. "Appendix C: Brief List of Reoccurring Workshop Discussions." 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
Criteria forupdating currentDRIs
A strategy for updating DRIs was identified by many as an urgent matter.
Some suggested that several venues may operate simultaneously and that relevant criteria need to be established; resources were acknowledged as a stumbling block.
Failure to establishreference values: Nodecision is not anoption
An educated estimate from scientists was recognized as a better alternative to not developing a reference value: A value derived from scientific judgment offers a basis for government managers who must act regardless of the existence of a value.
Interest was expressed in determining ways to specify relative uncertainty surrounding reference values and ways to identify controversies and concerns.
Considerable opportunities for input were noted.
The rigor and independence of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) process were recognized.
Uses and purpose ofDRIs
The overall goal of planning and assessing for groups and individuals was affirmed.
Concern was expressed that the endpoints selected cause confusion about what the DRIs are intended to accomplish.
Estimated Average Requirements (EARs) and Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (ULs) have been useful.
Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) were noted as useful to many, but were also characterized as arbitrary, misused, and more appropriately established using situation-specific criteria.
Adequate Intakes (AIs) were controversial and a source of confusion. Some saw no other option; some preferred establishing an EAR with an indication of uncertainty; some suggested that AIs can be relevant to use with endpoints based on chronic disease.
Some commented that consideration should be given to whether the DRI process should focus on a core set of “numbers” needed versus providing reference values for all applications.