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.

A critique of the objective function utilized in calculating the Thrifty Food Plan

The Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) is the basis of benefit allocations within the USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which administers nearly $70 billion in benefits to over 42 million people annually. To produce the allocation of food within the TFP, the USDA uses a mathematical optimization model that solves for the daily apportionment across various food groups. The model is constrained by nutritional and consumption requirements to produce an "optimal" allocation. Despite the importance of the TFP, the computational solution developed by the USDA has received insufficient attention, with only a handful of articles written on the TFP optimization model. Here, we run three alternative objective functions that are simpler than the one used by USDA. Our first alternative objective function minimizes the sum of squared errors between the consumed market basket of goods and an allocated market basket of goods, the second alternative objective function minimizes the sum of the absolute value of the difference between the consumed market basket of goods and an allocated market basket of goods, and the third alternative objective function minimizes the weighted absolute deviation of allocations and actual consumption expressed as a proportion of observed consumption. A clear theoretical advantage of either of our methods is that they eliminate the need to arbitrarily set allocated consumption to nonzero values, as is the case for the logarithmic objective function used by USDA. In an operational sense, we find that our model formulations produce an allocation that fits actual consumption better than the objective function employed by the USDA.

Insights in public health: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children: strengthening families for 40 years

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) is a proven, cost-effective investment in strengthening families. As part of the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) 15 federal nutrition assistance programs for the past 40 years, WIC has grown to be the nation's leading public health nutrition program. WIC serves as an important first access point to health care and social service systems for many limited resource families, serving approximately half the births in the nation as well as locally. By providing nutrition education, breastfeeding promotion and foods in addition to referrals, WIC plays a crucial role in promoting lifetime health for women, infants and children. WIC helps achieve national public health goals such as reducing premature births and infant mortality, increasing breastfeeding, and reducing maternal and childhood overweight. Though individuals and families can self-refer into WIC, physicians and allied health professionals have the opportunity and are encouraged to promote awareness of WIC and refer families in their care.

Prioritizing health and community food security through the farm bill

Food security and health are complex interrelated issues. Individual characteristics exist within the physical and built environments. Title IV of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 is analyzed in terms of how it addresses systemic food insecurity and the opportunities the policy has for improving public health by increasing support for the availability of affordable local produce to low-income households. Structural changes need to occur for programs to be equitable, efficient, and effective. Interdisciplinary leadership within government agencies, school systems, social service agencies, health care agencies, and nonprofit networks is necessary to ensure food security and health for all Americans. Social work and public health practitioners have the opportunity to change the status quo, encourage community-level interventions, advocate for producers and consumers, and encourage more equitable distribution of food to create a healthier low-income population.

Funding Priorities in Animal Reproduction at the United States Department of Agriculture’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service1

The National Research Initiative (NRI) Competitive Grants Program is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's major competitive grants program and is administered by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). Since its inception in 1991, the NRI has funded competitive grants in the discipline of animal reproduction. Previously, this program provided funding for a broad range of projects encompassing almost every subdiscipline in reproductive biology of farm animals, including aquatic species important to the aquaculture industry. During fiscal year 2004, the NRI Animal Reproduction Program narrowed the focus of funding priorities to the topics of infertility, basic mechanisms regulating fertility, cryopreservation of gametes, reducing the postpartum interval to conception, and sterilization methods or development of monosex populations. In response to a directive to further narrow the focus of funding priorities for fiscal year 2005 and beyond, CSREES conducted a Stakeholder Workshop on Funding Priorities in Animal Reproduction at the 37th Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of Reproduction in Vancouver, Canada. More than 75 stakeholder scientists from a cross section of federal, public, and private institutions from across the United States participated in the workshop and provided recommendations to CSREES for future NRI-funding priorities in Animal Reproduction. The recommendations provided by stakeholders included continuing efforts to focus funding priorities into fewer high-impact areas relevant to animal agriculture and aquaculture. Recommendations also included movement back toward subdisciplines of animal reproduction that cut across all applicable species. The three funding priorities that consistently emerged as recommendations from the workshop participants were 1) gonadal function and production of gametes, 2) pituitary-hypothalamic function, and 3) embryo and conceptus development, including interaction between the conceptus and uterus. These funding priorities were considered when preparing the fiscal year 2006 NRI Request for Applications.

Billions for biodefense: federal agency biodefense funding, FY2001-FY2005

Over the past several years, the United States government has spent substantial resources on preparing the nation against a bioterrorist attack. This article analyzes the civilian biodefense funding by the federal government from fiscal years 2001 through 2005, specifically analyzing the budgets and allocations for biodefense at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of State. In total, approximately $14.5 billion has been funded for civilian biodefense through FY2004, with an additional $7.6 billion in the President's budget request for FY2005.

Animal research. Activists win big on rodent, bird rules

A federal judge last month ruled that animal-rights activists have the legal right to challenge U.S. Department of Agriculture rules that exempt the vast majority of research animals from federal regulation. Observers say that the ruling almost guarantees that the agency will extend regulations governing animal handling and housing to thousands of academic and industry laboratories that work with rodents and birds. Those new rules, say animal-care experts, could impose costly new requirements on labs that don't meet standards set by the private Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care.

Science and agriculture policy at Land-Grant Institutions

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) funding of science and education at Land-Grant College institutions is in transition. The traditional "science pipeline" model linking basic science funding with the application of technology is in question as some policymakers dispute the premise that non-directed science results in benefits to society. Historically, research at USDA and Land-Grant institutions is much more directed than that funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH), or Department of Energy (DOE). Nevertheless, there are calls for change at the USDA as well. An approach that both the Congress and the Executive branch are taking seeks to direct research dollars according to predetermined goals. This is being emphasized in part due to budget pressures and may force the system to struggle maintaining funding in constant dollars. Deficit cutters are first considering cutting "earmarked grants" for research and facilities at USDA and Land Grant Institutions. Savings in these categories may help to support modest increases in formula funding and competitive grants. Earmarked grants for research and facilities at the Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) for Fiscal Year 1993 were approximately 26% of total appropriations and distributed to well over 100 specific line items. This level has increased from approximately 15% of CSRS appropriations in 1985. At the same time formula funding has remained static and competitive grants, although increasing, are below authorized levels. As state and federal budgets face pressure and as concerns from consumer and environmental groups are encountered, balancing the percentage of research dollars devoted to research intended to increase production efficiency and the percentage devoted to meeting concerns about food safety, pesticides, water quality, sustainability, animal welfare, and so on will be a challenge. Linking research priorities with producer and consumer needs will be essential in the 1990s. Food Animal Integrated Research 1995, or FAIR '95, was a good start to a process involving multiple stakeholders and relating research goals to societal benefits from animal agriculture. Maintenance of research relevance and fiscal accountability is essential to avoid becoming non-contributors.