Milk with fish - it ain't right I tells ya'.I have just read a
report about how Canada may be moving in the direction of fortifying its junk food by allowing food manufacturers to fortify certain products at their discretion:
"Health Canada considers permitting vitamin and mineral (iron, calcium etc.) additives in high-calorie food products of all sorts, such as potato chips, energy bars, fruit flavored drinks. However dieticians and other health professionals caution that those products continue to be fortified junk food and that the little added nutritional value will boost consumption and enhance problems of obesity and diabetes.
The belief behind the proposal of discretionary fortification for manufacturers is that people will at least get nutrients when they eat junk food."
I don't know whether a change in Canada's regulations would bring it to par with other countries, or whether it represents even further liberalisation, but I do think that the overall fortification trend is cause for concern.
In recent weeks I've really started to notice how our shelves are packed with foods that have been fortified with additional nutrients. We have cereals and bread products fortified with vitamins, folic acid, niacin, etc, milk fortified with fish in the form of Omega 3, fluoride in water, and who knows what else. Now, if people are deficient in certain vitamins then I imagine fortification will help but wouldn't these people be better off changing their diets and actually eating healthier food? In the interim, vitamin tablets could bridge the gap, and at least by taking tablets they would be reminding themselves that their diet is out of balance.
The next point is that for the general populous it has been shown that the benefits from vitamin supplementation are dubious at best (see
here and
here for comprehensive reviews). The general consensus also seems to be that when we try to isolate certain nutrient compounds from the food they come packaged in, they can lose at least some of their effectiveness, and eating fortified food is surely more akin to taking a supplement with one's food rather than taking vitamins in their natural format?
Also, people respond to incentives and considered over the longer term, fortification of foods will surely reduce the the rate at which people change switch to more healthy dietary habits - bear in mind that most high nutrient food is naturally relatively low in calories versus foods that could be fortified (i.e. anything).
Lastly, while it appears that we can consume certain vitamins in relatively large quantities with no ill side-effects, high doses of other vitamins are proven to have negative effects, and if people adapt and eat significantly healthier foods we could be find ourselves in a situation where people suffer from excessive vitamin intake.
It seems the authorities just don't factor in the idea of people adapting when they take the longer view. For example, many studies are emerging showing large swathes of the population are deficient in vitamin D, a vitamin that is very hard to find in food but easy to get from the sunshine. What is more, low levels of vitamin D seem to be correlated to a whole array of problems from weak bones to
metabolic syndrome and even increased cancer risk, so it could soon be the case that we are told to go and get more of it. But I wonder, instead of accepting that most habits don't change overnight and giving the public people time to learn and adapt themselves, perhaps over a decade or so, will they recommend fortification as a relatively cheap and easy way out? I hope not.
Vitamin Water or Placebo Juice?
