Perspective: A Research Roadmap about Ultra-Processed Foods and Human Health for the United States Food System: Proceedings from an Interdisciplinary, Multi-Stakeholder Workshop.

Our objective was to convene interdisciplinary experts from government, academia, and industry to develop a Research Roadmap to identify research priorities about processed food intake and risk for obesity and cardiometabolic diseases (CMD) among United States populations. We convened attendees at various career stages with diverse viewpoints in the field. We held a "Food Processing Primer" to build foundational knowledge of how and why foods are processed, followed by presentations about how processed foods may affect energy intake, obesity, and CMD risk. Breakout groups discussed potential mechanistic and confounding explanations for associations between processed foods and obesity and CMD risk. Facilitators created research questions (RQs) based on key themes from discussions. Different breakout groups convened to discuss what is known and unknown for each RQ and to develop sub-RQs to address gaps. Workshop attendees focused on ultra-processed foods (UPFs; Nova Group 4) because the preponderance of evidence is based on this classification system. Yet, heterogeneity and subjectivity in UPF classification was a challenge for RQ development. The 6 RQs were: 1) What objective methods or measures could further categorize UPFs, considering food processing, formulation, and the interaction of the two? 2) How can exposure assessment of UPF intake be improved? 3) Does UPF intake influence risk for obesity or CMDs, independent of diet quality? 4) What, if any, attributes of UPFs influence ingestive behavior and contribute to excess energy intake? 5) What, if any, attributes of UPFs contribute to clinically meaningful metabolic responses? 6) What, if any, external environmental factors lead people to consume high amounts of UPFs? Uncertainty and complexity around UPF intake warrant further complementary and interdisciplinary causal, mechanistic, and methodological research related to obesity and CMD risk to understand the utility of applying classification by degree of processing to foods in the United States.

Valuing the Diversity of Research Methods to Advance Nutrition Science.

The ASN Board of Directors appointed the Nutrition Research Task Force to develop a report on scientific methods used in nutrition science to advance discovery, interpretation, and application of knowledge in the field. The genesis of this report was growing concern about the tone of discourse among nutrition professionals and the implications of acrimony on the productive study and translation of nutrition science. Too often, honest differences of opinion are cast as conflicts instead of areas of needed collaboration. Recognition of the value (and limitations) of contributions from well-executed nutrition science derived from the various approaches used in the discipline, as well as appreciation of how their layering will yield the strongest evidence base, will provide a basis for greater productivity and impact. Greater collaborative efforts within the field of nutrition science will require an understanding that each method or approach has a place and function that should be valued and used together to create the nutrition evidence base. Precision nutrition was identified as an important emerging nutrition topic by the preponderance of task force members, and this theme was adopted for the report because it lent itself to integration of many approaches in nutrition science. Although the primary audience for this report is nutrition researchers and other nutrition professionals, a secondary aim is to develop a document useful for the various audiences that translate nutrition research, including journalists, clinicians, and policymakers. The intent is to promote accurate, transparent, verifiable evidence-based communication about nutrition science. This will facilitate reasoned interpretation and application of emerging findings and, thereby, improve understanding and trust in nutrition science and appropriate characterization, development, and adoption of recommendations.

Strengthening national nutrition research: rationale and options for a new coordinated federal research effort and authority.

