|
From the Editor
In keeping with what
is emerging as a set of themes, the June issue of the Journal has a strong
focus on food. The Editorial by our New Zealand colleagues Skeaff and
Green asks ‘Do we need more food fortification?’. They note
early evidence that nutrient deficiencies may be re-emerging in Australian
and New Zealand populations and challenge readers to think again about
the adequacy of a varied diet within our food supply. This is a timely
discussion, given the current review of food fortification policy by the
Food Regulation Standing Committee. A related topic receiving similar
attention is food allergy, and our leading article by Bennett, from Food
Science Australia, outlines in depth the science, risks to individuals,
and the implications for the food industry.
With this backdrop, the article by Palmer and colleagues on the treatment
and prevention of food allergies in breast fed infants provides important
information for dietitians in practice. Using an evidence-based approach,
they found that while most specialist paediatric dietitians
in Australia refer to recommendations by expert commit-tees, a systematic
review shows a lack of high quality evidence to determine the extent of
benefits from food avoidance strategies. The problem may be even more
complex if we add to this Nowak’s and colleagues’ findings
on nutrition knowledge and beliefs of 168 postpartum women from three
maternity hospitals in Canberra and one in Brisbane. While the women expressed
confidence in the area, they scored poorly on knowledge
questions relating to requirements for core foods. Of note was the major
source of nutrition information, given as reading (44%), compared to health
professionals (4.2%). This harks back to a previous leading article by
Truby on the challenges of communicating diet-health messages, in the
December 2003 issue, and the referent paper by Tim-perio and colleagues,
exploring the nature of miscommunication in this context.
One of the most consistent current public health messages is to eat more
fruit and vegetables, but if we are to have evidence of the benefits,
we need to, among other things, monitor changes in consumption patterns.
Mackerras and colleagues provide us with an interesting analysis comparing
fruit and vegetable intake data from two different population surveys.
This article is well worth reading for the methodological questions raised
and the implications for monitoring intake and evaluating achievement
of targets. It also reminds us of the complexity of assessing
dietary intake. Roberts and colleagues also examine National Nutrition
Survey (NNS) data and methodological issues for their study assessing
the population intakes of resistant starch. With starch a major source
of energy, and emerging evidence of potential benefits from the resistant
form, it is interesting to consider the authors’ findings of around
three to nine grams per day consumed by Australian adults, with potatoes,
bananas and white bread found to contribute the most.
In the education section Hughes reviews position descriptions to examine
employer expectations of core functions, credentials and competencies
in community and public health nutrition. He found almost all entry level
positions required dietetic qualifications and discussed the implications
for further training in public health. The continuing education section
focuses on enteral and parenteral nutrition, with the very welcome involvement
of this DAA Interest Group.
Letters to the Editor include an important letter on collaboration with
New Zealand through the Journal, which indicates very real opportunities
as also reflected in the Editorial. There are a number of issues raised
that are worth discussing including the publication of abstracts from
both dietetics conferences held in Australia and New Zealand. It is also
good to see practitioners using this section for brief communications
as in the other letter on haemochromatosis. I would like to encourage
responses to our letters as well as brief communications such as these.
The June issue also has a range of book reviews and a report on the Experimental
Biology (EB) meeting in Washington this year. This is one of the largest
scientific meetings in the USA, with a strong nutrition presence. There
is plenty to keep this issue on the table for a long while.
Professor Linda Tapsell APD
|
