Wasted Food, Wasted Nutrients: Nutrient Loss from Wasted Food in the United States and Comparison to Gaps in Dietary Intake.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has estimated that wasted food in the United States contains between 1,249 and 1,400 kcal per capita per day, but little is known about amounts of other nutrients embedded in the 31% to 40% of food that is wasted. OBJECTIVE: This research aimed to calculate the nutritional value of food wasted at the retail and consumer levels in the US food supply, and contextualize the amount of nutrient loss in terms of gaps between current and recommended intakes and estimated food recovery potential. DESIGN: Data from the National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference were used to calculate the nutritional value of retail- and consumer-level waste of 213 commodities in the US Department of Agriculture Loss-Adjusted Food Availability data series for 27 nutrients in 2012. RESULTS: Food wasted at the retail and consumer levels of the US food supply in 2012 contained 1,217 kcal, 33 g protein, 5.9 g dietary fiber, 1.7 µg vitamin D, 286 mg calcium, and 880 mg potassium per capita per day. Using dietary fiber as an example, 5.9 g dietary fiber is 23% of the Recommended Dietary Allowance for women. This is equivalent to the fiber Recommended Dietary Allowance for 74 million adult women. Adult women in 2012 underconsumed dietary fiber by 8.9 g/day, and the amount of wasted fiber is equivalent to this gap for 206.6 million adult women. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first study to document the loss of nutrients from wasted food in the US food supply, to our knowledge. Although only a portion of discarded food can realistically be made available for human consumption, efforts to redistribute surplus foods where appropriate and prevent food waste in the first place could increase the availability of nutrients for Americans, while saving money and natural resources.

Update of the Healthy Eating Index: HEI-2010.

The Healthy Eating Index (HEI) is a measure of diet quality in terms of conformance with federal dietary guidance. Publication of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans prompted an interagency working group to update the HEI. The HEI-2010 retains several features of the 2005 version: (a) it has 12 components, many unchanged, including nine adequacy and three moderation components; (b) it uses a density approach to set standards, eg, per 1,000 calories or as a percentage of calories; and (c) it employs least-restrictive standards; ie, those that are easiest to achieve among recommendations that vary by energy level, sex, and/or age. Changes to the index include: (a) the Greens and Beans component replaces Dark Green and Orange Vegetables and Legumes; (b) Seafood and Plant Proteins has been added to capture specific choices from the protein group; (c) Fatty Acids, a ratio of polyunsaturated and monounsaturated to saturated fatty acids, replaces Oils and Saturated Fat to acknowledge the recommendation to replace saturated fat with monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids; and (d) a moderation component, Refined Grains, replaces the adequacy component, Total Grains, to assess overconsumption. The HEI-2010 captures the key recommendations of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines and, like earlier versions, will be used to assess the diet quality of the US population and subpopulations, evaluate interventions, research dietary patterns, and evaluate various aspects of the food environment.

Diet quality of Americans differs by age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, and education level.

An index that assesses the multidimensional components of the diet across the lifecycle is useful in describing diet quality. The purpose of this study was to use the Healthy Eating Index-2005, a measure of diet quality in terms of conformance to the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, to describe the diet quality of Americans by varying sociodemographic characteristics in order to provide insight as to where diets need to improve. The Healthy Eating Index-2005 scores were estimated using 1 day of dietary intake data provided by participants in the 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Mean daily intakes of foods and nutrients, expressed per 1,000 kilocalories, were estimated using the population ratio method and compared with standards that reflect the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Participants included 3,286 children (2 to 17 years), 3,690 young and middle-aged adults (18 to 64 years), and 1,296 older adults (65+ years). Results are reported as percentages of maximum scores and tested for significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) by age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, and education levels. Children and older adults had better-quality diets than younger and middle-aged adults; women had better-quality diets than men; Hispanics had better-quality diets than blacks and whites; and diet quality of adults, but not children, generally improved with income level, except for sodium. The diets of Americans, regardless of socioeconomic status, are far from optimal. Problematic dietary patterns were found among all sociodemographic groups. Major improvements in the nutritional health of the American public can be made by improving eating patterns.

An adult physical activity scoring scheme: its evaluation and application.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper was to describe the development and evaluation of an adult physical activity (PA) scoring scheme (SS). METHODS: SS was based on the 2000 METs compendium and PA guidance. Scoring credit was assigned to moderate (3-6 METs) or vigorous (>6 METs) activities using a 100-point scale. A point designator for evaluation (80.01-100, good; 51.00-80, needs improvement; and <51, poor) was based on guidance to perform 30 min of moderate activity > or = 5 d x wk(-1) or 20 min of vigorous activity > or = 3 d x wk(-1). Activities were scored individually and summed for a final score. PA information was from the Behavioral Risk Surveillance Survey, 2000. Weighted data were analyzed using SAS. Sensitivity and specificity methods were used to evaluate the SS. Fifty-six PA met intensity criteria and were examined for frequency and duration. RESULTS: Study included adults > or = 18 yr (N = 173,980). 71.4% of the men and 67.2% of the women reported moderate or vigorous activity, but only 13.1% of the men and 12.8% of the women received a good score. 48.9% of the men and 41% of the women needed improvement and 9.4% of the men and 13.4% of the women had a poor score. The sensitivity of identifying inactivity was 94 and 95% for inactive men and women, respectively; 92% for identifying both men and women needing improvement; and 79% for men and 90% for women with a poor score. The specificity of getting a good score was 57 and 60% for active men and women, respectively. CONCLUSION: SS appropriately assigns scoring credit to moderate and vigorous activities. However, assumptions made for mixed moderate and vigorous activities may misclassify active individuals.