BACKGROUND: The US faces remarkable food and nutrition challenges. A new federal effort to strengthen and coordinate nutrition research could rapidly generate the evidence base needed to address these multiple national challenges. However, the relevant characteristics of such an effort have been uncertain. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to provide an objective, informative summary of 1) the mounting diet-related health burdens facing our nation and corresponding economic, health equity, national security, and sustainability implications; 2) the current federal nutrition research landscape and existing mechanisms for its coordination; 3) the opportunities for and potential impact of new fundamental, clinical, public health, food and agricultural, and translational scientific discoveries; and 4) the various options for further strengthening and coordinating federal nutrition research, including corresponding advantages, disadvantages, and potential executive and legislative considerations. METHODS: We reviewed government and other published documents on federal nutrition research; held various discussions with expert groups, advocacy organizations, and scientific societies; and held in-person or phone meetings with >50 federal staff in executive and legislative roles, as well as with a variety of other stakeholders in academic, industry, and nongovernment organizations. RESULTS: Stark national nutrition challenges were identified. More Americans are sick than are healthy, largely from rising diet-related illnesses. These conditions create tremendous strains on productivity, health care costs, health disparities, government budgets, US economic competitiveness, and military readiness. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has further laid bare these strains, including food insecurity, major diet-related comorbidities for poor outcomes from COVID-19 such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, and insufficient surveillance on and coordination of our food system. More than 10 federal departments and agencies currently invest in critical nutrition research, yet with relatively flat investments over several decades. Coordination also remains suboptimal, documented by multiple governmental reports over 50 years. Greater harmonization and expansion of federal investment in nutrition science, not a silo-ing or rearrangement of existing investments, has tremendous potential to generate new discoveries to improve and sustain the health of all Americans. Two identified key strategies to achieve this were as follows: 1) a new authority for robust cross-governmental coordination of nutrition research and other nutrition-related policy and 2) strengthened authority, investment, and coordination for nutrition research within the NIH. These strategies were found to be complementary, together catalyzing important new science, partnerships, coordination, and returns on investment. Additional complementary actions to accelerate federal nutrition research were identified at the USDA. CONCLUSIONS: The need and opportunities for strengthened federal nutrition research are clear, with specific identified options to help create the new leadership, strategic planning, coordination, and investment the nation requires to address the multiple nutrition-related challenges and grasp the opportunities before us.

Best practices in nutrition science to earn and keep the public's trust.

Public trust in nutrition science is the foundation on which nutrition and health progress is based, including sound public health. An ASN-commissioned, independent Advisory Committee comprehensively reviewed the literature and available public surveys about the public's trust in nutrition science and the factors that influence it and conducted stakeholder outreach regarding publicly available information. The Committee selected 7 overlapping domains projected to significantly influence public trust: 1) conflict of interest and objectivity; 2) public benefit; 3) standards of scientific rigor and reproducibility; 4) transparency; 5) equity; 6) information dissemination (education, communication, and marketing); and 7) accountability. The literature review comprehensively explored current practices and threats to public trust in nutrition science, including gaps that erode trust. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of peer-reviewed material specifically focused on nutrition science. Available material was examined, and its analysis informed the development of priority best practices. The Committee proposed best practices to support public trust, appropriate to ASN and other food and nutrition organizations motivated by the conviction that public trust remains key to the realization of the benefits of past, present, and future scientific advances. The adoption of the best practices by food and nutrition organizations, such as ASN, other stakeholder organizations, researchers, food and nutrition professionals, companies, government officials, and individuals working in the food and nutrition space would strengthen and help ensure earning and keeping the public's continued trust in nutrition science.

Scientific rigor and credibility in the nutrition research landscape.

Scientific progress depends on the quality and credibility of research methods. As discourse on rigor, transparency, and reproducibility joins the cacophony of nutrition information and misinformation in mass media, buttressing the real and perceived reliability of nutrition science is more important than ever. This broad topic was the focus of a 2016 plenary session, "Scientific Rigor and Competing Interests in the Nutrition Research Landscape." This article summarizes and expands on this session in an effort to increase understanding and dialogue with regard to factors that limit the real and perceived reliability of nutrition science and steps that can be taken to mitigate those factors. The end goal is to both earn and merit greater trust in nutrition science by both the scientific community and the general public. The authors offer suggestions in each of the domains of education and training, communications, research conduct, and procedures and policies to help achieve this goal. The authors emphasize the need for adequate funding to support these efforts toward greater rigor and transparency, which will be resource demanding and may require either increased research funding or the recognition that a greater proportion of research funding may need to be allocated to these tasks.

Achieving a transparent, actionable framework for public-private partnerships for food and nutrition research.

