentration increased more than 6-fold among participants given folic acid.
The researchers found that after a median 39 months of treatment and an additional 38 months of post-trial observational follow-up, 288 participants (8.4 percent) who did not receive folic acid plus vitamin B12 vs. 341 participants (10.0 percent) who received such treatment were diagnosed with cancer, a 21 percent increased risk. A total of 100 patients (2.9 percent) who did not receive folic acid plus vitamin B12 vs. 136 (4.0 percent) who received such treatment died from cancer, a 38 percent increased risk. A total of 16.1 percent of patients who received folic acid plus vitamin B12 vs. 13.8 percent who did not receive such treatment died from any cause.
"Results were mainly driven by increased lung cancer incidence in participants who received folic acid plus vitamin B12. Vitamin B6 treatment was not associated with any significant effects," the authors write.
"Our results need confirmation in other populations and underline the call for safety monitoring following the widespread consumption of folic acid from dietary supplements and fortified foods."

It was a randomized and placebo-controlled study with a decent number of subjects, and seems a generally well done study. As the editorial points out, longer term studies would be helpful, but these results are certainly are not merely epidem. noodlings.
posted by VikingSword at 3:58 PM on March 29, 2010

I'm worried about all the genetically modified fruits aren't as nutritious as the fruits of yesteryear were

Errr, last I knew the only GMOed (via gene injection VS humans picking and choosing genetic mutations) fruit was the fish-tomato.

If you wish to play 'is X version of Z better for me than Y' - get yourself a refractometer and play 'watch the brix

For added fun, you can grow your own crops with miracle-grow VS double-dug-dung beds and see what the results are.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:01 PM on March 29, 2010

Then there are of course all sorts of arguments about soil quality etc. - a lot of health promoting nutrients are taken up by plants directly from the soil, but if the soil is exhausted or stripped due to industrial farming practices, you will not have the nutrients you were banking on in your vegetables and fruit. And so on.

Back in the bad old days - plants made a 'deal' with fungi - I'll give you sugar you spread out in the soil so I get extra water and various hard to break down rocks will be broken down by your waste products so I get, oh, say Phosphorus.

Then Man came about, got bored with raiding mass graves for the bones to put on soil and went right for adding P. Exposing the fungal mats to oxygen along with all the free-base P a plant could want along with irrigation - why should a plant give up sugar?


If you want to re-establish fungi
Fungi tabs
The re-mineralize the soil pitch
http://www.remineralize.org/

The Soil food web points out that you don't want fungi for veggies - you want bacteria.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:13 PM on March 29, 2010 [1 favorite]

"note that supplements contain folic acid which is the synthetic form of the naturally occurring folate (as one of the links I gave explains). The body (liver) is not able to metabolize folic acid in these doses in the same way and you get high serum levels of circulating folic acid, which may be the problem."

Can you lay out the difference because your Wikipedia link seems to say they are the same thing with one being 40% more bio available than the the other.

"In general, fruit cultivars were preferred where the taste was sweeter (higher amount of fructose), so for example, most apples today have only a very faint resemblance to the original apple as eaten by our ancestors."

Apples have been selected for for thousands of years. And unselected cross pollinated apples generally taste so bad as to be inedible. Johnny Appleseed for example cultivated trees for cider use not eating. And tart dessert and baking apples have a strong minor following even today.
posted by Mitheral at 4:20 PM on March 29, 2010

You know what would be awesome? Cancer that makes you breakfast.
posted by Artw at 4:22 PM on March 29, 2010

Cancer that makes you breakfast.

If you want cancer for breakfast, this may already be possible.
posted by GuyZero at 4:29 PM on March 29, 2010

In general, fruit cultivars were preferred where the taste was sweeter (higher amount of fructose), so for example, most apples today have only a very faint resemblance to the original apple as eaten by our ancestors.

Mitheral already sort of addressed this, but it's also because commercial apple varieties are all genetically identical, having been essentially cloned via grafting. Every Fuji apple comes from a branch that can be traced, via grafting, back to exactly one tree that was bred in Japan in the 30's.
posted by GuyZero at 4:32 PM on March 29, 2010

Can you lay out the difference because your Wikipedia link seems to say they are the same thing with one being 40% more bio available than the the other.

It is my understanding that they are not the same thing insofar as different pathways are required for them to be absorbed. I looked for a link to explain it and the best I found is this [warning: frame].
posted by VikingSword at 4:35 PM on March 29, 2010

Brown rice is a significant source of folic acid. As well as whole grain wheat. So they polish the folic acid off and then add it back? Well done.
posted by Splunge at 5:14 PM on March 29, 2010

There really aren't any GMO fruits grown commercially, aside from ring spot virus resistant papaya. As far as food crops go, the most common ones are soy, rapeseed and corn and most of that actually goes to animal feed or oil production (and GMO-sourced oils would be chemically identical to non-GMO ones since there wouldn't be any of the modified genes hanging around, just the oil). Bt-brindjal is having some uptake, but GMO food crops just aren't that common yet. Other GMO food crops have been developed ("golden rice", flood tolerate rice, some potato varieties) but few are commercial yet. The tomato with a fish gene is actually a myth -- there was an attempt to market a GMO tomato (that failed), but it didn't have a fish gene.

