New dietary reference values.

J. Garrow
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.303.6795.148
1991-07-20
British Medical Journal
Abstract:Iron absorption from breast milk, cows' milk, and iron supplemented formula: an opportunistic use of changes in total bodv iroii determined by haemoglobin, ferritin and body weight in 132 infants. With an exemplary literature review thrown in The decennial revision of Recommended Daily Amounts of Food Energy and Nutrients for Groups of People in the United Kingdom (1979)' was a deeply unsatisfactory exercise for all concerned. A panel of nutrition scientists with inadequate data struggled to answer the question: "What average daily intake of nutrient x would meet the requirements of practically all members of a group?" The answer "We do not know," was not acceptable if only because the law required food labels to express some nutrients in the food as a proportion of the recommended daily amount-so a best guess was made. As a small part player in both the 1969 and 1979 reviews I can confirm that no self respecting scientist could derive any professional satisfaction from those miserable little pamphlets. The politicians, who commissioned the reviews, were also unsatisfied as the frailty of their scientific basis was all too easily revealed. Questions like, "Is the minister aware that half my constituents have an intake of nutrient x which is less than the intake recommended by his expert panel?" got the rather lame answer that recommended daily amounts applied to groups, not individuals, so it was really quite all right that some people got below the recommended daily amounts so long as not everyone did. Ministers couldn't "explain why, when surveys consistently show that energy intakes are below the recommended daily amounts, obesity is rapidly increasing in this country" other than by saying that an expert panel was working on it. And of course the public was unsatisfied, mainly because the recommended daily amounts were given only for energy; subsequently quietly disowned owing to doubts about the assay). For another 30 nutrients the scientists' answer, "We do not know," was perforce accepted. The latest revision was published this week.2 Although close scrutiny may in time uncover flaws, there is no doubt that this version is a vast improvement on its predecessors. It is a volume of 210 pages (compared with 43 in 1969 and 27 in 1979): it provides reference nutrient intakes (the renamed recommended daily amounts) for 35 nutrients instead of 10, and it also offers two more useful figures-the estimated average requirement and the lower …
What problem does this paper attempt to address?