BackgroundEnvironmental enteric dysfunction (EED) is commonly defined as an acquired subclinical disorder of the small intestine, characterized by villous atrophy and crypt hyperplasia. EED has been proposed to underlie stunted growth among children in developing countries. A collection of biomarkers, organized into distinct domains, has been used to measure different aspects of EED. Here, we examine whether these hypothesized relationships, among EED domains and between each domain and stunting, are supported by data from recent studies.MethodologyA systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL between January 1, 2010 and April 20, 2017. Information on study objective, design, population, location, biomarkers, and results were recorded, as well as qualitative and quantitative definitions of EED. Biomarkers were organized into five EED domains, and the number of studies that support or do not support relationships among domains and between each domain with stunting were summarized.ResultsThere was little evidence to support the pathway from intestinal permeability to microbial translocation and from microbial translocation to stunting, but stronger support existed for the link between intestinal inflammation and systemic inflammation and for intestinal inflammation and stunting. There was conflicting evidence for the pathways from intestinal damage to intestinal permeability and intestinal damage to stunting.ConclusionsThese results suggest that certain EED biomarkers may require reconsideration, particularly those most difficult to measure, such as microbial translocation and intestinal permeability. We discuss several issues with currently used biomarkers and recommend further analysis of pathogen-induced changes to the intestinal microbiota as a pathway leading to stunting.

Disparities in dietary behaviors have been directly linked to the food environment, including access to retail food outlets. The Coronavirus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to major changes in the distribution, sale, purchase, preparation, and consumption of food in the United States (US). This paper reflects on those changes and provides recommendations for research to understand the impact of the pandemic on the retail food environment (RFE) and consumer behavior. Using the Retail Food Environment and Customer Interaction Model, we describe the impact of COVID-19 in four key areas: (1) community, state, tribal, and federal policy; (2) retail actors, business models, and sources; (3) customer experiences; and (4) dietary intake. We discuss how previously existing vulnerabilities and inequalities based on race, ethnicity, class, and geographic location were worsened by the pandemic. We recommend approaches for building a more just and equitable RFE, including understanding the impacts of changing shopping behaviors and adaptations to federal nutrition assistance as well as how small food business can be made more sustainable. By better understanding the RFE adaptations that have characterized the COVID-19 pandemic, we hope to gain greater insight into how our food system can become more resilient in the future.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly affected food systems including food security. Understanding how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted food security is important to provide support, and identify long-term impacts and needs. Objective The National Food Access and COVID research Team (NFACT) was formed to assess food security over different U.S. study sites throughout the pandemic, using common instruments and measurements. This study present results from 18 study sites across 15 states and nationally over the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A validated survey instrument was developed and implemented in whole or part through an online survey of adults across the sites throughout the first year of the pandemic, representing 22 separate surveys. Sampling methods for each study site were convenience, representative, or high-risk targeted. Food security was measured using the USDA six-item module. Food security prevalence was analyzed using analysis of variance by sampling method to statistically significant differences. Results Respondents (n = 27,168) indicate higher prevalence of food insecurity (low or very low food security) since the COVID-19 pandemic, as compared to before the pandemic. In nearly all study sites, there is higher prevalence of food insecurity among Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC), households with children, and those with job disruptions. The findings demonstrate lingering food insecurity, with high prevalence over time in sites with repeat cross-sectional surveys. There are no statistically significant differences between convenience and representative surveys, but statistically higher prevalence of food insecurity among high-risk compared to convenience surveys. Conclusions This comprehensive study demonstrates higher prevalence of food insecurity in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. These impacts were prevalent for certain demographic groups, and most pronounced for surveys targeting high-risk populations. Results especially document the continued high levels of food insecurity, as well as the variability in estimates due to survey implementation method. Summary Multi-site assessment demonstrates widespread food insecurity during COVID-19, especially on households with children, job loss, and Black, Indigenous, People of Color across multiple survey methods.

Indigenous food sovereignty (IFS) represents a community led movement with potential to reduce health inequities, but no scoping review of the impact of taking an IFS approach on intervention research has been conducted. This review sought to (1) describe intervention studies that employ IFS principles and (2) describe the impact of studies using IFS principles on food access, eating patterns, diet quality, physical activity and health. Through a literature review, four IFS principles were identified: (1) community ownership, (2) inclusion of traditional food knowledge, (3) inclusion and promotion of cultural foods, and (4) environmental/intervention sustainability. 20 intervention studies published between 1/1/2000-2/5/2020 were included. Most of the studies that scored high in IFS principles saw a positive impact on diet. This review found evidence supporting the value of IFS principles in the development, implementation and evaluation of health interventions for Indigenous communities.