From the editor.

In keeping with growing interest in the Journal, this is a bumper June issue. What is more, it requires the reader to dig deeply into food and nutrition paradigms to engage in debate on some of our core tools of practice: food and nutrition reference systems. Following from the Editorial by Capra on Nutrient Reference Values, the June Editorial calls for a revision of the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating. To support this argument, Baghurst notes that not only do the new Nutrient Reference Values have information on more nutrients, but the Australian Dietary Guidelines have also been revised. The challenge of developing the most appropriate food groups is recognised across the globe and demands an integration of many different forms of knowledge on food, nutrition and eating behaviour. Referring to her following article co-authored with Shrapnel, Baghurst makes reference to new recommendations for essential fatty acids and the implications for fats, oils, nuts and seeds consumption. There are real problems with assumptions based on a 'one size fits all' approach, particularly if the aim is to best match the characteristic properties of whole foods with consumer food choices.

The leading article by Associate Editor Sarah McNaughton critiques the arguments made by Baghurst and Shrapnel and points to the complexity of forming food grouping systems and associated food guides. McNaughton acknowledges the health benefits of whole foods over single nutrients given that not all food constituents have been identified nor the actions fully understood. Perhaps it is time to construct food guidance systems starting with evidence of the benefits of whole foods, rather than nutrients?

Shrapnel and Baghurst undertake a dietary modelling analysis based on the current Australian Guide to Healthy Eating and conclude that spreads and oils provide a means to deliver fat-soluble nutrients. It is good to see another dietary modelling paper following Gillen's work in a previous issue (with a focus on nuts and fish), as it represents dietetic capability in working the food--nutrient interface. The construction of dietary advice is no mean feat and deserves much more attention both in developing rigorous methodology and in debating assumptions and inherent bias found in all methodologies.

On the flip side of dietary advice, the reporting of bias in the assessment of dietary patterns has a relatively strong history in the literature. The article by Collins et al. outlines the reproducibility of a School Eating Habits and Lifestyle Questionnaire and how developmental stages might lead to questionnaire improvement. At the heart of the exercise was improving understanding between experts and consumers (in this case primary school students). When the consumers are breastfeeding mothers, the knowledge base of the service deliverers might deserve more attention, especially if they are beginning practitioners. In a survey of student dietitians, Payne and colleagues identified gaps in knowledge that might impinge on effective practice. This suggests that while guidelines might be simply put, the knowledge base behind their implementation can be substantial. The way in which the information is delivered to consumers will also be important, as Crawford et al. found in their examination of women's views on the usefulness of various types of information and associated practical sessions on weight control. In their survey of 462 women aged 18-33 years they found that information-based programs delivered by health professionals on an individual basis were preferred. In this case, the 'one size fits all' was again problematic.

Moving to the food context, the kind of information delivered on diet and health is bound to change as scientific investigation throws greater light on current and past understanding. This is certainly the case for eggs and cholesterol management, where the message has changed substantially since the first round of valued judgements following the revelation that circulating cholesterol levels may be a risk factor for heart disease. The review undertaken by Natoliet al. systematically supports this position, citing relevant articles that suggest the evidence is now favourable for including more eggs back into a healthy diet pattern. The experience is telling for the development of food guidance systems. Perhaps more time now needs to be spent on the methodology for developing these systems, including how the evidence base might be constructed.

Where the food itself is delivered to patients with clinical conditions, evidence for changes can be provided using systematic investigations. In their insight study, Kennewell and Kokkinakos showed that they were able to successfully fortify texture-modified meals for patients with dysphagia. This is followed by a case study reported by Chapman and Longton on the use of a very-low-calorie diet under supervision in a hospital environment to achieve substantial and sustained weight loss and associated health benefits. Successfully nourishing patients in the institutional context involves the whole clinical team, where again the knowledge base will impact on practices. To this end the final research article in the June issue reports on nutrition knowledge, beliefs and practices of a sample of Australian nursing staff with recommendations for improvements.

To finish, it is pleasing to see a Letter from Mennella in response to a previous article on alcohol and lactation, developing and extending the discussion on issues raised through our authors. It is hoped that some of the articles in this issue will encourage debate on the associated developments that are so fundamental to practice. While it is important to keep public communications simple, the science behind nutrition and dietetics practice is not simple, and the Journal provides an appropriate medium in which to argue the detail.

In the last sections of the issue Probst kindly shares her experiences from a key international conference on food and nutrition databases, and Barnard works with McMahon in delivering another worthwhile continuing education section. Williams has worked with a number of colleagues in providing thoughtful book reviews to assist in your further reading. The year is well underway, there is much to keep up with, and we look forward to hearing more from our interested readers.

Linda C. Tapsell, PhD, FDAA 

Editor