食品强化景观在美国:识别和强化食品购买的流行使用全国家庭扫描仪数据。

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q2 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Cristina R Moraga Franco, Jennifer Falbe, Charles D Arnold, Reina Engle-Stone
{"title":"食品强化景观在美国:识别和强化食品购买的流行使用全国家庭扫描仪数据。","authors":"Cristina R Moraga Franco, Jennifer Falbe, Charles D Arnold, Reina Engle-Stone","doi":"10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.08.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Understanding the effects of market-driven food fortification on micronutrient adequacy and diet quality has been hampered by insufficient data on food fortification practices and limitations of self-reported dietary intake data.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>First, to establish a method for identifying fortified foods using scanner data and distinguish which items in the Circana Consumer Network Panel database are fortified with vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, or iron. Second, to calculate the proportion of products fortified with each and any of the 4 micronutrients and calculate the micronutrient content of fortified foods compared with unfortified foods in 17 product subcategories of beverages (e.g., 100% apple juice) and grain products (e.g., ready-to-eat cereals).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To classify products, we first used an ingredients-based approach. When ingredients were unavailable, we used a nutrient content approach that we validated against the ingredients approach. We calculated the proportion of products fortified and the mean and median nutrient amounts in both fortified and unfortified items.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We classified 62,841 products as fortified or not, of which 37,821 were purchased by households in 2017. The validation of the nutrient approach to classifying fortification status showed strong internal validity between classification methods. For the beverages and grain products overall, 24% and 73% were fortified, respectively, with variation by product category. Vitamin C fortification was common in 100% juice and ready-to-eat cereal (30% and 44%), vitamin A fortification was common in ready-to-eat cereal (51%), whereas iron and calcium fortification were more common in breads and cereals (34‒53%). Nutrient concentrations differed substantially between unfortified and fortified products.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Fortification with the 4 micronutrients was common and varied by food category, with >50% of the daily value per serving observed for some categories. These results and methodological framework can help elucidate the role of fortification in nutrient intake and diet quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":16620,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nutrition","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Food Fortification Landscape in the United States: Identification and Prevalence of Fortified Food Purchases Using National Household Scanner Data.\",\"authors\":\"Cristina R Moraga Franco, Jennifer Falbe, Charles D Arnold, Reina Engle-Stone\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.08.015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Understanding the effects of market-driven food fortification on micronutrient adequacy and diet quality has been hampered by insufficient data on food fortification practices and limitations of self-reported dietary intake data.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>First, to establish a method for identifying fortified foods using scanner data and distinguish which items in the Circana Consumer Network Panel database are fortified with vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, or iron. Second, to calculate the proportion of products fortified with each and any of the 4 micronutrients and calculate the micronutrient content of fortified foods compared with unfortified foods in 17 product subcategories of beverages (e.g., 100% apple juice) and grain products (e.g., ready-to-eat cereals).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To classify products, we first used an ingredients-based approach. When ingredients were unavailable, we used a nutrient content approach that we validated against the ingredients approach. We calculated the proportion of products fortified and the mean and median nutrient amounts in both fortified and unfortified items.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We classified 62,841 products as fortified or not, of which 37,821 were purchased by households in 2017. The validation of the nutrient approach to classifying fortification status showed strong internal validity between classification methods. For the beverages and grain products overall, 24% and 73% were fortified, respectively, with variation by product category. Vitamin C fortification was common in 100% juice and ready-to-eat cereal (30% and 44%), vitamin A fortification was common in ready-to-eat cereal (51%), whereas iron and calcium fortification were more common in breads and cereals (34‒53%). Nutrient concentrations differed substantially between unfortified and fortified products.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Fortification with the 4 micronutrients was common and varied by food category, with >50% of the daily value per serving observed for some categories. These results and methodological framework can help elucidate the role of fortification in nutrient intake and diet quality.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16620,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Nutrition\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Nutrition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.08.015\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.08.015","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:了解市场驱动的食品强化对微量营养素充足性和饮食质量的影响一直受到食品强化实践数据不足和自我报告的饮食摄入数据的限制的阻碍。目的:首先,建立一种使用扫描仪数据识别强化食品的方法,并区分Circana消费者网络面板(CNP)数据库中的哪些产品添加了维生素a、维生素C、钙或铁。第二,计算添加四种微量营养素的产品的比例,并计算饮料(如100%苹果汁)和谷物产品(如即食谷物)等17种产品子类中的强化食品与非强化食品的微量营养素含量。方法:对产品进行分类,我们首先使用了基于成分的方法。当成分不可用时,我们使用营养含量方法,我们对成分方法进行验证。我们计算了强化食品的比例以及强化食品和非强化食品中营养含量的平均值和中位数。结果:我们将62,841种产品分类为强化或非强化产品,其中家庭2017年购买了37,821种产品。营养成分法对强化状态进行分类的验证表明,不同分类方法之间具有很强的内在有效性。总的来说,饮料和谷物产品分别有24%和73%是强化的,不同的产品类别有所不同。维生素C强化在100%果汁和即食谷物中很常见(30%和44%),维生素A强化在即食谷物中很常见(51%),而铁和钙强化在面包和谷物中更常见(34%-53%)。营养浓度在非强化食品和强化食品之间存在显著差异。结论:四种微量营养素的强化是常见的,并且因食物类别而异,在某些类别中观察到每份每日摄入量的50%。这些结果和方法框架有助于阐明强化在营养摄入和饮食质量中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Food Fortification Landscape in the United States: Identification and Prevalence of Fortified Food Purchases Using National Household Scanner Data.

Background: Understanding the effects of market-driven food fortification on micronutrient adequacy and diet quality has been hampered by insufficient data on food fortification practices and limitations of self-reported dietary intake data.

Objectives: First, to establish a method for identifying fortified foods using scanner data and distinguish which items in the Circana Consumer Network Panel database are fortified with vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, or iron. Second, to calculate the proportion of products fortified with each and any of the 4 micronutrients and calculate the micronutrient content of fortified foods compared with unfortified foods in 17 product subcategories of beverages (e.g., 100% apple juice) and grain products (e.g., ready-to-eat cereals).

Methods: To classify products, we first used an ingredients-based approach. When ingredients were unavailable, we used a nutrient content approach that we validated against the ingredients approach. We calculated the proportion of products fortified and the mean and median nutrient amounts in both fortified and unfortified items.

Results: We classified 62,841 products as fortified or not, of which 37,821 were purchased by households in 2017. The validation of the nutrient approach to classifying fortification status showed strong internal validity between classification methods. For the beverages and grain products overall, 24% and 73% were fortified, respectively, with variation by product category. Vitamin C fortification was common in 100% juice and ready-to-eat cereal (30% and 44%), vitamin A fortification was common in ready-to-eat cereal (51%), whereas iron and calcium fortification were more common in breads and cereals (34‒53%). Nutrient concentrations differed substantially between unfortified and fortified products.

Conclusions: Fortification with the 4 micronutrients was common and varied by food category, with >50% of the daily value per serving observed for some categories. These results and methodological framework can help elucidate the role of fortification in nutrient intake and diet quality.

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
Journal of Nutrition
Journal of Nutrition 医学-营养学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
260
审稿时长
39 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Nutrition (JN/J Nutr) publishes peer-reviewed original research papers covering all aspects of experimental nutrition in humans and other animal species; special articles such as reviews and biographies of prominent nutrition scientists; and issues, opinions, and commentaries on controversial issues in nutrition. Supplements are frequently published to provide extended discussion of topics of special interest.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信