6⃣Why is this a bad policy that needs to be overturned? - Part 1 If you've read the thread up to here, well done! and you'll probably have a good idea of the answer to this one. There are two parts to it. Firstly the medical/health part. 1⃣The justification for this policy is that it will prevent 200 babies being born with neural tube defects per year. Despite what some of the hysterical covid-era regime propagandists who have just crawled out of the woodwork claim, I don't want babies to be born with spina bifida, so if the policy worked it would be a good thing. But will the policy actually achieve this aim? The policy is not targeted at the women who are at risk of giving birth to babies with spina bifida - the policy is not targeted at all, in fact. So there's every chance that the policy will not achieve even its stated aim. 2⃣ The general idea with public health interventions is that, on balance, they result in significantly more benefit than harm across the population. Looking at the big picture, the potential benefit is avoiding 200 birth defects per year. But look at the potential harms I outlined in part 5! People numbering in the millions are recommended not to have folic acid supplements because of potential harms. One branch of government is actively pursuing a policy which another branch of government acknowledges may be harmful to millions of people! 3⃣ Folic acid is a medicine with known contraindications. Medicines are supposed to be given out by medical professionals in carefully controlled doses only under supervision and to people for whom the benefit will outweigh the risk. This is just mass medication with no control whatsoever. 4⃣ Another of the principles of public health interventions with medicines is informed consent. There has been no opportunity for informed consent from those receiving food fortified with folic acid. Most people are blissfully unaware of the new policy, what the general risks are and the specific risks to them if they have one of the medical conditions known to be problematic in relation to folic acid, and food labelling is woefully inadequate given the risks involved. 5⃣ Two other principles of medicial interventions are: - When in doubt, abstain - First, do no harm There is considerable doubt about the safety of this policy and every likelihood that it will cause harm. The correct thing to do here is nothing. Not launch a population-wide experiment. And if an intervention is absolutely necessary, what would a good intervention look like here? Firstly it would be targeted only at those who would benefit. Secondly it would be carefully monitored and controlled. Thirdly it would involve an intervention that is low risk in terms of potential side-effects. Identifying the women most at risk, promoting a folate-rich diet, recommending folate (not folic acid) supplements, and LEAVING EVERYONE ELSE ALONE. 15/n

Dr Clare Craig talking to @RealEddieHobbs xitter.cf/ClareCraigPath/status/…

A few helpful links to add: Petition to scrap the legislation: petition.parliament.uk/petit…

6⃣Why is this a bad policy that needs to be overturned? - Part 2 Putting aside the medical/health arguments, let's look at this policy from a wider perspective. 🗳️It's been a democratic catastrophe. There was no Parliamentary debate or vote on the legislation. It was slipped through Parliament via a Statutory Instrument when our, and Parliament's, attention was taken up by COVID lockdowns. The public had no opportunity to have their say via their MPs. It did not earn the electorate's consent. And, since both Labour and Conservatives pushed the legislation through, there is effectively no Parliamentary representation for those who oppose it. 🍞Consumer choice has been removed. It will be virtually impossible to buy non-wholemeal bread without folic acid, after December 2026. Even organic flour will have folic acid added. The only exceptions are a few niche types of flour and small mills with very low production which will be quickly exhausted by demand. Even wholemeal bread is not an option as much of it contains white flour. 🪤 Aside from bread, white flour is in a huge variety of everyday foods. Cakes, biscuits, pancakes, muffins, crackers, breaded chicken, battered fish, sausage fillings, Marmite, Vegemite, rusks for babies, black pudding, gluten-free bread. It will be virtually impossible to avoid unless you cook everything at home from raw ingredients and never eat out. We're trapped. 🏢It's yet another example of the kind of government / public health overreach and trampling on personal autonomy that we saw during COVID. "If it saves one life, it's worthwhile". "It's your responsibility to take this medicine so that that different person over there doesn't get sick". No. It's the other person's responsibility! ⚖️This is a step backwards in terms of food safety. The Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875 made it an offence to knowingly add something to food which was injurious to health. But that's exactly what the government is doing here. Are they breaking their own law? 💊💊💊💊💊💊💊And lastly and perhaps most importantly of all. This law constitutes a slippery slope. If the government can get away with adding folic acid to a staple food like flour, what next? 🧀Statins in cheese? 🍨Anti-depressants in ice-cream? 🍚Diabetes medication in rice? ☕️Midazolam in Ovaltine? Don't think that a technocrat somewhere hasn't thought of it. This is a terrible, terrible piece of legislation. Please oppose it. Sign and share Dr Clare Craig's petition if you haven't already. Write to your MP and the Health Secretary. Tell your friends and neigbours. Complain to your supermarket. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 16/16

