Why we need folic acid in our flour

If we are serious about our children deserving better, it also makes sense to give our baked goods a little extra goodness.

You could be forgiven for thinking that the recent report by the chief medical officer for England, Sally Davies, covered only one topic – improving child health. The press picked up on the argument that, given the upsurge in cases of rickets, the government should consider providing free vitamin supplements to all children, but there was much more in the report. Davies’s next point, that we should fortify our flour with folic acid, has been ignored for far too long.

This recommendation arguably has much greater potential impact. Boosting folic acid in foods eaten by pregnant women significantly decreases the occurrence of foetal “neural tube defects”, reducing cases of conditions such as spina bifida and anencephaly, in which large parts of a baby’s brain simply don’t form.

The neural tube, which eventually carries the spinal cord and the brain, starts as a groove that deepens and then closes off. A folic acid deficiency can prevent the closing process, leaving nerves exposed. Folic acid provides a “methyl group” – one carbon atom and three hydrogen atoms – that binds to foetal DNA and ensures the genetic instructions are carried out properly, fully closing the neural tube.

We’ve known about the importance of folic acid since a landmark paper was published in the Lancet in 1991. In an experiment involving 2,000 women known to be at higher risk of having babies with neural tube defects, supplements of folic acid prevented between 70 and 80 per cent of the defects. The benefits were so starkly obvious that the experiment was stopped early: it was deemed unethical to continue to withhold supplements from those in the control group.

The test results led more than 60 countries to mandate the fortification of flour with folic acid. The neural tube forms in the first four weeks of pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant. For full protection, the foetus needs the folic acid right from conception, yet only 37 per cent of women in the UK are taking folic acid supplements when they fall pregnant.

In the US, the fortification of cereal products with folic acid prevents roughly 1,300 neural tube defects a year and forestalls 360 infant deaths. Every year in the UK, 1,000 children are born with a neural tube defect, one and a half times the number of such births in the entire United States. That’s because the UK government advises only that women who might get pregnant should take folic acid supplements – it has consistently ignored scientific advice to put folic acid in the nation’s flour.

Until early this year, the government was able to hide behind claims that folic acid fortification might increase rates of bowel cancer. Those claims were disproved in a Lancet paper in January. The only remaining fig leaf for the government’s current position is a vague concern that one shouldn’t impose medicines on the country.

There is also an economic case for fortifying flour with folic acid. Each spina bifida patient costs the NHS about half a million pounds over their lifetime. In the US, the financial benefits have been shown to outweigh the cost of fortifying flour by 40 to 1. A 2011 costbenefit analysis of fortifying flour with folic acid suggested it would save the UK several million to hundreds of millions of pounds per year.

By all means, let’s get children out into the sun, and taking Vitamin D supplements if necessary: rickets has no place in 21st-century society. But if we are serious about our children deserving better, it also makes sense to give our baked goods a little extra goodness.

One simple change could make a lot of difference to all of us, personally and financially. Image: Getty

Michael Brooks holds a PhD in quantum physics. He writes a weekly science column for the New Statesman, and his most recent book is At the Edge of Uncertainty: 11 Discoveries Taking Science by Surprise.

This article first appeared in the 06 November 2013 issue of the New Statesman, Are cities getting too big?

Getty
Show Hide image

“Stinking Googles should be killed”: why 4chan is using a search engine as a racist slur

Users of the anonymous forum are targeting Google after the company introduced a programme for censoring abusive language.

Contains examples of racist language and memes.

“You were born a Google, and you are going to die a Google.”

Despite the lack of obscenity and profanity in this sentence, you have probably realised it was intended to be offensive. It is just one of hundreds of similar messages posted by the users of 4chan’s Pol board – an anonymous forum where people go to be politically incorrect. But they haven’t suddenly seen the error of their ways about using the n-word to demean their fellow human beings – instead they are trying to make the word “Google” itself become a racist slur.

In an undertaking known as “Operation Google”, some 4chan users are resisting Google’s latest artificial intelligence program, Conversation AI, by swapping smears for the names of Google products. Conversation AI aims to spot and flag offensive language online, with the eventual possibility that it could automatically delete abusive comments. The famously outspoken forum 4chan, and the similar website 8chan, didn’t like this, and began their campaign which sees them refer to “Jews” as “Skypes”, Muslims as “Skittles”, and black people as “Googles”.

If it weren’t for the utterly abhorrent racism – which includes users conflating Google’s chat tool “Hangouts” with pictures of lynched African-Americans – it would be a genius idea. The group aims to force Google to censor its own name, making its AI redundant. Yet some have acknowledged this might not ultimately work – as the AI will be able to use contextual clues to filter out when “Google” is used positively or pejoratively – and their ultimate aim is now simply to make “Google” a racist slur as revenge.


Posters from 4chan

“If you're posting anything on social media, just casually replace n****rs/blacks with googles. Act as if it's already a thing,” wrote one anonymous user. “Ignore the company, just focus on the word. Casually is the important word here – don't force it. In a month or two, Google will find themselves running a company which is effectively called ‘n****r’. And their entire brand is built on that name, so they can't just change it.”

There is no doubt that Conversation AI is questionable to anyone who values free speech. Although most people desire a nicer internet, it is hard to agree that this should be achieved by blocking out large swathes of people, and putting the power to do so in the hands of one company. Additionally, algorithms can’t yet accurately detect sarcasm and humour, so false-positives are highly likely when a bot tries to identify whether something is offensive. Indeed, Wired journalist Andy Greenberg tested Conversation AI out and discovered it gave “I shit you not” 98 out of 100 on its personal attack scale.

Yet these 4chan users have made it impossible to agree with their fight against Google by combining it with their racism. Google scores the word “moron” 99 out of 100 on its offensiveness scale. Had protestors decided to replace this – or possibly even more offensive words like “bitch” or “motherfucker” – with “Google”, pretty much everyone would be on board.

Some 4chan users are aware of this – and indeed it is important not to consider the site a unanimous entity. “You're just making yourselves look like idiots and ruining any legitimate effort to actually do this properly,” wrote one user, while some discussed their concerns that “normies” – ie. normal people – would never join in. Other 4chan users are against Operation Google as they see it as self-censorship, or simply just stupid.


Memes from 4chan

But anyone who disregards these efforts as the work of morons (or should that be Bings?) clearly does not understand the power of 4chan. The site brought down Microsoft’s AI Tay in a single day, brought the Unicode swastika (卐) to the top of Google’s trends list in 2008, hacked Sarah Palin’s email account, and leaked a large number of celebrity nudes in 2014. If the Ten Commandments were rewritten for the modern age and Moses took to Mount Sinai to wave two 16GB Tablets in the air, then the number one rule would be short and sweet: Thou shalt not mess with 4chan.

It is unclear yet how Google will respond to the attack, and whether this will ultimately affect the AI. Yet despite what ten years of Disney conditioning taught us as children, the world isn’t split into goodies and baddies. While 4chan’s methods are deplorable, their aim of questioning whether one company should have the power to censor the internet is not.

Google also hit headlines this week for its new “YouTube Heroes” program, a system that sees YouTube users rewarded with points when they flag offensive videos. It’s not hard to see how this kind of crowdsourced censorship is undesirable, particularly again as the chance for things to be incorrectly flagged is huge. A few weeks ago, popular YouTubers also hit back at censorship that saw them lose their advertising money from the site, leading #YouTubeIsOverParty to trend on Twitter. Perhaps ultimately, 4chan didn't need to go on a campaign to damage Google's name. It might already have been doing a good enough job of that itself.

Google has been contacted for comment.

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.