1932

Abstract

National dietary surveillance produces dietary intake data used for various purposes including development and evaluation of national policies in food and nutrition. Since 2000, What We Eat in America, the dietary component of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, has collected dietary data and reported on the dietary intake of the US population. Continual innovations are required to improve methods of data collection, quality, and relevance. This review article evaluates the strengths and limitations of current and newer methods in national dietary data collection, underscoring the use of technology and emerging technology applications. We offer four objectives for national dietary surveillance that serve as guiding principles in the evaluation. Moving forward, national dietary surveillance must take advantage of new technologies for their potential in enhanced efficiency and objectivity in data operations while continuing to collect accurate dietary information that is standardized, validated, and publicly transparent.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-nutr-062320-110636
2022-08-22
2024-06-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/nutr/42/1/annurev-nutr-062320-110636.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-nutr-062320-110636&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Adler ME, Rhodes DG, Moshfegh AJ. 2017. Discontinued codes in the USDA Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies. J. Food Compos. Anal. 64:104–6
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Ahluwalia N, Dwyer J, Terry A, Moshfegh A, Johnson C. 2016. Update on NHANES dietary data: focus on collection, release, analytical considerations, and uses to inform public policy. Adv. Nutr. 7:1121–34
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.
    Ahmad Z, Kerr DA, Bosch M, Boushey CJ, Delp EJ et al. 2016. A mobile food record for integrated dietary assessment. MADiMa'16: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Multimedia Assisted Dietary Management, Amsterdam, The Netherlandspp. 53–62 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    Amoutzopoulos B, Steer T, Roberts C, Cade JE, Boushey CJ et al. 2018. Traditional methods v. new technologies – dilemmas for dietary assessment in large-scale nutrition surveys and studies: a report following an international panel discussion at the 9th International Conference on Diet and Activity Methods (ICDAM9), Brisbane, 3 September 2015. J. Nutr. Sci. 7:e11
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.
    Anderson E, Steinfeldt L 2004. Blaise instrument design for automated food coding. Proceedings of the 9th International Blaise Users’ Conference, IBUC 2004, Gatineau, Quebec, September 22–24, 2004129–36 Ottawa, Canada: Statistics Canada
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    Arab L, Winter A. 2010. Automated camera-phone experience with the frequency of imaging necessary to capture diet. J. Am. Diet Assoc. 110:81238–41
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    Black R. 2017. Begin to imagine: thoughts and considerations following the 39th NNDC. J. Food Compos. Anal. 64:143–44
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.
    Blanton CA, Moshfegh AJ, Baer DJ, Kretsch MJ. 2006. The USDA Automated Multiple-Pass Method accurately estimates group total energy and nutrient intake. J. Nutr. 136:102594–99
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.
    Bliss R. 2004. Researchers produce innovation in dietary recall. Agric. Res. 52:610–12
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Boushey CJ, Spoden M, Delp EJ, Zhu F, Bosch M et al. 2017. Reported energy intake accuracy compared to doubly labeled water and usability of the Mobile Food Record among community dwelling adults. Nutrients 9:3312
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    Boushey CJ, Spoden M, Zhu FM, Delp EJ, Kerr DA. 2017. New mobile methods for dietary assessment: review of image-assisted and image-based dietary assessment methods. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 76:3283–94
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    Bucher Della Torre S, Carrard I, Farina E, Danuser B, Kruseman M. 2017. Development and evaluation of e-CA, an electronic mobile-based food record. Nutrients 9:176
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Cade JE. 2017. Measuring diet in the 21st century: use of new technologies. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 76:3276–82
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.
