{"id":1731,"date":"2016-05-17T16:35:12","date_gmt":"2016-05-17T23:35:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.oregonstate.edu\/linuspaulinginstitute\/?p=1731"},"modified":"2016-05-25T16:34:48","modified_gmt":"2016-05-25T23:34:48","slug":"folic-acid-folate-autism-pregnancy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dev.blogs.oregonstate.edu\/linuspaulinginstitute\/2016\/05\/17\/folic-acid-folate-autism-pregnancy\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Headlines Linking Folic Acid to Autism Are Misleading"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n \"Recent\n
Recent headlines linking folic acid and autism are misleading and potentially dangerous. Photo credit: Tatiana Vdb \/\/ Flickr<\/figcaption>\n <\/figure>\n

Last week, many in the nutrition and medical fields let out a collective sigh. That\u2019s because there is good quality nutrition research, from actual humans in randomized control trials<\/a>, showing the importance of folic acid supplementation during pregnancy. Taking a multivitamin with 400 mcg of folic acid (the form of folate<\/a> found in most supplements<\/span>) can prevent birth defects associated with the brain and spinal cord. And organizations like the March of Dimes<\/a> have done a good job getting the word out about folic acid to women of childbearing age. The FDA even just announced<\/a> it would allow corn flour to be fortified with folic acid, in order to prevent birth defects among women who eat corn as a staple in their diet.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

So when headlines such as \u201cFolic Acid May Increase Autism Risk\u201d splashed across newspapers and television screens, it was a blow to the progress that has been made in this area, and if not addressed quickly, could lead to hundreds if not thousands of babies born with serious, preventable<\/em> birth defects. \u201cThe data does not say that folic acid supplements cause, or even may cause, autism,\u201d says Linus Pauling Institute Principal Investigator Emily Ho<\/a>, Ph.D.<\/p>\n

\n \"Pregnant\n
Pregnant women should supplement with 400 mcg of folic acid. Photo credit: Bradley Stemke \/\/ Flickr<\/figcaption>\n <\/figure>\n

In fact, says Ho, the available data show the opposite: supplementation was actually associated with a decreased risk of autism. \u201cWomen who are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant need to make sure they are getting folate and should not stop taking their prenatal folic acid supplements,\u201d says Ho.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Here\u2019s how the whole thing came about: researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health shared some interesting, yet unpublished and non peer-reviewed research at the International Meeting for Autism Research. It was in the form of a conference abstract<\/a>, which means their peers had not yet had the chance to vet the full data set, the study design, or other factors. This is a vital step in the academic and scientific community; many findings don\u2019t ever make it to publication because they don\u2019t pass muster in the review process. That said, even the limited data presented at the conference showed that women who took a multivitamin 3-5\/week had a lower <\/strong>chance of having a child with autism spectrum disorder.<\/p>\n

\n \"A\n
A person’s genes influence how they process folate. Photo credit: Pixabay<\/figcaption>\n <\/figure>\n

The misleading headlines arose from a secondary finding related not to maternal folic acid supplementation during pregnancy, but to a women\u2019s blood levels at or near the time of delivery. This is a crucial distinction: how much folate a woman gets from food or supplements is a very different notion than how much folate is circulating in a woman\u2019s blood at any given time. The latter refers to how a body, with its unique genetic makeup, processes folate.<\/p>\n

These findings do warrant further study, but far from reading them as a signal for women to stop taking the recommended supplement of 400 mcg of folic acid, they suggest that there may be a subset of women who process folate differently. The researchers involved don\u2019t yet understand why these women from the study had such high levels of folate in their blood, which wouldn\u2019t be present from typical folic acid supplementation.<\/p>\n

This phenomenon can and should be reviewed and explored in more rigorous detail. Potential harms of excessively high folic acid supplements (>400 mcg) should also be better studied. The thing is, the researchers who presented their work at the conference, seem to agree<\/a> with these conclusions. Some<\/a> have blamed the misleading news headlines on the media relations team at Johns Hopkins which issued the press release and stirred up the controversy.<\/p>\n

For more on the nitty-gritty, read on.<\/p>\n

\n

A Conversation on Folic Acid With Giana Angelo, Ph.D.<\/strong><\/h1>\n
\n \"Giana\n
Giana Angelo, Ph.D.<\/figcaption>\n <\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

Giana Angelo, Ph.D., is a nutrition scientist with the Linus Pauling Institute\u2019s Micronutrient Information Center<\/a>. In the below interview, she provides context and details about the recent folate findings, in order to clarify the science behind the headlines.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

What<\/strong> are the<\/strong> takeaways from the conference abstract?<\/strong><\/p>\n

First off, it\u2019s really important to remember that we are talking about a conference abstract<\/a>. That means we lack important information about the study design and study population; we have not seen the full data set and statistical analysis; and the findings have not yet been externally reviewed by experts the field. It is extremely premature to make any definitive statements about this data.<\/p>\n

That said, the take home messages from the conference abstract include the following:<\/p>\n