5⃣What are the potential risks? Part 5 - Gestational Diabetes Gestational diabetes is type 2 diabetes that develops in women when they are pregnant. Mandatory fortification of wheat flour for bread-making began in Australia in September 2009. A 2025 study in "Nutrients" journal compared Adelaide pregnancy cohorts recruited before and after fortification. Gestational diabetes incidence rose from 5.0% to 15.2% after fortification; Red-cell folate (a marker of longer-term stores) increased by around 259%; The share of women above the clinical reference range jumped from 0.5% to 57.6%; Higher red-cell folate was associated with greater gestational diabetes risk; Excess red-cell folate was linked to ~48% more gestational diabetes cases. Placental hormones involved in glucose regulation were also higher post-fortification. The authors concluded that maternal folate excess (from fortification plus widespread higher-dose or prolonged prenatal supplementation) is likely contributing to the rise and that known factors such as age, obesity, ethnicity, and diagnostic changes do not fully account for its magnitude or trajectory. Animal data and other observational work support possible effects of high folic acid intake on insulin resistance and glucose regulation via placental function. mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/17/286… 10/n

5⃣What are the potential risks? Part 4 - Prostate Cancer The Cole study mentioned above also noticed that there was increased incidence of cancers other than colon cancer in the folic acid cohort of the study, and in particular, prostate cancer. Another study by Figueiredo JC, Grau MV, Haile RW, et al studied 643 men, randomised into a group receiving 1mg folic acid per day and a group receiving a placebo. The folic acid group had an estimated 10-year prostate cancer risk of 9.7% versus 3.3% in the placebo group. So the prostate cancer risk in the folic acid group was three times higher than in the placebo group. academic.oup.com/jnci/articl… While men can avoid eating folic acid supplements easily enough, food containing folic acid doesn't come with big red stickers saying "DO NOT EAT IF YOU ARE A MAN AS YOU MAY INCREASE YOUR PROSTATE CANCER RISK". Maybe they should? 9/n

5⃣What are the potential risks? Part 3 - Colon Cancer According to MacMillan Cancer Support, there are around 3.5 million people living with cancer at the present time in the UK. The NHS says folic acid supplementation may not be suitable for any of those people. Why? As already mentioned way up there ⬆️folate is essential for cell division. Rapidly dividing cells, like cancer cells, have a high need for folate. Consequently, there are concerns that folic acid supplementation can help existing tumours or precancerous lesions grow, and also interfere with some of the drugs used to treat cancer. This was observed in a study by Cole et al in which 1,021 people with a recent history of colon cancer were either given 1 mg/day folic acid or a placebo. In the longer term there was a higher rate of advanced lesions and of having three or more adenomas in the folic acid group than in the placebo group. jamanetwork.com/journals/jam… While people with cancer can avoid eating folic acid supplements easily enough, food containing folic acid doesn't come with big red stickers saying "DO NOT EAT IF YOU HAVE CANCER". Maybe they should? Or maybe we should just keep folic acid in supplements where the dose and recipients can be controlled by medical professionals? 8/n