Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Food Technology – Jumping the Indifference Curve on Nutrition

Food Technology – Jumping the Indifference Curve on Nutrition

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,605|Likes:
Published by porternovelli
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans—the 2010 version of the musculature of the nutrition policy of the United States—have arrived. The significant investment of time and thought leadership by a highly credentialed group of scientists has again yielded evidence based, consumer-directed recommendations designed to improve food and fitness patterns and, ultimately, public health. While the Guideline have evolved since their inception in 1980, the guidance they provide has been consistent and grounded in what most consumers—and stakeholders— acknowledge as a healthy approach to eating patterns.
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans—the 2010 version of the musculature of the nutrition policy of the United States—have arrived. The significant investment of time and thought leadership by a highly credentialed group of scientists has again yielded evidence based, consumer-directed recommendations designed to improve food and fitness patterns and, ultimately, public health. While the Guideline have evolved since their inception in 1980, the guidance they provide has been consistent and grounded in what most consumers—and stakeholders— acknowledge as a healthy approach to eating patterns.

More info:

Published by: porternovelli on May 25, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

07/07/2013

pdf

text

original

 
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

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->