    Carter MC, Albar SA, Morris MA, Mulla UZ, Hancock N et al. 2015. Development of a UK online 24-h dietary assessment tool: myfood24. Nutrients 7:64016–32
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    Carter MC, Burley VJ, Nykjaer C, Cade JE. 2013.. ‘ My Meal Mate’ (MMM): validation of the diet measures captured on a smartphone application to facilitate weight loss. Br. J. Nutr. 109:3539–46
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    Chaves LO, Domingos ALG, Fernances DL, Cerqueira FR, Siequeira-Batista R, Bressan J. 2021. Applicability of machine learning techniques in food intake assessment: a systematic review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2021.1956425
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    Chen JC, Berkman W, Bardouh M, Kammy CY, Allman-Farinelli M. 2019. The use of a food logging app in the naturalistic setting fails to provide accurate measurements of nutrients and poses usability challenges. Nutrition 57:208–16
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    Chin EL, Simmons G, Bouzid YY, Kan A, Burnett DJ et al. 2019. Nutrient estimation from 24-hour food recalls using machine learning and database mapping: a case study with lactose. Nutrients 11:123045
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Conrad J, Nöthlings U. 2017. Innovative approaches to estimate individual usual dietary intake in large-scale epidemiological studies. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 76:3213–19
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    DiGrande L, Pedrazzani S, Kinyara E, Hymes M, Karns S et al. 2021. Field interviewer-administered dietary recalls in participants’ homes: a feasibility study using the US Department of Agriculture's Automated Multiple-Pass Method RTI Press Publ. MR-0045-2105 RTI Press Research Triangle Park, NC:
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Drewnowski A. 2021. Perspective: identifying ultra-processed plant-based milk alternatives in the USDA Branded Food Products Database. Adv. Nutr. 12:62068–75
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Eldridge AL, Piernas C, Illner AK, Gibney MJ, Gurinovic MA et al. 2018. Evaluation of new technology-based tools for dietary intake assessment—an ILSI Europe Dietary Intake and Exposure Task Force evaluation. Nutrients 11:155
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Ettienne-Gittens R, Boushey CJ, Au D, Murphy SP, Lim U, Wilkens L. 2013. Evaluating the feasibility of utilizing the Automated Self-administered 24-hour (ASA24) dietary recall in a sample of multiethnic older adults. Procedia Food Sci. 2:134–44
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.
    Evans K, Hennessy A, Walton J, Timon C, Gibney E, Flynn A. 2017. Development and evaluation of a concise food list for use in a web-based 24-h dietary recall tool. J. Nutr. Sci. 6:e46
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Fang S, Liu C, Zhu F, Delp EJ, Boushey CJ. 2015. Single-view food portion estimation based on geometric models. ISM 2015:385–90
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    Foster E, Lee C, Imamura F, Hollidge SE, Westgate KL et al. 2019. Validity and reliability of an online self-report 24-h dietary recall method (Intake24): a doubly labelled water study and repeated-measures analysis. J. Nutr. Sci. 8:e29
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Fukagawa NK, McKillop K, Pehrsson PR, Moshfegh A, Harnly J, Finley J. 2022. USDA's FoodData Central: what is it and why is it needed today?. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 115:3619–24
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Gazan R, Vieux F, Mora S, Havard S, Dubuisson C. 2021. Potential of existing online 24-h dietary recall tools for national dietary surveys. Public Health Nutr. 24:165361–86
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Gemming L, Rush E, Maddison R, Doherty A, Gant N et al. 2015. Wearable cameras can reduce dietary under-reporting: doubly labelled water validation of a camera-assisted 24 h recall. Br. J. Nutr. 113:2284–91
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    Gemming L, Utter J, Ni Mhurchu C. 2015. Image-assisted dietary assessment: a systematic review of the evidence. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 115:164–77
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    Grandjean AC. 2012. Dietary intake data collection: challenges and limitations. Nutr. Rev. 70:Suppl. 2S101–4
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Griffith R, O'Connell M, Smith K 2017. The importance of product reformulation versus consumer choice in improving diet quality. Economica 84:34–53
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Griffiths C, Harnack L, Pereira MA. 2018. Assessment of the accuracy of nutrient calculations of five popular nutrition tracking applications. Public Health Nutr. 21:81495–502
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.
    Haarman JAM, de Vries RAJ, Harmsen EC, Hermens HJ, Heylen DKJ. 2020. Sensory Interactive Table (SIT)—development of a measurement instrument to support healthy eating in a social dining setting. Sensors 20:92636
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Herzig D, Nakas CT, Stalder J, Kosinski C, Laesser C et al. 2020. Volumetric food quantification using computer vision on a depth-sensing smartphone: preclinical study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 8:3e15294
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Höchsmann C, Martin CK. 2020. Review of the validity and feasibility of image-assisted methods for dietary assessment. Int. J. Obes. 44:122358–71
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Inst. Med 2000. Dietary Reference Intakes: Applications in Dietary Assessment Washington, DC: National Academy Press
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Kapsokefalou M, Roe M, Turrini A, Costa HS, Martinez-Victoria E et al. 2019. Food composition at present: new challenges. Nutrients 11:181714
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.
    Kelly P, Marshall SJ, Badland H, Kerr J, Oliver M et al. 2013. An ethical framework for automated, wearable cameras in health behavior research. Am. J. Prev. Med. 44:3314–19
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.
