Workshop summary: building an NHANES for the future.

The American Society for Nutrition's (ASN) Committee on Advocacy and Science Policy (CASP) organized a workshop, "Building a National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the Future," held during NUTRITION 2023, which took place in Boston, MA in July 2023. CASP had already identified an urgent need for increased support and modernization to ensure that a secure future for NHANES is achievable. The survey faces challenges associated with data collection, stagnant funding, and a need for more granular data for subpopulations and groups at risk. The workshop provided an overview of NHANES, including the nutrition component, and the many other uses for the survey's data, which extend beyond nutrition. Speakers highlighted NHANES's current and emerging challenges, as well as possible solutions to address these challenges, especially with regard to response rates of underrepresented groups, linkage of survey data to other resources, incorporation of new survey methodologies, and emerging data needs. The workshop also included a "Town Hall" component to gather additional feedback on NHANES' challenges and proposed solutions from audience members. The workshop provided many possible action items that ASN will explore and use to inform effective continued advocacy in support of NHANES and to find possible opportunities for ASN and others to partner with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics to strengthen this vital survey and maintain its robust and relevant data moving forward.

Critical data at the crossroads: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey faces growing challenges.

NHANES needs urgent attention to ensure its future, which is facing emerging challenges associated with data collection, stagnant funding that has undercut innovation, and the increased call for granular data for subpopulations and groups at risk. The concerns do not rest merely on securing more funding but focus on the need for a constructive review of the survey to explore new approaches and identify appropriate change. This white paper, developed under the auspices of the ASN's Committee on Advocacy and Science Policy (CASP), is a call to the nutrition community to advocate for and support activities to prepare NHANES for future success in a changing nutrition world. Furthermore, because NHANES is much more than a nutrition survey and serves the needs of many in health fields and even commercial arenas, effective advocacy must be grounded in alliances among the survey's diverse stakeholders so that the full range of expertise and interests can engage. This article highlights the complicated nature of the survey along with key overarching challenges to underscore the importance of a measured, thoughtful, comprehensive, and collaborative approach to considering the future of NHANES. Starting-point questions are identified for the purposes of focusing dialog, discussion forums, and research. In particular, the CASP calls for a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine study on NHANES to articulate an actionable framework for NHANES going forward. With a well-informed and integrated set of goals and recommendations that could be provided by such a study, a secure future for NHANES is more readily achievable.

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.

Impacts and Echoes: The Lasting Influence of the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health.

The 1969 White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health had a significant influence on the direction of food and nutrition policy in the United States. The conference produced recommendations leading to federal legislation and programs to alleviate hunger and malnutrition, improve consumers' nutrition knowledge through education and labeling, and monitor the nutritional status of the population. Fifty years later, its legacy was revisited at a conference convened by Harvard University and Tufts University. This article reviews the literature contributing to the first author's keynote speech at the conference, its influencers, and its influences. We focus on the highlights of five domains that set the stage for the conference: the social environment, the food environment, nutrition science, public health data, and policy events. We briefly describe the conference, its proposed directions, and its lasting legacy in these five domains.

Scientific Integrity Principles and Best Practices: Recommendations from a Scientific Integrity Consortium.

A Scientific Integrity Consortium developed a set of recommended principles and best practices that can be used broadly across scientific disciplines as a mechanism for consensus on scientific integrity standards and to better equip scientists to operate in a rapidly changing research environment. The two principles that represent the umbrella under which scientific processes should operate are as follows: (1) Foster a culture of integrity in the scientific process. (2) Evidence-based policy interests may have legitimate roles to play in influencing aspects of the research process, but those roles should not interfere with scientific integrity. The nine best practices for instilling scientific integrity in the implementation of these two overarching principles are (1) Require universal training in robust scientific methods, in the use of appropriate experimental design and statistics, and in responsible research practices for scientists at all levels, with the training content regularly updated and presented by qualified scientists. (2) Strengthen scientific integrity oversight and processes throughout the research continuum with a focus on training in ethics and conduct. (3) Encourage reproducibility of research through transparency. (4) Strive to establish open science as the standard operating procedure throughout the scientific enterprise. (5) Develop and implement educational tools to teach communication skills that uphold scientific integrity. (6) Strive to identify ways to further strengthen the peer review process. (7) Encourage scientific journals to publish unanticipated findings that meet standards of quality and scientific integrity. (8) Seek harmonization and implementation among journals of rapid, consistent, and transparent processes for correction and/or retraction of published papers. (9) Design rigorous and comprehensive evaluation criteria that recognize and reward the highest standards of integrity in scientific research.

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.

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.

Fortification: new findings and implications.

