ObjectivesSince the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, there have been plausible suggestions about the need to augment vitamin D intake by supplementation in order to prevent SARS-CoV2 infection and reduce mortality. Some groups have advocated supplementation for all adults, but governmental agencies have advocated targeted supplementation. We sought to explore the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on both vitamin D status and on the dose of new-to-market vitamin D supplements.SettingUniversity hospital, Dublin, Ireland.ParticipantsLaboratory-based samples of circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) (n=100 505).Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcomes: comparing yearly average 25OHD prior to the pandemic (April 2019 to March 2020) with during the pandemic (April 2020 to March 2021) and comparing the dose of new-to-market vitamin D supplements between 2017 and 2021 (n=2689). Secondary outcome: comparing prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and vitamin D excess during the two time periods.ResultsThe average yearly serum 25OHD measurement increased by 2.8 nmol/L (61.4, 95% CI 61.5 to 61.7 vs 58.6, 95% CI 58.4 to 58.9, p<0.001), which was almost threefold higher than two similar trend analyses that we conducted between 1993 and 2016. There was a lower prevalence of low 25OHD and a higher prevalence of high 25OHD. The dose of new-to-market vitamin D supplements was higher in the years 2020–2021 compared with the years 2017–2019 (p<0.001).ConclusionsWe showed significant increases in serum 25OHD and in the dose of new-to-market vitamin D supplements. The frequency of low vitamin D status reduced indicating benefit, but the frequency of vitamin D excess increased indicating risk of harm. Rather than a blanket recommendation about vitamin D supplementation for all adults, we recommend a targeted approach of supplementation within current governmental guidelines to at-risk groups and cautioning consumers about adverse effects of high dose supplements on the market.

Guidelines for best infant feeding practice in Ireland recommend that foods given during the first year of life should be plain, with minimal added sugar, fat or salt (1). A 2011 survey of commercially available baby foods (targeting infants <12 months) found that 15% were inappropriate due to levels of added fat, sugar or salt and a lack of essential nutrients (2). The aim of this study was to examine 'baby foods' marketed in Ireland in 2017 and assess if market trends are more in line with best practice recommendations, compared with baby foods available in 2011. A comprehensive survey of commercially available baby foods marketed in Ireland was conducted between August and November 2017, using methods similar to those of the 2011 survey (2). Data collected included product name, brand, targeted age group (months), meal type, portion size, presence of gluten and nutritional information per 100 g. In addition, the presence of nutrition and health claims and saturated fat content was collected in 2017. Baby foods primarily based on cereal, milk or fruit were deemed appropriate. All other baby foods were compared, in terms of their fat, saturated fat and sugar content, with best versions (e.g. reduced fat or sugar) of adult foods. Baby foods that matched adult foods which are not recommended for healthy eating (e.g. biscuits, crisps) were categorised as inappropriate. All baby foods were classified into meal types and compared with those available in 2011 in terms of their nutritional content (see table below).

Older adults (≥65 years) are the fastest growing population group. Thus, ensuring nutritional well-being of the ‘over-65s’ to optimise health is critically important. Older adults represent a diverse population – some are fit and healthy, others are frail and many live with chronic conditions. Up to 78% of older Irish adults living independently are overweight or obese. The present paper describes how these issues were accommodated into the development of food-based dietary guidelines for older adults living independently in Ireland. Food-based dietary guidelines previously established for the general adult population served as the basis for developing more specific recommendations appropriate for older adults. Published international reports were used to update nutrient intake goals for older adults, and available Irish data on dietary intakes and nutritional status biomarkers were explored from a population-based study (the National Adult Nutrition Survey; NANS) and two longitudinal cohorts: the Trinity-Ulster and Department of Agriculture (TUDA) and the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA) studies. Nutrients of public health concern were identified for further examination. While most nutrient intake goals were similar to those for the general adult population, other aspects were identified where nutritional concerns of ageing require more specific food-based dietary guidelines. These include, a more protein-dense diet using high-quality protein foods to preserve muscle mass; weight maintenance in overweight or obese older adults with no health issues and, where weight-loss is required, that lean tissue is preserved; the promotion of fortified foods, particularly as a bioavailable source of B vitamins and the need for vitamin D supplementation.

AbstractOver half of the Irish population is overweight or obese. The Obesity Policy and Action Plan 2016–2025 will set reformulation targets for fat, saturated fat and sugar in Ireland and review progress. In 2016, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland undertook a cross-sectional market scan of yoghurts to evaluate the energy, fat, saturated fat and sugar content based solely on declared nutrition labels. The aims of this 2018 study were to verify the accuracy of declared nutrition information on yoghurts and to confirm the suitability of declared nutrition labels for energy, fat, saturated fat and sugar reformulation monitoring.Yoghurts identified in the 2016 market scan (n578) were weighted based on categorisation of manufacturer type (branded, own brand), product category (natural, flavoured and luxury) and declared nutrition content. Samples (n200) were randomly selected from these weighted groups and tested by a laboratory accredited for energy, fat, saturated fat, and sugar analysis. Data was analysed using IBM SPSS (version25). As data was not normally distributed, median values were investigated for declared and tested energy, fat, saturated fat and sugar content using Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test and Spearman Rank-Order Correlation.Of the tested yoghurts, 3% (n6), 5% (n9) and 19% (n31) were outside the recommended European Commission (EC) labelling tolerance for fat, saturated fat and sugar, respectively. Tested nutrient content was consistently lower than declared. There was a statistically significant difference in declared vs. tested energy (87kcal vs. 84kcal p = 0.03), fat (2.7 g vs. 2.5 g p < 0.001), and sugar (9.9 g vs. 8.7 g p < 0.001) content per 100 g yoghurt. Declared vs. tested sugar content per 100 g yoghurt was statistically significant across all yoghurt types, including natural (4.8 g vs. 3.4 g p < 0.001), flavoured (9.7 g vs. 8.6 g p < 0.001) and luxury (15 g vs. 13.6 g p = 0.002). There was a statistically significant difference between declared vs. tested fat (2.8 g vs. 2.5 g p < 0.001) and saturated fat (1.9 g vs.1.6 g p = 0.017) content of own brand yoghurts per 100 g. There was a positive correlation between energy content and portion size (r = .2,p < 0.01).There was a high level of agreement between declared vs. tested fat and saturated fat content of yoghurts, but a lower level of agreement between declared vs. tested sugar content of yoghurts. This indicates that declared nutrition labels are suitable for reformulation monitoring of fat and saturated fat, but may not be suitable for sugar. This finding will be further investigated and tested in future work planned for nutrition label verification of other food categories.