Officers and other representatives of more than a dozen food-, nutrition-, and health-related scientific societies and organizations, food industry scientists, and staff of the USDA, the CDC, the Food and Drug Administration, and the NIH convened on 8 December 2014 in Washington, DC, to reach a consensus among individuals participating on guiding principles for the development of research-oriented, food- and nutrition-related public-private partnerships. During the daylong working meeting, participants discussed and revised 12 previously published guidelines to ensure integrity in the conduct of food and nutrition research collaborations among public, nonprofit, and private sectors. They agreed to reconvene periodically to reassess the public-private partnership principles. This article presents the guiding principles and potential benefits, outlines key discussion points, and articulates points of agreement and reservation.

Report of an EU-US symposium on understanding nutrition-related consumer behavior: strategies to promote a lifetime of healthy food choices.

This report summarizes an EU-US Task Force on Biotechnology Research symposium on healthy food choices and nutrition-related purchasing behaviors. This meeting was unique in its transdisciplinary approach to obesity and in bringing together scientists from academia, government, and industry. Discussion relevant to funders and researchers centered on (1) increased use of public-private partnerships, (2) the complexity of food behaviors and obesity risk and multilevel aspects that must be considered, and (3) the importance of transatlantic cooperation and collaboration that could accelerate advances in this field. A call to action stressed these points along with a commitment to enhanced communication strategies.

Mushrooms and Health Summit proceedings.

The Mushroom Council convened the Mushrooms and Health Summit in Washington, DC, on 9-10 September 2013. The proceedings are synthesized in this article. Although mushrooms have long been regarded as health-promoting foods, research specific to their role in a healthful diet and in health promotion has advanced in the past decade. The earliest mushroom cultivation was documented in China, which remains among the top global mushroom producers, along with the United States, Italy, The Netherlands, and Poland. Although considered a vegetable in dietary advice, mushrooms are fungi, set apart by vitamin B-12 in very low quantity but in the same form found in meat, ergosterol converted with UV light to vitamin D2, and conjugated linoleic acid. Mushrooms are a rare source of ergothioneine as well as selenium, fiber, and several other vitamins and minerals. Some preclinical and clinical studies suggest impacts of mushrooms on cognition, weight management, oral health, and cancer risk. Preliminary evidence suggests that mushrooms may support healthy immune and inflammatory responses through interaction with the gut microbiota, enhancing development of adaptive immunity, and improved immune cell functionality. In addition to imparting direct nutritional and health benefits, analysis of U.S. food intake survey data reveals that mushrooms are associated with higher dietary quality. Also, early sensory research suggests that mushrooms blended with meats and lower sodium dishes are well liked and may help to reduce intakes of red meat and salt without compromising taste. As research progresses on the specific health effects of mushrooms, there is a need for effective communication efforts to leverage mushrooms to improve overall dietary quality.

Principles for building public-private partnerships to benefit food safety, nutrition, and health research.

The present article articulates principles for effective public-private partnerships (PPPs) in scientific research. Recognizing that PPPs represent one approach for creating research collaborations and that there are other methods outside the scope of this article, PPPs can be useful in leveraging diverse expertise among government, academic, and industry researchers to address public health needs and questions concerned with nutrition, health, food science, and food and ingredient safety. A three-step process was used to identify the principles proposed herein: step 1) review of existing PPP guidelines, both in the peer-reviewed literature and at 16 disparate non-industry organizations; step 2) analysis of relevant successful or promising PPPs; and step 3) formal background interviews of 27 experienced, senior-level individuals from academia, government, industry, foundations, and non-governmental organizations. This process resulted in the articulation of 12 potential principles for establishing and managing successful research PPPs. The review of existing guidelines showed that guidelines for research partnerships currently reside largely within institutions rather than in the peer-reviewed literature. This article aims to introduce these principles into the literature to serve as a framework for dialogue and for future PPPs.

How experts are chosen to inform public policy: can the process be improved?

