Suppr超能文献

营养科学领域赢得和保持公众信任的最佳实践。

Best practices in nutrition science to earn and keep the public's trust.

机构信息

Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

出版信息

Am J Clin Nutr. 2019 Jan 1;109(1):225-243. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy337.

Abstract

Public trust in nutrition science is the foundation on which nutrition and health progress is based, including sound public health. An ASN-commissioned, independent Advisory Committee comprehensively reviewed the literature and available public surveys about the public's trust in nutrition science and the factors that influence it and conducted stakeholder outreach regarding publicly available information. The Committee selected 7 overlapping domains projected to significantly influence public trust: 1) conflict of interest and objectivity; 2) public benefit; 3) standards of scientific rigor and reproducibility; 4) transparency; 5) equity; 6) information dissemination (education, communication, and marketing); and 7) accountability. The literature review comprehensively explored current practices and threats to public trust in nutrition science, including gaps that erode trust. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of peer-reviewed material specifically focused on nutrition science. Available material was examined, and its analysis informed the development of priority best practices. The Committee proposed best practices to support public trust, appropriate to ASN and other food and nutrition organizations motivated by the conviction that public trust remains key to the realization of the benefits of past, present, and future scientific advances. The adoption of the best practices by food and nutrition organizations, such as ASN, other stakeholder organizations, researchers, food and nutrition professionals, companies, government officials, and individuals working in the food and nutrition space would strengthen and help ensure earning and keeping the public's continued trust in nutrition science.

摘要

公众对营养科学的信任是营养和健康进步的基础,包括健全的公共卫生。美国营养学会委托一个独立的顾问委员会全面审查了关于公众对营养科学的信任及其影响因素的文献和现有公众调查,并就公开信息开展了利益相关者外联活动。委员会选择了 7 个重叠的领域,这些领域预计会对公众信任产生重大影响:1)利益冲突和客观性;2)公共利益;3)科学严谨性和可重复性标准;4)透明度;5)公平性;6)信息传播(教育、沟通和营销);7)问责制。文献综述全面探讨了当前影响营养科学公众信任的实践和威胁,包括侵蚀信任的差距。不幸的是,专门针对营养科学的同行评审材料很少。审查了可用的材料,其分析为制定优先最佳实践提供了信息。委员会提出了支持公众信任的最佳实践,这些最佳实践适合美国营养学会和其他食品和营养组织,其动机是坚信公众信任仍然是实现过去、现在和未来科学进步的利益的关键。食品和营养组织(如美国营养学会)、其他利益相关者组织、研究人员、食品和营养专业人员、公司、政府官员以及在食品和营养领域工作的个人,如果采用这些最佳实践,将加强并有助于确保营养科学继续赢得和保持公众的信任。

相似文献

1
Best practices in nutrition science to earn and keep the public's trust.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2019 Jan 1;109(1):225-243. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy337.
5
Enhancing public trust in the food safety regulatory system.
Health Policy. 2012 Sep;107(1):98-103. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.05.010. Epub 2012 Jun 22.
6
Scientific rigor and credibility in the nutrition research landscape.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2018 Mar 1;107(3):484-494. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqx067.
8
Learning from the Flint Water Crisis: Restoring and Improving Public Health Practice, Accountability, and Trust.
J Law Med Ethics. 2019 Jun;47(2_suppl):23-26. doi: 10.1177/1073110519857310.
9
Goal of maintaining public's trust brings research groups together on conflict-of-interest guidelines.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Nov 2;97(21):1560-1. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dji391.
10
Examining public trust in risk-managing organizations after a major disaster.
Risk Anal. 2015 Jan;35(1):57-67. doi: 10.1111/risa.12243. Epub 2014 Jun 20.

引用本文的文献

1
The impact of investigator bias in nutrition research.
Front Nutr. 2025 Apr 17;12:1513343. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2025.1513343. eCollection 2025.
3
Noninvasive Optical Sensing of Aging and Diet Preferences Using Raman Spectroscopy.
Anal Chem. 2025 Jan 14;97(1):969-975. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.4c05853. Epub 2025 Jan 1.
4
Artificial intelligence in food and nutrition evidence: The challenges and opportunities.
PNAS Nexus. 2024 Oct 15;3(12):pgae461. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae461. eCollection 2024 Dec.
6
Nutritional care for cancer patients: are we doing enough?
Front Nutr. 2024 Apr 24;11:1361800. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2024.1361800. eCollection 2024.
7
Interactions Between Nutrition Professionals and Industry: A Scoping Review.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7626. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7626. Epub 2023 Aug 22.

本文引用的文献

1
Guidance on the assessment of the biological relevance of data in scientific assessments.
EFSA J. 2017 Aug 3;15(8):e04970. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4970. eCollection 2017 Aug.
2
So you want to change the world?
Nature. 2016 Dec 21;540(7634):517-519. doi: 10.1038/540517a.
3
Was there ever really a "sugar conspiracy"?
Science. 2018 Feb 16;359(6377):747-750. doi: 10.1126/science.aaq1618.
4
Disclosures in Nutrition Research: Why It Is Different.
JAMA. 2018 Feb 13;319(6):547-548. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.18571.
5
Dietary Fats and Cardiovascular Disease: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association.
Circulation. 2017 Jul 18;136(3):e1-e23. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000510. Epub 2017 Jun 15.
6
The March of Science - The True Story.
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jul 13;377(2):188-191. doi: 10.1056/NEJMms1706087. Epub 2017 May 17.
7
Beware of the predatory science journal: A potential threat to the integrity of medical research.
Clin Anat. 2017 Sep;30(6):767-773. doi: 10.1002/ca.22899. Epub 2017 Jul 6.
8
Conflict of Interest and the Role of the Food Industry in Nutrition Research.
JAMA. 2017 May 2;317(17):1755-1756. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.3456.
9
Researchers should reach beyond the science bubble.
Nature. 2017 Feb 21;542(7642):391. doi: 10.1038/542391a.
10
European Universities' Guidance on Research Integrity and Misconduct.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2017 Feb;12(1):33-44. doi: 10.1177/1556264616688980.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验