Gap analysis guidelines for assessing acute, chronic, and lifetime exposures to high levels of various nutrients

Excess micronutrient intake: defining toxic effects and upper limits in vulnerable populations

Excessive micronutrient intake causes a variety of adverse health effects, depending on dose and duration. The risk of excess intake carries significant implications for micronutrient delivery interventions, particularly when such programs are overlapping. To minimize risk and provide public health guidance, several countries and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization have set upper intake levels (ULs) for various life-stage populations using the risk assessment framework. However, there is a lack of international consensus on the actual ULs due to variability in application of this framework and a scarcity of evidence from which to draw upon, especially for children. Often ULs for children are established through a downward weight-based extrapolation from adult ULs, which is not always appropriate. The published ULs of nine organizations are compared, recent population nutrient intake evidence is presented, and the toxic effects of key minerals and vitamins are reviewed. Finally, the evidence for toxicity and setting of ULs for each nutrient is discussed including a comment on our degree of confidence in the strength of existing individual ULs. Challenges with risk assessment and opportunities for strengthening the definition of ULs are discussed.

Foods, fortificants, and supplements: Where do Americans get their nutrients?

Limited data are available on the source of usual nutrient intakes in the United States. This analysis aimed to assess contributions of micronutrients to usual intakes derived from all sources (naturally occurring, fortified and enriched, and dietary supplements) and to compare usual intakes to the Dietary Reference Intake for U.S. residents aged ≥2 y according to NHANES 2003-2006 (n = 16,110). We used the National Cancer Institute method to assess usual intakes of 19 micronutrients by source. Only a small percentage of the population had total usual intakes (from dietary intakes and supplements) below the estimated average requirement (EAR) for the following: vitamin B-6 (8%), folate (8%), zinc (8%), thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B-12, phosphorus, iron, copper, and selenium (<6% for all). However, more of the population had total usual intakes below the EAR for vitamins A, C, D, and E (34, 25, 70, and 60%, respectively), calcium (38%), and magnesium (45%). Only 3 and 35% had total usual intakes of potassium and vitamin K, respectively, greater than the adequate intake. Enrichment and/or fortification largely contributed to intakes of vitamins A, C, and D, thiamin, iron, and folate. Dietary supplements further reduced the percentage of the population consuming less than the EAR for all nutrients. The percentage of the population with total intakes greater than the tolerable upper intake level (UL) was very low for most nutrients, whereas 10.3 and 8.4% of the population had intakes greater than the UL for niacin and zinc, respectively. Without enrichment and/or fortification and supplementation, many Americans did not achieve the recommended micronutrient intake levels set forth in the Dietary Reference Intake.

Potential pitfalls of health claims from a public health nutrition perspective

The European Union is implementing a new regulatory framework for nutrition and health claims (HCs) that will greatly impact the communication of health messages on foodstuffs. In particular, approved HCs will be included in a positive register of generic claims. In the currently available literature, assessment of the relevance of HCs has mainly been related to scientific substantiation, and the issue of relevance in terms of public health has tended to be overlooked. Interestingly, the new regulation states that claims must be well understood by the average consumer. This article delves beyond the issue of scientific substantiation of claims and reviews possible discrepancies between consumer perception/understanding of HCs and the public health nutrition reality, which can confuse or mislead the consumer and ultimately impact public health nutrition. Six pitfalls are described herein and a comprehensive overview of the critical examination of any HC is proposed.