Food Safety Minister not being honest about Folic Acid and must resign
Scientists dispute safety claims
Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson has been caught up in a row among scientists about whether folic acid increases the risk of cancer.
Wilkinson told TVNZ's Close Up programme earlier this week that she was convinced dosing bread with folic acid was safe, based on data from an as-yet unpublished British study.
She also attacked Food and Grocery Council chief executive and former National MP Katherine Rich and Green MP Sue Kedgley, calling them "irresponsible" for "alarming New Zealanders, when the science says there is no risk".
Wilkinson made the claim following a telephone conversation with University of Otago Professor Murray Skeaff, who had issued a statement saying new research presented at a conference he attended in Prague showed there was no increase in cancer risk with high-dose folic acid.
Skeaff said the data was "state of the art" and the highest-quality analysis to date that folic acid posed no risk of cancer.
But two other professors who were at the same conference have disputed Skeaff's claims, and say he omitted to mention a Norwegian study presented to the meeting, which found an overall increased risk of cancer in two trials including deaths. They also point out the Prague conference voted by majority to oppose mandatory fortification of foods with folic acid.
Well, well, well – the Food Safety Minister told NZers on Close Up that Folic Acid was safe based on unseen research she was privy to and accused Katherine Rich and Sue Kedgley of being irresponsible and alarming NZers over folic acid – ohhhhh silly Katie.
Now let’s give her a kicking shall we? Everyone strapped their boots on? Good, let’s go to work….Kate you didn’t tell any NZers that the research you were holding up as proof that Katherine and Sue were lying happened to ignore two trials showing cancer including death was the result of folic acid AND that the conference voted by majority to OPPOSE mandatory fortification of foods with folic acid! Meaning you Kate Wilkinson have mislead the country on this issue and now have no credibility whatsoever and as such must resign as the Food Safety Minister. After telling NZers that there was nothing to fear while denigrating those who had brought such concerns to the media, it turns out the Minister didn’t tell NZ that there are trials that show cancer rates increase and that death rates increase as well! That is the TOTAL OPPOSITE of what the Minister told NZ.
I have difficulties trusting a 12 person trans-tasman board that only has 3 NZ votes on it meaning that it is a one sided board that intrinsically values the concern of Australian consumers over and above NZers and that our 3 votes are cancelled out by the 3 votes for the corporate Australian Food industry with spin dr’s who have previously worked for Kraft, Kellogs and the Australian Food Meat and Dairy industry.
Here’s the Board
Food Standards Australia NZ Board Members
Ms Philippa Smith - Australian
Mr Steve McCutcheon - Australian
Dr Michele Allan – Australian and former executive at Kraft bloody food for Christ’s sake!
Professor Katrine Baghurst - Australian
Mr Peter Boyden – Corporate voice for Australian Dairy and meat and was on the Australian Food and Grocery Council. He’s big business.
Dr Laurence Eyres – Finally a NZer, but Dr Eyres just happens to be a corporate spokesperson for the ‘food technology’ industry, so he’s mouthed the profit motives for ECG ltd (Food and Beverages industry), NZ Dairy Foods, Protector Sabre UK. So he’s a ‘NZ’ perspective, but he’s in there for the industry, not the consumer.
Ms Jenni Mack – Australian
Dr James Murray – Australian vet
Associate Professor Winsome Parnell – NZ
Dr David Roberts - Australian
Dr Peter Williams Former Director of Scientific and Consumer Affairs at Kelloggs for crying out loud!
Ms Dianne Yates – NZ.
National will allow for more tumors up bums for lower cross Tasman tariffs. Great trade there National, cheers Kate!
posted by Bomber @ 7:14 am
22 comments
22 Comments:
Oh dear, I though you of all people would be wary of spin.
Looks like the "prostate cancer" dog whistle caught you out too.
Hop over to David Slack's blog on PA, look at the informed comments, with links to numerous studies demonstrating minimal harm.
Looks like you have firmly nailed your mast with Holmes/Henry/Laws/Kiwiblog et al...who, apart from the "prostate cancer" dog whistle, there only other reason for not implementing vitamin B9 (it's other name) is on personal choice grounds.
