Evaluating a Food Pantry–Based Intervention to Improve Food Security,Dietary Intake,and Quality in Midwestern Food Pantries

BackgroundVoices for Food was a longitudinal community, food pantry–based intervention informed by the social ecological model, and designed to improve food security, dietary intake, and quality among clients, which was carried out in 24 rural food pantries across 6 Midwestern states.ObjectiveOur objective was to evaluate changes in adult food security, dietary intake, and quality from baseline (2014) to follow-up (2016), and to assess the role of adult food security on dietary outcomes.DesignA multistate, longitudinal, quasi-experimental intervention with matched treatment and comparison design was used to evaluate treatment vs comparison group changes over time and changes in both groups over time.Participants/settingAdult food pantry clients (n = 617) completed a demographic food security survey, and up to three 24-hour dietary recalls at baseline (n = 590) and follow-up (n = 160).InterventionCommunity coaching served as the experimental component, which only “treatment” communities received, and a food council guide and food pantry toolkit were provided to both “treatment” and matched “comparison” communities.Main outcome measuresChange in adult food security status, mean usual intakes of nutrients and food groups, and Healthy Eating Index-2010 scores were the main outcome measures.Statistical analyses performedLinear mixed models estimated changes in outcomes by intervention group and by adult food security status over time.ResultsImprovements in adult food security score (–0.7 ± 0.3; P = .01), Healthy Eating Index-2010 total score (4.2 ± 1.1; P < .0001), and empty calories component score (3.4 ± 0.5; P <.0001) from baseline to follow-up were observed in treatment and comparison groups, but no statistically significant changes were found for adult food security status, dietary quality, and usual intakes of nutrients and food groups between the 2 groups over time. The intervention effect on dietary quality and usual intake changes over time by adult food security status were also not observed.ConclusionsFood pantry clients in treatment and comparison groups had higher food security and dietary quality at the follow-up evaluation of the Voices for Food intervention trial compared with baseline, despite the lack of difference among the groups as a result of the experimental coaching component.     

Can adiponectin have an additional effect on the regulation of food intake by inducing gastric motor changes?

The regulation of food intake is a complex mechanism, and the hypothalamus is the main central structure implicated. In particular, the arcuate nucleus appears to be the most critical area in the integration of multiple peripheral signals.Among these signals, those originating from the white adipose tissue and the gastrointestinal tract are known to be involved in the regulation of food intake.The present paper focuses on adiponectin, an adipokine secreted by white adipose tissue, which is reported to have a role in the control of feeding by acting centrally. The recent observation that adiponectin is also able to influence gastric motility raises the question of whether this action represents an additional peripheral mechanism that concurs with the central effects of the hormone on food intake. This possibility, which represents an emerging aspect correlating the central and peripheral effects of adiponectin in the hunger-satiety cycle, is discussed in the present paper.     

Yogurt is tolerated by the majority of children with IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy

BackgroundChildren with IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy (IgE-CMA) with gastrointestinal symptoms tolerate yogurt at 100%. Yogurt tolerance in children with IgE-CMA with urticaria and anaphylaxis was 7%.MethodsWe enrolled children with IgE-CMA with cutaneous, respiratory, gastrointestinal and anaphylactic symptoms. All performed prick by prick (PbP) and oral food challenge (OFC) with yogurt. Some children performed also an OFC with CM mixed with wheat flour and baked, baked liquid CM, parmesan.Results34 children were enrolled, 31/34 (91%) with systemic adverse reaction after ingestion of CM (systemic CMA), 3/34 (9%) with isolated contact urticaria (ICU CMA). PbP with yogurt was negative only in one patient. OFC with yogurt was passed (that is, the OFC was negative) by 20/31 (64%) of the children with systemic CMA. 10/11 (91%) of the patients who failed OFC (that is, the OFC was positive) with yogurt were positive to SPT with casein vs. 8/20 (40%) of the patients who passed it (p = 0.018). None of the 19 children who passed OFC with yogurt failed all OFC with processed CM forms other than yogurt that tested vs. 4/8 among those who failed OFC with yogurt (p = 0.006). The rub test with yogurt was negative in 1/3 (33%) of the patients with ICU CMA.ConclusionsThe results of our study are placed alongside others already present in the literature and concerning other methods of processing CM proteins and help to reduce the dietary restrictions of the majority of children with systemic IgE-CMA.