Use of FAO food balance sheets to estimate the potential ability of novel folate-enriched eggs to increase the folate supply in European Union countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: European governments have yet to introduce mandatory folic acid fortification of foods for neural tube defect prevention because of uncertainty about the long-term safety of high intake of folic acid. Novel folate-enriched eggs have been proposed as offering a practical way of increasing intake of natural folates, which do not have the same safety concerns as synthetic folic acid. Our objective was to estimate the potential increase in folate supply that could occur in European Union (EU) countries if normal eggs were replaced by folate-enriched eggs. DESIGN: FAOSTAT data on daily per capita availability of eggs were linked to mean folate concentrations of un-enriched and folate-enriched eggs from three representative feeding trials from the recent literature. SETTING: Data were collated in Microsoft Excel. SUBJECTS: The study used food balance sheets for Europe for 1961-2003 and for twenty-six individual EU countries for 2003. RESULTS: There has been little variation in egg supply in Europe over the past 40 years, with eggs providing only about 1·3-1·6 % of total energy. In 2003, the average per capita egg supply across twenty-six EU countries was 32·8 g/d, equivalent to a little over half an egg. Even if the folate concentrations of all eggs across the EU were increased two- to threefold, per capita folate supply would increase only by about 25 μg/d. CONCLUSIONS: At current enrichment levels, the availability of novel folate-enriched eggs will have little impact on folate supply in EU countries. In the absence of mandatory fortification, additional natural folate sources are needed urgently.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".