Public health aspects of food fortification: a question of balance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Micronutrient malnutrition is widespread throughout the world, with important health and economic consequences. Tools to address this situation include food fortification, supplementation and dietary diversification, each having different and complementary roles. Fortification (mandatory and voluntary) has been practised over several decades in Western countries as well as in developing countries. Iodised salt was introduced in the USA in 1924 to reduce severe I deficiency. In 1938 voluntary enrichment of flours and breads with niacin and Fe was initiated to reduce the incidence of pellagra and Fe-deficiency anaemia respectively. Micronutrient intakes in European countries appear to be generally adequate for most nutrients. However, a number of population subgroups are at higher risk of suboptimal intakes (below the lower reference nutrient intake) for some micronutrients, e.g. folate, Fe, Zn and Ca in children, adolescents and young women. Dietary surveys indicate that fortified foods play a role in mitigating such risks for several important nutrients. The number of foods suited to fortification are considerably limited by several factors, including technological properties (notably moisture, pH and O2 permeability), leading to unacceptable taste and appearance, as well as cost and consumer expectations. In countries in which voluntary fortification is widely practised micronutrient intakes are considerably below tolerable upper intake levels. Concerns about safety are addressed in relation to the potentially increased level or proportion of fortified foods (e.g. following potential EU legislation), for nutrients with relatively low tolerable upper intake levels and where the potential benefit and risks are in different subpopulations (e.g. folic acid). Recent models for assessing these issues are discussed.
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 | 0.026 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".