Championing evidence‐based nutrition science in the next decade

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:栄養科学と持続可能性の交差点に関する展望として参考になる。

🏢実務担当者:食品業界のサステナビリティ戦略立案に示唆を与える。

🏛政策担当者:食料政策と気候変動対策の連携を考える際の背景情報となる。

In literally seconds we can get answers to almost any question via the Internet but can we trust the answers? Social media and the Internet in general are transforming the way we access information, who we trust to provide information and what we expect from information providers. Whilst this massively increases the quantity of information we have access to, what about the quality and reliability? Worryingly, as the new decade dawns, many seem to place more trust in health advice provided by lifestyle influencers such as celebrity bloggers they follow on social media than qualified experts. Since launch of the Internet in 1990, Facebook in 2004 and the iPhone in 2007, digital content has been constantly evolving and improved infrastructure permits greater Internet coverage and smartphone usage. Online engagement globally is greatest in younger age groups, typically those aged 18–44 years, and Euromonitor International (2020) reports that the top four marketing channels ranked in 2019 as extremely influential and very influential are as follows: friends’ social media posts or shares; family/family recommendations; independent consumer reviews; and loyalty reward programmes. The first three registered an increase since 2016, whereas loyalty programmes registered a decline over the same period. So, trust in friends, family and ‘independent’ consumers is growing, and people are reported to be turning to these channels for help in sifting through the immense amounts of information available and making decisions quickly. Lifestyle influencers with similar values, trusted views and content that evokes a positive response are considered to be particularly popular (Euromonitor International 2020). According to FoodNavigator (2019), attention spans are shortening, favouring the fantastic over the familiar. Businesses, especially smaller more agile brands, are responding accordingly with ever more edgy and creative offerings. Some commentators suggest that in an age where young people in particular face constant scrutiny by peers on social media purchases increasingly need to signal altruistic intent (FoodNavigator 2019), whilst others (Fleming-Milici & Harris 2020) report that fast food, ‘unhealthy’ snacks and sugary drinks dominate teen social media engagement, making it harder to create a healthy food environment at home, and exacerbating the challenges already faced regarding food education in UK schools, as discussed in this issue of Nutrition Bulletin by Ballam (2020). To compete for the attention of what Euromonitor International describes as the ‘Catch me in Seconds’ generations, with their short attention span, we as health professionals and teachers need to learn from lifestyle gurus and the blogger culture to engage young people in a balanced and science-based dialogue. As the new decade began, food pundits were busy sharing views on food trends for 2020 and beyond. Generally, there were few surprises, with increasing interest predicted in novel and fashionable ingredients such as cannabidiol, flavours such as turmeric and innovative alternatives to traditional ingredients for reformulation purposes. Two of the most important developments over the next decade, however, sustainable nutrition and personalised nutrition, are discussed below as they are likely to bring challenges to the very way dietary advice is formulated and delivered. The creation of the Academy of Nutrition Sciences to champion nutrition science is therefore timely, and it will need to address these challenges head-on if it is to be influential in shaping the direction of nutrition science over the next decade. A trend expected to continue in the 2020s is growth in so-called plant-based solutions for those favouring a flexitarian dietary pattern or looking for meat and dairy alternatives. For some, this is a response to concerns about climate change whilst for others, perhaps, it is just a fashionable way to eat. Though sometimes confused with veganism, a flexitarian or plant-based diet – predominantly plants but still containing animal protein – is essentially the diet depicted in the government’s Eatwell Guide (NHS 2019). However, recent digital media articles hint at the general confusion about sustainable food systems and perpetuation of ‘fragmented beliefs’, half-truths and knee-jerk reactions. Plant-based eating is becoming a proxy in response to concerns about climate change and is being wrapped in phrases such as ‘good for society, good for the planet’. Alongside this, there is a proliferation of ‘vegan’ meals and even appearance of ‘vegan’ claims on long-established foods. The nutritional impact of this development has yet to be assessed and, as with the gluten-free trend, it will be important to understand whether substitutions are improving overall diet and environmental impact, or not. It is great news that more people are thinking about the implications of their food choices, for