The ever-increasing complexity of the food supply has magnified the importance of ongoing research into nutrition and food safety issues that have significant impact on public health. At the same time, ethical questions have been raised regarding conflict of interest, making it more challenging to form the expert panels that advise government agencies and public health officials in formulating nutrition and food safety policy. Primarily due to the growing complexity of the interactions among government, industry, and academic research institutions, increasingly stringent conflict-of-interest policies may have the effect of barring the most experienced and knowledgeable nutrition and food scientists from contributing their expertise on the panels informing public policy. This paper explores the issue in some depth, proposing a set of principles for determining considerations for service on expert advisory committees. Although the issues around scientific policy counsel and the selection of advisory panels clearly have global applicability, the context for their development had a US and Canadian focus in this work. The authors also call for a broader discussion in all sectors of the research community as to whether and how the process of empaneling food science and nutrition experts might be improved.

Food science challenge: translating the dietary guidelines for Americans to bring about real behavior change.

Food scientists and nutrition scientists (dietitians and nutrition communicators) are tasked with creating strategies to more closely align the American food supply and the public's diet with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA). This paper is the result of 2 expert dialogues to address this mandate, which were held in Chicago, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., in early October 2010 between these 2 key scientific audiences. It is an objective that has largely eluded public health experts over the past several decades. This document takes the perspective of food scientists who are tasked with making positive modifications to the food supply, both in innovating and reformulating food products, to respond to both the DGA recommendations, and to consumer desires, needs, and choices. The paper is one of two to emerge from those October 2010 discussions; the other article focuses on the work of dietitians and nutrition communicators in effecting positive dietary change.

Funding food science and nutrition research: financial conflicts and scientific integrity.

There has been substantial public debate about the susceptibility of research to biases of various kinds. The dialogue has extended to the peer-reviewed literature, scientific conferences, the mass media, government advisory bodies, and beyond. While biases can come from myriad sources, the overwhelming focus of the discussion, to date, has been on industry-funded science. Given the critical role that industry has played and will continue to play in the research process, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) North America Working Group on Guiding Principles has, in this paper, set out proposed conflict-of-interest guidelines regarding industry funding for protecting the integrity and credibility of the scientific record, particularly with respect to health, nutrition, and food safety science. Eight principles are enumerated, specifying ground rules for industry-sponsored research. The paper, which issues a challenge to the broader scientific community to address all bias issues, is only a first step; the document is intended to be dynamic, prompting ongoing discussion and refinement.

Funding food science and nutrition research: financial conflicts and scientific integrity.

There has been significant public debate about the susceptibility of research to biases of various kinds. The dialogue has extended to the peer-reviewed literature, scientific conferences, the mass media, government advisory bodies, and beyond. While biases can come from myriad sources, the overwhelming focus of the discussion, to date, has been on industry-funded science. Given the critical role that industry has played and will continue to play in the research process, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) North America Working Group on Guiding Principles has, in this paper, set out proposed conflict-of-interest guidelines, regarding industry funding, for protecting the integrity and credibility of the scientific record, particularly with respect to health, nutrition, and food-safety science. Eight principles are enumerated, specifying ground rules for industry-sponsored research. The paper, which issues a challenge to the broader scientific community to address all bias issues, is only a first step; the document is intended to be dynamic, prompting ongoing discussion and refinement. The Guiding Principles are as follows. In the conduct of public/private research relationships, all relevant parties shall: 1) conduct or sponsor research that is factual, transparent, and designed objectively; according to accepted principles of scientific inquiry, the research design will generate an appropriately phrased hypothesis and the research will answer the appropriate questions, rather than favor a particular outcome; 2) require control of both study design and research itself to remain with scientific investigators; 3) not offer or accept remuneration geared to the outcome of a research project; 4) prior to the commencement of studies, ensure that there is a written agreement that the investigative team has the freedom and obligation to attempt to publish the findings within some specified time-frame; 5) require, in publications and conference presentations, full signed disclosure of all financial interests; 6) not participate in undisclosed paid authorship arrangements in industry-sponsored publications or presentations; 7) guarantee accessibility to all data and control of statistical analysis by investigators and appropriate auditors/reviewers; and 8) require that academic researchers, when they work in contract research organizations (CRO) or act as contract researchers, make clear statements of their affiliation; require that such researchers publish only under the auspices of the CRO.

