Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The process of setting micronutrient recommendations: a cross-European comparison of nutrition-related scientific advisory bodies

  • Lada Timotijevic (a1), Julie Barnett (a2), Kerry Brown (a1), Richard Shepherd (a1), Laura Fernández-Celemín (a3), Livia Dömölki (a4), Juri Ruprich (a5), Rosalie A Dhonukshe-Rutten (a6), Anne-Mette Sonne (a7), Maria Hermoso (a8), Berthold Koletzko (a8), Lene Frost-Andersen (a9), Arnold Timmer (a10) and Monique M Raats (a1)...

Abstract

Objective

To examine the workings of the nutrition-related scientific advisory bodies in Europe, paying particular attention to the internal and external contexts within which they operate.

Design

Desk research based on two data collection strategies: a questionnaire completed by key informants in the field of micronutrient recommendations and a case study that focused on mandatory folic acid (FA) fortification.

Setting

Questionnaire-based data were collected across thirty-five European countries. The FA fortification case study was conducted in the UK, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Spain, Czech Republic and Hungary.

Results

Varied bodies are responsible for setting micronutrient recommendations, each with different statutory and legal models of operation. Transparency is highest where there are standing scientific advisory committees (SAC). Where the standing SAC is created, the range of expertise and the terms of reference for the SAC are determined by the government. Where there is no dedicated SAC, the impetus for the development of micronutrient recommendations and the associated policies comes from interested specialists in the area. This is typically linked with an ad hoc selection of a problem area to consider, lack of openness and transparency in the decisions and over-reliance on international recommendations.

Conclusions

Even when there is consensus about the science behind micronutrient recommendations, there is a range of other influences that will affect decisions about the policy approaches to nutrition-related public health. This indicates the need to document the evidence that is drawn upon in the decisions about nutrition policy related to micronutrient intake.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The process of setting micronutrient recommendations: a cross-European comparison of nutrition-related scientific advisory bodies
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The process of setting micronutrient recommendations: a cross-European comparison of nutrition-related scientific advisory bodies
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The process of setting micronutrient recommendations: a cross-European comparison of nutrition-related scientific advisory bodies
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author: Email l.timotijevic@surrey.ac.uk