their own health and that of the planet, but the outcomes can be incoherent and contradictory. Increased availability of foods labelled as vegan has transformed choice for those who want to avoid or restrict animal-derived foods, but a vegan label is not automatically a short cut to identifying healthy choices. We also need to consider the overall nutrient density (Lockyer et al. 2020) and contrast the content of protein, vitamins, minerals and fibre, with the levels of salt, sugars and fat. Well-planned vegan diets that include added vitamin B12 (not present naturally in plants) can deliver the nutrients needed for health but exclusion of milk, fish, meat and eggs is not a pre-requisite of the largely plant-based ‘Eatwell’ diet advocated by government (NHS 2019). Given the focus on primary food production as a source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, it is perhaps surprising that just 10% comes from agriculture in the UK. The relative contribution in other parts of the world is often greater, as is the global average, yet this distinction appears rarely to be made. Before we can truly understand what a ‘more sustainable’ UK future looks like, the complex web of issues that goes far beyond food needs untangling (2019 government statistics reveal that transport delivers 27% GHG, energy production 24%, business 17%, homes 15% and waste management 4%) (Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy 2019). Evidence shows that eating in a way that is good for health and also sustainable for the planet is complex, with the potential for unintended consequences. Opinions are often polarised and some tough decisions need to be made by all stakeholders, including individuals. Are we really doing the right thing for global warming if we replace locally sourced grass-fed meat, produced with high welfare standards and potentially on land that has limited use for other forms of agriculture (as is the case with upland-grazed Welsh lamb), with grains or other plant-derived foods that travel from the southern hemisphere, potentially from deforested land or water-stressed areas, or are exported to the detriment of indigenous populations. Or, from a health perspective, switch to novel meat substitutes (e.g. laboratory meat) that may be less nutritious than the foods they replace. The challenge for nutrition science over the next decade will be to ensure that the additional constraints on the diet, imposed by sustainability concerns, such as many more people eating fewer animal products, do not lead to an increased prevalence of inadequate diets in the population. These and many other issues will need to be grappled with by nutrition science as a sustainable yet healthy food system is established. Food is essential to life and health, but eating is not just a means of obtaining fuel. It is deeply embedded in cultural and social practices, beliefs and preferences. A one-size approach to diet is unlikely to work for everyone. Many people are attempting to take their health into their own hands by seeking out personalised solutions aligned with their specific needs, sometimes including physiological and even genetic characteristics. Within the research community, too, there is increasing recognition that a ‘one size fits all' population approach to disease prevention and health promotion has its limitations, and that personalisation of interventions may be a more effective way to change behaviour and improve health. But, are the promised attributes of personalisation advertised direct to the public, through channels such as digital media, aligned with the currently available scientific evidence in support of personalisation? The human genome was sequenced almost 20 years ago and although we do not really have the information we need to support this step and to deliver on expectations currently, it is likely that the next decade will see big advances in this area. Of course, personalisation of advice lies at the heart of dietetic clinical practice and though this may incorporate phenotypic data, it rarely draws in genetic information. Also, as discussed below there are various different forms of ‘personalisation’ being considered in research and yet, often (outside the research community), the term is being used as a shortcut for a form of personalisation that specifically involves incorporation of genetic information. Difference in the response of individuals to dietary components is well-recognised and an interest in personalisation is a consequence of a better understanding of how diet affects health, the new wearable technologies (such as fitness trackers and mobile apps) that now enable better and continuous measurement of markers of individual health and fitness parameters, and new analytical tools that interpret this flow of data and transform it into user-friendly practical information for individuals (Ordovas et al. 2018; Eldridge et al 2019). There is no formal definition of personalised nutrition but it is described by Ordovas et al. (2018) as an approach t

• openalex https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12423first seen 2026-08-02 17:02:40