The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
The Development of DRIs 1994–2004: Lessons Learned and New Challenges - Workshop Summary
Appendix C
Brief List of Reoccurring Workshop Discussions1
Crosscutting Topics
Transparency
Transparency was acknowledged as an important component of enhancing future Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs).
Some suggested that additional efforts to document decisions would be a major step toward more transparency.
Concern was expressed that, as presented, the DRI values appear as “very certain” numbers, or at least that the level of confidence for all values is the same.
Some suggested additional text or a specific risk characterization step to clarify the confidence in or precision of the established reference values; other options were also discussed, which included use of asterisks, a numeric grading system, or expressing values as a range.
1
This list, prepared by the rapporteurs and based on the workshop discussions, reflects suggestions made by presenters, discussants, and other workshop participants in relation to the workshop’s focus. It was prepared for the convenience of the reader. It should not be construed as representing recommendations or consensus statements, nor is it reflective of all topics nor the entire breadth of the discussions.
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole. Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 175
The Development of DRIs 1994–2004: Lessons Learned and New Challenges - Workshop Summary
Appendix C
Brief List of Reoccurring Workshop Discussions1
Crosscutting Topics
Transparency
Transparency was acknowledged as an important component of enhancing future Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs).
Some suggested that additional efforts to document decisions would be a major step toward more transparency.
Precision and uncertainty surrounding reference values
Concern was expressed that, as presented, the DRI values appear as “very certain” numbers, or at least that the level of confidence for all values is the same.
Some suggested additional text or a specific risk characterization step to clarify the confidence in or precision of the established reference values; other options were also discussed, which included use of asterisks, a numeric grading system, or expressing values as a range.
1
This list, prepared by the rapporteurs and based on the workshop discussions, reflects suggestions made by presenters, discussants, and other workshop participants in relation to the workshop’s focus. It was prepared for the convenience of the reader. It should not be construed as representing recommendations or consensus statements, nor is it reflective of all topics nor the entire breadth of the discussions.
OCR for page 176
The Development of DRIs 1994–2004: Lessons Learned and New Challenges - Workshop Summary
Criteria for updating current DRIs
A strategy for updating DRIs was identified by many as an urgent matter.
Some suggested that several venues may operate simultaneously and that relevant criteria need to be established; resources were acknowledged as a stumbling block.
Failure to establish reference values: No decision is not an option
An educated estimate from scientists was recognized as a better alternative to not developing a reference value: A value derived from scientific judgment offers a basis for government managers who must act regardless of the existence of a value.
Interest was expressed in determining ways to specify relative uncertainty surrounding reference values and ways to identify controversies and concerns.
Stakeholder input
Considerable opportunities for input were noted.
The rigor and independence of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) process were recognized.
Conceptual Underpinnings
Uses and purpose of DRIs
The overall goal of planning and assessing for groups and individuals was affirmed.
Concern was expressed that the endpoints selected cause confusion about what the DRIs are intended to accomplish.
Values expressed
Estimated Average Requirements (EARs) and Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (ULs) have been useful.
Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) were noted as useful to many, but were also characterized as arbitrary, misused, and more appropriately established using situation-specific criteria.
Adequate Intakes (AIs) were controversial and a source of confusion. Some saw no other option; some preferred establishing an EAR with an indication of uncertainty; some suggested that AIs can be relevant to use with endpoints based on chronic disease.
Some commented that consideration should be given to whether the DRI process should focus on a core set of “numbers” needed versus providing reference values for all applications.
OCR for page 177
The Development of DRIs 1994–2004: Lessons Learned and New Challenges - Workshop Summary
Nature of endpoints
Challenges in setting DRIs based on chronic disease endpoints were acknowledged.
Some suggested that chronic disease endpoints (with more data, better elucidation of confounders, and newer techniques for approximating dose–response) can be placed appropriately within the spectrum of nutritional effects; others suggested that standards for chronic disease need to be addressed separately from those for prevention of deficiency.
Concerns were expressed about providing multiple endpoints for a single age/gender group because it would be confusing and undermine the purpose of DRIs.
Nutrient substances appropriate for DRI consideration
Many expressed interest in continuing to move beyond essential nutrients; some indicated that nonessential substances may require a different approach; some expressed interest in limiting DRIs to essential nutrients.
Road Map for DRI Development
Systematic evidence-based reviews
Such reviews were acknowledged as useful and relevant if the appropriate questions are articulated for the review.
They were also recognized as not relevant for all aspects of the DRI process; there was particular interest in ensuring that scientific judgment regarding the values to be established remains within the domain of the subject matter experts.
Concern was expressed about costs and time involved.
Risk assessment as an organizing scheme
Risk assessment was acknowledged as relevant to the DRI process and as helpful in delineating roles and enhancing transparency and usability of outcomes.
The need to adapt the approach specifically for use with nutrient substances was recognized.
Scientific Decision-Making Criteria
Selection of endpoints
The need for specific criteria was acknowledged.
Approximation of dose–response relationship with limited data
Useful techniques—both statistical and biological—have emerged and can be applied.
Concerns were expressed about statistical approaches when dealing with chronic disease endpoints and about biological techniques relative to the ability to link to human outcomes.
OCR for page 178
The Development of DRIs 1994–2004: Lessons Learned and New Challenges - Workshop Summary
Extrapolation/ scaling
This methodology was identified as necessary given the current state of datasets, but needs a stronger scientific foundation and consistent application.
Adjustment of data uncertainty
Such adjustments were considered relevant to DRI development, but need a systematic approach.
Guidance for Users
Organizational framework: 2×2 table
Some indicated the table’s utility as a basic starting point to address DRI applications; some indicated that it is overly simplistic and does not match real-world applications; some suggested it is too rigid.
Distinction between individual and group applications
For some, the distinction is unclear; some indicated that the interface between individuals and groups has been missed; others suggested it is not a useful distinction if it causes a focus on applying the numbers rather than the underlying concepts.
General guidance versus specific guidance
The diverse needs of users were acknowledged.
Some suggested the need to separate general guidance from specific guidance: Guidance for specific applications should be done on a case-by-case basis via separate reports.
There was interest in helping practitioners to obtain training and tools appropriate for their particular applications.
Items in cart [0]
