4.7 Review

Vitamin B12 sources in non-animal foods: a systematic review

Journal

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN FOOD SCIENCE AND NUTRITION
Volume 63, Issue 26, Pages 7853-7867

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2022.2053057

Keywords

Cobalamin; edible plant; plant-based diets; vegetarian diet; vegetarians

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Interest in plant-based diets and vegetarianism is increasing worldwide. This systematic review investigated non-animal food sources of vitamin B12 (B12) for total vegetarians. The study found that seaweeds, mushrooms, plants, and fermented foods contain varying levels of B12. A varied diet containing these non-animal B12 sources may meet daily B12 requirements.
Interest in plant-based diets and vegetarianism is increasing worldwide, however, a concern for total vegetarians is vitamin B12 (B12) deficiency. We conducted a systematic review to investigate non-animal food sources of B12. Databases were PubMed, LILACS, Cochrane, Embase and Google Scholar, up to September 9, 2020. Quality of the eligible studies were assessed. We identified 25 studies which assessed B12 content in seaweeds, mushrooms, plants and fermented foods. Initial studies were microbiological bioassay, ELISA and HPLC. In the last decade, more sensitive method for real B12 determination was used, the liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry chromatograms. Real B12 content varied from mean (SD) mcg/portion size of seaweed hijiki 3 x 10(-3)/7 g to non 1.03-2.68/sheet; mushroom white button cap 2 x 10(-3) (7 x 10(-4)/20 g dry weight (dw) to shiitake 0.79(0.67)-1.12 (0.78)/20g dw; and fermented foods from soy yogurt 20/cup. It is possible that daily recommendations for B12 can be met by a varied diet containing non-animal B12 food sources. Future research should consider different methods of storage, preparation, fermented foods and standardization of the production of certain foods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available