Funding food science and nutrition research: financial conflicts and scientific integrity.

There has been significant public debate about the susceptibility of research to biases of various kinds. The dialogue has extended to the peer-reviewed literature, scientific conferences, the mass media, government advisory bodies, and beyond. Whereas biases can come from myriad sources, the overwhelming focus of the discussion to date has been on industry-funded science. Given the critical role that industry has played and will continue to play in the research process, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) North America Working Group on Guiding Principles has, in this article, proposed conflict-of-interest guidelines regarding industry funding to protect the integrity and credibility of the scientific record, particularly with respect to health, nutrition, and food-safety science. Eight principles are enumerated, which specify the ground rules for industry-sponsored research. This article, which issues a challenge to the broader scientific community to address all bias issues, is only a first step; the document is intended to be dynamic, prompting ongoing discussion and refinement. In the conduct of public/private research relationships, all relevant parties shall 1) conduct or sponsor research that is factual, transparent, and designed objectively, and, according to accepted principles of scientific inquiry, the research design will generate an appropriately phrased hypothesis and the research will answer the appropriate questions, rather than favor a particular outcome; 2) require control of both study design and research itself to remain with scientific investigators; 3) not offer or accept remuneration geared to the outcome of a research project; 4) ensure, before the commencement of studies, that there is a written agreement that the investigative team has the freedom and obligation to attempt to publish the findings within some specified time frame; 5) require, in publications and conference presentations, full signed disclosure of all financial interests; 6) not participate in undisclosed paid authorship arrangements in industry-sponsored publications or presentations; 7) guarantee accessibility to all data and control of statistical analysis by investigators and appropriate auditors/reviewers; 8) require that academic researchers, when they work in contract research organizations (CRO) or act as contract researchers, make clear statements of their affiliation; and require that such researchers publish only under the auspices of the CRO.

Dietary supplement use in women: the role of the media.

Women and other consumers obtain information on supplements from a variety of sources, including health professionals, but most frequently the media. Although scientific conclusions are methodically scrutinized, news stories are judged by instant appeal. Dietary supplements add a complicating twist because folkloric use predates scientific research by thousands of years. The incongruity between science and the media perpetuates misinformation and fails to provide the context that gives scientific research meaning. The International Food Information Council (IFIC) and the IFIC Foundation(3) seek to bridge the practice and the communication of science. The IFIC Foundation's biannual analysis of food news revealed that in 1999 and 2001, science experts were the primary source of information for articles but context was often absent or incomplete. The media's major obstacle in communicating science is a lack of understanding of the scientific process. It is imperative that emerging science is meaningfully translated for the public. The Harvard School of Public Health and IFIC Foundation convened an advisory group in 1997 to examine the communications process. The result was a set of questions meant to guide the communications process: Will your communication enhance public understanding of diet and health? Have you put the study findings into context? Have the findings been peer reviewed? Have you disclosed the important facts about the study? Have you disclosed all key information about the study's findings? The advisory group agreed that funding sources should be disclosed but that findings ought to stand on their own merit. In addition, guidelines for various specific communicators were created.

Communicating science-based food and nutrition information.

Science evolves. Ongoing research, review and debate generate novel ideas and provide new insights to current scientific understanding. However, science is frequently reported to the public without context, which creates confusion. One study seemingly contradicts another, leaving consumers to doubt both scientific experts and science. This paper highlights quantitative and qualitative data to illustrate consumer confusion, frustration and apathy toward nutrition science and health information. Further, this paper shows how science communications and health advice can be tailored for specific audiences and, importantly, how scientists themselves can help the media understand and position research to minimize consumer confusion.