Your enemies enemy is not always your friend bomber.
BTW, I assume you will not be consuming any of these food products considering all contain folic acid:
Green leafy vegetables
Beans
Liver
Yeast Extract
Whole grains
Egg yolk
Milk and milk products
Oranges and orange juice
Beets
Wholemeal bread
Beer
Folic acid is a naturally occurring vitamin, which doesn't cause cancer.
How many men are decrying putting folic acid in bread, whilst quaffing large amounts of beer?
Do you mind iodine in your salt?
Flouride in your water?
But fuck the kids who suffer, it's about men and there bums right bomber?
What a great big fucking dog whistle this is.
Thank you both for your comments, here is why I disagree with the 2 of you...
1: I think the make up of the interests within the Food Standards Australia NZ Board Membership DOES MATTER within the context of food sovereignty and decisions being made here and how they can be countered if the host population rejects those decisions.
2: The Food Saftey Minister has taken a poorly thought out one sided advice on the issue when there were two other Professors who are now claiming two reports did note increased cancer and mortality rates and that there was a majority vote against mandatory fortification of foods with folic acid. The Minister did not make one whisper of that known on the Close Up debate - SHE SAID she had a report that there was no risk, she didn't mention two reports noting cancer or a majority vote against mandatory folic acid. She has misled the public and has no credibility on the issue any longer.
This is a dreadful media mishandling of the situation, and her media people need a kick in the arse. Kate simply has no credibility on this issue by presenting the conference in a light that totally obscures the other concerns raised.
Are you claiming the Norwegian reserach is flawed or the mandatory folic acid in food majority vote was flawed?
I'm not doubting that folic acid is in a lot of food or that eating them as part of a balanced diet isn't great and what everyone should do, and if it can stop a disease like Spina Bifida, even better. But surely the debate is a science one, so again, are you suggesting the Norwegian reserach is flawed or the mandatory folic acid in food majority vote was flawed? Or are both Proffessors lying?
But fuck the kids who suffer, it's about men and there bums right bomber?
Not to be picky but many more men die of prostate cancer than the rate of Spina Bifida damages, so any method to reduce one at the cost on increasing the other doesn't make much sense now does it Anon?
PS - Hey I went over to PA and read David's blog and it's hbardly the blistering debate you make it out to be. He righfully points out the whole having to eat 11 peices of bread per day to get the full benefit for pregnant women as well.
I'm actually against putting folic acid because it seems to me to a big deal for very little benefit. Pregnant women can take folic acid tablets which would seem to be the sensible thing to do rather than have a huge proportion of the population who will never be pregnant take it! And there are potentially some health risks, although I understand the scientific research is divided on that.
But my big gripe is thew compulsion aspect of it - whatever happened to freedom of choice? Could we not have folic acid added to some bread and not to other bread and we get to choose whether we want it in our bread or not? Is that too hard?
Another hangover from the previous government, which took the idea of "nanny state" to extremes. Thanks for nothing Annette King.
(I'm feeling a bit creeped out that bomber and I are in agreement on this!)
My wife is pregnant. She takes Folic Acid tablets in order to reduce the chance of spina bifida. I think it costs like 80c a day. If you cant afford it, you probably shouldn't be having kids.
This seems the logical thing to do. Why do the rest of us need it, if we arent pregnant?
1: I think the make up of the interests within the Food Standards Australia NZ Board Membership DOES MATTER within the context of food sovereignty and decisions being made here
I think informed medical/scientific evidence trumps political partisanship.
and how they can be countered if the host population rejects those decisions.
You mean like the "anti-smacking" debate?
: The Food Saftey Minister has taken a poorly thought out one sided advice on the issue
A) Fortification of bread has been practiced in many countries bomber, with numerous studies pointing to it's efficacy, hardly poorly thought out advice.
B)It had cross board consensus from National/Labour bomber, it's now become an issue because of "personal choice" from the usual right-wing mob.
Are you claiming the Norwegian reserach is flawed or the mandatory folic acid in food majority vote was flawed?
I'm not qualified to say.
Yet the majority of research points to the opposite.
The view of a minority of studies should trump the viewpoints of the scientific majority?