As for whether or not folic acid fortification does or does not increase cancer risks, it's probably fair to say that if your diet depends so heavily on things that are fortified, you have other things to fix first.
posted by R343L at 5:17 PM on March 29, 2010

VS: The Lancet review doesn't list the Ebbing article in its references, so it was likely not included.

That said, I'm skimming through the Ebbing article as I read this (gotta love institutional access) and there are a couple things here that the SD article fails to mention:

• The intervention folic acid dose of 800 micrograms (equivalent to 1600 micrograms of folate) was "4 to 6 times higher than the average dose delivered by the mandatory fortification in the United States and twice the recommended daily allowance."
• The SD article is only reporting comparative incidence rates, which don't really tell you a whole lot because they don't include any measure of central tendency or statistical significance. The article itself uses hazard ratios(essentially, the risk of cancer happening relative to folate exposure) and either 95 or 99% confidence intervals in its analysis.
  1. Generally, you want your confidence intervals to Exclude 1 when doing HR analysis-- a hazard ratio of 1 means no effect, and <1> For the major outcomes, (cancer incidence, cancer mortality), Ebbing uses 95% confidence intervals, which is inconsistent and, in my opinion, a cheap way to show tighter interval and seem more sure in his findings.
• The Ebbing study found no folate effect on colorectal cancer incidence or mortality (HR 1.00 [99%CI 0.59-1.69], 1.02 [99%CI 0.36-2.91], respectively). This runs contrary to the speculation of a couple other releases and articles.

posted by The White Hat at 5:19 PM on March 29, 2010 [1 favorite]

Thanks, WTH, that was informative. I'll look around to see if there are better colon cancer studies.
posted by VikingSword at 5:28 PM on March 29, 2010

Someone tell me something positive... I'm currently taking folic acid and baby asprin while pregnant to ensure my baby will be born healthy (lost a baby at 7 months along some years ago) and my mom died of colon cancer when cancer was never in the family before.

Why oh why do I check Metafilter sometimes, and why do I click on those links?
posted by czechmate at 5:46 PM on March 29, 2010

czechmate, I totally understand your frustration, but you're going to be fine. One reason why some results seem to show one thing and other results the opposite, is because it can be dependent on the genetic makeup of a given person, other environmental factors etc. For example, a result may show that calcium is helpful in the prevention of colon cancer, but that may only be true in the presence of magnesium.

Meanwhile: Health Benefits, Consequences Of Folic Acid Dependent On Circumstances:

"Under most circumstances, adequate intake of folate appears to assume the role of a protective agent against cancer, most notably colorectal cancer. However, in select circumstances in which an individual who harbors a pre-cancerous or cancerous tumor consumes too much folic acid, the additional amounts of folate may instead facilitate the promotion of cancer. In countries in which the fortification of flour with folic acid is working well, additional supplementation in the form of vitamin pills can lead to excessive intakes of the vitamin, which can then have undesirable adverse effects. Thus, folate appears to assume different guises depending on the circumstances. The level of intake of this micronutrient that is safe for one person may be potentially harmful to another."

Since you are taking extra FA only for a relatively short period of time, you can reap most of the benefits for the child and then you need not continue - see this [warning: rat study]:

"Folic Acid Supplementation Provided In Utero, But Not After Birth, May Protect Offspring From Colorectal Cancer"

Some recommend timing FA supplements to get the neural tube benefits, but avoid the possible childhood asthma risks:

""These findings show there is a potentially important critical period during which folic acid supplement dosages may be manipulated to optimise their neuro-protective effects while not increasing the risk of asthma," Associate Professor Davies says."

One thing that seems to be a common thread in all this is that the dietary form of folate is safe, so there is always that - getting adequate folate from green veggies etc., which is not that hard to do.
posted by VikingSword at 6:07 PM on March 29, 2010 [2 favorites]

When I was a kid, my step-dad used to tell a stupid joke: "You know what the first sign of cancer is? Hair on the back of your hands. You know what the second sign is? Looking for it." I have begun to feel this way. What the hell am I supposed to eat?
posted by PuppyCat at 6:19 PM on March 29, 2010

Madamina: "As a woman facing the possibility of getting pregnant within the next few years, thus forcing herself to swallow a folic acid-containing horse pill every morning, fuck all y'all. Will you just pick something and stick with it???"

As someone born with Spina Bifida, I thank you for taking Folic Acid, at least during your pregnancy years.
posted by stbalbach at 8:45 PM on March 29, 2010 [2 favorites]

The perfect breakfast: popcorn, sugar, and a vitamin.
100% whole grain
High fiber
100% of your daily vitamins.

Think about it: most cereals are not whole grain, high fiber, nor give you 100% of your daily requirement of vitamins.

Vitamins were required to be added to flour when refined flour started causing all kinds of health problems.