This article reviews the current landscape regarding food fortification in the United States; the content is based on a workshop sponsored by the North American Branch of the International Life Sciences Institute. Fortification of the food supply with vitamins and minerals is a public health strategy to enhance nutrient intakes of the population without increasing caloric intake. Many individuals in the United States would not achieve recommended micronutrient intakes without fortification of the food supply. The achievement and maintenance of a desirable level of nutritional quality in the nation's food supply is, thus, an important public health objective. While the addition of nutrients to foods can help maintain and improve the overall nutritional quality of diets, indiscriminate fortification of foods could result in overfortification or underfortification in the food supply and nutrient imbalances in the diets of individuals. Any changes in food fortification policy for micronutrients must be considered within the context of the impact they will have on all segments of the population and of food technology and safety applications and their limitations. This article discusses and evaluates the value of fortification, the success of current fortification efforts, and the future role of fortification in preventing or reversing nutrient inadequacies.

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. 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.

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.

Developing scientist leaders for tumultuous times.

Leadership is a quality that can be learned. It is a behavior that one practices, and, after lots of practice, it becomes a habit. This is a lesson I learned from my father, who was a career pilot in the US Air Force and instilled this into me and my siblings from a very early age. It is also something I have learned in observing others. I have frequently asked why some people from certain disciplinary backgrounds seem to have an advantage in the leadership area. Think of the backgrounds of our Presidents, for example; so many of them have been attorneys. Members of Congress, as well, also frequently come from that disciplinary background. Key decision makers in government frequently come from economics backgrounds. I have also asked why this is the case. Frequently, the answer seems to be that these disciplines define themselves as being those that create leaders, not that they limit their members' aspirations. Why are so few veterinarians in leadership positions? It seems quite a paradox that they are not. The assets of an education in veterinary medicine are many. The education provides a very broad background in systems biology, medicine, and public health. There are many career paths for veterinarians. Most choose private practice, but, beyond that, career paths exist in industry, particularly the biomedical industry; in trade associations; in government and industry research; and in public health and regulatory positions. There are also many opportunities in academia, certainly in colleges of veterinary medicine but, beyond that, also in human medicine and in the biology disciplines. International opportunities also exist in governmental and non-governmental organizations, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization at the United Nations and the World Health Organization, and in advocacy and lobbying. Veterinarians are also making news these days. The emerging zoonotic diseases that have seized headlines in papers around the world give prominence to veterinarians and the skills they bring to bear in fighting current outbreaks and preventing future outbreaks of these diseases, such as SARS, Ebola, West Nile virus, and even HIV/AIDS.

Challenges and approaches to reducing foodborne illness.

Microorganisms have successfully adapted to changes in food production, processing, and preservation techniques, resulting in a number of new and emerging foodborne pathogens and the re-emergence of organisms that have been problematic in the past. To protect public health, science must meet the challenges that result from the remarkable adaptability of foodborne pathogens. However, not all of the challenges of preventing foodborne illness reside in the realm of science. Food safety policy must evolve in response to new scientific understanding of hazards in the food supply and an ever-changing food processing industry. The laws, regulations, and organizations comprising the food safety system frequently lag behind current scientific knowledge of the risks posed by foodborne pathogens. Future systemic changes to enhance food safety will require better understanding of risks associated with specific pathogens occurring in the food supply and the costs and benefits of implementing mitigation strategies.

Integrated NHANES: uses in national policy.

The National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Program (NNMRRP) arose from Congressional concern about lack of information regarding the occurrence in the American population of undernutrition and diet-related risk factors for chronic diseases. Congressional appropriations and executive branch decisions about budget priorities have been the major determinants of the scope and number of nutrition monitoring surveys and surveillance activities fielded and therefore the information available for policy and research uses. The nutrition data collected in the NNMRRP are used by federal agencies, the private sector and academia for a variety of purposes, including public policy (e.g., development and evaluation of monitoring and surveillance, regulatory and nutrition programs), normative standards (e.g., growth charts, reference data for hematological and biochemical indicators of nutritional status or Dietary Reference Intakes) and research (e.g., cross-sectional, longitudinal and time-trends studies of dietary and nutritional status, health status, disease morbidity and mortality). Although the importance of the NNMRRP to national policy is difficult to quantify, in a 5-y period 97 proposed and final regulations citing NNMRRP data were published in the Federal Register by federal agencies responsible for nutrition and food safety programs. The NNMRRP-derived dietary and nutritional status data are essential information for quantitative risk assessments increasingly relied on by regulatory agencies as the basis for programmatic decisions and regulations development. Users of NNMRRP data in government agencies, academic institutions and the private sector have come to recognize the value of data from the surveys and surveillance systems for a wide variety of programmatic and research purposes.

Food and Nutrition Policy: Food, Nutrition, Germs, and Health: The 2001 Hazel K. Stiebeling Lecture.

Safe food is a prerequisite for good nutrition and health. This idea has driven scientific investigations and public policies that, in turn, led to major improvements in health and longevity. Changes in food production and consumption practices, population demographics, and health status and understanding the long-term health consequences of food-borne illnesses will impel future policy reforms.