Applying Zinc Nutrient Reference Values as Proposed by Different Authorities Results in Large Differences in the Estimated Prevalence of Inadequate Zinc Intake by Young Children and Women and in Cameroon

• Authors: Demewoz Haile, University of California, Davis; Kenneth H Brown, University of California, Davis; Christine M McDonald, University of California, Davis; Hanqi Luo, Emory University; Michael Jarvis, University of California, Davis; Ismael Teta, Helen Keller International, Yaoundé; Alex Ndjebayi, Helen Keller International, Yaoundé; Guintang Assiene Jules Martial, Nutrition International, Yaoundé; Stephen A Vosti, University of California, Davis; Reina Engle-Stone, University of California, Davis
• Journal Title: Nutrients
• Volume: Volume 14, Number 4
• Publisher: MDPI AG | 2022-02-19
• Type of Work: Article | Final Publisher PDF
• Publisher DOI: http://doi.org/10.3390/nu14040883
• Subjects: Health Sciences, Nutrition; Health Sciences, Public Health; Health Sciences, Epidemiology; Biology, Biostatistics
• Keywords: dietary assessment; modeling; zinc; fortification; children; women; Cameroon

Abstract

Nutrient reference values (NRVs) for zinc set by several expert groups differ widely and may affect the predicted prevalence of inadequate zinc intake. We examined this possibility using NRVs published by four different authorities and nationally representative dietary intake data collected among children aged 12–59 months and women in Cameroon. Usual zinc intake was estimated from 24 h recall data using the National Cancer Institute method. Prevalences of total zinc intake below the dietary requirement and of “absorbable zinc intake” below the physiological requirement were estimated using NRVs published by the World Health Organization (WHO), US Institute of Medicine (IOM), International Zinc Nutrition Consultative Group (IZiNCG), and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The prevalence of inadequate zinc intake ranged from 10% (IZiNCG—physiological requirement, 95% CI 7–13%) to 81% (EFSA—physiological requirement, 95% CI 78–84%) among children and 9% (WHO—physiological requirement, 95% CI 8–11.0%) to 94% (IOM—physiological requirement, 95% CI 92–95%) among women These differences in the prevalence of inadequate intake translated into sizeable differences in the predicted benefit and cost-effectiveness of zinc fortification programs. Depending on the NRVs applied, assessments differ regarding the need for and design of zinc fortification programs. Efforts are needed to harmonize NRVs for zinc.