Dataset Information

Revising the daily values may affect food fortification and in turn nutrient intake adequacy.

ABSTRACT: The Nutrition Facts panel on food labels in the United States currently displays Daily Values (DVs) that are based on outdated RDAs. The FDA has indicated that it plans to update the DVs based on the newer Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs), but there is controversy regarding the best method for calculating new DVs from the DRIs. To better understand the implications of DV revisions, assuming that manufacturers choose to maintain current label claims for micronutrients from voluntarily fortified foods, we modeled intake of 8 micronutrients using NHANES 2007-2008 data and 2 potential methods for calculating DVs: the population-weighted Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) and the population-coverage RDA. In each scenario, levels of fortified nutrients were adjusted to maintain the current %DV. Usual nutrient intakes and percentages with usual intakes less than the EAR were estimated for the U.S. population and subpopulations aged ? 4 y (n = 7976). For most nutrients, estimates of the percentage of the U.S. population with intakes below the EAR were similar regardless of whether the DV corresponded to the population-weighted EAR or the population-coverage RDA. Potential decreases were observed in adequacy of nutrients of concern for women of childbearing age, namely iron and folate (up to 9% and 3%, respectively), adequacy of calcium among children (up to 6%), and adequacy of vitamin A intakes in the total population (5%) assuming use of the population-weighted EAR compared with the population-coverage RDA for setting the DV. Results of this modeling exercise will help to inform decisions in revising the DVs.

SUBMITTER: Murphy MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3827641 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Revising the daily values may affect food fortification and in turn nutrient intake adequacy.

Murphy Mary M MM Spungen Judith H JH Barraj Leila M LM Bailey Regan L RL Dwyer Johanna T JT

The Journal of nutrition 20131016 12

The Nutrition Facts panel on food labels in the United States currently displays Daily Values (DVs) that are based on outdated RDAs. The FDA has indicated that it plans to update the DVs based on the newer Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs), but there is controversy regarding the best method for calculating new DVs from the DRIs. To better understand the implications of DV revisions, assuming that manufacturers choose to maintain current label claims for micronutrients from voluntarily fortified f ...[more]

PMID: 24132571

Similar Datasets

Project description:Nutrient adequacy among adolescents is of concern due to higher nutrient requirements for their developing bodies as well as the gap between the current nutrient intake and the recommendations. The objective of this study was to determine beef intake and assess the relationship between beef consumption and nutrient intake and nutrient adequacy in male and female adolescents, 14-18 years of age. Dietary recalls collected during the What We Eat in America (WWEIA) portion of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles 2001-2018 were utilized to determine beef intake. Usual nutrient intakes were determined with the National Cancer Institute method in conjunction with day 1 and day 2 total nutrient files. Nutrient adequacy was assessed by calculating the percentage of the population below the estimated average requirement (EAR) or above the adequate intake (AI). The average beef intake of male and female adolescent beef consumers was 57.9 ± 2.4 and 46.8 ± 2.2 g with a 90th percentile of 82.3 ± 4.3 and 67.8 ± 3.5 g, respectively. Compared to non-consumers, beef consumers had a 10% or higher intake of calcium, iron, phosphorus, potassium, total choline, vitamin B12, and zinc. Over 50% of the adolescent population (regardless of beef consumption) had intakes below the EAR for calcium, magnesium, and vitamins A, C, D, and E. The percentage of the beef-consuming population below the EAR was lower for calcium, copper, folate, iron, phosphorus, zinc, and vitamins B12 and B6 as compared to non-consumers. Additionally, the portion of the population above the AI for sodium was higher in female beef consumers as compared to non-consumers. We estimate approximately 900,000 to 1,400,000, 400,000-700,000, 200,000-600,000, and 200,000-400,000 fewer adolescents to be below the EAR for zinc, phosphorus, vitamin B12, and iron, respectively if beef non-consumers were to consume beef. This study suggests beef can help increase the nutrient intake and nutrient adequacy in the diets of adolescents, helping to close important gaps for this nutritionally vulnerable population. While recommendations to reduce beef intake are widely prevalent, this could result in unintended nutritional consequences regarding under-consumed nutrients including those of public health concern important for adolescent health.

Project description:BackgroundIn many low- and middle-income countries, the prevalence of energy and nutrient deficiencies is high among pregnant women. Balanced energy-protein (BEP) supplements are a promising strategy to cover nutritional requirements during pregnancy and improve birth outcomes. However, the displacement of nutrient-dense foods by BEP might attenuate the efficacy of supplementation.ObjectiveThis cross-sectional study of participants in a randomized controlled trial evaluated the difference in energy and macro- and micronutrient intakes, food groups, and nutrient adequacy between a control and intervention group receiving either a daily iron-folic acid (IFA) tablet or IFA and BEP supplement during pregnancy, respectively.MethodsWe collected a single multiple-pass 24-h recall from 470 pregnant women from the MIcronutriments pour la SAnté de la Mère et de l'Enfant (MISAME) III study that investigates the efficacy of BEP supplementation on birth outcomes and infant growth. Dietary intake (median and IQR) and nutrient adequacy were assessed using individual recipes and preparation methods of mixed dishes for each participant. Linear regression models were fitted to compare energy and nutrient intakes.ResultsDietary energy, and macro- and micronutrient intakes were significantly higher among women in the intervention group when including BEP [2329 kcal/d (1855, 3008 kcal/d) compared with 1942 kcal/d (1575, 2405 kcal/d) in the control group (all P < 0.001)]. The difference in median energy intake (448 kcal/d; 95% CI: 291, 605 kcal/d) was approximately equivalent to a daily dose of the BEP supplement (393 kcal). Nutrient adequacy ratios for both groups were low for all micronutrients (between 0.02 and 0.66), when excluding BEP (except iron and folic acid, due to standard supplemental doses) from analysis. However, nutrient intakes increased to the Estimated Average Requirement for pregnant women when including BEP supplements.ConclusionsBEP supplementation increases energy and macro- and micronutrient intakes among pregnant women and fills nutrient gaps without displacing food intake. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03533712 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03533712).

Dataset Information

Revising the daily values may affect food fortification and in turn nutrient intake adequacy.

Publications

Revising the daily values may affect food fortification and in turn nutrient intake adequacy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets