4.6 Review

Satisfying America's Fruit Gap: Summary of an Expert Roundtable on the Role of 100% Fruit Juice

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
卷 82, 期 7, 页码 1523-1534

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.13754

关键词

dietary guidelines; diet quality; 100% fruit juice; nutrient intake; nutrition policy

资金

  1. General Mills
  2. Welch's
  3. Pepsico Global
  4. Alliance for Potato Research and Education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 2015 to 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) recognize the role of 100% fruit juice in health and in helping people meet daily fruit recommendations and state that 100% fruit juice is a nutrient-dense beverage that should be a primary choice, along with water and low-fat/fat-free milk. The DGAs note that children are consuming 100% fruit juice within recommendations (that is, 120 to 180 mL/d for children aged 1 to 6 y and 236 to 355 mL/d for children aged 7 to 18 y). Evidence shows that compared to nonconsumers, those who consume 100% fruit juice come closer to meeting daily fruit needs and have better diet quality. In children, 100% fruit juice is associated with increased intakes of nutrients such as vitamin C, folate, and potassium. When consumed within the DGA recommendations, 100% fruit juice is not associated with overweight/obesity or childhood dental caries and does not compromise fiber intake. Preliminary data suggest that polyphenols in some 100% fruit juices may inhibit absorption of naturally occurring sugars. Given its role in promoting health and in helping people meet fruit needs, experts participating in a roundtable discussion agreed that there is no science-based reason to restrict access to 100% fruit juice in public health nutrition policy and programs such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Reducing or eliminating 100% fruit juice could lead to unintended consequences such as reduced daily fruit intake and increased consumption of less nutritious beverages (for example, sugar-sweetened beverages).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据