Food Composition Data and Tools Online and Their Use in Research and Policy: EuroFIR AISBL Contribution in 2022.

Food, nutrition, and health are linked, and detailed knowledge of nutrient compositions and bioactive characteristics is needed to understand these relationships. Additionally, increasingly these data are required by database systems and applications. This communication aims to describe the contribution to databases and nutrition fields as well as the activities of EuroFIR AISBL; this member-based, non-profit association was founded to ensure sustained advocacy for food information in Europe and facilitate improved data quality, storage, and access as well as encouraging wider exploitation of food composition data for both research and commercial purposes. In addition to the description of its role and main objectives, a snapshot of EuroFIR AISBL's activities over the years is also given using a quantitative research literature analysis approach. The focus of this communication is to provide descriptions and updates of EuroFIR's online tools, i.e., FoodEXplorer, eBASIS, and PlantLIBRA, by highlighting the main uses and applications. Integrating food-related infrastructures and databases, following standardized and harmonized approaches, and considering interoperability and metrological principles are significant challenges. Ongoing activities and future plans of EuroFIR AISBL are highlighted, including, for instance, work within the Food Nutrition Security Cloud (FNS-Cloud) to make food, nutrition, and (food) security data more findable, accessible, interoperable, and ultimately reusable.

Arabinoxylo-Oligosaccharides and Inulin Impact Inter-Individual Variation on Microbial Metabolism and Composition, Which Immunomodulates Human Cells.

Fecal batch fermentations coupled to cocultures of epithelial cells and macrophages were used to compare how arabinoxylo-oligosaccharides (AXOS) and inulin modulate gut microbial activity and composition of three different human donors and subsequently the epithelial permeability and immune response. Both inulin and AXOS decreased the pH during incubation (-1.5 pH units), leading to increased productions of acetate, propionate, and butyrate. Differences in terms of metabolites production could be linked to specific microbial alterations at genus level upon inulin/AXOS supplementation (i.e., Bifidobacterium, Bacteroides, Prevotella and unclassified Erysipelotrichaceae), as shown by 16S-targeted Illumina sequencing. Both products stimulated gut barrier and immune function with increases in TEER, NF-KB, IL-10, and IL-6. Ingredients with different structures selectively modulate the microbiota of a specific donor leading to differential changes at metabolic level. The extent of this effect is donor specific and is linked to a final specific modulation of the host's immune system.

Markers for nutrition studies: review of criteria for the evaluation of markers.

INTRODUCTION: Markers are important tools to assess the nutrition status and effects of nutrition interventions. There is currently insufficient consensus in nutrition sciences on how to evaluate markers, despite the need for properly evaluating them. OBJECTIVES: To identify the criteria for the evaluation of markers related to nutrition, health and disease and to propose generic criteria for evaluation. METHOD: The report on "Evaluation of Biomarker and Surrogate Endpoints in Chronic Disease" from the Institute of Medicine was the starting point for the literature search. Additionally, specific search strategies were developed for Pubmed. RESULTS: In nutrition, no set of criteria or systematic approach to evaluate markers is currently available. There is a reliance on the medical area where statistical methods have been developed to quantify the evaluation of markers. Even here, a systematic approach is lacking-markers are still evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The review of publications from the literature search resulted in a database with definitions, criteria for validity and the rationale behind the criteria. It was recognized that, in nutrition, a number of methodological aspects differ from medical research. CONCLUSIONS: The following criteria were identified as essential elements in the evaluation of markers: (1) the marker has a causal biological link with the endpoint, (2) there is a significant association between marker and endpoint in the target population, (3) marker changes consistently with the endpoint, e.g., in response to an intervention, and (4) change in the marker explains a substantial proportion of the change in the endpoint in response to the intervention.