    Khazen W, Jeanne JF, Demaretz L, Schafer F, Fagherazzi G. 2020. Rethinking the use of mobile apps for dietary assessment in medical research. J. Med. Internet Res. 22:6e15619
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Kirkpatrick SI, Guenther PM, Douglass D, Zimmerman T, Kahle LL et al. 2019. The provision of assistance does not substantially impact the accuracy of 24-hour dietary recalls completed using the automated self-administered 24-h dietary assessment tool among women with low incomes. J. Nutr. 149:1114–22
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    Kirkpatrick SI, Subar AF, Douglass D, Zimmerman TP, Thompson FE et al. 2014. Performance of the Automated Self-Administered 24-hour Recall relative to a measure of true intakes and to an interviewer-administered 24-h recall. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 100:1233–40
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    Koch SAJ, Conrad J, Cade JE, Weinhold L, Alexy U, Nöthlings U 2021. Validation of the web-based self-administered 24-h dietary recall myfood24-Germany: comparison with a weighed dietary record and biomarkers. Eur. J. Nutr. 60:74069–82
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Koroušić Seljak B, Korošec P, Eftimov T, Ocke M, van der Laan J et al. 2018. Identification of requirements for computer-supported matching of food consumption data with food composition data. Nutrients 10:4433
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Kupis J, Johnson S, Hallihan G, Olstad DL. 2019. Assessing the usability of the Automated Self-Administered Dietary Assessment Tool (ASA24) among low-income adults. Nutrients 11:1132
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    Lafreniere J, Lamarche B, Laramee C, Robitaille J, Lemieux S. 2017. Validation of a newly automated web-based 24-hour dietary recall using fully controlled feeding studies. BMC Nutr. 3:34
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    Leighton J, Koehler KM, Kavanaugh C, Heintz K. 2013. Nutrient databases: critical tools for policy development. Procedia Food Sci. 2:187–94
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    Maringer M, van't Veer P, Klepacz N, Verain MCD, Norman A et al. 2018. User-documented food consumption data from publicly available apps: an analysis of opportunities and challenges for nutrition research. Nutr. J. 17:159
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    Maruvada P, Lampe JW, Wishart DS, Barupal D, Chester DN et al. 2020. Perspective: dietary biomarkers of intake and exposure—exploration with omics approaches. Adv. Nutr. 11:2200–15
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    McBride J. 2001. Was it a slab, a slice, or a sliver?. Agric. Res. 49:4–7
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    Morton S, Rhodes DG, Moshfegh AJ. 2020. Convenience stores: source of food/beverages among adults: What We Eat in America, NHANES 2013–2016 Dietary Data Brief 27 Food Surv. Res. Group Beltsville, MD:
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    Morton S, Rhodes DG, Moshfegh AJ. 2021. Convenience stores: source of food/beverages among children: What We Eat in America, NHANES 2015–2018 Dietary Data Brief 42 Food Surv. Res. Group Beltsville, MD:
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.
    Moshfegh AJ, Rhodes DG, Baer DJ, Murayi T, Clemens JC et al. 2008. The US Department of Agriculture Automated Multiple-Pass Method reduces bias in the collection of energy intakes. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 88:2324–32
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.
    Moursi M, Bromage S, Fung TT, Isanaka S, Matsuzaki M et al. 2021. There's an app for that: development of an application to operationalize the Global Diet Quality Score. J. Nutr. 151:176S–86S
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.
    Murphy SP. 2013. Aligning food composition tables with current dietary guidance for consumers. Procedia Food Sci. 2:12–19
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    Natl. Cent. Health Stat. 2015. Measuring guides for the NHANES dietary recall interview Rep. Natl. Cent. Health Stat. Washington, DC: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/measuring_guides_dri/measuringguides.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.
    Natl. Inst. Health, Natl. Cancer Inst. 2021. Automated Self-Administered 24-Hour (ASA24®) dietary assessment tool Rep. Natl. Cancer Inst., Div. Cancer Control Popul. Sci., Epidemiol. Genom. Res. Progr. Bethesda, MD: https://epi.grants.cancer.gov/asa24
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.
    Park Y, Dodd KW, Kipnis V, Thompson FE, Potischman N et al. 2018. Comparison of self-reported dietary intakes from the Automated Self-Administered 24-h recall, 4-d food records, and food-frequency questionnaires against recovery biomarkers. . Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 107:180–93
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.
    Pettitt C, Liu J, Kwasnicki RM, Yang GZ, Preston T, Frost G 2016. A pilot study to determine whether using a lightweight, wearable micro-camera improves dietary assessment accuracy and offers information on macronutrients and eating rate. Br. J. Nutr. 115:1160–67
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.
    Pew Res. Cent. 2021. Mobile fact sheet Fact Sheet, Pew Res. Cent. Washington, DC: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.
    Picó C, Serra F, Rodríguez AM, Keijer J, Palou A. 2019. Biomarkers of nutrition and health: new tools for new approaches. Nutrients 11:51092
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.
    Powers PM, Hoover LW. 1989. Calculating the nutrient composition of recipes with computers. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 89:2224–32
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.
    Rangan AM, Tieleman L, Louie JC, Tang LM, Hebden L et al. 2016. Electronic Dietary Intake Assessment (e-DIA): relative validity of a mobile phone application to measure intake of food groups. Br. J. Nutr. 115:122219–26
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.
    Raper N, Perloff B, Ingwersen L, Steinfeldt L, Anand J. 2004. An overview of USDA's Dietary Intake Data System. J. Food Compos. Anal. 17:3–4545–55
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.
    Rhodes DG, Adler ME, Clemens JC, Moshfegh AJ. 2017. What We Eat in America Food Categories and changes between survey cycles. J. Food Compos. Anal. 64:107–11
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.
    Rhodes DG, Murayi T, Clemens JC, Baer DJ, Sebastian RS, Moshfegh AJ. 2013. The USDA Automated Multiple-Pass Method accurately assesses population sodium intakes. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 97:5958–64
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.
    Roberts C, Collins D, Amoutzopoulos B, Steer T, Page P. 2021. Evaluation of changes in the dietary methodology in the National Diet and Nutrition Survey rolling programme from year 12 (2019 to 2020) stage 1 Rep. Public Health England and UK Food Standards Agency London, UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evaluation-of-change-in-dietary-methodology-in-ndns-rolling-programme-stage-1
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.
    Rowland MK, Adamson AJ, Poliakov I, Bradley J, Simpson E et al. 2018. Field testing of the use of Intake24—an online 24-hour dietary recall system. Nutrients 10:111690
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.
    Saksena MJ, Okrent AM, Anekwe TD, Cho C, Dicken C et al. 2018. America's eating habits: food away from home EIB 196 U.S. Dep. Agric., Econ. Res. Serv. Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.
    Sarker IH. 2021. Machine learning: algorithms, real-world applications and research directions. SN Comput. Sci. 2:3160
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.
    Sebastian RS, Wilkinson EC, Goldman JD, Hoy MK, Moshfegh AJ. 2015. Sandwich consumption by adults in the US: What We Eat in America. NHANES 2009–2012. Dietary Data Brief 14 Food Surv. Res. Group Beltsville, MD:
  72. 72.
    Sebastian RS, Wilkinson EC, Goldman JD, Murayi T, Moshfegh AJ. 2021. Late evening eating patterns among U.S. adults vary in their associations with, and impact on, energy intake and diet quality: Evidence from What We Eat In America, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013–2016. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 122:593248
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.
    Sivakumaran S, Huffman L, Sivakumaran S. 2016. The New Zealand Food Composition Database: a useful tool for assessing New Zealanders’ nutrient intake. Food Chem. 238:101–10
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.
    Stat. Neth. (CBS). 2020. About Blaise®. Statistics Netherlands https://blaise.com/blaise/about-blaise
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.
    Steinfeldt LC, Martin CL, Clemens JC, Moshfegh AJ. 2021. Comparing two days of dietary intake in What We Eat in America (WWEIA), NHANES, 2013–2016. Nutrients 13:8 2621.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    Taylor CA, Watowicz RP, Spees CK, Hooker NH. 2018. Shelf to health: Does product innovation change national estimates of dietary impacts?. J. Food Sci. 83:3831–36
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.
    Thompson FE, Dixit-Joshi S, Potischman N, Dodd KW, Kirkpatrick SI et al. 2015. Comparison of interviewer-administered and automated self-administered 24-hour dietary recalls in 3 diverse integrated health systems. Am. J. Epidemiol. 181:12970–78
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.
    Timon CM, van den Barg R, Blain RJ, Kehoe L, Evans K et al. 2016. A review of the design and validation of web- and computer-based 24-h dietary recall tools. Nutr. Res. Rev. 29:2268–80
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.
    Timon CM, Walton J, Flynn A, Gibney ER 2021. Respondent characteristics and dietary intake data collected using web-based and traditional nutrition surveillance approaches: comparison and usability study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 7:4e22759
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.
    Tippett KS, Enns CW, Moshfegh AJ. 1999. Food consumption surveys in the US Department of Agriculture. Nutr. Today 34:133–46
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.
    Traka MH, Plumb J, Berry R, Pichen H, Finglas PM. 2020. Maintaining and updating food composition datasets for multiple users and novel technologies: current challenges from a UK perspective. Nutr. Bull. 45:2230–40
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.
