- Email: [email protected]
Nutrition education
6 Freedman, J. L., J. M. Carlsmlth, and D. O. Sears. Social psychology. 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hail, 1974, p. 245. 7 Eppnght, E. S., H. M. Fox, B. A. Fryer, G H Lamkin, and V. M VIVIan. The north central regional study of diets of preschool children. Pt. 2. Nutntion knowledge and attitudes of mothers. Journal of Home Economics 62:327-32, 1970 8 SIms, L. S. DIetary status of lactating women. Pt. 2. Relation of nutritional knowledge and attitudes to nutrient Intake. Journal of the Amencan Dletellc Assoclalion 73:147-54, 1978.
9 Grotkowskl, M. L., and L. S. SIms Nutntlon knowledge, attitudes, and dIetary practices of the elderly. Journal of the Amencan Dietetic AssoclOtlOn 72.499-506, 1978. 10 SIms, L.S Food-related value onentations, attitudes, and beliefs of vegetanans and non-vegetanans Ecology of Food and NutritIOn 7:23-35, 1978 II Nle, N. H., C. H. Hull, J G. JenkinS, K Stembrenner, and D. H. Bent SPSS. Statistical package for the SOCial sCiences. 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975, pp.468-514. 12 Nunnally, J C Psychometric theory. New
NUTRITION NutritIon education is the theme of 7 papers from a symposium entitled "The Food and NutritIOn Mosaic - Putting the Pieces Together" whIch appears in the December 1980 issue of Food Technology. In an introductory paper, G. R. Jansen (page 55) outhnes the objectives of the symposium-to clarify the role of the National Nutritinn Consortium (NNC) in effecting responsIble nutrition educatIOn and to explore mechanisms for mteraction among NNC member societies and especially between the food industry and acaderma with respect to public nutrition education. Regardmg consumer education, G. A. Leveille (pages 56-57) favors a freedom-ofchoice approach that includes a simple food guide but also provides information on nutritIon principles, facts, and questions about diet and health and on combatance of mismformation. He also encourages traming m consumer education for nutrition professIOnals attempting to educate the pubhc. With respect to dietary adVIce to the public, R. E. Olson (pages 58-61) argues for conservatism, i.e., a dietary change should not be promoted without both proof of benefit as well as eVIdence of little or no risk. He does not address cntena for promotmg retention of an eXIsting dietary pattern. He critIcizes the Dietary Goals as not well documented and the Dietary GuidelInes as being too vague; he favors the Food and Nutntion Board report ToVOLUME
13
NUMBER
4
1981
York: McGraw-HIll Book Co., 1978, p 593. 13 McKeachie, W. J., and C. L. Doyle Psychology. 2d ed. Readmg, Mass.: AddlsonWesley PublIshing Co., 1970, p. 605. 14 Stouffer, S. A. Communism, conformity, and clvi/libertles. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1955, pp. 19-25. 15 Barr, A J., J. H. Goodmght, J P. Sail, W. H Blalf, and D M. Chllko. The SA S user's gUide, 1979 edition. RaleIgh, N C The SAS Institute, 1979, pp. 243-44. 16 SalvIa, J., and J E. Yesse1dyke Assessment In speCial and remedial educatIOn. Boston, Mass.: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1978. pp. 66-68.
EDUCATION
ward Healthful Diets because it IS conservatIve. Focusing on nutrition education of the public, G. Brown and S. Pelican (pages 62-63) advocate a nutrient-based approach and describe 3 such programs. They believe that nutrient-based programs offer trammg in decisIon making, an Important skill for the nutritionally well-informed consumer when making food choices. B. R. Stillings (pages 64-67) offers some strong statements about the role and responsibility of the food industry to the public. He outlines a number of advantages for providing nutntion educatIOn to food industry employees- from improved employee health to better ability to communicate with government, the media, scientists, and the public. In order that the industry serve the consumer as well as avoid excessive, restrictIve government regulation, StIllings argues for a strong, selfimposed standard for truth in advertising and for proVIsion of product composition informatIOn on labels. Stillings argues against the food industry havmg primary responsibIlIty for direct-contact public nutrition educatIon programs, partly because of lack of resources and partly because of the anticipated lack of credibility of the industry m this role. However, he believes that the food industry should take an actIve role in combating nutritIon mlsmformatlOn and should support the programs and activities of the allied professional societIes in food sCIence and nutrition. He urges
responsIveness by the food industry to consumer interests, such as decreasing salt in canned food or increasing label information, despite the likelihood that only a minority of consumers are interested in any smgle issue. Each of the last 2 papers outlines a specific role that an organization has undertaken m relation to a different aspect of nutrition education. Describmg the current and potentIal activities of the NNC, K. W. McNutt (pages 68-70) focuses partIcularly on NNC's emergmg priority, that of developing nutrition pohcy. In addition, B. S. SchweIgert (pages 71-72) outlines efforts of the Institute of Food Technologists in public education and focuses particularly on the scientific status summaries and on other written forms of SCIentific consensus on nutntlon issues. By and large, the symposium was disappomting because It offered little in the way of new approaches on how to educate consumers or Ideas on how to bring profesSIOnals in various fields mto consensus. Rather, the authors confined themselves to descnptions of ongomg programs or elaboratIOn of an already well-defined opmion. Notably, there was virtually no mentIOn of mtegration WIth the "front-line" nutrition educators, such as dIetItians, home economics teachers, and nutrItion educators m extenSIOn, pubhc schools, and communIty programs. S.M. O.
JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION
149
9 Grotkowskl, M. L., and L. S. SIms Nutntlon knowledge, attitudes, and dIetary practices of the elderly. Journal of the Amencan Dietetic AssoclOtlOn 72.499-506, 1978. 10 SIms, L.S Food-related value onentations, attitudes, and beliefs of vegetanans and non-vegetanans Ecology of Food and NutritIOn 7:23-35, 1978 II Nle, N. H., C. H. Hull, J G. JenkinS, K Stembrenner, and D. H. Bent SPSS. Statistical package for the SOCial sCiences. 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975, pp.468-514. 12 Nunnally, J C Psychometric theory. New
NUTRITION NutritIon education is the theme of 7 papers from a symposium entitled "The Food and NutritIOn Mosaic - Putting the Pieces Together" whIch appears in the December 1980 issue of Food Technology. In an introductory paper, G. R. Jansen (page 55) outhnes the objectives of the symposium-to clarify the role of the National Nutritinn Consortium (NNC) in effecting responsIble nutrition educatIOn and to explore mechanisms for mteraction among NNC member societies and especially between the food industry and acaderma with respect to public nutrition education. Regardmg consumer education, G. A. Leveille (pages 56-57) favors a freedom-ofchoice approach that includes a simple food guide but also provides information on nutritIon principles, facts, and questions about diet and health and on combatance of mismformation. He also encourages traming m consumer education for nutrition professIOnals attempting to educate the pubhc. With respect to dietary adVIce to the public, R. E. Olson (pages 58-61) argues for conservatism, i.e., a dietary change should not be promoted without both proof of benefit as well as eVIdence of little or no risk. He does not address cntena for promotmg retention of an eXIsting dietary pattern. He critIcizes the Dietary Goals as not well documented and the Dietary GuidelInes as being too vague; he favors the Food and Nutntion Board report ToVOLUME
13
NUMBER
4
1981
York: McGraw-HIll Book Co., 1978, p 593. 13 McKeachie, W. J., and C. L. Doyle Psychology. 2d ed. Readmg, Mass.: AddlsonWesley PublIshing Co., 1970, p. 605. 14 Stouffer, S. A. Communism, conformity, and clvi/libertles. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1955, pp. 19-25. 15 Barr, A J., J. H. Goodmght, J P. Sail, W. H Blalf, and D M. Chllko. The SA S user's gUide, 1979 edition. RaleIgh, N C The SAS Institute, 1979, pp. 243-44. 16 SalvIa, J., and J E. Yesse1dyke Assessment In speCial and remedial educatIOn. Boston, Mass.: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1978. pp. 66-68.
EDUCATION
ward Healthful Diets because it IS conservatIve. Focusing on nutrition education of the public, G. Brown and S. Pelican (pages 62-63) advocate a nutrient-based approach and describe 3 such programs. They believe that nutrient-based programs offer trammg in decisIon making, an Important skill for the nutritionally well-informed consumer when making food choices. B. R. Stillings (pages 64-67) offers some strong statements about the role and responsibility of the food industry to the public. He outlines a number of advantages for providing nutntion educatIOn to food industry employees- from improved employee health to better ability to communicate with government, the media, scientists, and the public. In order that the industry serve the consumer as well as avoid excessive, restrictIve government regulation, StIllings argues for a strong, selfimposed standard for truth in advertising and for proVIsion of product composition informatIOn on labels. Stillings argues against the food industry havmg primary responsibIlIty for direct-contact public nutrition educatIon programs, partly because of lack of resources and partly because of the anticipated lack of credibility of the industry m this role. However, he believes that the food industry should take an actIve role in combating nutritIon mlsmformatlOn and should support the programs and activities of the allied professional societIes in food sCIence and nutrition. He urges
responsIveness by the food industry to consumer interests, such as decreasing salt in canned food or increasing label information, despite the likelihood that only a minority of consumers are interested in any smgle issue. Each of the last 2 papers outlines a specific role that an organization has undertaken m relation to a different aspect of nutrition education. Describmg the current and potentIal activities of the NNC, K. W. McNutt (pages 68-70) focuses partIcularly on NNC's emergmg priority, that of developing nutrition pohcy. In addition, B. S. SchweIgert (pages 71-72) outlines efforts of the Institute of Food Technologists in public education and focuses particularly on the scientific status summaries and on other written forms of SCIentific consensus on nutntlon issues. By and large, the symposium was disappomting because It offered little in the way of new approaches on how to educate consumers or Ideas on how to bring profesSIOnals in various fields mto consensus. Rather, the authors confined themselves to descnptions of ongomg programs or elaboratIOn of an already well-defined opmion. Notably, there was virtually no mentIOn of mtegration WIth the "front-line" nutrition educators, such as dIetItians, home economics teachers, and nutrItion educators m extenSIOn, pubhc schools, and communIty programs. S.M. O.
JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION
149