How we will produce the evidence-based EURRECA toolkit to support nutrition and food policy.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable variation in the recommended micronutrient intakes used by countries within Europe, partly due to different methodologies and concepts used to determine requirements and different approaches used to express the recommendations. As populations become more mobile and multi-national, and more traditional foods become available internationally, harmonised recommendations based on up to date science are needed. This was recognised by the European Commission's (EC) Directorate-General (DG) Research in their 2005 call for proposals for a Network of Excellence (NoE) on 'nutrient status and requirements of specific vulnerable population groups'. EURopean micronutrient RECommendations Aligned (EURRECA), which has 34 partners representing 17 European countries, started on its 5-year EC-funded programme in January 2007. The programme of work was developed over 2 years prior to submitting an application to the EC. The Network's first Integrating Meeting (IM) held in Lisbon in April 2007, and subsequent consultations, has allowed further refinement of the programme. AIM: This paper presents the rationale for the EURRECA Network's roadmap, which starts by establishing the status quo for devising micronutrient recommendations. The Network has the opportunity to identify previous barriers and then explore 'evidence-based' solutions that have not been available before to the traditional panels of experts. The network aims to produce the EURRECA 'toolkit' to help address and, in some cases, overcome these barriers so that it can be used by those developing recommendations. RESULTS: The status quo has been largely determined by two recent initiatives; the Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) reports from the USA and Canada and suggestions for approaches to international harmonisation of nutrient-based dietary standards from the United Nations University (UNU). In Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has been asked by the EC's Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection to produce values for micronutrient recommendations. Therefore, EURRECA will draw on the uniqueness of its consortium to produce the sustainable EURRECA toolkit, which will help make such a task more effective and efficient. Part of this uniqueness is the involvement in EURRECA of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), consumer organisations, nutrition societies and other stakeholders as well as many scientific experts. The EURRECA toolkit will contain harmonised best practice guidance for a more robust science base for setting micronutrient recommendations. Hence, in the future, the evidence base for deriving nutrient recommendations will have greater breadth and depth and will be more transparent. CONCLUSIONS: The EURRECA Network will contribute to the broader field of food and nutrition policy by encouraging and enabling the alignment of nutrient recommendations. It will do this through the development of a scientific toolkit by its partners and other stakeholders across Europe. This will facilitate and improve the formulation of micronutrient recommendations, based on transparently evaluated and quantified scientific evidence. The Network aims to be sustainable beyond its EC funding period.

Current micronutrient recommendations in Europe: towards understanding their differences and similarities.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays most countries in Europe have established their own nutrient recommendations to assess the adequacy of dietary intakes and to plan desirable dietary intakes. As yet there is no standard approach for deriving nutrient recommendations, they may vary from country to country. This results in different national recommendations causing confusion for policy-makers, health professionals, industry, and consumers within Europe. EURRECA (EURopean micronutrient RECommendations Aligned) is a network of excellence funded by the European Commission (EC), and established to identify and address the problem of differences between countries in micronutrient recommendations. The objective of this paper is to give an overview of the available micronutrient recommendations in Europe, and to provide information on their origin, concepts and definitions. Furthermore this paper aims to illustrate the diversity in European recommendations on vitamin A and vitamin D, and to explore differences and commonalities in approaches that could possibly explain variations observed. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed to get information on the process of establishing micronutrient recommendations. These questionnaires were sent to key informants in the field of micronutrient recommendations to cover all European countries/regions. Also the latest reports on nutrient recommendations in Europe were collected. Standardisation procedures were defined to enable comparison of the recommendations. Recommendations for vitamin A and vitamin D were compared per sex at the ages 3, 9 months and 5, 10, 15, 25, 50 and 70 years. Information extracted from the questionnaires and reports was compared focusing on: (1) The concept of recommendation (recommended daily allowance (RDA), adequate intake (AI) or acceptable range), (2) The year of publication of the report (proxy for available evidence), (3) Population groups defined, (4) Other methodological issues such as selected criteria of adequacy, the type of evidence used, and assumptions made. RESULTS: Twenty-two countries, the World Health Organization (WHO)/the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the EC have their own reports on nutrient recommendations. Thirteen countries based their micronutrient recommendations on those from other countries or organisations. Five countries, WHO/FAO and the EC defined their own recommendations. The DACH-countries (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) as well as the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland) cooperated in setting recommendations. Greece and Portugal use the EC and the WHO/FAO recommendations, respectively and Slovenia adopted the recommendations from the DACH-countries. Rather than by concepts, definitions, and defined population groups, variability appears to emerge from differences in criteria for adequacy, assumptions made and type of evidence used to establish micronutrient recommendations. DISCUSSION: The large variation in current micronutrient recommendations for population groups as illustrated for vitamin A and vitamin D strengthens the need for guidance on setting evidence based, up-to-date European recommendations. Differences in endpoints, type of evidence used to set recommendations, experts' opinions and assumptions are all likely to contribute to the identified variation. So far, background information was not sufficient transparent to disentangle the relative contribution of these different aspects. CONCLUSION: EURRECA has an excellent opportunity to develop tools to improve transparency on the approaches used in setting micronutrient recommendations, including the selection of criteria for adequacy, weighing of evidence, and interpretation of data.