Where have I heard that before?
*cough* climate change denial *cough*
Not to be picky but many more men die of prostate cancer than the rate of Spina Bifida damages, so any method to reduce one at the cost on increasing the other doesn't make much sense now does it Anon?
It certianly doesn't make sense when the prostate cancer link is unproven, does it bomber?
dog whistle anybody?
PS - Hey I went over to PA and read David's blog and it's hbardly the blistering debate you make it out to be.
It's not a debate at all, there is consensus amongst the informed posters that accept scientific/medical evidence over a Paul Holmes column/Political partisanship.
He righfully points out the whole having to eat 11 peices of bread per day to get the full benefit for pregnant women as well.
And he was rightfully corrected that that is the case if you consume only bread.
But my big gripe is thew compulsion aspect of it - whatever happened to freedom of choice?
bc: do you stop at red lights?
This seems the logical thing to do. Why do the rest of us need it, if we arent pregnant?
Sdm/bc: Many pregnancies are unplanned.
By the time a woman knows she is pregnant, then it is too late re: benefits of folic acid.
Likewise many women may not know/not care, only to the detriment of the child.
I think it costs like 80c a day. If you cant afford it, you probably shouldn't be having kids.
Real caring person aren't you sdm?
I think informed medical/scientific evidence trumps political partisanship.
12 member board, we get 3 votes, those votes are trumped by the 3 votes of the corporate Australian food industry and you 'trust' in that? Like the pigs trust the pig industry welfare standards?
You mean like the "anti-smacking" debate?
You are comparing corporate interests of the food industry and the rights of citizens with the repeal of section 59?
A) Fortification of bread has been practiced in many countries bomber, with numerous studies pointing to it's efficacy, hardly poorly thought out advice.
Going on Close Up and telling everyone she had a report that shows it's safe when at the conference in question there were two reports showing an increase in cancer and a majority vote against mandatory folic acid in food, that was good advice was it?
B)It had cross board consensus from National/Labour bomber, it's now become an issue because of "personal choice" from the usual right-wing mob.
So did their internet censorship law and allowing new police powers on surveillance, let's not hold up their desire to both hand over our food sovereignty to Australia as some moment to savor. Now as for the 'personal choice' stuff - LOOK IF the science shows it aint safe and that there is cancer risk then it shouldn't go through, if that science isn't right then mass medicate away. I have no issue whatsoever with compulsion if it's backed up with a good argument, I'm saying we haven't seen that yet in light of this new research and having Kate mis-represent the conference makes her no longer a credible source of information.
Are you claiming the Norwegian research is flawed or the mandatory folic acid in food majority vote was flawed?
I'm not qualified to say.
Yet the majority of research points to the opposite.
Ok so this research should be ignored? Are you suggesting the research is corrupt? Are you suggesting Professor David Smith is wrong or Professor Helga Refsum? Their words now...
Oxford University Emeritus Professor David Smith said Skeaff's account of the meeting was "outrageous" and failed to mention the study to which he referred was only set up to detect an increase in cancer rates of greater than 10 per cent.
"So it does not exclude a rise in cancer below 10 per cent, which is a lot of people if the whole country is exposed.
"He did not mention the Norwegian study, which caused much more interest, which showed an overall increase in cancer in two combined trials with longer follow-up and an increase in cancer mortality," Smith said.
University of Oslo Professor Helga Refsum said she found it disconcerting that Skeaff did not report the overall vote of the conference against folic acid fortification.
"It would be good if Dr Skeaff had reported those views as well.
"The specialists are concerned. The meta-analysis data and all the other data coming in are not convincingly negative [i.e. indicating no ill effect], in contrast to what Skeaff has tried to say," she said.
..I am interested in your views on their views. They paint a very different picture to the one Skeaff gave Kate Wilkinson.
The view of a minority of studies should trump the viewpoints of the scientific majority?
Where have I heard that before?
*cough* climate change denial *cough*
...let me get this straight, you are comparing the IPCC and thr oil funded skeptics as an example of the Norwegian findings, the majority vote the views of Professor Refsum and Professor Smith? It's a huge call but it has happened in climate change debate so I put it to you, what evidence do you have showing the Norwegian study was biased towards an individual rights or that the majority who voted were likewise ideologically biased? And the two professors? In the climate debate these bias are easy to pick up, the heritage foundation is a good example, could you show those links in this case?
It certainly doesn't make sense when the prostate cancer link is unproven, does it bomber?
So this new research or the majority vote don't count? Look Anon, I'm all for the gloriously heavy hand of Government regulation, and compulsion, if we can eliminate Spina Bifida, that's great - but I am surprised you just want to ignore this new research if there isn't a bias involved by those providing the research?
dog whistle anybody?
Well it must be a very good one, not only can I not hear it, I didn't realize it was blowing. Sue Kedgley has been a very good advocate for consumers in the past and find it hard to imagine she is blowing dog whistle's either.
"
Sdm/bc: Many pregnancies are unplanned.
By the time a woman knows she is pregnant, then it is too late re: benefits of folic acid.
Likewise many women may not know/not care, only to the detriment of the child."
Should we ban alcohol as well?
I think it costs like 80c a day. If you cant afford it, you probably shouldn't be having kids.
Real caring person aren't you sdm?"
I stand by what I said - a person who cant afford 80c a day isnt in a position to have kids
Oh stop with the Labour "Nanny state" shit!
I'd suggest what some call "Nanny state" actually means good government.....ie banning junk food in schools...why? to curb the major problem we have with obesity. But no, torys get in and reverse this, but then spend millions of dollers for obesity related ill health.
Fluro Light bulbs great idea to save power, but no thats being controlling....what do the torys do, ditch the idea then spend tens of thousands of dollers on advertising to get us to save electricity....DAH!!!!!
theres alot of thick torys out there!
Bomber, the latest evidence is linked to at David Slacks blog.
New evidence points to no link to cancer.
The studies you mention used levels of folic acid way above what is being put into flour here.
Don't forget folic acid is a naturally occuring vitamin found in many foods.
Are you saying spinach causes protate cancer?
Because thats what your arguing.
Other studies that prove a link (Chilean) admit that the higher levels of prostate cancer could be attributed to higher obesity levels, as linking cancer to one cause is highly problematic.
This is not a scientific debate but a political one.
National backed this legislation, but have decided to back out now they are in power because they don't want to appear interventionist.
National doesn't do nanny state, or as you put it, "the gloriously heavy hand of Government regulation". (does that imply you don't like a nanny state either?)
National have let our children down by removing the healthy eating initiative from schools, and now they are letting some of our unborn children down by denying them a proven health benefit, with unproven downsides.
All in the name of personal choice.
The Paediatric Society of New Zealand and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians said yesterday they "strongly support" mandatory fortification of bread.
I support these two organisation over two trials (which are unpublished and therefore not peer-reviewed) from "a conference in Prague".
The study from March 2009 admits that it's sample was too small, used twice the daily recommended dosage, and admitted that small doses would be beneficial in reducing the risk of prostate cancer!!
Btw, do you think the Paediatric Society of New Zealand and the Royal Australasian College of Physicans are in the pocket of big business?
Do not forget, your marmite/vegemite has vitamin B9 in it.
Like I said, a fucking dog whistle.
Sdm said:
Should we ban alcohol as well?
Why?
There are health warnings concerning drinking alcohol which is quite common knowledge, the benefits of folic acid, not so much.
You and I are aware of goitre, so why the need to put iodine in our salt?
Flouride in our water?
I stand by what I said - a person who cant afford 80c a day isnt in a position to have kids
Can't or won't Sdm.
It ain't about the mother, it's about what is beneficial for the unborn kids.
Kerry, banning junk food in schools might be reasonable if it worked, but like I said in another post, it's not the food in tuck shops you have to worry about - it's all the rubbish teenagers buy at the corner dairy on their way to and from school.
But hey let's just ban stuff, right kerry? Who cares if it works or not. There will always be stupid people doing stupid things kerry (your defence of Winston Peters in a previous post is proof of that), so what's your solution - ban more things I suppose.
It's for own our good right?
Ends justify the means right?
Give me a break.
Hmmm, the research showing an increase in cancer is not as weak as you both seem to be suggesting.
