. "2 Conceptual Framework for DRI Development: Session 1." The Development of DRIs 1994-2004: Lessons Learned and New Challenges: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
The Development of DRIs 1994–2004: Lessons Learned and New Challenges - Workshop Summary
BOX 2-1
General Questions for Session 1 Participants
Conceptual Underpinnings
How has the Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) framework “held up” over time?
What is the general purpose of the DRIs? Is it still for planning and assessing?
Do the Estimated Average Requirements (EARs), Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) and Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (ULs) continue to be desirable values? Is the Adequate Intake (AI) useful and needed? Does the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range (AMDR) pave the way to considering macronutrients using a different approach?
Should we continue to include chronic disease risk as an endpoint option? Should we explore multiple endpoints for the same age/gender group?
Should the focus of the DRIs continue to expand beyond classic nutrients? Is a modified DRI approach needed to address macronutrients and nonessential nutrient substances?
Overarching Road Map Issues
What is the role of systematic evidence-based reviews (SEBRs) in DRI development?
Can an organizing scheme for DRI development be specified?
is senior scientist at the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute and is a former chair of the FNB.
Dr. Alice Lichtenstein of Tufts University examined the issues in applying systematic evidence-based review (SEBR) approaches to DRI development. Dr. Elizabeth Yetley, a Senior Nutrition Research Scientist with the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health, discussed whether risk assessment is a relevant organizing structure for the DRI development process.
Designated discussants followed Drs. Russell, Trumbo, and Yates, and a designated discussant engaged Drs. Lichtenstein and Yetley. In each case, the discussions were followed by input from the workshop audience. The session concluded with a panel discussion, at which point the session was again opened to the audience for comment.
