Public Health England has set a definition for free sugars in the UK in order to estimate intakes of free sugars in the National Diet and Nutrition Survey. This follows the recommendation from the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition in its 2015 report on Carbohydrates and Health that a definition of free sugars should be adopted. The definition of free sugars includes: all added sugars in any form; all sugars naturally present in fruit and vegetable juices, purées and pastes and similar products in which the structure has been broken down; all sugars in drinks (except for dairy-based drinks); and lactose and galactose added as ingredients. The sugars naturally present in milk and dairy products, fresh and most types of processed fruit and vegetables and in cereal grains, nuts and seeds are excluded from the definition.
The efficiency of visual selection in a glasshouse of 1600 seedlings compared with visual selection in the field of the same clones is examined. Also the amount of agreement in assessment between four different potato breeders screening the same clones is investigated. Seedlings were grown from true seed in four-inch pots in a glasshouse and all the clones which produced tubers were grown in the field the following year. Clones which produced more than one tuber from a seedling were grown at two locations in the first clonal year. One of the sites used in the first clonal year is normally used for potato yield trials (i.e. a ware site) and the other is normally used for the production of healthy seed tubers (i.e. a seed site). In all three environments, the tubers produced from each plant were assessed by four breeders independently on a 1-9 scale of increasing attractiveness.From the data it was found that the repeatability of assessment between the glasshouse and the first clonal year was low in that the correlation between the average preference score of the four breeders in the glasshouse and each of the two first clonal year sites accounted for only 8-24 and 6-84% of the total variation. Many clones which had low scores in the glasshouse were subsequently given high scores in the first clonal year. It was therefore concluded that selection of seedlings was not very efficient. Although, in general, the weight of the tuber that was planted greatly influenced whether a clone was selected in the first clonal year, a large number of clones which produced only small tubers in the glasshouse were subsequently selected in the first clonal year.Within each environment the four breeders were either all selecting, or all rejecting, a much higher proportion of clones than would be expected if selection had been made completely at random. The breeders were in most agreement when assessing clones at the 'ware' site, and in most disagreement when assessing them grown in the glasshouse from true seed. Therefore the poor efficiency of selection of seedlings grown in the glasshouse was not, in the main, a result of a high error variance in visual assessment but rather due to poor association between the performance of seedlings and first clonal year plants.
The efficiency of visual selection in the early generations of a potato breeding programme is examined. Tubers from 571 potato genotypes were scored by four breeders after being grown, from true seed, in a glasshouse and in the field for three consecutive years. The four breeders were in good agreement as to which clones would be selected in any environment. The association between breeders was greatest when the clones were grown in plots in the field. All correlations of breeders' preferences between different environments were significantly greater than zero, but only accounted for a small percentage of the total variation. Selection in both the glasshouse and first clonal year produced a desirable response. However, such selection carried a high cost in terms of losing clones with commercial potential. Comparison of a random sample of clones with ones from the same crosses which had been selected, indicated that selection in the glasshouse and first clonal year was at best random with some suggestion, however, of a negative effect.
A multi-disciplinary expert group met to discuss vitamin D deficiency in the UK, and strategies for improving population intakes and status. Changes to UK Government advice since the 1st Rank Forum on Vitamin D (2009) were discussed, including rationale for setting a RNI (10µg/day;400IU/day) for adults and children (4+ years). Current UK data show inadequate intakes among all age groups, and high prevalence of low vitamin D status among specific groups (e.g. pregnant women and adolescent males/females). Evidence of widespread deficiency within some minority ethnic groups, resulting in nutritional rickets (particularly among Black and South Asian infants), raised particular concern. It is too early to establish whether population vitamin D status has altered since Government recommendations changed in 2016. Vitamin D food fortification was discussed as a potential strategy to increase population intakes. Data from dose-response and dietary modelling studies indicate dairy products, bread, hens’ eggs and some meats as potential fortification vehicles. Vitamin D3 appears more effective than vitamin D2 for raising serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration, which has implications for choice of fortificant. Other considerations for successful fortification strategies include: i) need for ‘real-world’ cost information for use in modelling work; ii) supportive food legislation; iii) improved consumer and health professional understanding of vitamin D’s importance; iv) clinical consequences of inadequate vitamin D status; v) consistent communication of Government advice across health/social care professions, and via the food industry. These areas urgently require further research to enable universal improvement in vitamin D intakes and status in the UK population.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.