Search

Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency is a public health issue, with low dietary vitamin D intakes a contributing factor. Rates of vitamin D deficiency are 31% in Australia, and up to 72% in some regions globally. While supplementation is often prescribed as an alternative to additional sun exposure, complementary approaches including food-based solutions are needed. Yet, food-centric dietary guidelines are not always adequate for meeting vitamin D needs. Edible mushrooms such as Agaricus bisporus can produce over 100% of vitamin D recommendations (10 μg/day, Institute of Medicine) per 75 g serve (18 μg) on exposure to UV-light, with the vitamin D2 produced showing good stability during cooking and processing. However, mushrooms are overlooked as a vitamin D source in dietary guidelines. Our dietary modelling shows that four serves/week of UV-exposed button mushrooms can support most Australian adults in meeting vitamin D recommendations, and UV-exposed mushrooms have been found to increase vitamin D status in deficient individuals. While recent evidence suggests some differences between vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 in physiological activities, vitamin D2 from mushrooms can be part of a larger solution to increasing dietary vitamin D intakes, as well as an important focus for public health policy. Mushrooms exposed to UV represent an important tool in the strategic toolkit for addressing vitamin D deficiency in Australia and globally. Health authorities lead the recognition and promotion of mushrooms as a natural, vegan, safe, and sustainable vitamin D food source.

BackgroundThe double burden of malnutrition and diet-related disease has been attributed to diets high in ultra-processed and discretionary foods, with increased sugars, saturated fats, and sodium, and insufficient dietary fibre. There is a limited understanding of the role of other macronutrients and micronutrients.ObjectiveDetermine the highest priority nutrients to address both malnutrition and diet-related disease in Australia and New Zealand, for each demographic group and the total population.MethodsA novel four-step methodological approach was undertaken to identify: 1. Demographic (age-sex) groups; 2. Health priorities; 3. Potential nutrients based on inadequacy, increased requirements, and health priority association; and 4. Priority nutrients. Nutrient intake data was obtained from the most recent Australian and New Zealand nutrition surveys. Health priorities were based on national statistical data and expert consultation. High-level scientific literature (systematic reviews) was scoped for associations with health priorities and the suitability of recommended intakes. A quantitative scoring matrix was developed and used to determine the highest priority nutrients, with scoring over three domains: extent of inadequacy; consensus for increased requirements; and degree of association with health priorities.ResultsNutritional inadequacies were common, with 22 of 31 essential nutrients consumed below recommended levels. Nine priority nutrients were identified across the demographic groups, with each demographic group characterised by a specific subset of these. Six nutrients were highest priority within the total population: vitamin D, calcium, omega-3 fatty acids, magnesium, folate, dietary fibre.ConclusionThe extent of nutritional inadequacies in Australia and New Zealand is high, both within each demographic group and the entire population, relative to both recommended intakes and key health outcomes. The methodology can be applied to other countries and globally. Findings make a significant contribution to understanding the nutrients to prioritise in future-proofing the health of the Australian and New Zealand populations. Guidelines and policies can target priority nutrients to address the malnutrition and diet-related disease double burden.

Background:Nutrient criteria underlying front-of-pack food labeling programs can play an important role in improving dietary intakes. Currently, no methodology for the development or update of nutrient criteria has been published, nor the methods used by food regulatory bodies. The scientific publication of methodology outlining the development and update of nutrient criteria underpinning front-of-pack food labeling programs highlighting healthier food choices is needed.ObjectiveTo develop and provide a globally applicable and transparent methodology for researchers to follow when reviewing existing or developing new nutrient criteria for front-of-pack labeling.MethodsThe Nutrient Criteria Methodology involved five phases: Phase I, the development of guiding principles; Phase II, collection of information for subsequent phases, including a pre-scope of the literature and selection of food composition database(s) for modeling; Phase III, literature review of all possible nutrients relevant to the nutrient criteria; Phase IV, database modeling to set quantitative limits for each selected nutrient; Phase V, assessment of the criteria against an established nutritional quality assessment tool. As an example, the methodology was applied to the update of the GI Symbol Product Eligibility and Nutrient Criteria (PENC).ResultsA comprehensive and replicable methodology, based on best practice protocols and ensuring both scientific credibility and practicality of use by industry, was developed. Application of the five phases of the methodology to the GI Symbol PENC highlighted the ability of the methodology to uncover nutritional measures currently missing in many nutrient criteria for front-of-pack food labeling programs and other national food labeling systems, such as glycemic load and the unsaturated to saturated fat ratio. Foods achieving the PENC had a higher Health Star Rating than foods not achieving the PENC.ConclusionOur Nutrient Criteria Methodology can be applied to the development and update of global nutrient criteria underpinning front-of-pack food labeling programs. Further research into the implementation of additional nutritional measures found to be important for human health is recommended, with the goal of the prevention of diet-related disease.