Bomber, the latest evidence is linked to at David Slacks blog.
I've been there and you have Skeaff's version of events which he admits now that he was giving a point of view not a complete picture of the conferance...
Skeaff, who has also provided advice to Food Safety Australia New Zealand and the Ministry of Health on the plan to put folic acid in bread, said yesterday he stood by his comments. He told The Press he had never claimed the information he provided was the view of the whole conference, but was simply his interpretation of the data that was presented.
"You have to make a decision sometimes and that was my interpretation.
"Clearly Drs Smith and Refsum don't agree with me."
Skeaff said it was "a reasonable point" that the study did not test below a 10 per cent risk for cancer, but said the trials were actually set up to look at the impact of folic acid on cardiovascular disease.
New evidence points to no link to cancer.
Hold on, I've posted the new evidence above and it doesn't say that at all..
The studies you mention used levels of folic acid way above what is being put into flour here.
...hold on does the new evidence say no cancer risk or does it say that the levels of folic acid used are too high to accept?
Don't forget folic acid is a naturally occuring vitamin found in many foods.
I'm well aware of that, there's also plenty of salt in plenty of our food as well. Are you suggesting you can't overdose on a vitamin?
Are you saying spinach causes protate cancer?
Because thats what your arguing.
How am I arguing that? I'm saying you can overdose on anything.
Other studies that prove a link (Chilean) admit that the higher levels of prostate cancer could be attributed to higher obesity levels, as linking cancer to one cause is highly problematic.
That's a good point.
This is not a scientific debate but a political one.
For some.
National backed this legislation, but have decided to back out now they are in power because they don't want to appear interventionist.
That's true
National doesn't do nanny state, or as you put it, "the gloriously heavy hand of Government regulation". (does that imply you don't like a nanny state either?)
I don't believe in the Nnany State full stop, it's an invention created by talkback radio.
National have let our children down by removing the healthy eating initiative from schools, and now they are letting some of our unborn children down by denying them a proven health benefit, with unproven downsides.
3-4 of our unborn children right, isn't that the total amount of children we are looking to save? And I'm sorry but the link I posted above just doesn't look as weak in the science as you are suggesting.
All in the name of personal choice.
I'm not buying into that crap, like I said I have no problem with compulsion at all, If putting Folic Acid into bread saves 3-4 children a year with no adverse side effects with the rest of the population, go nuts, knock yourself out - but we have a situation here where Skaef says one thing and two other Proffessors are saying something else.
The Paediatric Society of New Zealand and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians said yesterday they "strongly support" mandatory fortification of bread.
Good people doinggood things, what about the majority vote at the conference?
I support these two organisation over two trials (which are unpublished and therefore not peer-reviewed) from "a conference in Prague".
Okay, valid points raised.
The study from March 2009 admits that it's sample was too small, used twice the daily recommended dosage, and admitted that small doses would be beneficial in reducing the risk of prostate cancer!!
Btw, do you think the Paediatric Society of New Zealand and the Royal Australasian College of Physicans are in the pocket of big business?
Do you think the 2 professors, Helga Refsum and David Smith are?
Do not forget, your marmite/vegemite has vitamin B9 in it.
And plenty of food has sugar and salt in it as well, overdosing on either of those isn't beneficial to you either is it?
Like I said, a fucking dog whistle.
And like I said, it must alos be an invisable dog whistle for me not to know I'm blowing it as well as not being able to hear it myself.
I do not agree with the personal choice argument being used by Kiwiblogh et all, I just don't think the research you are both so quick to write off is as weak as you suggest and that Kate misled the country through her pretense that there wasn't a majority vote or that there was research suggesting an increase.
Kerry, banning junk food in schools might be reasonable if it worked, but like I said in another post, it's not the food in tuck shops you have to worry about - it's all the rubbish teenagers buy at the corner dairy on their way to and from school.
I disagree, banning junk food in schools WOULD work, it's an education thing, For some it may also be the only time they consume fruit. It sends a message and a signal that junk food isn't valued at schools and starts a healthier sttitude towards food. Forcing Junk food back into school because it is 'politically correct' not to is intellectually bankrupt.
