Thrifty Food PlanS. Lane and J. Vermeersch in their ar­

ticle "Evaluation of the Thrifty FoodPlan" (JNE 11 :96-98, 1979) reported that8 of 17 nutrients in the plan were belowthe Recommended Dietary Allowances(RDA). USDA researchers developed theplan to provide the RDA for all nutrientsfor which adequate reliable food composi­tion data were available. The authors ofthe JNE article drew an inaccurate conclu­sion about the adequacy of the plan, forseveral reasons.

The sample lO-day market list pre­sented to interpret the plan, not the planitself, was used in the evaluation. Themarket list used was carefully designed byUSDA to cover the average food needs offour-person households that receive foodstamps, based on a USDA study of thecharacteristics of food stamp participants.Food stamp households frequently con­tain a woman and three young children;therefore, food energy and nutrient needsof food stamp participants, on the aver­age, are considerably less than RDA forthe two households with a man, a woman,and two children arbitrarily selected bythe authors. The food list for average par­ticipants should not provide the energy al­lowanee and is not necessarily "inade­quate" if it does not provide the RDAs fornutrients for the two households theauthors selected.

USDA estimates the thiamin, ribo­flavin, and niacin content of the lO-daymarket list to be substantially higher thanthat reported in the article. Probable ex­planations are 1) the data base used by theauthors was not adjusted for the higherenrichment levels of bread and flour effec­tive in 1975 and 2) niacin from tryptophanwas not accounted for in the authors' cal­culations.

The authors state that food composi­tion data for the Pennington "index nu­trients" -probably referring to magne­sium, vitamin B-6, pantothenic acid, andfolacin-are fragmentary. We agree; andit was for this stated reason that the de­partment 1) did not feel justified in de­signing a thrifty plan which greatly dis­torted usual consumption patterns to meet

44 JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION

Forumthe full RDA for magnesium and vitaminB-6 and 2) did not evaluate the plans fortheir content of pantothenic acid andfolacin and for several other nutrients theauthors attempted to study (zinc, iodine,vitamin E). Furthermore, there was no1974 RDA for pantothenic acid, and theRDA for folacin is not comparable to thefree folacin levels that can be estimatedfrom most composition tables. To faultthe plan for failing to meet standards arbi­trarily set by the authors for these nutri­ents seems unjustified.

Betty Peterkin, Human Nutrition Cen­ter, Consumer and Food EconomicsInstitute, Science and Education Ad­ministration, U.S. Department ofAgri­culture, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

AUTHORS REPLY

We fully appreciate the difficulty of theproblems involved in designing the ThriftyFood Plan and commend those who con­ducted the work. The point of our article,however, was that the plan should now beredesigned in view of current availabledata. We found no indication that themenus in the Thrifty Food Plan were de­signed for a family of a woman and threesmall children, since the term used was"average family."

In reply to the point on the food com­position data, reliable food compositiondata may not have been available on thePennington "index nutrients" at the timethat the plan was designed, but this doesnot mean that they should not be con­sidered at this time. The Pennington "in­dex nutrients" are equally as importantfor adequate nutrition as some of thoseconsidered in the menus for the ThriftyFood Plan.

In our article the RDAs were adjustedto make them comparable to the freefolacin levels from the food compositiontables. We did not adjust the thiamine,ribloflavin, and niacin levels to accountfor higher enrichment levels of bread andflour in effect in 1975. However, evenwithout this adjustment, thiamine was nota serious problem, and the ribloflavinlevels were all over 100% ofthe RDA. It is

possible that the niacin from tryptophanwas not accounted for.

Overall, we believe our methodologywas appropriate in the context in which itwas used.

Sylvia Lane, Professor, Department ofAgricultural Economics, and JoyceVermeersch, formerly Assistant Profes­sor of Community Nutrition, Depart­ment of Nutrition, University of Cali­fornia, Davis, CA 95616.

FURTHER COMMENTS

The problem remains regarding themakeup of the four-person family forwhich the sample meals were presented.The coverage is for "average food needs offour-person households that receive foodstamps," not for a woman and three smallchildren, although many families do havethis composition. The fact remains thatthe estimated nutritive values were com­pared to recommended allowances for afamily other than the one for whom themeals were planned.

However, we are in total agreement onone point: the plan should be revised. Thisrevision will be done as soon as the newinformation from the 1977-78 NationwideFood Consumption Survey and the 1980Recommended Dietary Allowances isreleased. We have been preparing for sucha revision of all four of the USDA foodplans for over two years. That preparationis including, among other things, develop­ment of comprehensive data bases for vita­min B-6, vitamin B-12, magnesium, zinc,and folacin as well as for fatty acids,cholesterol, and added sugar content ofseveral thousand foods.

Betty Peterkin, Human Nutrition Cen­ter, Consumer and Food EconomicsInstitute, Science and Education Ad­ministration, U.S. Department ofAgri­culture, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

Others Who OpposeFluoridation

Concerning Joel M. Boriskin's con­tribution on "Who Opposes Fluoridation"(JNE 11:167-68, 1979), I think it is im­portant to add that there are many pro­fessionals either who oppose fluoridationof the water supply or who do not believethat the several issues of safety have beenadequately resolved. Four prominent ex­amples are George L. Waldbott, M.D., aninternationally known allergist and re­searcher, and Professors Albert W.

VOLUME 12 NUMBER 2 1980