In this story, the FDA is weighing a request to add folic acid to corn flour in order to possibly prevent neural tube defects during pregnancy. Hispanic women are at higher risk of giving birth to babies with these issues. Corn flour is often consumed more than white or wheat flours in some diets. Folic acid is already added to white and wheat flours. The story does a good job of explaining the logic of adding folic acid to corn flour and what benefits it might yield. A bit more attention to the costs of such a program and the alternatives to it (e.g. vitamin pills) would have been welcome.
Prevention gets short shrift in most health stories, so it is great to read this one about how some prevention (adding folic acid to corn flour) might decrease the number of babies born with neural tube defects. We would have liked the story to discuss alternative ways to get high-risk women to consume folic acid.
The story does not talk about any costs. There are a few places where cost might have been valuable. The story could have discussed whether refining corn flour by a different method would cost more than the existing method. The story might have included whether fortified corn flour would be equal or higher in price for consumers than unfortified.
We also would have welcomed some comment on the cost of caring for a baby born with a neural tube defect.
The story gives the reader an idea of how many neural defects could be prevented by adding folic acid to corn flour. “And studies suggest that fortifying corn masa with folic acid could prevent an additional 40 to 120 cases of neural tube defects among babies born to Hispanic mothers each year.”
The story discusses the FDA’s worry that a chemical used on corn flour could interact with the corn masa flour. It quotes the FDA which says: “The FDA is concerned that the breakdown of folic acid in corn masa flour could yield a substance that raises concerns about safety.” It would have been nice for the story to explain more clearly what concerns are raised — this seems pretty vague — but we’ll give the benefit of the doubt.
The story mentions a study about the potential impact of fortifying corn flour on Hispanic women at higher risk. The study is a high-quality one.
We wish the story had talked more explicitly about the quality of the evidence.
The story quotes independent sources.
The story never really discusses the alternative of taking vitamin supplements.
Standard preventive advice for women of childbearing age who are considering pregnancy is to take a multivitamin in order to have enough folic acid for any future pregnancy. But this advice may be unheeded, vitamins may be too expensive, or pregnancy may be unintended.
The story explains that extra folic acid is already widely available in other flours. It notes that there is debate about adding it to corn flour. Concerns about the technical difficulty of adding folic acid that remains in usable effective form is a central point.
There is nothing novel about the suggestion (made in 2012) that folic acid be added to corn flour, and the story explains why this issue is newsworthy now.
The story quotes multiple sources and does not rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Following a shift in journalism’s business model, a diverse ecosystem of publications, many covering science, has sprung up online. This has made it more difficult to sort out what qualifies as journalism, what doesn’t, and whether the public even cares.
https://t.co/qO2a27FiSe
Researchers and journalists do the public a grave disservice when they spin health study results to make them appear safer or more effective than warranted, says @HealthNewsRevu founder @garyschwitzer https://t.co/QIKsRbP6Ed
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like