Talk:Vitamin B12

Reason for the name

In the lead, it states that Vitamin B12 is one of eight B vitamins. If so, why is it called "B12?" I presume that there's a good reason, but it's never explained. Adding a brief explanation to the History section would improve the article because it wouldn't leave this question hanging. JDZeff (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

IMO too trivial for the article. Adenine was called vitamin B4 for a while. Ditto Inositol called vitamin B8 until it was clear that it was not essential. Could not find any info on B10. A vanishing small number of science journal articles call folate vitamin B11, whereas large numbers call folic acid vitamin B9.David notMD (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

B12 figures

Methylcobalamin tablets

The article would be better served if the First image was simply of the Over-the-Counter Vitamins. They are Readily Available at most Grocery and pharmacy stores. The Vitamin B12 is a biochemical metabolite, and the article should illustrate that by showing those pathways in greater detail.

Both of the figures presented on the webpage are nearly obscene. A free base of the methyl-form is not appropriate for academic purposes, outside of chemistry. The picture of an injection is also rarely appropriate to the public space. We should not include harmful images in this way. As it stands, it looks as if Wikipedia promotes injecting toxic chemicals.

The files I uploaded from the public webpage www.b12-vitamin.com should apply under fair use. Images of the pills would be much more appropriate than the free radical.

Also, The interaction section is too long, and albeit helpful for some people, would most likely cause users to panic. The vitamins are otc and GRAS. There is no reason to present the biochemical as a toxin. Please revise your B pages, they could be much more lively.

Also, 4 references are hardly necessary for stating that injections are used to treat genetic disorders. One general reference would be more appropriate. 216.69.46.16 (talk)Pops — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.46.16 (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

There is an image of a blister-pack on Commons. Do we need four references? Probably not. Does anyone care enough to figure out which source is best and delete the others? Also probably not. Sizeofint (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not think the b12-vitamin.com image can be included since it would be easy to create an appropriately licensed image. The image of the vitamin prepared for injection is clearly a medical preparation (the box even says for prescription only). I do not view it as "nearly obscene" or harmful at all. An argument can be made that other forms are more common and should be given more weight in terms of images. On the other hand, an image of generic pills isn't very informative.

Yes, this page could use improvement. It requires someone with the time, knowledge, and willingness to update it though. Any updates should preserve and/or update the content that should be included and remove content that should not be included. I would imagine the interactions section will have to source from reliable medical sources which is a higher bar than normal reliable sources. Sizeofint (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Not obscene, but definitely extraneous, if an image of the natural vitamin is unavailable.

And since the image was from the domain "b12-vitamin.com" it should fall under fair use. I find it hard to imagine that nobody can find an appropriate image.

Tim2view (talk)Tim2view —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Interactions

This section focused on bad interactions with other drugs and pharmaceuticals . It may include some interactions with cholesterol or GI meds, but the focus should be mainly on Folate and other readily available OTCs. I erased the harmful parts, but a rework should be considered.

If there is a general malabsorption condition, it should be noted in the article and not under an obscure acid. Neomycin is not an ingestible drug. If there are antibiotics that produce some interaction, this is the job of doctors to know not a wikipedia article.

We could still include the brand name pharmaceuticals, but they should be listed more clearly, under the heading pharmaceuticals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim2view (talk • contribs) 19:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

That section is basically entirely unreferenced so probably a lot of it needs to go. It should all be sourced with WP:MEDRS. I'm not familiar enough with B12 to know what should stay and what should go. I'll see if some other editors might be willing to take a look. Sizeofint (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

From where do animals get their B12 please?

In the article as of 2017-01-16:

> No fungi, plants, nor animals (including humans) are capable of producing vitamin B12. Only bacteria and archaea have the enzymes needed for its synthesis. Proved sources of B12 are animal products (meat, fish, dairy products) and supplements.

So from where do the animals get their B12 please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.95.253 (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

From bacteria and archaea. In fact, the human digestive system has microbes producing b12, too far down to be absorbed though. (Some fringe vegan/fruitarian sources misinterpret this as meaning humans do not need dietary b12.)

A study that used to be in the article showed that humans fed a diet deficient in b12 could maintain their blood levels through supplements made from their own poop (yum! science!). Ever walk through a cow pasture? (Watch your step!) Imagine you are a cow grazing in that field or a chicken pecking for seeds...

To add any of this loveliness to the article, we would need a reliable source discussing it. Let us nhow if you find anything. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have added a sourced explanation. I have tagged the source, the T. Colin Campbell Center for Nutrition Studies, as needing a better source. While T. Colin Campbell and his foundation are likely reliable sources for this particular information, some information from the Center (particularly interpretation of the China Study) is colored in such a way as to emphasize some of the more dramatic findings. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog: Please review my comment above. I have little doubt that the foundation is in any way unreliable or conflicted for this basic information.

This article (not particularly reliable in and of itself) gives much the same info, with some decent cites. Citing those individual sources seems cumbersome for something so basic, but it's a decent fallback, I guess.

I am rather skeptical that we will find a journal article discuss animals' sources in general. More likely I expect we would end up with a Frankensteined section citing various articles discussing individual species or, if we are lucky, "some rodents", "livestock birds" and such.

Thoughts? - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

in these diffs i made this less human-centric and added other sources, like feces and insects. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That was after I started to write my comment. Thanks. I've made a minor tweak to clarify that insects are animals. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

fixed that, thx Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yesterday I wrote:

> So from where do the animals get their B12 please?

Thank you to everyone who has participated in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.129.111 (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Common high-content food sources in the lede

This section has been debated:

Substantial sources of B₁₂ include animal products (shellfish, meat), mushrooms, fermented beans and vegetables, edible algae (seaweed), fortified food products, and dietary supplements.

The main source of this content information is the USDA National Nutrient Database summarized by the Nutrition Data and Linus Pauling Institute sources. Shellfish and meat are clearly among the top 50 sources shown here whereas the other sources mentioned above, excluding fortified food and supplements, are not ranked as high sources. MOS:INTRO states "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article." There is no evidence that mushrooms and seaweed are as commonly eaten as shellfish and various meats, nor is there an independent source as credible as the USDA for assessing B12 levels. Mentioning these less common foods in the lede is WP:UNDUE, as described under Relative emphasis in MOS:INTRO. It is alright to include the alternate foods under the Foods section, as shown in my revisions. --Zefr (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the USDA ranked list of foods containing B12 from highest to lowest. Mushrooms, seaweed and fermented foods are not in the top 100, --Zefr (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The top 50 sources listed by the USDA are flooded with a handful of sources repeated over in varying cooking styles. It excludes many plant sources which have been found to contain 'signifiant' amounts of B12 (as per the cited Orogen State link). To rely solely on a USDA citation while pushing studies that have additional findings to the periphery goes against the principle of a unbiased overview. As for the credibility of the USDA, it is heavily lobbied by (and has a revolving door relationship with) the Animal Agriculture industry so it's reasonable to assume that many publishings end up in favour of their industry at the expense of balanced facts. The inclusion of those proven plant sources is both relevant and it does not take up excessive space in the overview. Cyrus Freedman (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You could derive other sources from hundreds of lower ranked foods by focusing on the actual content. There are few reliable sources of measuring nutrient content in various foods, and none regarded higher anywhere in the world than the USDA lists. Most Wikipedia articles where nutrient tables are included use the USDA database. Any argument to the contrary is WP:SOAP. The proposed discussion of mushrooms-seaweed-fermented foods-spirulina as high content foods has no source that meets WP:SCIRS. Until a solid secondary source is used to support such a statement, I am removing them from the article. Further discussion with Cyrus Freedman is here. --Zefr (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The source for the relevance of mushrooms, algae, and fermented foods is already included as it was apart of the previously cited Oregon State study here (under the Food section). To include animal products while ignoring plant sources found in the same citation is to cherry pick of the data - resulting in a biased lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus Freedman (talk • contribs) 04:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You have to pay attention to the actual content reported in microg per 100 g sample to emphasize a food source in the lede. --Zefr (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The USDA citation does not show 100 g sampeles of plant or animal sources, only 3, 8, and 1 oz samples and among those none of the plant measurementes were shown. The included graph is a mere summary of the μg measurments in animal products. The lack of evidence in their graph does not prove low μg in plant sources.Cyrus Freedman (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The USDA database of food listings for vitamin B12 content here is a report from highest to lowest per 100 gram samples. Animal sources are shown on the high-content list because B12 is present in various muscles and organs of shellfish and animals humans eat. Plant sources are not listed among the top several hundred sources because plants do not synthesize vitamin B12, as the article states. Re-read the article to understand this. Fyi, this is a list only of vegetables, showing mostly absence of B12. This is the report showing zero B12 content in kelp. The USDA database can be used by pick lists to show B12 content for many raw and processed mushrooms; I found none that contain B12. --Zefr (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

In light of the recently cited data on specific amounts of B12 per 100g, it seems fitting to add Seaweed to the lede since it has levels up to 134µg per 100g (which is considerably higher than the average animal product) and is consumered regularly (particularly in coastal regions) along with mushrooms, and fermented beans and vegitables since all three catagories contain B12 levels higher than the daily recomended amount of 2.4µg (up to 3 µg and up to 8 µg respectively).Cyrus Freedman (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. Among all the food sources discussed, seaweed is the only one that is consumed dried. Drying from a water content of 82% to less than 10% water artificially accentuates the "apparent" nutrient density by 8 times, indicating that seaweed is a negligible source of B12 when raw. Further, the B12 contents for seaweed, mushrooms and fermented vegetables (note spelling) are based on 100 g amounts which are atypical serving sizes for these less-than-common foods. Seaweed (dried) is of interest mainly as a novelty supplement or specialty garnish which most of the English-speaking world and Wikipedia users would not have access to consume from the usual food supply. Conclusion: not lede material. --Zefr (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if the seaweed was measured as wet, that's 16.75mg of B12 which far exceeds the daily reccomended amount of 2.4mg. Even if these last three plant sources are eaten sparingly, the amount needed to reach a dialy recommended amount is >100g (>0.22lbs) for all of them so it's content is substantial in diets where these foods are mere side dishes, condiments, or minor ingedients. If there's anything 'atypical' about the 100g consumption level is that it is much lower than what is typically used. Commonality of a food has to take a global view, not just that of a rural/suburban mainland american diet. Seaweed in it's raw dried form is present in almost every grocery store accross the US (along with mushrooms and fermented vegitables). Cyrus Freedman (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if 16.8 ug for raw seaweed is accurate – and I have doubts about that number, as the method may not be the same as used by USDA – it's not even in the top 60 of the B12 rankings. Here are all the seaweed products measured by USDA. If B12 is absent from being included, that means the measurement was zero or not warranted for the report. Let's keep in mind that the lede addresses the major points of the article. Uncommon foods are not in that category. --Zefr (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

In the interest of a unbiased lede, all evidence backed sources should be included and appeals to the authority of favourite sources should be avoided. Until there is evidence that the results were unscientific, there is no reason to doubt the Japanese scientists who found them. The lack of evidence from the USDA could be for any number of reasons including not having seen the relivant study or by arbitrary ommition. Currently the lede is leaning on a extremely narrow bias.Cyrus Freedman (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. MOS:LEAD: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points. The foods you are pushing are not notable and not among the most important. That's enough discussion on this. Please move on. --Zefr (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It's only not notable if you take a narrow narcissistic american mainland view of diet. The listed plant sources of foods are extremely common, seaweed more so on the coasts but it is available in almost all mainland grocery stores in specialty sections and in ubiquitous sushi sections, and the levels of B12 in all four of them are so high that only small amounts (>0.22lbs) of them need to be consumed to reach the daily amount of B12 reccomended.Cyrus Freedman (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"Products of animal origin constitute the primary source of vitamin B12. Older individuals and vegans are advised to use vitamin B12 fortified foods and supplements to meet their needs."

"Vitamin B12 is present in animal products, such as meat, poultry, fish (including shellfish), and to a lesser extent dairy products and eggs (1). Fresh pasteurized milk contains 0.9 μg per cup and is an important source of vitamin B12 for some vegetarians (17). Those strict vegetarians who eat no animal products (vegans) need supplemental vitamin B12 to meet their requirements. Recent analyses revealed that some plant-source foods, such as certain fermented beans and vegetables and edible algae and mushrooms, contain substantial amounts of bioactive vitamin B12 (81). Together with B-vitamin fortified food and supplements, these foods may contribute, though modestly, to prevent vitamin B12 deficiency in individuals consuming vegetarian diets."

The "narrow narcissistic american mainland view of diet" -- that the primary source of B12 for humans is animal-based foods -- seems to be the consensus, as presented in the source you cited. You seem to have a strong opinion on the subject. I'd suspect we might need some more voices here. I would like to suggest a request for comments here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"Plants"

For openers, please stop calling things that are not plants "plant sources". Thanks.

The source you have added is clear that non-animal sources -- along with the artificially fortified foods and supplements that all vegans should be using -- may contribute modestly to the prevention of vitamin B12 deficiency. The source does not say that, gee, if we had better studies and if more people knew about them we would all be able to live happy, healthy lives based on a few algae, fungi and vegetables processed with fungi and bacteria. The source says, "Together with B-vitamin fortified food and supplements, these foods may contribute, though modestly, to prevent vitamin B12 deficiency in individuals consuming vegetarian diets." - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough that 'plant sources' is changed in the 'Foods' section since mushrooms are included, this could be improved by simply adding 'Plant and mushroom sources'. The cited source speaks of "seaweed" in general, not only one type of seaweed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3062981/ "seaweeds contain considerable amounts of vitamin B12" "In conclusion, several plant-origin foods including seaweed, soybean-fermented foods, and kimchi, may contribute significantly to good vitamin B12 status". In addition, this citation could be added https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10794633 "green (Enteromorpha sp.) and purple (Porphyra sp.) lavers (nori) [...] are the most excellent source of vitamin B(12) among edible seaweeds" Please do not revert multiple unrelated entries due to laziness or frustration in the future. Cyrus Freedman (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)