Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40687392›Full record

ArticleDrug and alcohol dependence reports2025

Fortifying alcoholic beverages with thiamine: Lessons from history and future opportunities.

Thomas Jedamzik, Georg Juckel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug and alcohol dependence reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Thomas JedamzikDepartment of Psychiatry, Ruhr University Bochum, LWL University Hospital, Alexandrinenstr. 1, Bochum D-44791, Germany.
Georg JuckelDepartment of Psychiatry, Ruhr University Bochum, LWL University Hospital, Alexandrinenstr. 1, Bochum D-44791, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Thiamine deficiency remains a significant risk for individuals with chronic alcohol use and is a major contributing factor in the development of Wernicke encephalopathy and Korsakoff syndrome. While clinical guidelines recommend targeted thiamine supplementation in at-risk patients, strategies for prevention at the population level remain limited and underutilized. Among the more unconventional proposals discussed in past decades was the fortification of alcoholic beverages with thiamine. This idea received particular attention in Australia in the 1980s, where high prevalence rates of Wernicke encephalopathy and Korsakoff syndrome led to a broader public health debate. Although fortification was ultimately limited to flour and cereals, the discussion raised important questions about feasibility, effectiveness, and ethical considerations, many of which remain unresolved. This commentary revisits the history of this debate, drawing on empirical studies, review articles, and opinion-based contributions published in scientific journals from the 1940s to the present. Particular attention is given to the counterarguments raised against beverage fortification, including concerns about thiamine absorption, the potential behavioral implications of such a measure, and doubts about its political and regulatory feasibility. These arguments are examined in their historical context, including how they evolved over time, what types of evidence they were based on, and how they were discussed across clinical disciplines and scientific forums. By tracing the development of this largely overlooked policy proposal, this article aims to clarify the central points of contention and encourage a more nuanced understanding of the rationale, limitations, and potential of thiamine fortification in the context of alcohol-related health risks.

Indexed as

FortificationKorsakoffThiamineWernicke

Identifiers

PMID40687392
PMCPMC12274301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.