Contribution of nutrition science to the vitamin D field—clarity or confusion?

Publication date: Available online 2 November 2018Source: The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular BiologyAuthor(s): Kevin D. Cashman, Mairead KielyAbstractRecent opinion pieces have questioned whether nutrition science is fit for purpose, suggesting that the evidence-base for dietary recommendations is populated with poor quality science and unresolved controversy. Nutrition science is accused of not keeping up with the times and making little real-world progress to stem the growing global malnutrition crisis, by failing to apply cutting-edge techniques to nutrition problems. Nutritional epidemiology has been blamed for harming public health nutrition and the public perception of science itself, by selectively reporting biased, confounded data. Focussed on obesity and associated disorders and hunger, these articles do not refer to micronutrient deficiencies or advances in micronutrient research. There is a serious public health problem of low vitamin D status. Given that the field of vitamin D has experienced an exponential increase in peer-reviewed publications over the last 50 years, it seems timely that we take these cues to reflect upon whether the expanded body of scientific literature has contributed to a deeper knowledge of vitamin D in health and disease, leading to improved nutrition policy and patient care, or whether it has led to so much confusion and controversy that progress has been impeded. We consider whether the accusations of poor science and bias...
Source: The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology - Category: Biochemistry Source Type: research