Hmmm, the research showing an increase in cancer is not as weak as you both seem to be suggesting.
A six year old study that suggests an association?
Jesus Christ even Climate Change sceptics have better research than that.
complete picture of the conferance...
Yeah, a "conference in Prague"
What is this conference on?
Got a title?
A link?
Cause I can't find anything on it and so don't know who set it up, what it's objectives are...
Hold on, I've posted the new evidence above and it doesn't say that at all..
No you haven't, you have put up a six year old study that suggests an association.
I'm well aware of that, there's also plenty of salt in plenty of our food as well. Are you suggesting you can't overdose on a vitamin?
Drinking too much water is fatal.
Using your argument we should ban water!!
I don't believe in the Nnany State full stop, it's an invention created by talkback radio.
Riiight, so when the Left do something it's for the benefit of the community, when the Right do something, it's the heavy hand of Government regulation.
Like I said, politics not science.
3-4 of our unborn children right, isn't that the total amount of children we are looking to save? And I'm sorry but the link I posted above just doesn't look as weak in the science as you are suggesting.
Closer to 40 with all the abortions taken into consideration each year.
Each year.
Add to that the millions of dollars to give these children adequate care throughout there lives.
Nice to know that you are willing to sacrifice a few childrens lives for a misguided political viewpoint.
And you say the right are cycnical.
but we have a situation here where Skaef says one thing and two other Proffessors are saying something else.
It isn't a dispute between three researchers, overwhelming evidence points to no link.
I am suprised that you take the side of two researchers over overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that has the full backing as APA, NZPA, USPA, Royal College of Physicians...
...now you know what climate change sceptics feel when they cling to the evidence of one researcher, whilst denying the overwhelming weight of evidence against them.
And like I said, it must alos be an invisable dog whistle for me not to know I'm blowing it as well as not being able to hear it myself.
Move a little to the left, then you will hear it.
I hope you don't get cancer when you eat your marmite on your toast bomer.
Seriously bomber this is a political argument, and you have taken the side of Kiwiblog over overwhelming medical evidence.
This is funny:
"But my big gripe is thew compulsion aspect of it - whatever happened to freedom of choice?
bc: do you stop at red lights?"
Comparing eating to driving tee hee.
Couldn't help but point that out...
NS
Yeah I though the red light analogy made no sense either but I couldn't be bothered pointing it out.
Comparing eating to driving tee hee.
Couldn't help but point that out...
NS
Oh dear, best spell it out then.
Sometimes compulsion for an individual may seem a hindrance, but for the community it is beneficial.
One person waiting for a red light when no other cars are around may seem a hindrance, but in a city full of cars, it is beneficial for the community in that it keeps traffic flowing.
You, bc, may not directly benefit from folic acid (you do, but thats another story), but by eliminating spina bifida, society benefits.
Geddit now?
So bc, defender of freedom of choice, why don't you choose to drive through red lights?
Why do you accept some societal compulsion but not others?
bc said...
Yeah I though the red light analogy made no sense either but I couldn't be bothered pointing it out.
More like you didn't have a rebuttal.
One of the biggest poison cons is floride.
Then theres vacines ..... many more cons - people will believe anything if you repeat it often enough.
Riiight, so when the Left do something it's for the benefit of the community, when the Right do something, it's the heavy hand of Government regulation.
No you misunderstand on purpose! I'm all for the heavy hand of regulation regardless of who is in power, I have no problem with forcing folic acid into bread if it saves children. My beef which you choose to ignore in your rush to paint me as right wing and on the side of the Leighton Smith choice brigade is that Kate misled NZers on what the conferfence showed, even Gluckman now admits that the evidence shows there might be an increase in cancer at high doses of folic acid. Kate fucked this up and I don't believe a board based in Australia that cancels out our vote with corporate Australian food interests is acceptable.
Now, John Key's U-turn to not have it in bread based on Nanny state nonesense is a cop out. If the Science backs up folic acid in bread, and you've made a strong case that it does - I say we should do that - but mishandling the Close Up interview in the manner Kate did and bowing to the 'choice' debate are mistakes.
Post a Comment
<< Home