When public health programs with single nutrients are perceived to have a poor impact on the target health outcome, the policy response can be to supply more, by layering additional mandatory programs upon the extant programs. However, we argue for extreme caution, because nutrients (like medicines) are beneficial in the right dose, but potentially harmful when ingested in excess. Unnecessary motivations for the reactionary layering of multiple intervention programs emerge from incorrect measurements of the risk of nutrient inadequacy in the population, or incorrect biomarker cutoffs to evaluate the extent of nutrient deficiencies. The financial and social costs of additional layered programs are not trivial when traded off with other vital programs in a resource-poor economy, and when public health ethical dilemmas of autonomy, equity, and stigma are not addressed. An example of this conundrum in India is the perception of stagnancy in the response of the prevalence of anemia to the ongoing pharmacological iron supplementation program. The reaction has been a policy proposal to further increase iron intake through mandatory iron fortification of the rice provided in supplementary feeding programs like the Integrated Child Development Services and the School Mid-Day Meal. This is in addition to the ongoing pharmacological iron supplementation as well as other voluntary iron fortifications, such as those of salt and manufactured food products. However, before supplying more, it is vital to consider why the existing program is apparently not working, along with consideration of the potential for excess intake and related harms. This is relevant globally, particularly for countries contemplating multiple interventions to address micronutrient deficiencies. Supplying more by layering multiple nutrient interventions, instead of doing it right, without thoughtful considerations of social, biological, and ethics frameworks could be counterproductive. The cure, then, might well become the malady.

The recent Food and Agricultural Organization/World Health Organization/United Nations University expert consultations on protein requirements and quality have emphasized the need for the new Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS), as a measure of protein quality. This requires human measurements of the true ileal digestibility of individual indispensable amino acids (IAA) until the end of the small intestine. Digestibility is measured using standard oro-ileal balance methods, which can only be achieved by an invasive naso-ileal intubation in healthy participants or fistulation at the terminal ileum. Significant efforts have been made in last two decades to develop non-invasive or minimally invasive methods to measure IAA digestibility in humans. The application of intrinsically labeled (with stable isotopes like 13C, 15N and 2H) dietary proteins have helped in circumventing the invasive oro-ileal balance techniques and allowed for the differentiation between endo and exogenous protein digestibility. The non-invasive indicator amino acid oxidation (IAAO) technique, which is routinely employed to measure IAA requirements, has been modified to estimate metabolic availability (a sum of digestibility and utilization) of IAA in foods, but provide estimate for a single IAA at a time and burdensome for participants. The recently developed minimally invasive dual isotope tracer method measures small intestinal digestibility of multiple amino acids at once and is suitable for use in vulnerable groups and disease conditions. However, it remains to be validated against standard oro-ileal balance techniques. This review critically evaluates and compares the currently available stable isotope-based protein quality evaluation methods with a focus on the digestibility and metabolic availability measurements in humans. In the view of building reliable DIAAS database of various protein sources and subsequently supporting protein content claims in food labeling, a re-evaluation and harmonization of the available methods are necessary.

Background Stunting is determined by using the World Health Organization (WHO) child growth standard which was developed using precise measurements. However, it is unlikely that large scale surveys maintain the same level of rigour and precision when measuring the height of children. The population measure of stunting in children is sensitive to over-dispersion, and the high prevalence of stunting observed in surveys in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) could partly be due to lower measurement precison. Objectives To quantify the incongruence in the dispersion of height-for-age in national surveys of < 5 y children, in relation to the standard WHO Multicenter Growth Reference Study (MGRS), and propose a measure of uncertainty in population measures of stunting. Methods An uncertainty factor was proposed and measured from the observed incongruence in dispersion of the height-for-age of < 5 y children in the MGRS against carefully matched populations from the Demographic Health Survey of 17 countries (‘test datasets’, based on the availability of data). This also allowed for the determination of uncertainty-corrected prevalence of stunting (height-for-age Z score < − 2) in < 5 y children. Results The uncertainty factor was estimated for 17 LMICs. This ranged from 0.9 to 2.1 for Peru and Egypt respectively (reference value 1). As an explicit country example, the dispersion of height-for-age in the Indian National Family Health Survey-4 test dataset was 39% higher than the MGRS study, with an uncertainty factor of 1.39. From this, the uncertainty-adjusted Indian national stunting prevalence estimate reduced to 18.7% from the unadjusted estimate of 36.2%. Conclusions This study proposes a robust statistical method to estimate uncertainty in stunting prevalence estimates due to incongruent dispersions of height measured in national surveys for children < 5 years in relation to the WHO height-for-age standard. The uncertainty is partly due to population heterogeneity, but also due to measurement precision, and calls for better quality in these measurements.

Background Lysine rich foods such as milk and legumes serve as important food additions to the lysine deficient cereal-based diets of vegetarian populations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to alleviate the risk of quality corrected dietary protein inadequacy. Dietary protein quality can be determined by estimating the metabolic availability (MA) of lysine. Objectives The study aimed to estimate the MA of lysine in spray-dried cow milk powder (SMP), heat-treated spray-dried cow milk powder (HSMP), and a habitually consumed cereal-legume based vegetarian meal (VM), using the indicator amino acid oxidation (IAAO) slope-ratio method. Methods The MA of lysine in SMP, HSMP, and VM was estimated in 7 healthy young men aged 19–24 y with BMI of 21.5 ± 0.5 kg/m2 in a repeated measures design. The IAAO response slopes with 2 graded lysine intakes (10.5 and 15.0 mg·kg−1·d−1) from the SMP and VM were compared with the response slope generated with 3 graded crystalline lysine intakes (6.0, 10.5, and 15.0 mg·kg−1·d−1) at the subrequirement level. To produce HSMP, pasteurized cow milk was heat treated and spray dried. The MA of lysine in HSMP was tested at a single level of lysine intake (15 mg·kg−1·d−1). A total of 8 IAAO experiments were conducted on each participant in randomized order. The IAAO slopes were estimated using a linear mixed-effect regression model. Results The MA of lysine in SMP, HSMP, and VM was 91.9%, 69.9%, and 86.6% respectively. Conclusions Heat treatment reduced the MA of lysine by 22% in HSMP compared with SMP in healthy Indian adults. The lysine MA estimates can be used to optimize lysine limited cereal-based diets, with the addition of appropriately processed legumes and milk powder, to meet the protein requirement. This trial was registered at Clinical Trials Registry of India (http://ctri.nic.in) as CTRI/2019/08/020568.