BackgroundCarbohydrate quality influences major health outcomes; however, the best criteria to assess carbohydrate quality remain unknown.ObjectiveThe objectives were to: i) evaluate whether a diet that meets a carbohydrate ratio (simple, modified or dual ratio) is associated with higher nutrient intakes and diet quality, and ii) model the impact of substituting carbohydrate foods that meet the proposed ratios in place of foods that do not, on nutrient intakes.DesignA secondary analysis of cross-sectional data from the 2011-12 Australian National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey.Participants/settingNational data from participants aged 2 years and older (n = 12,153).Main outcome measuresRatios were defined as (i) simple ratio, 10:1 (10g carbohydrate:≥1g dietary fiber); (ii) modified ratio, 10:1:2 (10g carbohydrate:≥1g dietary fiber:≤2g free sugars); and (iii) dual ratio, 10:1 & 1:2 (10g carbohydrate:≥1g dietary fiber & ≤2g free sugars per 1g dietary fiber). Ratios were compared to nutrient intakes obtained via automated multiple-pass 24-hour dietary recall and diet quality calculated using the Australian Healthy Eating Index.Statistical analyses performedSubstitution dietary modelling was performed. Data were analyzed using paired and independent sample t-tests.ResultsRatio adherence was highest for simple (50.2% adults; 28.6% children), followed by dual (40.6% adults; 21.7% children), then modified (32.7% adults; 18.6% children) ratios. Participants who met any ratio reported higher nutrient intake and diet quality compared to those who failed to meet the respective ratio (P < .001 for all), with the greatest nutrient intakes found for those who met modified or dual ratios. Dietary modelling improved nutrient intakes for all ratios, with the greatest improvement found for the dual ratio.ConclusionsAll carbohydrate ratios were associated with higher diet quality, with a free sugars constraint in the dual ratio providing the greatest improvements.

Breakfast choice is correlated with daily nutrient intakes, but this association may not be solely explained by the breakfast meal. We profiled breakfast consumer groups among Australian adults and compared the role that breakfast versus the rest of the day had on daily intakes of the Five Food Groups, discretionary foods, and nutrients. Breakfast groups were breakfast cereal consumers, non-cereal breakfast consumers, and breakfast skippers. One-day dietary recall data from the 2011–2012 National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey were analysed (n = 9341, ≥19 years), as well as socio-demographic and anthropometric measures. Twelve per cent of adults were breakfast skippers, 41% were breakfast cereal consumers, and 47% were non-cereal breakfast consumers. Females were more likely to have a non-cereal breakfast than males, and the non-cereal breakfast was predominantly bread-based. Breakfast skipping decreased with age (p < 0.001), while breakfast cereal consumption increased with age (p < 0.001). Breakfast skippers were more likely to be male, had a lower socio-economic status, and lower physical activity levels (p < 0.001). Breakfast skippers had the highest mean body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (p < 0.001), the lowest intake of wholegrain foods, fruits and vegetables, and the highest intake of discretionary foods (p < 0.001). Breakfast cereal consumers had the lowest mean BMI and waist circumference (p < 0.001) and had healthier diets at both breakfast and throughout the rest of the day. They were the most likely to meet the daily recommended serves for grain foods, fruit, dairy, and vegetables, had the highest wholegrain food intake, and the lowest discretionary intake (p < 0.001). Additionally, breakfast cereal consumers had the most favourable daily nutrient intakes, including the lowest added sugars intakes. Differences in daily diet between breakfast groups were attributed to differences in food choices both at breakfast and throughout the rest of the day.

Intakes of dietary fibre in Australia are lower than recommended. An understanding of food choices associated with fibre intake can help to inform locally relevant dietary interventions that aim to increase its consumption. This study aimed to profile the relationship between dietary choices and fibre intake of Australians. Using Day 1 data from the 2011–2012 National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (n = 12,153, ≥2 years), dietary fibre intake was classified by quartiles for children (2–18 years) and adults (≥19 years). Intakes of the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADG) food groups were calculated, as well as the major, sub-major, and minor food groups from the Australian Food Composition Database. Each of these food groups provide a progressively greater level of detail. Associations with ADG food groups and major food groups were determined, and the leading sub-major and minor food group sources of fibre for low (Quartile 1) and high (Quartile 4) fibre consumers were profiled. Energy-adjusted intakes of wholegrain and/or high fibre but not refined grain (cereal) foods, vegetables, and fruit were positively associated, and discretionary foods negatively associated, with quartile of fibre intake (p < 0.001). The top three sub-major food group sources of fibre were regular breads, cereal mixed dishes, and ready-to-eat breakfast cereals in high fibre consumers and regular breads, cereal mixed dishes, and potatoes in low fibre consumers. White breads was the leading minor food group contributor in low fibre consumers, and apples and lower sugar wheat based breakfast cereal were the leading fibre contributors in high fibre consumers in children and adults, respectively. Higher intakes of wholegrain, fruits, and vegetables, and a lower discretionary intake were associated with higher fibre intake. Encouraging these foods as part of any public health intervention is likely to be effective for increasing dietary fibre intakes.

Dietary fibre is important for regular laxation and reduces chronic disease risk. The National Health and Medical Research Council outlines daily fibre intake targets, yet the proportion of the population that meets these targets is unknown. Using the 2011–2012 National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey, we profiled fibre intake among Australian children and adults. Data from one-day dietary recalls were analysed (n = 12,153, ≥2 years) as well as demographic and anthropometric factors. The median fibre intake was 18.2 g (interquartile range [IQR] 13.2–25.0) in children and 20.7 g (IQR 14.3–28.7) in adults. We found that 42.3% (95% CI 40.5–44.1%) of children and 28.2% (95% CI 27.3–29.1%) of adults met the Adequate Intake (AI), and less than 20% of adults met the Suggested Dietary Target (SDT) to reduce the risk of chronic disease. Older children (aged 14–18 years), girls, young adults (19–30 years), males, and those of lower socio-economic status were less likely to meet the AI (p < 0.001). Those with a higher energy intake were more likely to meet the AI. Anthropometric measures were not associated with fibre intake or the likelihood of meeting the AI. Fibre is a nutrient of concern in Australian diets, with most children and adults falling short of recommendations. Adolescents, girls, young adults, men, and those of lower socio-economic status were less likely to meet the recommendations and may benefit most from public health interventions.