Licenciada En Nutricion

...................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTARY

Comparison of international food guide pictorial representations
JAMES PAINTER, PhD, RD; JEE-HYUN RAH, BS; YEON-KYUNG LEE, PhD

he number of countries developing or revising their own food guide illustrations has been increasing. Todevise food guidance systems appropriate for each nation, many countries have applied research regarding their national food supply, food consumption pattern, nutrition status, and nutritional standards for the development of their individual food guides (1-5). For instance, the US Food Guide Pyramid is firmly based on United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) research on the types of foodAmericans consume, the nutrient composition of those foods, and their relation to the individual’s nutrient needs (6). In some food guides, the presence of indigenous foods and a particular dietary pattern resulting from different geographical conditions and cultural heritages have also been considered (7, 8). It is well known that various cultures have different food availabilities, foodpreferences, dietary patterns, and cultural definitions of foods (7, 8). In a review paper Cronin stated that different food guidance systems may be appropriate for vegetarians, ethnic groups, and others with distinct and varying food preferences or dietary needs(9). Simopoulos also stated that universal dietary recommendations are not applicable and that, to be effective, food guides must incorporate theunique dietary components of specific populations (10). Therefore, considering the disparities in food intake of populations, food availability, and the nutrition status between countries, one

T

would expect the food guide graphics of various countries to differ in their recommendations. This study was conducted to introduce the official food guide pictorial representations designed byvarious countries and to examine the differences in their recommendations through a comparison. The national food guide illustrations of Australia, Canada, China, Germany, Korea, Mexico, the Philippines, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Sweden, the UK, and the US were reviewed. The comparison focused mainly on the food groupings and the recommended quantities for food groups. However, this study was limited bydata collection. The number of food guides used in this comparison may represent only a small percentage of the countries that have official food guides. While the authors attempted to collect food guide illustrations from 20 countries, it is important to note that there are countries which do not have official food guide illustrations, such as Japan. And in addition, there are countries that haveadopted the US Food Guide Pyramid as their own official guide. We were unable to obtain official food guides for countries in South America, which will limit the application of our findings. METHODS OF COMPARISON Official food guide pictorial representations for 12 countries along with additional dietary-related information were collected via Internet searches, interviews with developers, and athorough review of current literature on the subject. Food guides were compared according to the food categorization and quantitative recommendations for each food group. The comparison of recommended quantities for each food group was conducted based on information in the food guide brochure. For Germany, information regarding the recommended quantities was obtained from a phone interview with theGerman Nutrition Society by the authors (June, 2001).
Journal of THE AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION / 483

J. Painter is an assistant professor, J-H Rah is a graduate student, and Y-K Lee is an assistant professor in the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Corresponding author: James Painter, PhD, RD, Assistant Professor, Department of...