LETTERS
TO
Plant
Dear
fibers
in nutrition:
need
for
1347
EDITOR
nutrition problem. Let us also remember that there have been great famines as long as history has been recorded. Today, with a much larger world population, massive death from hunger is less frequent. This is in part due to the willingness of the United States, Canada, and some other nations to serve as an international larder, ready to help whether funds for payments are available or not, as amply demonstrated in the 1960’s in India and more recently in other locations. Paul Griminger Department of Nutrition Rutgers University New Brunswick, N. J. 08904 References I.
DAVIDSON,
crisis.
better
Am.
C. S. You and I and the food-population J. Clin. Nutr. 28: 669 670, l975.
nomenclature
Sir:
Regarding the letter entitled “Plant fibers in nutrition: need for better nomenclature” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 28: 675-6, 1975, the authors state their views about describing and naming classes of fiber. A most important point in their letter and one that should be reemphasized is the need for a complete analysis of fiber and its source. If the maximum transfer of information is desired, reference to fiber should be qualified by data. Knowledge of the source of the fiber, size of particles, degree of grinding or milling, water-holding capacity, chemical composition, methods of analysis, etc., is essential to fully evaluate a source of fiber and its dietary value. Southgate, Butcher, Kirwan et al., Eastwood (1-4) and others have reported that the age of the plant source, degree and type of milling, particle size, etc.. will have a bearing on the properties important to fiber and its physiological effect.
If fiber is defined as that which is not broken down by digestive enzymes, further classification is not necessary. Since a full description of fiber and its source is needed, the use of terms such as “purified,” “nonpurified.” etc. IS redundant. Also, the use of these terms could be misleading if they are transposed into the vernacular. Daryl Schaller, Ph.D. Group Leader-Cereal Kellogg Company Battle Creek, Michigan
Chemistry
References I. Sot TWAlt, 2. BUTCHER, 3.
4.
D. A. T. Proc. Nutr. Soc. J. J. Sci. Food Agr. 26: 345,
W. 0., A. N. SMITH, W. El MITCHELL ANt) M. A. J. 26: 189, 1974. E.ssTwoou, M. A. Proc. Nutr. KIRWAN,
A.
32: 123. 1975.
A.
Soc.
MCCONNELL..
Brit.
EASTWOOD.
32:
1973.
137.
Med. 1973.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/28/12/1347/4716589 by East Carolina University user on 12 January 2019
warned, as was recently done by Davidson (I). I would like to take exception, however, to statements such as those that paint the United States as a country where sloth and gluttony are rampant, and to the suggestion that our “overkill” in armaments may be in preparation to keep the hungry masses away from our shores. Why is it that we in the United States have to feel guilty about our standard of living and relatively high nutrient intake? The greatest desire of populations and governments of the developing countries appears to be to produce and consume at the American level, and the belief that a lowering of our standards will increase those of others lacks all sophistication and realism. Also, the United States and other Western countries are certainly not major factors in the runaway population growth, which is an important vector of the world
THE
TO
Plant
Dear
fibers
in nutrition:
need
for
1347
EDITOR
nutrition problem. Let us also remember that there have been great famines as long as history has been recorded. Today, with a much larger world population, massive death from hunger is less frequent. This is in part due to the willingness of the United States, Canada, and some other nations to serve as an international larder, ready to help whether funds for payments are available or not, as amply demonstrated in the 1960’s in India and more recently in other locations. Paul Griminger Department of Nutrition Rutgers University New Brunswick, N. J. 08904 References I.
DAVIDSON,
crisis.
better
Am.
C. S. You and I and the food-population J. Clin. Nutr. 28: 669 670, l975.
nomenclature
Sir:
Regarding the letter entitled “Plant fibers in nutrition: need for better nomenclature” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 28: 675-6, 1975, the authors state their views about describing and naming classes of fiber. A most important point in their letter and one that should be reemphasized is the need for a complete analysis of fiber and its source. If the maximum transfer of information is desired, reference to fiber should be qualified by data. Knowledge of the source of the fiber, size of particles, degree of grinding or milling, water-holding capacity, chemical composition, methods of analysis, etc., is essential to fully evaluate a source of fiber and its dietary value. Southgate, Butcher, Kirwan et al., Eastwood (1-4) and others have reported that the age of the plant source, degree and type of milling, particle size, etc.. will have a bearing on the properties important to fiber and its physiological effect.
If fiber is defined as that which is not broken down by digestive enzymes, further classification is not necessary. Since a full description of fiber and its source is needed, the use of terms such as “purified,” “nonpurified.” etc. IS redundant. Also, the use of these terms could be misleading if they are transposed into the vernacular. Daryl Schaller, Ph.D. Group Leader-Cereal Kellogg Company Battle Creek, Michigan
Chemistry
References I. Sot TWAlt, 2. BUTCHER, 3.
4.
D. A. T. Proc. Nutr. Soc. J. J. Sci. Food Agr. 26: 345,
W. 0., A. N. SMITH, W. El MITCHELL ANt) M. A. J. 26: 189, 1974. E.ssTwoou, M. A. Proc. Nutr. KIRWAN,
A.
32: 123. 1975.
A.
Soc.
MCCONNELL..
Brit.
EASTWOOD.
32:
1973.
137.
Med. 1973.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/28/12/1347/4716589 by East Carolina University user on 12 January 2019
warned, as was recently done by Davidson (I). I would like to take exception, however, to statements such as those that paint the United States as a country where sloth and gluttony are rampant, and to the suggestion that our “overkill” in armaments may be in preparation to keep the hungry masses away from our shores. Why is it that we in the United States have to feel guilty about our standard of living and relatively high nutrient intake? The greatest desire of populations and governments of the developing countries appears to be to produce and consume at the American level, and the belief that a lowering of our standards will increase those of others lacks all sophistication and realism. Also, the United States and other Western countries are certainly not major factors in the runaway population growth, which is an important vector of the world
THE