In fact, supplements don't have to be added if the vitamins are not refined out. Some bread companies don't use flour--that is they haven't ground the wheat down to a non-nutritious flour for their bread.

If I see "100% Vitamin C per Serving" I put it down. Vitamin C used to come from a factory in New Jersey and is very cheap. I hear now it mostly comes from China. When I buy packaged food, I go out of my way to buy food that has vitamins without any added supplements. I figure I have a lot better chance of getting the uncounted micronutrients and avoiding unnatural combinations that turn out to be bad for you.
posted by eye of newt at 9:33 PM on March 29, 2010

Well, so what, who needs more sugar anyway? For one thing, this is real sugar, not that whiter-than-white poison in the sugar bowl, and for another, a plant's mineral and protein content, and protein quality, are directly related to the sugar content in the sap.

So I have to ask, what does "protein quality" mean?

It doesn't mean "contains the amino acids that you can't synthesize yourself" because that's part an parcel of how the organism conducts it's business. It's won't reflect protein denaturing (and I'm going to denature the hell out of it starting about the time I put it in my mouth). So seriously, what?
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 10:13 PM on March 29, 2010

I'm worried about all the genetically modified fruits aren't as nutritious as the fruits of yesteryear were

Uh, why? People aren't genetically modifying food to get rid of nutrients. In some cases, they're adding nutrients. Such as this rice. But most fruits and vegetables are not GMO, as far as I know.
posted by delmoi at 11:21 PM on March 29, 2010

(and GMO-sourced oils would be chemically identical to non-GMO ones since there wouldn't be any of the modified genes hanging around, just the oil).

If peanut oil is JUST Carbon and Hydrogen (oil) and various fatty acids - why are people who are allergic to peanut protein also allergic to the oil?

There won't be 0 GMO DNA in the oil. A small amount, a number close to 0, yes. But not 0.

Consuming GMO produced oil creates demand for said oil so if you think GMOs are a bad plan best to not create demand, no?

What the hell am I supposed to eat?
Jungle Diet?


People aren't genetically modifying food to get rid of nutrients.

Yea, because Man has complete mastery of the environment and knowledge of DNA Man knows that GMOing a plant will only give the plant the new trait and not effect any other part of the plant. Yup....that noble and knoweldgeable Man.
posted by rough ashlar at 3:26 AM on March 30, 2010

Yea, because Man has complete mastery of the environment and knowledge of DNA Man knows that GMOing a plant will only give the plant the new trait and not effect any other part of the plant.

We are pretty good at this. And even if there is some "effect", we can still measure the actual amount of each nutrient present in a plant. There's no evidence that GMO plants have less nutrient.

(And, btw, we have no idea what's all "in" regular plants, there's no reason to think that non-GMO plants aren't bad for you, or that GMO plants are any worse)
posted by delmoi at 9:51 AM on March 30, 2010

there's no reason to think that non-GMO plants aren't bad for you, or that GMO plants are any worse

Right. That is why we should just ignore the International Journal of Microbiology's report that claims genetically modified (GM) crops are causing severe health problems.

Or the courts.

"A legal challenge issued against Monsanto forced the multi-national agriculture giant to release raw data revealing that animals fed its patented GM corn suffered liver and kidney damage within just three months."

Now, if Monsanto's OWN raw data that shows damage and yet they SOLD the stuff - well, obviously the market has spoken!

"Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, a French researcher from the University of Caen, was tasked with examining the data and providing a review. While stopping short of declaring GM crops to be toxic, he did emphasize that chronic negative effects were apparent and that there were "statistically significant" indications of kidney and liver damage"

Is liver/kidney damage an anti-nutrient?
posted by rough ashlar at 10:44 AM on March 30, 2010

There really aren't any GMO fruits grown commercially, aside from ring spot virus resistant papaya.

Now University of Florida (UF) researcher Dr. Nam Dang and his colleagues in Japan have announced new evidence that the papaya fights cancer cells.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:54 AM on March 30, 2010

I've suspected for a while now that folic acid supplementation was linked to cancer rates.

I have a blood disorder that causes the stem cells in my bone marrow to make too many platelets. To keep the platelets down, I take a drug that inhibits DNA synthesis. A few years ago while taking the drug, I started taking a multivitamin that contained extra folic acid. My platelet count shot super high. Once I figured out the problem was the multivitamin, I stopped taking it. The platelet count went back to normal. It made me wonder what the folic acid did for regular cancers (mine is technically a neoplasm). Obviously, folic acid works very well. While that might be good for the good cells, it's probably not so good for the bad ones!

Just for fun, try going into a health store and asking for a multivitamin without folic acid. They'll probably think you're crazy, just like they did with me. Maybe I'm not so crazy after all.
posted by icanbreathe at 10:37 PM on March 30, 2010

I found a Wikipedia article about bread made with wheat but without flour.

Someone asked what should we should eat? Well for your grains, eat Essene bread.

No added folic acid, or any other supplements, because they are not needed.
posted by eye of newt at 7:54 AM on March 31, 2010