4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Considering the case for vitamin B12 fortification of flour

期刊

FOOD AND NUTRITION BULLETIN
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 S36-S46

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/15648265100311S104

关键词

Deficiency; flour; fortification; vitamin B-12

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reasons to fortify flour with vitamin B-12 are considered, including the high prevalence of depletion and deficiency of this vitamin that occurs in persons of all ages in resource-poor countries and in the elderly in wealthier countries, and the adverse functional consequences of poor vitamin B-12 status From a global perspective, the main cause of inadequate intake and status is a low intake of animal-source foods; even lacto-ovo vegetarians have lower serum vitamin B-12 concentrations than omnivores, and far various reasons many populations have limited consumption of animal-source foods Infants are vitamin B-12-depleted from early infancy if their mothers' vitamin B-12 status and intake are poor during pregnancy and lactation Even in the United States, more than 20% of the elderly have serum vitamin B-12 concentrations that indicate depletion, and an additional 6% have deficiency, primarily due to gastric atrophy, which impairs the absorption of the vitamin from food but usually not from supplements or fortified foods Although the evidence is limited, it shows that fortified flour, consumed as bread, can improve vitamin B-12 status. Where vitamin B-12 fortification is implemented, the recommendation is to add 20 mu g/kg flour, assuming consumption of 75 to 100 g flour per day, to provide 75% to 100% of the Estimated Average Requirement; the amount of the vitamin that can be added is limited by its cost. The effectiveness of this level of addition for improving vitamin B-12 status in programs needs to be determined and monitored In addition, further research should evaluate the bioavailability of the vitamin from fortified flour by elderly people with food cobalamin malabsorption and gastric atrophy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据