    Univ. Minn. 2021. Database licensing. University of Minnesota Nutrition Coordinating Center. http://www.ncc.umn.edu/food-and-nutrient-database/
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.
    U.S. Dep. Agric. 2016. Flavonoid values for USDA survey foods and beverages 2007–2010. Rep. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Food Surv. Res. Group Beltsville, MD: https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400530/pdf/fndds/Flav_factsheet_2007-10.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    U.S. Dep. Agric. 2020. All restaurants: percent reporting, mean amounts, and percent of selected nutrients from foods obtained from all restaurants, by gender and age, in the United States, 2017–2018. What We Eat in America, NHANES 2017–2018 Rep. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Food Surv. Res. Group Beltsville, MD: https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400530/pdf/1718/Table_53_RST_GEN_17.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    U.S. Dep. Agric. 2019. FoodData Central US Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv. Beltsville, MD: accessed Nov. 8, 2021. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.
    U.S. Dep. Agric. 2020. Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies 2017–2018 Rep. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Food Surv. Res. Group Beltsville, MD: https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400530/pdf/fndds/FNDDS_2017_2018_factsheet.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.
    U.S. Dep. Agric. 2020. USDA Food Patterns Equivalents Database 2017–2018 Rep. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Food Surv. Res. Group Beltsville, MD: https://www.ars.usda.gov/northeast-area/beltsville-md-bhnrc/beltsville-human-nutrition-research-center/food-surveys-research-group/docs/fped-databases/
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.
    U.S. Dep. Agric. 2007. USDA table of nutrient retention factors, release 6. Rep. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Nutrient Data Lab. Beltsville, MD: https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400535/Data/retn/retn06.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.
    U.S. Dep. Agric. 2018. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Woman, Infants and Children (WIC) food package policy and guidance. Rep. U.S. Dep. Agric., Food Nutr. Serv. Washington, DC: https://wicworks.fns.usda.gov/resources/wic-food-package-policy-and-guidance
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.
    U.S. Dep. Agric. 2021. Thrifty Food Plan, 2021 FNS-916 U.S. Dep. Agric., Food Nutr. Serv. Washington, DC: https://FNS.usda.gov/TFP
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91.
    U.S. Dep. Agric., US Dep. Health Hum. Serv. 2020. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025., 9th ed.., U.S. Dep. Agric., U.S. Dep. Health Hum. Serv. Washington, DC: https://dietaryguidelines.gov/
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.
    U.S. Dep. Health Hum. Serv. 2021. Healthy People 2030: nutrition and healthy eating objectives. Rep. U.S. Dep. Health Hum. Serv., Off. Dis. Prev. Health Promot. Washington, DC: https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/browse-objectives/nutrition-and-healthy-eating
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.
    U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency. 2021. General principles for performing aggregate exposure and risk assessments for pesticides Rep. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Off. Pestic. Progr. Washington, DC: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/general-principles-performing-aggregate-exposure
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.
    U.S. Food Drug Adm. 1996. Food standards: amendment of standards of identity for enriched grain products to require addition of folic acid. Fed. Reg. 61:448781–97
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.
    U.S. Food Drug Adm. 2016. Food labeling: revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels. Fed. Reg. 81:10333742–999
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.
    Van Asbroeck S, Matthys C. 2020. Use of different food image recognition platforms in dietary assessment: comparison study. . JMIR Form. Res. 4:12e15602
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.
    Vu T, Lin F, Alshurafa N, Xu W. 2017. Wearable food intake monitoring technologies: a comprehensive review. Computers 6:14
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.
    Ward HA, McLellan H, Udeh-Momoh C, Giannakopoulou P, Robb C et al. 2019. Use of online dietary recalls among older UK adults: a feasibility study of an online dietary assessment tool. Nutrients 11:71451
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.
    Zhang L, Geelen A, Boshuizen HC, Ferriera J, Ocke MC. 2019. Importance of details in food descriptions in estimating population nutrient intake distributions. Nutr. J. 18:117
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.
    Ziesemer K, Konig LM, Boushey CJ, Villinger K, Wahl DR et al. 2020. Occurrence of and reasons for “missing events” in mobile dietary assessments: results from three event-based ecological momentary assessment studies. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 8:10e15430
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 101.
    Zimmerman TP, Potischman N, Douglass D, Dixit-Johnson S, Kirkpatrick SI et al. 2015. The effect of editing open-ended text responses on nutrient food group estimates from the Automated Self-Administered 24-hr dietary recall (ASA 24). Procedia Food Sci 4:160–72
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-nutr-062320-110636
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-nutr-062320-110636
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error