Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
pg
2020
04.11
•
www.ift.org
[FOOD, MEDICINE & HEALTH]
 Jumping
the Indifference Curve
on Nutrition
T
he Dietary Guidelines orAmericans—the 2010 ver-sion o the musculature o the nutrition policy o the UnitedStates—have arrived. The sig-nifcant investment o time and thought leadership by a highlycredentialed group o scientistshas again yielded evidence-based, consumer-directedrecommendations designed toimprove ood and ftness pat- terns and, ultimately, publichealth. While the Guidelineshave evolved since their incep- tion in 1980, the guidance theyprovide has been consistentand grounded in what mostconsumers—and stakehold-ers—acknowledge as a healthyapproach to eating patterns.As with any policy document,it is critical to examine how con-sumers have responded to theguidance. In the case o theDietary Guidelines or Americans,it also is time to explore whatadditional scientifc disciplinesmay be needed to enhance theGuidelines dialogue to meet theneeds o all end users, including the ood industry, which ischarged with bringing thesenutrition recommendations to lieat point o purchase.Currently, nutrition science is the core driver o the DietaryGuidelines. However, once thestatus o the direction driven by the nutrition science is deter-mined, the ood must be made,necessitating a key role or oodscience and technology in thediscussion. Take, or example, two key directives o the 2010Guidelines: increased consump- tion o ruits and vegetables andreduction in sodium.The intriguing questionaround ruits and vegetablesis this: I all Americans didreach the goals set in the 2010Guidelines, would enough pro-duce be available to meetconsumer demand? In a study by the Economic Research Serviceo the U.S. Dept. o Agriculture,based on the 2005 DietaryGuidelines, Buzby et. al. (2006)determined that Americanswould need to increase daily ruitconsumption by 132% to meetdietary recommendations. Theadditional demand could requireU.S. producers to more than dou-ble harvested ruit acreage to 7.6million acres (up rom 3.5 millionacres). To meet the dietary rec-ommendations or vegetables,daily consumption would have to increase by about 31%, and the mix o vegetables consumedwould have to change, requiring,or example, a 431% increase in the consumption o legumes anda reduction o 35% in the con-sumption o starchy vegetables.To meet this demand, the areasharvested or vegetables wouldneed to increase by about 137%rom 6.5 million acres to 15.3 mil-lion acres. Issues o concern in the U.S. include the amount oarable land available with avor-able climate conditions, wateravailability, adequate numberso arm workers, cold chainmanagement considerations,appropriate means o transpor- tation, and the occurrence onatural disasters that could sig-nifcantly impact harvest. Withall o these considerations, it islikely that imports could continue to increase and new technologiesor increasing the capacity togrow and harvest product wouldhave to be seriously exploited.These include vertical arming,hydroponics, and aeroponics,as well as other novel and inno-vative production methods.On sodium, the DietaryGuidelines report noted that evi-dence o a direct relationshipbetween dietary sodium intakeand cardiovascular disease inhumans has been sparse and that there is urther need or random-ized clinical trials in humans toindicate a relationship with theimpact o dietary sodium intakeand other disease states. Still, the ultimate recommendationwas to reduce daily sodiumintake to less than 2,300 mg/dayoverall, with urther reduction to1,500 mg/day among personswho are 51 and older and thosewho are Arican American orwho have hypertension, diabe- tes, or chronic kidney disease,which applies to about hal o theU.S. population. One o the great-est challenges or the oodindustry—and the ood scientistsin industry—is to develop nutri- tious products and identiyprocesses that signifcantlyreduce the sodium while assuring the saety o those products. Thisreduction will require radicalchanges in consumer-acceptablesensory qualities o oods, explo-ration o new, cost-eective technologies to duplicate theunctional properties o sodiumchloride, and even close exami-nation o ood regulations.With issues like these on the table, why has the role o oodscience in the Dietary GuidelinesAdvisory Committee beenocused primarily on home oodsaety issues? Shouldn’t consid-eration be given to encouragingull engagement o the nutritionand ood science disciplines in the examination o how nutritionscience recommendations can berealized in the marketplace, pos-ing questions about what technologies are available, howsoon they can be employed, andat what cost.The ultimate question, ocourse, is what impact have the Dietary Guidelines had on the way consumers approachood choices. Research dem-onstrates that behavior changedoes happen, albeit slowly. Why the slow pace? According toShahram Heshmet o Rensselaer
by Mary Christ-Erwin & Roger Clemens
Food science & technology, nutrition science,and behavioral economics
should all have arole in shaping dietary guidance.
 
FoodScience & TechnologyBehavioralEconomicsNutritionScience
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more