澳大利亚和巴西基于食物的膳食指南的语言在多大程度上反映了食物、文化、经济和自然环境?

IF 4.6 3区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Natasha Hanssen Midjord, Colin Bell
{"title":"澳大利亚和巴西基于食物的膳食指南的语言在多大程度上反映了食物、文化、经济和自然环境?","authors":"Natasha Hanssen Midjord, Colin Bell","doi":"10.1007/s13668-024-00585-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of the review: </strong>Our aim was to review literature describing language use in dietary guidelines and explore the extent to which food, culture, economics and the natural environment are reflected in the language of the Australian, compared to the Brazilian food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs).</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Australia's FBDGs are based on the best available scientific evidence and claim to \"form a bridge between research and evidence-based advice to address the major health challenge of improving Australians' eating patterns\". Brazil's FBDGs recognise reasons beyond health for people's food choices. Not a lot of attention has been paid to language use in dietary guidelines. The reviewed studies suggest that language in dietary guidelines should be unambiguous for consumers and evolve with national nutrition priorities. A notable difference between Australian and Brazilian FBDGs was that Australia centralised individuals and individual food groups, whereas Brazil placed people in an ecosystem. Inclusion of words that speak to how food is prepared and eaten, to expressions of culture and community, and to strategies people use for enhancing and protecting livelihoods and planetary health may enhance the relevance of future dietary guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":10844,"journal":{"name":"Current Nutrition Reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11489270/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To What Extent are Food, Culture, Economics and the Natural Environment Reflected in the Language of the Australian and Brazilian Food-based Dietary Guidelines?\",\"authors\":\"Natasha Hanssen Midjord, Colin Bell\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13668-024-00585-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose of the review: </strong>Our aim was to review literature describing language use in dietary guidelines and explore the extent to which food, culture, economics and the natural environment are reflected in the language of the Australian, compared to the Brazilian food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs).</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Australia's FBDGs are based on the best available scientific evidence and claim to \\\"form a bridge between research and evidence-based advice to address the major health challenge of improving Australians' eating patterns\\\". Brazil's FBDGs recognise reasons beyond health for people's food choices. Not a lot of attention has been paid to language use in dietary guidelines. The reviewed studies suggest that language in dietary guidelines should be unambiguous for consumers and evolve with national nutrition priorities. A notable difference between Australian and Brazilian FBDGs was that Australia centralised individuals and individual food groups, whereas Brazil placed people in an ecosystem. Inclusion of words that speak to how food is prepared and eaten, to expressions of culture and community, and to strategies people use for enhancing and protecting livelihoods and planetary health may enhance the relevance of future dietary guidelines.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10844,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Nutrition Reports\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11489270/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Nutrition Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-024-00585-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Nutrition Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-024-00585-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

综述目的:我们的目的是回顾描述膳食指南中语言使用情况的文献,并探讨与巴西基于食物的膳食指南(FBDGs)相比,澳大利亚膳食指南的语言在多大程度上反映了食物、文化、经济和自然环境:澳大利亚的《以食物为基础的膳食指南》以现有的最佳科学证据为基础,声称 "在研究和以证据为基础的建议之间架起一座桥梁,以应对改善澳大利亚人饮食模式这一重大健康挑战"。巴西的 FBDGs 认识到人们选择食物的原因不仅仅在于健康。人们对膳食指南中的语言使用关注不多。经审查的研究表明,膳食指南中的用语对消费者来说应明确无误,并与国家营养优先事项保持一致。澳大利亚和巴西的膳食指南之间的一个显著区别是,澳大利亚将个人和单个食物种类集中在一起,而巴西则将人们置于一个生态系统中。在膳食指南中加入有关如何准备和食用食物、文化和社区表现形式以及人们用于提高和保护生计和地球健康的策略的词汇,可能会增强未来膳食指南的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
To What Extent are Food, Culture, Economics and the Natural Environment Reflected in the Language of the Australian and Brazilian Food-based Dietary Guidelines?

Purpose of the review: Our aim was to review literature describing language use in dietary guidelines and explore the extent to which food, culture, economics and the natural environment are reflected in the language of the Australian, compared to the Brazilian food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs).

Recent findings: Australia's FBDGs are based on the best available scientific evidence and claim to "form a bridge between research and evidence-based advice to address the major health challenge of improving Australians' eating patterns". Brazil's FBDGs recognise reasons beyond health for people's food choices. Not a lot of attention has been paid to language use in dietary guidelines. The reviewed studies suggest that language in dietary guidelines should be unambiguous for consumers and evolve with national nutrition priorities. A notable difference between Australian and Brazilian FBDGs was that Australia centralised individuals and individual food groups, whereas Brazil placed people in an ecosystem. Inclusion of words that speak to how food is prepared and eaten, to expressions of culture and community, and to strategies people use for enhancing and protecting livelihoods and planetary health may enhance the relevance of future dietary guidelines.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current Nutrition Reports
Current Nutrition Reports Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Food Science
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
2.00%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: This journal aims to provide comprehensive review articles that emphasize significant developments in nutrition research emerging in recent publications. By presenting clear, insightful, balanced contributions by international experts, the journal intends to discuss the influence of nutrition on major health conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and obesity, as well as the impact of nutrition on genetics, metabolic function, and public health. We accomplish this aim by appointing international authorities to serve as Section Editors in key subject areas across the field. Section Editors select topics for which leading experts contribute comprehensive review articles that emphasize new developments and recently published papers of major importance, highlighted by annotated reference lists. We also provide commentaries from well-known figures in the field, and an Editorial Board of more than 25 internationally diverse members reviews the annual table of contents, suggests topics of special importance to their country/region, and ensures that topics and current and include emerging research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信