Background During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the USDA and Department of Health and Human Services initiated a review of evidence on diet and health in these populations. Objectives The aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relation of 1) never versus ever feeding human milk, 2) shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding, 3) shorter versus longer durations of exclusive human milk feeding prior to infant formula introduction, 4) feeding a lower versus higher intensity of human milk to mixed-fed infants, and 5) feeding a higher intensity of human milk by bottle versus breast with food allergies, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and asthma. Methods The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team conducted systematic reviews with external experts. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed for articles published between January 1980 and March 2016, dual-screened the results according to predetermined criteria, extracted data from and assessed the risk of bias for each included study, qualitatively synthesized the evidence, developed conclusion statements, and graded the strength of the evidence. Results The systematic reviews numbered 1–5 above included 44, 35, 1, 0, and 0 articles, respectively. Moderate, mostly observational, evidence suggests that 1) never versus ever being fed human milk is associated with higher risk of childhood asthma, and 2) among children and adolescents who were fed human milk as infants, shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding are associated with higher risk of asthma. Limited evidence does not suggest associations between 1) never versus ever being fed human milk and atopic dermatitis in childhood or 2) the duration of any human milk feeding and allergic rhinitis and atopic dermatitis in childhood. Conclusions Moderate evidence suggests that feeding human milk for short durations or not at all is associated with higher childhood asthma risk. Evidence on food allergies, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis is limited.

BackgroundThe intense sweeteners currently authorised in Europe comprise ten compounds of various chemical natures. Their overall use has sharply risen in the last 20 years. These compounds are mainly used to formulate reduced-calorie products while maintaining sweetness.MethodsThis extensive analysis of the literature reviews the data currently available on the potential nutritional benefits and risks related to the consumption of products containing intense sweeteners.Results and ConclusionsRegarding nutritional benefits, the available studies, while numerous, do not provide proof that the consumption of artificial sweeteners as sugar substitutes is beneficial in terms of weight management, blood glucose regulation in diabetic subjects or the incidence of type 2 diabetes. Regarding nutritional risks (incidence of type 2 diabetes, habituation to sweetness in adults, cancers, etc.), it is not possible based on the available data to establish a link between the occurrence of these risks and the consumption of artificial sweeteners. However, some studies underline the need to improve knowledge of the links between intense sweeteners consumption and certain risks.

Background During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the US Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services initiated a review of evidence on diet and health in these populations. Objectives The aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relation of 1) never versus ever feeding human milk, 2) shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding, 3) shorter versus longer durations of exclusive human milk feeding, and 4) feeding a lower versus higher intensity of human milk to mixed-fed infants with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in offspring. Methods The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team conducted systematic reviews with external experts. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed for articles published January 1980–March 2016, dual-screened the results according to predetermined criteria, extracted data from and assessed the risk of bias for each included study, qualitatively synthesized the evidence, developed conclusion statements, and graded the strength of the evidence. Results The 4 systematic reviews included 21, 37, 18, and 1 articles, respectively. Observational evidence suggests that never versus ever feeding human milk (limited evidence) and shorter versus longer durations of any (moderate evidence) and exclusive (limited evidence) human milk feeding are associated with higher type 1 diabetes risk. Insufficient evidence examined type 2 diabetes. Limited evidence suggests that the durations of any and exclusive human milk feeding are not associated with intermediate outcomes (e.g., fasting glucose, insulin resistance) during childhood. Conclusions Limited to moderate evidence suggests that feeding less or no human milk is associated with higher risk of type 1 diabetes in offspring. Limited evidence suggests no associations between the durations of any and exclusive human milk feeding and intermediate diabetes outcomes in children. Additional research is needed on infant milk-feeding practices and type 2 diabetes and intermediate outcomes in US populations, which may have distinct metabolic risk.

The USDA's Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review (NESR) team specializes in conducting systematic reviews (SRs) to inform federal nutrition policy and programs. The NESR's dedicated staff collaborate with leading scientists to answer important food- and nutrition-related public health questions by objectively reviewing, evaluating, and synthesizing research using state-of-the-art methodology. NESR uses a rigorous, protocol-driven methodology that is designed to minimize bias; to ensure availability of SRs that are relevant, timely, and high quality; and to ensure transparency and reproducibility of findings. This article describes the methods used by NESR to conduct a series of SRs on diet and health in infants, toddlers, and women who are pregnant as part of the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project.

The relations between dietary features and human health are varied and complex. Health-related variables are many and they have intricate relations at different and interrelated nutritional levels: nutrients, food groups, and the complex overall pattern. Food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) are principally designed to synthesize this information to make it available to the public. Here, we describe the method used to establish healthy eating patterns (HEPs) for the latest French FBDGs, which consists of in-depth food pattern modeling using an enhanced optimization method that gathered all aspects of HEPs. We present the novelty of this food modeling approach for FBDGs, which aims to gather information related to nutrients, food contaminants, and epidemiological relations with long-term health, and to be combined with the objective of realistic dietary patterns that deviate minimally from the prevailing diet. We draw lessons from stepwise implementation of the method and discuss its strengths, limitations, and perspectives. In light of the modeled HEPs, we discuss the importance of food grouping; of accounting for dietary habits while not precluding modeled diets that can be realistic/acceptable; and of taking into account the exposure to food contaminants. We discuss the tolerance and flexibility to be applied to certain dietary reference values for nutrients and health-based guidance values for contaminants so that HEPs can ultimately be identified, and how account can be taken of varied health-related outcomes applied to food groups. Although the approach involves all the peculiar uncertainties of numerous optimization model parameters and input data, its merit is that it offers a rationalized approach to establishing HEPs with multiple constraints and competing objectives. It is also versatile because it is possible to operationalize further dimensions of dietary patterns to favor human and planetary health.