Nutrient density: principles and evaluation tools

Drewnowski, Adam; Fulgoni, Victor L.

doi:10.3945/ajcn.113.073395

Cited by 153 publications

(168 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

162

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such indices have been developed for individual food items and are referred to as nutrient density scores. These density scores relate the nutrient content of 100 g or 100 kcal of a product to the daily recommended intake and average the values of different nutrients into one final score (Drewnowski and Fulgoni 2014). Despite a low nutrient density score, however, an individual food item can be valuable at the dietary level because of its richness in one very scarce nutrient.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global food supply: land use efficiency of livestock systems

Zanten

Mollenhorst

Klootwijk

et al. 2015

Int J Life Cycle Assess

193

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Livestock already use most global agricultural land, whereas the demand for animal-source food (ASF) is expected to increase. To address the contribution of livestock to global food supply, we need a measure for land use efficiency of livestock systems. Methods Existing measures capture different aspects of the debate about land use efficiency of livestock systems, such as plant productivity and the efficiency of converting feed, especially human-inedible feed, into animal products. So far, the suitability of land for cultivation of food crops has not been accounted for. Our land use ratio (LUR) includes all above-mentioned aspects and yields a realistic insight into land use efficiency of livestock systems. LUR is defined as the maximum amount of human-digestible protein (HDP) derived from food crops on all land used to cultivate feed required to produce 1 kg ASF over the amount of HDP in that 1 kg ASF. We illustrated our concept for three case systems. Results and discussion The LUR for the case of laying hens equaled 2.08, implying that land required to produce 1 kg HDP from laying hens could directly yield 2.08 kg HDP from human food crops. For dairy cows, the LUR was 2.10 when kept on sandy soils and 0.67 when kept on peat soils. The LUR for dairy cows on peat soils was lower compared to cows on sandy soils because land used to grow grass and grass silage for cows on peats was unsuitable for direct production of food crops. A LUR <1.0 is considered efficient in terms of global food supply and implies that animals produce more HDP per square metre than crops. Conclusions Values <1.0 demonstrate that livestock produce HDP more efficiently than crops. Such livestock systems (with a LUR<1.0), therefore, do have a role in future food supply and therefore contribute to food security. Our LUR offers identification of livestock production systems that contribute to global food supply, i.e. systems that value land with low opportunity costs for arable production and/or byproducts from crop cultivation or the food or energy industry.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global food supply: land use efficiency of livestock systems

Zanten

Mollenhorst

Klootwijk

et al. 2015

Int J Life Cycle Assess

193

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We explicitly add both environmental sustainability and nutrition considerations to studies of food production and food supply [6]. Evaluating and eventually enhancing SNS requires science-based metrics that are relevant to policy making [7][8][9]. Such metrics can be used to categorize and compare different scenarios and evaluate the likely impact of potential food system interventions that are intended to improve food security and human nutrition outcomes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seven Food System Metrics of Sustainable Nutrition Security

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainability considerations have been absent from most food security assessments conducted to date, despite the tremendous economic, environmental, and social implications of meeting accelerating food demand in the face of water shortages and climate change. In addition, previous food security work has generally focused only on achieving adequate calories, rather than addressing dietary diversity and micronutrient adequacy, both of which are critical to maintaining a healthy overall nutritional status. In response to the limitations of previous assessments, a new methodology is proposed here based on the concept of "sustainable nutrition security" (SNS). This novel assessment methodology is intended to remedy both kinds of deficiencies in the previous work by defining seven metrics, each based on a combination of multiple indicators, for use in characterizing sustainable nutrition outcomes of food systems: (1) food nutrient adequacy; (2) ecosystem stability; (3) food affordability and availability; (4) sociocultural wellbeing; (5) food safety; (6) resilience; and (7) waste and loss reduction. Each of the metrics comprises multiple indicators that are combined to derive an overall score (0-100). A novel SNS assessment methodology based on these metrics can be deployed by decision-makers and investors to set meaningful goals, track progress, and evaluate the potential impact of food system interventions intended to improve sustainability and human nutrition outcomes.

show abstract

“…Central to Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank's decision about updating the algorithm was consideration of the basic principles of nutrient profiling systems stipulated by Drewnowski and Fulgoni. 29 These principles include objectivity, transparency, simplicity, and validation. 29 Adherence to these principles excluded commercial nutrient profiling systems that are proprietary and/or patented.…”

Section: Development Of the Choose Healthy Options Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…29 These principles include objectivity, transparency, simplicity, and validation. 29 Adherence to these principles excluded commercial nutrient profiling systems that are proprietary and/or patented.…”

Section: Development Of the Choose Healthy Options Programmentioning

confidence: 99%