Comparison of two food composition databases in estimating folate intake among young women

Mirjana Gurinović1 , Marija Djekic-Ivankovic1, Zvonimir Šatalić2, Marina Nikolic1, Irena Colić Barić2, Irena Keser2, Matea Ivković2, Marija Glibetić1

1 Centre of Research Excellence in Nutrition and Metabolism, Institute for Medical Research, University of Belgrade, Serbia2Laboratory for Nutrition Science, Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology, University of Zagreb, Croatia

Introduction

Adequate folate intake has an important role in the primary prevention of several diseases and nutritional status of the vitamin is considered to be a potential public health issue requiring further study . Consequences of folate insufficiency arising from inadequate intake include increased risk for neural tube defects making folate a critical nutrient among women of reproductive age.  Accurate estimation of dietary folate intake depends on limitations of dietary assessment methods, methodological issues related to the biochemical analysis of food folate, adjustment for bioavailability differences between naturally occurring food folate and folic acid from fortified foods and dietary supplements and inaccuracies related to product label declarations.  The aim of this study was to compare the application of two different food composition databases (FCDB) in estimating dietary folate intake.

Conclusion

Folate intake among the studied sample of young women was below recommended 400 μg /day and regarding data for food folate, both FCDBs could be used interchangeably.

Acknowledgement

Funding under projects: bilateral project funded by Ministries of Science of Serbia and Croatia: Folate status in populations at risk: young adult women of reproductive age and elderly; FP7 EuroFIR-Nexus; Ministry of Science, Serbia III grant 41030; 058-0222411-2820: Diet, homocysteine and bone health, Ministry of science, education and sport, Croatia

Subjects and methods

Previously validated food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was administered to young women (n=709, age range 18-30 years).

Folate intake measured by the FFQ was expressed as dietary folate equivalents (DFE) with 1.7 equivalency factor for folic acid from fortified foods and dietary supplements and factor 2 for folic acid from dietary supplements taken on an empty stomach.

Daily folate intake was calculated by using two FCDBs: Kaić-Rak & Antonić (1990) (FCDB1) and Regional FCDB (FCDB2) .

Results and discussion

The ultimate goals of dietary assessment methods like FFQ include comparison of reported intakes with intake standards and accurate assessment of a nutrient intake depends on the accuracy of the food composition databases . When evaluating folate intake among women of reproductive age, it is important to account for the differences in bioavailability between naturally occurring folate and synthetic folic acid by using DFE .

In this study, the average folate intake among young women assessed by FFQ was 247 ± 400 and 252 ± 405 μg DFE using FCDB1 and FCDB2, respectively, and the means didn’t differ significantly. For comparison, folate intake among women from 15 European countries ranged from 186 to 465 μg .

To reduce the risk of neural tube defects, it is recommended that women capable of becoming pregnant consume 400 μg of folic acid from fortified foods, dietary supplements, or both, in addition to 400 μg of food folate from a varied diet . In this study, daily folate intake below 400 μg was observed in 91 % and 93.57 % of young women in Croatia and Serbia, respectively. The average difference between the folate intake using two FCDBs was 5.7 ± 40.3 μg DFE. Pearson’s correlation coefficient between folate intake assessed by the two FCDBs was 0.998 (p<0.001). In a similar study with comparison of nutrient intakes using Swedish and Finnish food composition database, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was 0.94, daily folate intake differed by 8 % and the difference was statistically significant .

Table 1. Serbia Croatia

n 420 289

AgeMean ± SD

23 ± 2.20 21.9 ± 2.34

BMI Mean ± SD

20.7 ± 2.08 21.8 ± 3.1

FCDB1Mean ± SD

221 ± 136.4 228 ± 156.9

FCDB2Mean ± SD

229 ± 138.3 212 ± 149.5