Global Harmonization of Methodological Approaches to Nutrient Intake Recommendations Proceedings of a Workshop (2018) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
7 Breakout Discussions: Applications, Facilitating Quality, and Cost-Effectiveness
7 Breakout Discussions: Applications, Facilitating Quality, and Cost-Effectiveness
Pages 117-126
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 117... ...
As is true of this report in its entirety, the opinions and ideas summarized here are those of individual workshop participants and should not be construed as consensus. Also included in this chapter are summaries of Catherine Leclercq's introduction to the breakout discussions, Allen's synthesis of the breakouts, and the open discussion that took place afterward.
|
From page 118... ...
Yet, those documents proved "so useful," she said, because they provided the committee with a regional nutrient intake recommendation that they could then adapt for their own country. She agreed with a comment from the previous day regarding the value of regional nutrient intake recommendations, especially for countries with few resources.
|
From page 119... ...
Additionally, she encouraged stakeholders to keep in mind the intermediate end user, such as people who are developing standards for school meals. She mentioned a survey on school meal standards in 33 low-income countries that found only three countries using their own standards even though many of these countries had their own nutrient intake recommendations.
|
From page 120... ...
Other advantages identified by individual discussants, again, as reported by MacFarlane and Kurpad, included • Increased transparency around setting nutrient reference values; • Increased trust and confidence among both governments and con sumers in the science that emerges from having a transparent har monized approach and in the recommendations stemming from that science; • Empowerment of countries and regions to set their own nutrient reference values and to implement these values to meet their needs; • Facilitation of the global trade of staples and processed foods (e.g., through the use of similar nutrient requirements for staples and un processed foods or through the use of standardized labels and claims for processed foods)
|
From page 121... ...
"We're not saying that you should have one," he said, "but we're not saying that you shouldn't have one." In his opinion, a single number would help to standardize criteria for trade and food.3 QUESTION 2: ADDITIONAL RESOURCES AND EXPERTISE TO FACILITATE ADOPTION OF A HARMONIZED APPROACH As reported by Umi Fahmida and Joseph Lau: • Several individuals in both breakout sessions identified an evi dence repository as the number one additional resource needed to facilitate adoption of a harmonized approach. They envisioned a repository containing a wide range of information, not just system atic reviews, but also food composition tables, food consumption data, bioavailability data, and other related data.
|
From page 122... ...
As with the training for the imagined technical brief, it was suggested that such a training course be made available either online, so it is easily accessible, or through collaboration. • Finally, some discussants identified the need for a feedback mecha nism to ensure that actual food intakes align with derived nutrient recommendations.
|
From page 123... ...
She described the data repository as one that could contain a wide range of information, including available systematic reviews and other scientific evidence, food composition tables (which she noted are mostly online already, but could be converged) , and bioavailability data.
|
From page 124... ...
. data can be misused as well." One of his concerns was the many things that can be done in a systematic review that are not necessarily transparent, such as removing a single study, which, he said, can "ever so slightly change things around so that you get what you want." But an even bigger worry for him is that people without knowledge of the biology of what they are looking at will apply these freely available databases and methodologies and develop recommendations.
|
From page 125... ...
"We have to be aware of the risks and address them," she said, "but not stop this process." In fact, there are a couple of ways to address these risks with respect to systematic reviews, George Wells explained. First, at the beginning of a systematic review, protocols for the review are often published and openly available, similar to the way ClinicalTrials.gov publishes information on clinical trials.6 Second, systematic reviews can be transparent and reproducible if information is provided in the review for a third party to reproduce the review, ensure that the original review actually followed the protocol and did not cherry-pick evidence, and verify the results of the original review.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.