References

Hide All
1.Vorster, HH, Murphy, SP, Allen, LH et al. (2007) Application of nutrient intake values (NIVs). Food Nutr Bull 28, Suppl. 1, 116122.
2.King, JC & Garza, C (2007) Harmonization of nutrient intake values. Food Nutr Bull 28, Suppl. 1, 312.
3.Doets, E, de Wit, LS, Dhonukshe-Rutten, RAM et al. (2008) Current micronutrient recommendations in Europe: towards understanding their differences and similarities. Eur J Nutr 47, 1740.
4.Scientific Committee for Food (1993) Nutrient and Energy Intakes for the European Community. Reports of the Scientific Committee for Food, Thirty First Series. Luxembourg: European Commission; available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/out89.pdf
5.Thuraisingam, S, Riddell, L, Cook, K et al. (2009) The politics of developing reference standards for nutrient intakes: the case of Australia and New Zealand. Public Health Nutr 12, 15311539.
6.Pijls, L, Ashwell, M & Lambert, J (2009) EURRECA – a network of excellence to align European micronutrient recommendations. Food Chem 113, 748753.
7.Garza, C & Pelletier, DL (2007) Dietary guidelines past, present, and future. In Nation’s Nutrition, p. 205 [E Kennedy and R Deckelbaum, editors]. Washington, DC: ILSI Press.
8.Brown, MB, Lentsch, J & Weingart, P (2005) Representation, expertise and the German parliament: a comparison of three advisory institutes. In Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, pp. 81101 [S Maasen and P Weignart, editors]. Dordrecht: Springer.
9.Trübswasser, U & Branca, F (2009) Nutrition policy is taking shape in Europe. Public Health Nutr 12, 295306.
10.Ezrahi, Y (1990) The Descent of Icarus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.Rayner, S (2007) The rise of risk and the decline of politics. Environmental Hazard 7, 165172.
12.Commission of the European Communities (2000) Science, Society and the Citizen in Europe. Commission Working Document SEC(2000) 1973, 14.11.2000. Brussels: European Commission.
13.Walls, J, O’Riordan, T, Horlick-Jones, T et al. (2005) The meta-governance of risk and new technologies: GM crops and mobile telephones. J Risk Res 8, 635661.
14.Agar, J (2008) What happened in the sixties? Br J Hist Sci 41, 567600.
15.Packer, K (2007) Defra’s Scientific Advisory Committees and Public Engagement. KP Draft Defra Report 1.3. London: Council for Science and Technology.
16.Jackson, T & Michaelis, L (2003) Policies for Sustainable Consumption. London: Sustainable Development Commission.
17.Irwin, A & Michael, M (2003) Science, Social Theory & Public Knowledge. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill International.
18.Commission of the European Communities (2001) European Governance: A White Paper. COM(2001) 428 final, 25.7.2001. Brussels: European Commission.
19.Wardman, J & Lofstedt, RE; Advisory Group on Risk Communications (2009) European Food Safety Authority – Risk Communication Annual Review. EFSA/AGRC/29MAY2009/AGENDA ITEM 7.3. Parma: EFSA.
20.European Food Safety Authority (2009) Transparency in Risk Assessment – Scientific Aspects. Guidance of the Scientific Committee on Transparency in the Scientific Aspects of Risk Assessments carried out by EFSA. Part 2: General Principles. The EFSA Journal 1051, 122.
21.Stigoe, J & Wilsdon, J (2006) Engagement, Evidence and Expertise. Balancing Different Forms of Knowledge in Regulatory Decision-Making. A Discussion Paper for the Food Standards Agency. DEMOS Draft 2.0, 14 September. London: FSA.
22.Solesbury, W (2001) Evidence Based Policy: Whence it Came and Where it’s Going. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice, Working Paper no. 1. London: Queen Mary, University of London; available at http://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/03/45/84/wp1.pdf
23.Glynn, S, Flanagan, K, Keenan, M et al. (2001) Science and Governance: Describing and Typifying the Scientific Advice Structure in the Policy Making Process – a Multinational Study. Report EUR 19830 EN. Seville: European Commission Joint Research Centre (DG JRC), Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
24.Jasanoff, S (2005) Judgment under siege: the three-body problem of expert legitimacy. In Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, pp. 209224 [S Maasen and P Weingart, editors]. Dordrecht: Springer.
25.Maasen, S & Weigart, P (editors) (2005) Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, vol. 24. Springer.
26.Evans, R & Collins, H (2002) The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Soc Stud Sci 32, 235296.
27.Willison, DJ & McLeod, SM (1999) The role of research evidence in pharmaceutical policy making: evidence when necessary but not necessarily evidence. J Eval Clin Pract 5, 243249.
28.Weiss, C (1979) The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm Rev 39, 426431.
29.Wynne, B (2002) Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: reflexivity inside out? Curr Sociol 50, 459477.
30.Dobrow, MJ, Goel, V, Lemieux-Charles, L et al. (2006) The impact of context on evidence utilization: a framework for expert groups developing health policy recommendations. Soc Sci Med 63, 18111824.
31.Nunn, R (2008) A network model of expertise. Bull Sci Technol Soc 28, 414427.
32.Hilgartner, S (2000) Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
33.Jasanoff, S (editor) (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London: Routledge.
34.Blok, A (2007) Experts on public trial: on democratizing expertise through a Danish consensus conference. Public Underst Sci 16, 163182.
35.Stirling, A (2005) Opening up or closing down: analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. Jpn J Sci Technol Soc 14, 6383.
36.Horlick-Jones, T (2005) Informal logics of risk: contingency and modes of practical reasoning. J Risk Res 8, 253272.
37.Lowndes, V, Pratchett, L & Stoker, G (2001) Trends in public participation: Part 1 – local government perspectives. Public Adm 79, 205222.
38.Morton, A, Airoldi, M & Phillips, D (2009) Nuclear risk management on stage: a decision analysis perspective on the UK’s Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. Risk Anal 29, 764779.
39.Armstrong, R, Waters, E, Roberts, H et al. (2006) The role and theoretical evolution of knowledge translation and exchange in public health. J Public Health 28, 384389.
40.Wentholt, MTA, Rowe, G, König, A et al. (2009) The views of key stakeholders on an evolving food risk governance framework: results from a Delphi study. Food Policy 34, 539548.
41.Renn, O (2004) The challenge of integrating deliberation and expertise: participation and discourse in risk management. In Risk Analysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field, pp. 289366 [TL McDaniels and MJ Small, editors]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.Stirling, A (2008) Science, precaution and the politics of technological risk. Converging implications in evolutionary and social scientific perspectives. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1128, 95110.
43.Dobrow, M, Goel, V & Upshur, REG (2004) Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation. Soc Sci Med 58, 207217.
44.Guston, DH (2000) Boundary organisations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Human Values 26, 399408.
45.Cash, D, Clark, W, Alcock, F et al. (2002) Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making. KSG Working Papers Series no. RWP02-046. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=372280
46.Scientific Advisory Committee for Nutrition (2002) Paper for discussion: A Framework for Evaluation of Evidence that Relates Food and Nutrients to Health. http://www.sacn.gov.uk/pdfs/sacn_02_02a.pdf
47.Nordic Council of Ministers (2004) Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2004 – Integrating Nutrition and Physical Activity, 4th ed. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
48.German Nutrition Society, Austrian Nutrition Society, Swiss Society for Nutrition Research & Swiss Nutrition Association (2000) Referenzwerte fur Die Nahrstoffzufuhr (Reference Values for Nutrient Intake), 1st ed. Frankfurt/Main: Umschau Braus.
49.Daltveit, AK (2007) Report on periconceptional folic acid supplementation in Norway. Special EUROCAT Report December 2007 Survey of Folic Acid Policy and Practice in European Countries. http://www.eurocat.ulster.ac.uk/pdf/NTD/December-2007/Norway.pdf
50.Christiansen, M (1997) Report on periconceptional folic acid supplementation. http://www.eurocat.ulster.ac.uk/pdf/NTD/December-2007/Denmark.pdf
51.Robert Koch Institute (2004) Modell zu Auswirkungen einer Mehlanreicherung mit Folsäure auf die Versorgungssituation in Deutschland. Epidemiologisches Bulletin 34, 281283.
52.German Nutrition Society (2006) Position paper on mandatory fortification of baking flours with folic acid. Emährungs-Umschau 53, Heft 11, S424–S429 (Teil 1) and Heft 12, S468–S479 (Teil 2).
53.Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (2000) Folic Acid and the Prevention of Disease. Department of Health. Report on Health and Social Subjects no. 50. London: TSO.
54.Scientific Advisory Committee for Nutrition (2006) Folate and disease prevention. http://www.sacn.gov.uk/pdfs/folic_sacn_06_01.pdf
55.Food Standards Agency (2007) Options for improving folate intakes of women of reproductive age and preventing neural tube defects. Board Paper, Agenda Item 3.1, 17 May 2007. http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/fsa070504rev.pdf
56.Food Standards Agency (2009) Folic acid fortification. http://www.food.gov.uk/healthiereating/folicfortification/
57.Cole, BF, Baron, JA, Sandler, RS et al. (2007) Folic acid for the prevention of colorectal adenomas. JAMA 297, 23512359.
58.Mason, JB, Dickstein, A, Jacques, PF et al. (2007) A temporal association between folic acid fortification and an increase in colorectal cancer rates may be illuminating important biological principles: a hypothesis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 16, 13251329.
59.Sociedad Española de Nutrición Comunitaria (2005) Guía de la Alimentación Saludable. Madrid: Editorial Everest.
60.Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic (2004) Decree 446/2004 Coll., Laying down the requirements for food supplements and for enriching food with diet supplements, as amended.
61.Commission of the European Communities (1993) Nutrient and energy intakes for the European Community (Opinion expressed on 11 December 1992). Reports of the Scientific Committee for Food (Thirty-first Series). Luxembourg: Directorate-General Industry, European Commission.
62.Sandor (2007) Report on periconceptional folic acid supplementation for Hungary. EUROCAT special report. http://www.eurocat.ulster.ac.uk/pdf/NTD/December-2007/Hungary.pdf
63.Czeizel, AE & Kokeny, M (2002) Bread is fortified with folic acid in Hungary. BMJ 325, 391.

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed