Agricultural Research Service

November 2017

History of Human Nutrition Research

in the U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service:

People, Events, and Accomplishments

United States Department of Agriculture
On the cover:

Row 1, from left: Wilbur O. Atwater, Charles Ford Langworthy, Louise Stanley, 

Hazel Stiebeling, and Lelia Booher

Row 2, from left: Henry C. Sherman, Georgian Adams, Bernice Watt, Ruth Leverton,

and Willis Gortner 

Row 3, from left: Robert Rizek, Walter Mertz, D. Mark Hegsted, James (Jack) Iacono, 

and Gerald F. Combs, Sr.

Row 4, from left: Jacqueline Dupont, Barbara Schneeman, Joseph Spence, 

Johanna Dwyer, and Mary (Molly) Kretsch
Agricultural Research Service

History of Human Nutrition Research 

in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service: 

People, Events, and Accomplishments

Edited by Jacqueline L. Dupont and Gary R. Beecher

United States Department of Agriculture
II

Abstract

Dupont, J., and G.R. Beecher, eds. 2017. 

History of Human Nutrition Research 

in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service: People, 

Events, and Accomplishments, ARS-177. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 

Research Service, Washington, DC.

Wilbur Olin Atwater (1844-1907), while 

an administrator at the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) in the late 19th 

century, is credited with laying the 

groundwork for the science of human 

nutrition. His research encompassed four 

major areas: food intake, food composition, 

metabolism, and nutrition education, 

which he established in the programs of 

the Department. This publication details 

the major scientific accomplishments of 

the intramural human nutrition program 

of USDA from Atwater’s initial efforts to the 

end of the first decade of the 21st century. 

Each chapter documents an era or segment 

of this program that ranges from “early 

beginnings” through the “Home Economics 

era” to more recent expansion of scientific 

inquiry into the relationship of foods, 

nutrition, and health among all age groups 

of this country. Many examples in these 

chapters demonstrate the role nutrition 

research plays for the American citizenry, as 

well as gaps in the knowledge base of diethealth interactions in guiding this missiondriven program.

Keywords: adolescents, adults, aged, 

Atwater, children, food composition, food 

intake, food preparation, infants, nutrition 

education, nutrient metabolism, pregnancy, 

research.

ARS Mission

The Agricultural Research Service conducts 

research to develop and transfer solutions 

to agricultural problems of high national 

priority and provides information access 

and dissemination to ensure high-quality, 

safe food and other agricultural products; to 

assess the nutritional needs of Americans; 

to sustain a competitive agricultural 

economy; to enhance the natural resource 

base and the environment; and to provide 

economic opportunities for rural citizens, 

communities, and society as a whole.

Mention of trade names, commercial 

products, or companies in this publication 

is solely for the purpose of providing 

specific information and does not imply 

recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture over others not 

recommended.

Copies of this publication may be purchased 

in various formats (microfiche, photocopy, 

CD, print on demand) from the National 

Technical Information Service, 5285 Port 

Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, (800) 

553-6847, www.ntis.gov.

This publication is freely accessible at 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/indexpubs.

html.
 III

In accordance with Federal civil rights 

law and U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, 

the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and 

employees, and institutions participating 

in or administering USDA programs are 

prohibited from discriminating based 

on race, color, national origin, religion, 

sex, gender identity (including gender 

expression), sexual orientation, disability, 

age, marital status, family/parental status, 

income derived from a public assistance 

program, political beliefs, or reprisal or 

retaliation for prior civil rights activity, 

in any program or activity conducted or 

funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all 

programs). Remedies and complaint filing 

deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means of communication for 

program information (e.g., Braille, large 

print, audiotape, American Sign Language, 

etc.) should contact the responsible Agency 

or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-

2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA 

through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 

877-8339. Additionally, program information

may be made available in languages other

than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, 

complete the USDA Program Discrimination 

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online 

at How to File a Program Discrimination 

Complaint and at any USDA office or write 

a letter addressed to USDA and provide in 

the letter all of the information requested in 

the form. To request a copy of the complaint 

form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your 

completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) 

mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 

690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@

usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, 

employer, and lender.

November 2017
IV

Preface

The genesis of this book came from two symposia. 

The first—the W.O. Atwater Centennial Celebration 

Symposium: An Evaluation of Progress in Human 

Nutrition—was held in Washington, DC, June 2-4, 

1993. (The proceedings were published in the Journal 

of Nutrition, volume 124, pages 1707S-1890S, 

1994.) The symposium briefly surveyed Dr. 

Atwater’s contributions to the initiation of human 

nutrition research and education activities at the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), but it focused 

primarily on the current status and future needs 

of these activities in the Department. The second 

symposium—Legacy of Wilbur O. Atwater: Human 

Nutrition Research Expansion in ARS/USDA—was 

held during the 2007 Experimental Biology (EB ’07) 

annual meeting in Washington, DC. (The proceedings 

were published in the Journal of Nutrition, volume 

139, pages 171-193, 2009.) Again, the symposium 

briefly reviewed Dr. Atwater’s initiation of human 

nutrition research activities within the Department, 

but it highlighted the tremendous expansion of these 

efforts during the decades of the 1960s through 

the 1980s. Missing in the proceedings of the two 

symposia were the details and societal impacts of the 

achievements of USDA’s many scientists and other 

staff members who quietly worked in their laboratories 

and offices for over a century since Dr. Atwater’s era. 

Shortly after the second symposium, Mary (Molly) 

Kretsch, USDA-Agricultural Research Service 

National Program Leader for Human Nutrition, 

and Pat Swan, Emeritus Professor at Iowa State 

University, met with Jacqueline Dupont, a co-editor 

of this volume, about the possibility of a manuscript 

that would detail the history of human nutrition 

activities in USDA since Dr. Atwater’s initial efforts. 

An organizational meeting was held in early 2008 

to discuss this concept, outline chapter topics, and 

identify potential authors. 

Originally, it was conceptualized that this work would 

appear online only. However, as time elapsed and 

the wealth of information began to appear with each 

chapter submitted, it became apparent that a printed 

volume would be more appropriate to preserve this 

important historic information for posterity. Thus, 

a 13-chapter volume evolved that details scientific 

accomplishments and critical political development 

from W.O. Atwater’s initial involvement to the end of 

the first decade of the 21st century. This volume also 

is available online at http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/

indexpubs.html.

Each of the authors in this volume is recognized 

for his or her untold efforts as well as for his or her 

professional and detailed contribution to this work. 

The contributors’ chapters offer a window into 

the operation and accomplishments of this critical 

nutrition-oriented governmental agency. 

 

 

Jacqueline L. Dupont

Gary R. Beecher 

Editors
 V

Contents

Part I. Foundations

Chapter 1: Introduction.......................... 1 

Jacqueline L. Dupont

Chapter 2: Laying the Foundation, 

1894-1923............................................... 6

Patricia B. Swan

Part II. Advances of W.O. Atwater’s 

Initiatives

Chapter 3: The Bureau of Home 

Economics............................................. 15

Megan Elias

Chapter 4: Research at the Beltsville 

Human Nutrition Research Center, 

1963-2010............................................. 65

Gary R. Beecher

Chapter 5: History of Food Composition 

Activities at the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture .......................................... 121

Gary R. Beecher

Chapter 6: History of Food Consumption 

Surveys Conducted by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture.................. 171 

Alanna J. Moshfegh

Chapter 7: History of Nutrition Education 

at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

1902-2011........................................... 199

Susan Welsh

Chapter 8: Coordination of Human 

Nutrition Research Activities at the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture.......... 239

Gary R. Beecher, Gerald F. Combs, Sr., and 

J. Cecil Smith, Jr.

Part III. Regional Expansion

Chapter 9: History of the Grand Forks 

Human Nutrition Research Center..... 263

Forrest H. Nielsen, Harold H. Sandstead, 

and Gerald F. Combs, Jr.

Chapter 10: Establishment of the 

Children’s Nutrition Research Center at 

Baylor College of Medicine and Texas 

Children’s Hospital in 1978................ 289

Buford L. Nichols

Chapter 11: History of the Jean Mayer 

Human Nutrition Research Center on 

Aging at Tufts University.................... 299 

Irwin Rosenberg

Chapter 12: History of the Western 

Human Nutrition Research Center..... 303

Robert A. Jacob

Chapter 13: Inception and History 

of the Arkansas Children’s Nutrition 

Center.................................................. 326

Thomas M. Badger, Andrea C. Stokes, and

Michèle M. Perry

Index ........................................................ i
VI

Source: Act of July 2, 1862 (Morrill Act), Public Law 37-108, which established land grant 

colleges, 07/02/1862; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-1996; Record 

Group 11; General Records of the United States Government; National Archives.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 1

Early Recognition of Scientific Research 

as a Federal Responsibility

The funding of science (research and 

education) by the government was slow to 

be accepted by U.S. citizens and legislators. 

Recognition of the need was prompted 

by the James Smithson bequest to the 

United States in 1829 (1). There was a 

prolonged period of debate about use of the 

funds for the “...Smithsonian Institution, 

an Establishment for the Increase and 

Diffusion of Knowledge Among Men” (1). 

After the arrival of the Smithsonian funds, a 

proposal by a U.S. House of Representatives 

committee in 1838 called for an Agricultural 

Institute to be established in Washington, 

DC. Debate continued for years. In 

1845, a bill was passed establishing the 

Smithsonian Institution, which did not 

include agriculture.

During the same era, Henry Leavitt 

Ellsworth, a Yale-educated attorney 

interested in improving agriculture, 

became Commissioner of Patents in 1836, 

a position within the Department of State 

(2). He began collecting and distributing 

new and uncommon varieties of seeds 

and plant materials through members of 

Congress and agricultural societies. In 

1839 Congress established the Agricultural 

Division within the Patent Office and allotted 

$1,000 specifically for “the collection of 

agricultural statistics and other agricultural 

purposes” (2). The Division continued to be 

a repository for new plant materials, began 

to collect data on crops in different regions 

of the country, and applied chemistry 

to agriculture. These efforts earned 

Ellsworth the sobriquet of “The Father of 

the Department of Agriculture.” The Patent 

Office was transferred to the newly created 

Department of the Interior in 1849, which 

heightened agitation for either a separate 

bureau within the Department of the Interior 

or for a separate Department of Agriculture. 

The many years of debates by congressional 

committees, professional societies, and 

interested citizens set the stage for the 

establishment of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) and creation 

of agricultural colleges by the Morrill 

Act in 1862 (3,4). One of the problems 

encountered by the early attempts at 

establishing agricultural research centers 

was the shortage of individuals qualified 

as professors. The Hatch Act of 1887 led to 

establishment of agricultural experiment 

stations (5), which led to gradual increases 

in qualified scientists and teachers.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Jacqueline L. Dupont 

Jacqueline L. Dupont, Ph.D., is a former 

National Program Leader for Nutrition, 

USDA, Agricultural Research Service, 

Beltsville, MD. She is currently Adjunct 

Professor, Department of Nutrition, 

Food and Exercise Sciences, Florida State 

University, Tallahassee, FL. 
2 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

The emphasis in the present history is 

on the USDA’s intramural program of 

human nutrition research. As detailed in 

the following chapters, human nutrition 

research within the Department has been 

organized differently through the years. 

Over the past several decades, however, it 

has been organized and administered within 

the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), 

the major focus of this history. Though 

the USDA was the first Federal agency 

to conduct human nutrition research, 

today several other Federal agencies are 

engaged in important human nutrition 

research activities. Limiting the scope of 

this history to human nutrition research 

within the USDA is not intended in any way 

to diminish the importance of contributions 

from those other agencies.

Food and Nutrition Science Progress

Early agricultural research in Europe and 

later in the United States was concentrated 

on improving food crops and animal 

husbandry for human food. The State 

experiment stations were engaged in 

identifying nutrients and quantifying the 

quality of food based on its nutritive value 

to animals. This led to a greater focus on 

human needs, and later, requirements. The 

1894 Yearbook of the USDA (6) had a section 

devoted to physical activity in human 

nutrition research as it was being developed 

under the leadership of Dr. W.O. Atwater (7). 

Human nutrition, of course, was of interest 

and importance to public health, medical 

sciences, and the military. 

Debate among citizens, legislators, and 

professional organizations continued to be 

a hallmark of progress in Federal support 

of research including nutrition research. 

Agriculture appropriations bills specified 

nutrition research sporadically. The 

Bankhead Jones Act of 1935 required USDA 

to conduct research in various areas of 

nutritional science. That Act was amended 

by the Research and Marketing Act of 1946 

(7 U.S.C. 427, 427i, 1621-1629) to more 

precisely define human nutrition research 

activities.

Continuing Legislative Oversight

Major events in the 1960s focused attention 

on the need for greater Federal support 

of all aspects of nutrition in the United 

States. Congressional hearings were held in 

1967, and the Senate Select Committee on 

Nutrition and Related Needs was appointed. 

Prodding by the public and the nutrition 

1894

The Yearbook of the 

USDA had a section 

devoted to physical 

activity in human 

nutrition research 

as it was being 

developed under the 

leadership of 

Dr. W.O. Atwater.

1935

The Bankhead Jones 

Act of 1935 required 

USDA to conduct 

research in various 

areas of nutritional 

science. 

1946

The Bankhead 

Jones Act of 1935 

was amended by 

the Research and 

Marketing Act of 1946

to more precisely 

define human 

nutrition research 

activities.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 3

professional community resulted in the 

Ten-State Nutrition Survey by the Nutrition 

Program of the Department of Health, 

Education and Welfare (HEW), now the 

Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) (8). These events led to a White House 

Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health 

held in December 1969. The evolution of the 

public involvement and the consequences 

following the White House Conference, 

as well as their effects on the USDA, are 

described in this volume (9). 

Culmination of all the debate was the 

passage of the Food and Agriculture Act of 

1977. In Section 1421 (b), the Act states: 

“It is hereby declared to be the policy of 

the United States that the Department of 

Agriculture conduct research in the fields 

of human nutrition and the nutritive value 

of foods and conduct human nutrition 

education activities....” Other legislation 

reinforced this message. 

Through the 1970s and 1980s, several 

reviews and evaluations of human nutrition 

research activities were conducted. They 

included a 1978 Report to the Congress 

by the Comptroller General (10), as well as 

plans for food and nutrition research and 

new initiatives for home economics research, 

extension, and higher education, both from 

the USDA (11,12). The Food Security Act of 

1985 (Section 1452) required the Secretary 

of Agriculture to submit to Congress “a 

comprehensive plan for implementing 

a national food and nutrition research 

program.” Such a plan was submitted in 

1986 (13).

Human Nutrition Research Activity at USDA

The following chapters describe how the 

actual implementation of this historic 

evolution took place. The initial activity, 

from W.O. Atwater 1894 through 1923, is 

presented by Patricia B. Swan. The progress 

through the 1920s and 1930s, as well as the 

transfer of much of the program to ARS in 

Beltsville, MD, is presented by Megan Elias. 

Until the 1970s, Washington, DC, and the 

nearby suburbs of Maryland—Beltsville and 

Hyattsville—were the only sites for USDA 

intramural human nutrition activities. 

Following the events described through the 

1970s, new research sites were developed 

(9). These are described with a chapter 

devoted to each of the centers, which 

include Grand Forks Human Nutrition 

Research Center in Grand Forks, ND; 

Children’s Nutrition Research Center, Baylor 

College of Medicine, in Houston, TX; Jean 

Mayer Human Nutrition Research Center 

1967

Congressional 

hearings were 

held in 1967, and 

the Senate Select 

Committee on 

Nutrition and 

Related Needs 

was appointed.

1969

A White House 

Conference on 

Food, Nutrition, 

and Health was 

held. 

1977

The Food and 

Agriculture Act 

of 1977 was 

passed.

1985

The Food Security Act of 

1985 required the Secretary 

of Agriculture to submit to 

Congress “a comprehensive 

plan for implementing a 

national nutrition research 

program.”
4 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

on Aging, Tufts University, in Boston, MA; 

Western Human Nutrition Research Center 

in Davis, CA; and Arkansas Children’s 

Nutrition Center in Little Rock, AR. In 

addition, a chapter is devoted to research 

advances at the Beltsville Human Nutrition 

Research Center during the latter part of 

the 20th century and early 21st century. 

W.O. Atwater, in his infinite wisdom, also 

initiated programs that focused on food 

intake surveys, food composition research, 

and nutrition education. Chapters for each 

of these activities also are included, which 

detail their history and achievements within 

the Department and various agencies 

wherein they administratively resided.

References

1. Dalrymple, DG. 2009. The 

Smithsonian Bequest, Congress, and 

nineteenth-century efforts to increase 

and diffuse agricultural knowledge in 

the United States. Agric History Rev. 

57:207-35.

2. United States Department of 

Agriculture. 2011. Los Angeles: 

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (Last 

accessed March 24, 2011). http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_

Department_of_Agriculture 

3. True, AC. 1937. A History of 

Agricultural Experimentation and 

Research in the United States, 1607-

1925. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Miscellaneous Publication No. 251. 

321 p.

4. Rossiter, MW. 1975. The Emergence 

of Agricultural Science: Justus Liebig 

and the Americans, 1840-1880. New 

Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 275 

p.

5. Knoblauch, HC, EM Law, and WP 

Meyer. 1962. State Agricultural 

Experiment Stations: A History of 

Research Policy and Procedure. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Miscellaneous Publication No. 904. 11 

p.

6. Morton, JS. 1895. Report of the 

Secretary of Agriculture. Office of 

Experiment Stations. In Yearbook 

of the United States Department 

of Agriculture 1894, pp. 38-41. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

7. An Act Making Appropriations for 

the Department of Agriculture for the 

Fiscal Year Ending June Thirtieth, 

Eighteen Hundred and Ninety-five. 

1895. Public Law No. 177. 

8. U.S. Department of Health, Education 

and Welfare. 1972. Ten-State Nutrition 

Survey 1968-70. DHEW Publication 

(HSM) 72-8130. Vol 1-5. Atlanta, GA: 

U.S. Center for Disease Control. 

9. Beecher, GR, GF Combs, Sr, and 

JC Smith, Jr. 2017. Coordination of 

human nutrition research activities at 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

In J Dupont and GR Beecher, eds., 

History of Human Nutrition Research 

in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service: People, 

Events, and Accomplishments. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service. 

10. Staats, EB. 1978. Federal Human 

Nutrition Research Needs: A 

Coordinated Approach to Advance 

Nutrition Knowledge. Report to 

The Congress of the United States. 

Vol 1 and 2. PSAD-77-156. March 

28. Washington, DC: U.S. General 

Accounting Office. 255 p.

11. Food and Nutrition for the 1980’s: 

Moving Ahead. Comprehensive Plan 

for Implementing the National Food 

and Human Nutrition Research and 

Education and Information Programs. 

1979. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. 55 p. 

12. A Comprehensive National Plan for 

New Initiatives in Home Economics 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 5

Research, Extension, and Higher 

Education. 1981. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication 

1405. 252 p.

13. USDA Comprehensive Plan for a 

National Food and Human Nutrition 

Research and Education Program. 

A Report to Congress. 1986. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 91 p. 
6 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

The last quarter of the 19th century was 

a period of rapid change in America. 

Population almost doubled, largely due to 

immigration, as did the number of women 

working outside the home. People chose 

to settle in cities rather than on farms 

or in villages, and America was rapidly 

becoming an urban, rather than a rural, 

nation (1). After 4 years out of office, Grover 

Cleveland again won the presidency of the 

United States and began his second term 

in March of 1893. He was facing serious 

economic problems, both on the farms and 

in the cities. J. Sterling Morton, his newly 

appointed Secretary of Agriculture, wanted 

to sponsor programs that would improve the 

plight of both rural and urban dwellers. The 

ideal programs would be politically popular 

as well as economically helpful. With many 

Americans spending half of their income 

on food, might food provide a link between 

farmers and consumers and, in so doing, aid 

the economy?

Edward T. Atkinson, an influential 

businessman from Boston, MA, had some 

ideas for creating such a linkage. As a selfstyled economist and social reformer, he 

was a proponent of the use of scientific and 

technological advances to allow the working 

poor to become more economically efficient. 

To that end, he had invented an oven that 

used far less energy to cook a meal than 

did conventional methods, and one that 

he thought women could conveniently use 

if they had to work outside their homes. 

He also was interested in developing 

information that would allow the poor to 

make more economic choices for their food 

expenditures. While visiting Agriculture 

Secretary Morton soon after the Secretary 

took office, Atkinson suggested that the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) should 

sponsor “food laboratories” in connection 

with the State agricultural experiment 

stations and that these laboratories would 

help to establish the “proper nourishment of 

human beings.” (2) 

To test the popularity of such an idea, 

Secretary Morton asked Atkinson to describe 

it in a special bulletin (3). For additional 

help, Atkinson recommended that Secretary 

Morton involve his occasional collaborator, 

Wilbur Olin Atwater, a professor of chemistry 

at Wesleyan University and the first director 

of the Office of Experiment Stations within 

USDA, who had more experience than any 

other scientist in the country with studies 

of food composition and human food 

consumption (4,5,6). Welcoming the news 

that Atkinson had reached Secretary Morton 

Chapter 2

Laying the Foundation, 1894-1923

Patricia B. Swan 

Patricia B. Swan, Ph.D., is Emeritus 

Professor, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 7

so early in the new administration, Atwater 

swung into action. 

Atwater had a plan. First, he suggested 

that a short USDA publication be issued, 

setting forth the studies that were needed. 

Then, the Secretary should offer some 

“inducements” to the States to undertake 

them (7). Atwater encouraged Secretary 

Morton to conduct such studies in 

cooperation with the agricultural experiment 

station in each State, noting that this would 

be both advantageous and feasible and 

the value of the studies would be “widely 

appreciated.” (8). It would be necessary 

for Secretary Morton to recommend, and 

Congress to appropriate, special research 

funds as inducements. 

The position of director of the Office of 

Experiment Stations had just become 

vacant, and Atwater recommended to 

Secretary Morton the promotion of Assistant 

Director Alfred C. True to fill it (9). The 

son of a Wesleyan professor of classics 

and himself an instructor in Latin, True 

had been associated with the office since 

its formation under Atwater in 1888, 

and Atwater emphasized the benefit of 

continuity. The Secretary agreed, and True 

became the longtime director of this office, 

effectively monitoring Congressional activity 

in support of Atwater’s push for funds for 

nutrition investigations (10).

In spite of an economic depression, it 

finally became clear that Congress would 

appropriate $10,000 for the fiscal year 

ending in June 1895 to be used for 

investigations leading to reports of “the 

nutritive value” of various foods and more 

“wholesome and edible rations,” “more 

economical” than those commonly eaten 

(11,12). Atwater sent Director True an 

outline of work to be accomplished in the 

first year of the new program, the structure 

of which became the framework for USDA’s 

food and nutrition program for decades (13). 

Secretary Morton named Atwater the special 

agent in charge of nutrition investigations 

and placed the anticipated program within 

USDA’s Office of Experiment Stations. 

Atwater’s emphasis on scientific inquiry and 

his administrative abilities provided a strong 

foundation for the country’s first national 

nutrition research program (14,15).

Atwater immediately sought collaborators 

both within experiment stations and 

in other institutions to begin studies 

of what people were eating, as well as 

measurements of food composition (16). He 

wrote a lengthy article for the Department’s 

Yearbook (17) and also began writing the 1895

Congress appropriated 

$10,000 to be used for 

investigations leading to 

reports of “the nutritive 

value” of various foods 

and more “wholesome 

and edible rations,” 

“more economical” than 

those commonly eaten.

1893

Charles Ford 

Langworthy was 

appointed W.O. 

Atwater’s assistant 

for nutrition 

investigations.
8 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 1895

W.O. Atwater wrote the 

pioneering bulletin that 

summarized available data 

regarding food composition, 

food digestibility, known 

nutritional needs, and the 

ways in which investigations 

could be conducted to increase 

knowledge in these areas. 

1896

manual for potential collaborators that 

he had suggested earlier to Secretary 

Morton, setting forth the needed studies 

and methods to be used in conducting 

them. This pioneering 1895 bulletin (18) 

summarized available data regarding food 

composition, food digestibility, known 

nutritional needs, and the ways in which 

investigations could be conducted to 

increase knowledge in these areas. It also 

suggested the studies most urgently needed. 

For many years this bulletin served as the 

textbook on human nutrition investigations 

for researchers and educators in colleges 

and universities. 

Atwater appointed Charles Ford 

Langworthy as his assistant for the 

nutrition investigations (19,20). A native of 

Middlebury, CT, Langworthy had returned 

from Germany in 1893 with a doctorate 

in chemistry and joined Atwater in his 

work at Wesleyan. After 2 years, USDA 

asked Congress to increase the annual 

appropriation for the nutrition investigations 

to $15,000. At first, Congress vowed there 

would be no increased appropriations 

that year. Nonetheless, Atwater called on 

his collaborators, who were now located 

in all regions of the country, to urge their 

members of Congress to include the 

increase requested by the Department. 

He also engaged his own effective political 

connections. As a result of his efforts, 

and with Director True carefully tracking 

Congressional activity, the appropriation 

was increased to $15,000 beginning in fiscal 

year 1897 (21). By 1901, the appropriation 

was $20,000 per year, remaining so for 

several years (22).

During the first decade of nutrition 

investigations, Atwater involved 22 

experiment station collaborators in 16 landgrant and two 1890s colleges, as well as an 

additional 8 investigators associated with 

other institutions (23). Their work included 

measurement of the diets of groups such 

as African Americans, Mexicans, Chinese, 

and both wealthy and poor populations in 

rural and urban, institutional, and noninstitutional settings. Their work also 

contributed information on food composition 

and the digestibility of foods (24). In 1896, 

Atwater and Charles D. Woods published 

an extensive and important compilation 

of the composition of foods, including the 

energy values of many of them (25). This 

bulletin was revised as new data became 

available and was the major source of 

such information until 1945, when a 

comprehensive table of food composition 

was published (26,27).

Congress increased 

appropriations to 

$15,000 for nutrition 

investigations.

1896

W.O. Atwater and 

Charles D. Woods 

published an extensive 

and important 

compilation of the 

composition of foods, 

including the energy 

values of many of 

them.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 9 1901

By 1901, the nutrition 

investigations 

appropriation was 

$20,000 per year 

and remained so for 

several years.

Atwater was keenly aware of the need to 

conduct fundamental research to increase 

understanding of the use (metabolism) 

of food by the body. Thus, at Wesleyan 

he chose to conduct his own part of the 

nutrition investigations by studying the 

energy value of foods and their ability to 

furnish energy in the human body. To study 

the energy cost of common activities, he and 

a physics professor constructed a respiration 

calorimeter in which human subjects could 

carry out various activities while their 

energy expenditure was measured (26,27). 

Using information about the release of 

energy when foods were burned in a closed 

laboratory system, and studies of the 

digestibility of these foods, he established 

the “Atwater Factors” that remain accurate 

and in use today to calculate the energy 

value of foods based on their chemical 

composition. (The “Atwater Factors” are 4 

Kcals per g of carbohydrate, 9 Kcals per g 

of fat, and 4 Kcals per gram of protein when 

used to calculate energy from mixed diets.) 

In 1898, Atwater and Langworthy published 

a compilation of data from 3,600 metabolism 

experiments (intake of foods and subsequent 

excretion) that had been reported up to that 

time. Unfortunately, due to illness, Atwater 

was not able to continue his career and 

might have been unaware that Congress 

provided funds for basic research at the 

experiment stations in 1906 (28). His strong 

advocacy of basic research during his 

association with the experiment stations had 

no doubt contributed significantly to this 

accomplishment.

In 1905, Langworthy was put in charge of 

the nutrition investigations (29), and in the 

following year, he transferred the calorimetry 

work to Departmental laboratories in 

Washington, DC. During the second decade 

of the nutrition program, he continued 

Atwater’s work, reporting that mechanical 

efficiency for subjects doing muscular work 

in the calorimeter was nearly 21 percent, 

but surprisingly, mental work took very 

little energy (30). No new significant areas of 

investigation were initiated, and emphasis 

within the program gradually began to shift 

toward more applied research on foods and 

their preparation for human consumption. 

Around the turn of the 19th century, 

Langworthy had become involved with the 

home economics movement, playing a role 

in the founding of the American Home 

Economics Association. This led to Maria 

Parloa, a well-known teacher and writer 

on cookery, authoring two publications for 

the nutrition program. Shortly thereafter, 

Charles Langworthy 

was put in charge of 

nutrition investigations 

and transferred the 

calorimetry work 

to Departmental 

laboratories in 

Washington, DC. 1905

1868-1930

USDA Administration Building 
10 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Caroline L. Hunt, former dean of home 

economics at the University of Wisconsin, 

and Helen Atwater, daughter of Wilbur O 

Atwater, joined the Department’s program. 

Both women were active in the experimental 

foods laboratory in Washington, DC, and 

both wrote several popular publications 

(31,32,33,34).

In 1915, the new administration of 

President Woodrow Wilson received pressure 

from farmers and consumers for more 

scientifically based information. In response, 

Secretary of Agriculture David F. Houston, 

working with Congress, formed the States 

Relations Service, incorporating the Office 

of Experiment Stations and a newly created 

Extension Service. In response to the home 

economics movement, Secretary Houston 

also included a separate Office of Home 

Economics, incorporating the nutrition 

investigations and initiating new programs 

in household management and textiles 

and clothing (35,36). Alfred True headed 

the States Relations Service, while Charles 

Langworthy headed the Office of Home 

Economics (37).

An almost insatiable demand from the 

newly created Extension Service for 

educational materials guiding food choice 

and preparation dominated the attention 

of Langworthy’s office. Moreover, the 

possibility of the Nation becoming involved 

in the war in Europe led to studies required 

for the development of a special ration 

for the military. After the United States 

became involved in World War I, the USDA, 

cooperating with the Food Administration, 

pushed for increased food production by 

farmers, and the Office of Home Economics 

advocated ways for consumers to conserve 

scarce food items such as sugar. This 

involved the production of many popular 

publications for consumer education 

(38,39,40).

By the end of the war, a new science of 

nutrition had developed that included 

the identification of several vitamins by 

researchers in the experiment stations 

and elsewhere. Not only milk but also 

fruits and vegetables were now considered 

“protective foods” and no longer “luxury 

items” in the diet. Ways to preserve these 

relatively expensive foods while they were 

in season and less expensive than at other 

times became important for farm families 

who were suffering as prices for their nowsurplus production fell dramatically. The 

Office of Home Economics developed and 

tested guidelines for canning and other 1923

Secretary of Agriculture Henry C. 

Wallace began reorganizing the 

Department’s work, placing more 

emphasis on the home economics 

work by creating a separate Bureau 

of Home Economics.

1915

Secretary of Agriculture David F. Houston 

formed the States Relations Service, 

incorporating the Office of Experiment 

Stations and a newly created Extension 

Service.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 11

means for preserving foods and published 

materials for teaching women these 

techniques (41). In 1921 Warren G. Harding 

became President of the United States, and 

Secretary of Agriculture Henry C. Wallace 

began reorganizing the Department’s 

work, placing more emphasis on the home 

economics work by creating a separate 

Bureau of Home Economics in 1923 

(37,42,43).

Thus, the nutrition program had matured 

over its first 30 years of existence, thanks 

largely to Wilbur O. Atwater, the wellknown and politically astute scientist 

who had established the program on a 

firm basis by designing a program that 

was at the forefront of the science and by 

skillfully administering it, thereby fostering 

political support for the scientific work. 

Immediately following Atwater’s tenure, the 

program periodically experienced difficulty 

in maintaining such support, but Charles 

Langworthy connected it to the home 

economics movement. As this movement 

gained popular support, so did the USDA’s 

nutrition program. This source of support, 

as well as external forces such as World 

War I, pulled the USDA program toward 

application of previously developed basic 

knowledge rather than more fundamental 

research. Nevertheless, in future years, the 

Department would once again include basic 

research as part of its nutrition program, as 

it does today.
12 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

References

1. Calhoun, CW, ed. 1996. Introduction. 

In The Gilded Age: Essays on the 

Origins of Modern America, pp. xi-xix. 

Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 

Inc.

2. Morton, JS. Letter to W.O. Atwater, 

May 23, 1893; Atkinson, E., Letter to 

W.O. Atwater, June 10, 1893. Located 

in: Atwater, Wilbur Olin, 1844-1907. 

Papers 1876-1903 [microfilm] 30 reels: 

black & white, negative, 35mm. Parks 

Media Center: microform collection; 

Call No. S584.52 A88 A4 1982x; Iowa 

State University Library, Ames, IA.

3. Suggestions for the Establishment 

of Food Laboratories. 1893. United 

States Department of Agriculture, 

Office of Experiment Stations, Bulletin 

No. 17.

4. Atwater, WO. Letter to E. Atkinson, 

April 23, 1892; Atwater, WO, Letter to 

A.C. True, February 5, 1894. Located 

in: Atwater, Wilbur Olin, 1844-1907. 

Papers 1876-1903 [microfilm] 30 reels: 

black & white, negative, 35mm. Parks 

Media Center: microform collection; 

Call No. S584.52 A88 A4 1982x; Iowa 

State University Library, Ames, IA. 

5. Carpenter, KJ. 1994. The life and 

times of W.O. Atwater (1844-1907). J 

Nutr 124:1707S-1714S. 

6. Maynard, LA. 1962. Wilbur O. 

Atwater—a biographical sketch. J Nutr 

78:1-9.

7. Atwater, WO. Letter to E. Atkinson. 

June 20, 1893; Atwater, WO, Letter to 

A.C. True, January 11, 1894. Located 

in: Atwater, Wilbur Olin, 1844-1907. 

Papers 1876-1903 [microfilm] 30 reels: 

black & white, negative, 35mm. Parks 

Media Center: microform collection; 

Call No. S584.52 A88 A4 1982x; Iowa 

State University Library, Ames, IA.

8. Atwater, WO. Letter to J.S. Morton, 

June 23, 1893. Located in: Atwater, 

Wilbur Olin, 1844-1907. Papers 1876-

1903 [microfilm] 30 reels: black & 

white, negative, 35mm. Parks Media 

Center: microform collection; Call No. 

S584.52 A88 A4 1982x; Iowa State 

University Library, Ames, IA.

9. Atwater, WO. Letter to J.S. Morton. 

July 8, 1893. Located in: Atwater, 

Wilbur Olin, 1844-1907. Papers 1876-

1903 [microfilm] 30 reels: black & 

white, negative, 35mm. Parks Media 

Center: microform collection; Call No. 

S584.52 A88 A4 1982x; Iowa State 

University Library, Ames, IA.

10. Kerr, NA. 1987. The Legacy: A 

Centennial History of the State 

Agricultural Experiment Stations, 

1887-1987. Columbia, MO: University 

of Missouri, pp.40-44.

11. Public Law No. 177. An act making 

appropriations for the Department of 

Agriculture for the fiscal year ending 

June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and 

ninety-five: Nutrition. 

12. Atwater, WO. Letter to A.C. True, 

August 6, 1895. Located in: Atwater, 

Wilbur Olin, 1844-1907. Papers 1876-

1903 [microfilm] 30 reels: black & 

white, negative, 35mm. Parks Media 

Center: microform collection; Call No. 

S584.52 A88 A4 1982x; Iowa State 

University Library, Ames, IA.

13. Atwater, WO. Letter to A.C. True, June 

13, 1894. Located in: Atwater, Wilbur 

Olin, 1844-1907. Papers 1876-1903 

[microfilm] 30 reels: black & white, 

negative, 35mm. Parks Media Center: 

microform collection; Call No. S584.52 

A88 A4 1982x; Iowa State University 

Library, Ames, IA.

14. Atwater, WO. Letter to C.D. Woods, 

July 27, 1894. Located in: Atwater, 

Wilbur Olin, 1844-1907. Papers 1876-

1903 [microfilm] 30 reels: black & 

white, negative, 35mm. Parks Media 

Center: microform collection; Call No. 

S584.52 A88 A4 1982x; Iowa State 

University Library, Ames, IA. 

15. True, AC, and AD Milner. 1900. 

Development of the nutrition 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 13

investigations of the Department 

of Agriculture. In Yearbook of the 

Department of Agriculture 1899, 

pp.403-414. Washington, DC: United 

States Department of Agriculture.

16. Atwater, WO. Letter to C.D. Woods, 

September 8, 1894; Bevier, I., Letter 

to W.O. Atwater, September 12, 

1894. Located in: Atwater, Wilbur 

Olin, 1844-1907. Papers 1876-1903 

[microfilm] 30 reels: black & white, 

negative, 35mm. Parks Media Center: 

microform collection; Call No. S584.52 

A88 A4 1982x; Iowa State University 

Library, Ames, IA.

17. Atwater, WO. 1895. Food and diet. 

In Yearbook of the Department of 

Agriculture 1894, pp. 357-388. 

Washington, DC: United States 

Department of Agriculture.

18. Atwater, WO. 1895. Methods and 

Results of Investigations on the 

Chemistry and Economy of Food. 

United States Department of 

Agriculture, Office of Experiment 

Stations, Bulletin No. 21. 222 p.

19. Atwater, WO. Letter to C.F. 

Langworthy. August 3, 1894. Located 

in: Atwater, Wilbur Olin, 1844-1907. 

Papers 1876-1903 [microfilm] 30 reels: 

black & white, negative, 35mm. Parks 

Media Center: microform collection; 

Call No. S584.52 A88 A4 1982x; Iowa 

State University Library, Ames, IA. 

20. Swanson, P. 1965. Charles Ford 

Langworthy (1864-1932). J Nutr 86:1-

16.

21. Atwater, WO. Letter to B.T. 

Washington, February 13, 1896; 

Atwater, WO, Letter to A.W. Harris, 

February 14, 1896; Knapp, MA, Letter 

to W.O. Atwater, February 25, 1896; 

Squire, NC, Letter to W.O. Atwater, 

February 28, 1896; True, AC, Letter 

to W.O. Atwater, February 29, 1896; 

True, AC, Letter to W.O. Atwater, 

March 9, 1896; Knapp, MA, Letter 

to W.O. Atwater, April 3, 1896; True, 

AC, Letter to W.O. Atwater, April 8, 

1896. Located in: Atwater, Wilbur 

Olin, 1844-1907. Papers 1876-1903 

[microfilm] 30 reels: black & white, 

negative, 35mm. Parks Media Center: 

microform collection; Call No. S584.52 

A88 A4 1982x; Iowa State University 

Library, Ames, IA.

22. Tobey, JA. 1926. In The National 

Government and Public Health, pp. 

205-207. Baltimore, MD: Johns 

Hopkins Press.

23. Swan, PB. 1987. Formulafunded nutrition research in 1862 

universities—An historical perspective. 

In Nutrition ’87, pp. 4-8. Bethesda, 

MD: American Institute of Nutrition.

24. Bryant, AP. 1898. Some results of 

dietary studies in the United States. 

In Yearbook of the Department of 

Agriculture, pp. 439-452. Washington, 

DC: United States Department of 

Agriculture. 

25. Atwater, WO, and CD Woods. 1896. 

Chemical Composition of American 

Food Materials. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Office of 

Experiment Stations, Bulletin No. 28. 

46 p.

26. Atwater, WO, and EB Rosa. 1899. 

Description of a New Respiration 

Calorimeter and Experiments on the 

Conservation of Energy in the Human 

Body. United States Department of 

Agriculture, Office of Experiment 

Stations, Bulletin No. 63. 94 p. 

27. Atwater, WO, and FG Benedict. 1903. 

Experiments on the Metabolism of 

Matter and Energy in the Human 

Body, 1900-1902. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Bulletin 

No. 136. 357 p.

28. Kerr, NA. 1987. Adams Act of 1906 

boosts research. In A Centennial 

History of the State Agricultural 

Experiment Stations, 1887-1987, pp. 

48-51. Columbia, MO: University of 

Missouri-Columbia.

29. Langworthy, CF. 1907. The nutrition 

investigations of the Office of 
14 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Experiment Stations and their 

results. In Annual Report of the 

Office of Experiment Stations for the 

Year Ended June 30, 1906, pp. 359-

372. Washington, DC: United States 

Department of Agriculture, Office of 

Experiment Stations.

30. Langworthy, CF. 1911. The respiration 

calorimeter and the results with it. 

In Yearbook of the United States 

Department of Agriculture 1910, pp. 

307-318. Washington, DC: United 

States Department of Agriculture.

31. Parloa, M. 1906. Preparation of 

Vegetables for the Table. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Office 

of Experiment Stations, Farmers’ 

Bulletin No. 256. 47 p. 

32. Parloa, M. 1917. Canned Fruit, 

Preserves, and Jellies: Household 

Methods of Preparation. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Office 

of Experiment Stations, Farmers’ 

Bulletin No. 203. 31 p. 

33. Hunt, CL. 1916. Food for Young 

Children. United States Department of 

Agriculture, States Relations Service, 

Office of Home Economics, Farmers’ 

Bulletin No. 717. 

34. Atwater, HW. 1921. Food for farm 

families. In Yearbook of the United 

States Department of Agriculture 

1920. Washington, DC: United States 

Department of Agriculture. 

35. Swanson, P. 1965. Charles Ford 

Langworthy (1864-1932). J Nutr 86:1-

9.

36. True, AC. 1937. Changes in 

organization. In A History of 

Agricultural Experimentation and 

Research in the United States, 

1607-1925, p. 216. United States 

Department of Agriculture, 

Miscellaneous Publication No. 251. 

321p.

37. Harding, TS. 1947. Food and raiment. 

In Two Blades of Grass, pp. 217-240. 

Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma 

Press.

38. Blunt, K, FL Swain, and F 

Powdermaker. 1918. Food Guide for 

War Service at Home, Prepared Under 

the Direction of the United States 

Food Administration in Co-operation 

With the United States Department 

of Agriculture and the Bureau of 

Education, With a Preface by Herbert 

Hoover. New York, NY: C. Scribner’s 

Sons.

39. Hunt, CL, and HW Atwater. 1917. 

Cereal Foods. United States 

Department of Agriculture, States 

Relations Service, Office of Home 

Economics, Farmers’ Bulletin No. 817.

40. True, AC. 1937. In A History of 

Agricultural Experimentation and 

Research in the United States, 

1607-1925, pp. 232-233. United 

States Department of Agriculture, 

Miscellaneous Publication 251. 321p.

41. Creswell, ME, and O Powell. 1917. 

Home Canning of Fruits and 

Vegetables. United States Department 

of Agriculture, States Relations 

Service, Office of Home Economics, 

Farmers’ Bulletin No. 853. 42 p.

42. Wallace, HC. 1924. The year in 

agriculture: the Secretary’s report to 

the President. In Agriculture Yearbook 

1923. Washington, DC: United States 

Department of Agriculture.

43. Wallace, HC. 1924. Home economics 

work strengthened. In Agriculture 

Yearbook 1923, p. 39. Washington, 

DC: United States Department of 

Agriculture.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 15

Chapter 3

The Bureau of Home Economics

Megan Elias 

Megan Elias, Ph.D., is Associate Professor 

of History, Queensborough Community 

College, City University of New York, NY.

The Beginning

For 2 days in June 1923, seven of the 

leaders of the home economics movement 

gathered in Washington, DC. Henry C. 

Wallace, Secretary of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA), had invited them 

there to discuss the establishment of the 

national Bureau of Home Economics (BHE) 

scheduled to open July 1. Wallace asked the 

gathering to develop an organizing plan for 

the Bureau. The seven leaders suggested 

that it “be divided among the following 

subjects: food and nutrition, clothing and 

textiles, economics (including household 

management), equipment, eugenics (heredity 

and the environment, including child care), 

[and] art in the home (including the physical 

and psychological laws of color, line, and 

form)” (1). Wallace also asked the group to 

recommend a director for the new Bureau. 

He particularly specified that the candidate 

should be a “woman of executive ability.” 

Wallace’s belief that the position should go 

to a woman reflected the predominance of 

women in the field of home economics as 

well as his own apparent faith in the abilities 

of women to serve successfully in high-level 

administrative positions. One historian 

of the USDA also credits “considerable 

agitation by various women’s organizations” 

for Wallace’s decision to place a woman at 

the head of the Bureau (2).

Louise Stanley—First Leader of the Bureau of 

Home Economics

When the advisory group chose a leader 

from among their own number, Louise 

Stanley became Chief of the Bureau of Home 

Economics and the highest paid woman 

scientist in the Federal Government. Her 

appointment was met with wholehearted 

approval from colleagues in the movement. 

The Journal of Home Economics noted that 

“Whatever woman had been appointed head 

of the Bureau, professional spirit would 

have put us behind her. With Miss Stanley 

in the position, we can pledge our support 

enthusiastically and confidently, individually 

and collectively” (3). Stanley herself felt 

that by the establishment of the Bureau, 

“The field of home economics was again 

broadened and this time dignified by the 

status of a bureau” (4). 

Louise Stanley, whom the Journal of 

Home Economics described as “easy to 

work with” and of “broad sympathy and 

experience,” was born in 1883. She received 

a B.S. degree and a B.Ed. degree from the 

University of Nashville. She earned an M.A. 

from Columbia University and was awarded 

a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Yale University 

in 1911. She was first an instructor of 

nutrition in the Department of Home 
16 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 1923

Secretary of Agriculture 

Henry C. Wallace 

established the national 

Bureau of Home 

Economics (BHE) and 

recommended a woman 

be director. 

Louise Stanley became 

Chief of the Bureau 

of Home Economics 

and the highest paid 

woman scientist in the 

Federal Government.

Economics at the University of Missouri 

and then, beginning in 1910, Professor and 

Chair of the Department, even as she was in 

the final year of earning her doctorate. This 

kind of promotion was not entirely unusual 

in the early days of the field of home 

economics, when departments were being 

created where there had never been any, 

and no pre-existing “experts” could be called 

in to lead the way.

As a scholar, Stanley produced work 

that was scientific, such as a 1911 study 

of phosphorus in cooked meat, and 

pedagogical, as when she wrote about the 

International Congress for the Teaching 

of Household Economics, held in 1913 

in Belgium. In addition, Stanley had a 

comprehensive understanding of home 

economics as a movement and was active in 

drawing attention to developments as they 

happened. For many of the first generation 

of home economists, movement history was 

personal history as they defined their field 

and their own roles within it simultaneously.

Although she was trained as a nutritionist, 

Stanley saw the Bureau’s most important 

role as being “a link between consumers 

and producers.” Furthermore, the Bureau 

could help to shape a more efficient and 

responsive economy for it was “in a position 

to give aid, directly toward a planned 

economy where consumers’ needs and 

production programs are coordinated” (4).

Farmers would no longer have to guess 

at what might sell and consumers would 

no longer need to simply make do with 

whatever they found in their markets.One of 

the first things that Stanley did was to call a 

meeting of women’s groups from all over the 

country to find out what they wanted help 

with. Gladys Baker, writing of the history 

of the USDA, noted, “These organizations 

were to give her strong support throughout 

her tenure. She was to need them, for some 

of the work in home economics aroused a 

storm of controversy” (5). 

Under Stanley’s leadership, the Bureau 

appears to have been a busy but also a 

collegial place to work. Memos from the 

1920s have a humorous tone while also 

managing the details of Bureau life. In one 

1925 memo, the entire staff is invited by 

one Mrs. Wharton to stop by, without calling 

first, at her family home any Saturday that 

they please to enjoy tea and sandwiches (6). 

Another wryly informs the staff, “It is the 

policy of the Bureau not to give out subject 

matter over the phone.” Acknowledging that 

some questions may be answered easily 

and safely, the memo goes on to note that 

“answers to such questions as ... what 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 17

to feed the baby, how to spend the family 

income, etc. should not be attempted in 

conversation” (7).

As part of the USDA, the Bureau had, 

from its inception, a responsibility to help 

American farmers find consumers for their 

products. Under Stanley’s direction, this 

responsibility was realized through the 

critical study of the nutritional aspects of 

agricultural products. An early study of the 

different nutritive qualities of yellow and 

white potatoes, for example, resulted in 

the development of a hybrid that American 

farmers could grow successfully and 

that would enrich the diets of American 

consumers. This particular potato study was 

performed in collaboration with the Bureau 

of Plant Industry, and it was typical for the 

Bureau of Home Economics to collaborate 

with other bureaus in the USDA as well as 

other government departments, such as the 

Food and Drug Administration. 

The Bureau’s organization presented a 

simplified version of the divisions suggested 

by the 1923 advisory committee. Three 

divisions—the Division of Economics, the 

Division of Textiles and Clothing, and the 

Division of Food and Nutrition—covered 

the basic aspects of American home life. 

Notably lacking from this organization was 

the concept of eugenics, which was a topic of 

much popular interest in the 1920s. 

As America and other industrialized nations 

experienced a surge of technological 

innovations, many assumed that 

humanity itself could be perfected. The 

dubious science of breeding humans for 

desirable qualities seemed exciting to 

many progressives of the era. In the early 

days of the home economics movement, 

Ellen Richards had recommended naming 

the field euthenics and organizing it as a 

sister to eugenics. Where eugenics would 

focus on the perfect individual, euthenics 

could supply the ideal environment for 

this new race. For a government agency, 

however, it probably seemed unwise to 

create a division dedicated to something so 

speculative and potentially controversial 

as eugenics, especially as there was no 

obvious connection between the concepts 

of eugenics and the work of the USDA. The 

kind of breeding of animals that the USDA 

oversaw was not likely to be repeated with 

human beings. Likewise, it is not surprising 

that the Bureau of Home Economics did 

not include a division dedicated to “art in 

the home,” a common topic in college home 

economics courses. While government home 

economists could assist American cotton 

growers by working out ways to use their 

product in textiles and clothing, no easily 

identifiable group of agricultural producers 

would be aided by research and education in 

aesthetics.

A 1929 internal report on the organization 

of the Bureau explained the role of the 

Division of Foods and Nutrition: “It is 

important to set up food standards based on 

nutritional requirements, and to emphasize 

the importance of a more stable program 

of food production and distribution to meet 

these requirements. Flexible food standards 

which can be adjusted as the knowledge of 

nutrition increases have been developed.” 

The juxtaposition of the phrases “stable 

program” and “flexible food standards” 

reflected the Bureau’s dual commitment 

to public service and scientific innovation. 

Nutritional science is sometimes criticized 

by those who see it as simply the purveyor 

of the next fad, rather than an endeavor 

to constantly increase knowledge about 

humans and food. BHE nutritionists of this 

era were committed to keeping a collective 

open mind in the service of finding the best 

ways to feed the Nation (8).

The report went on to describe the day-today work of the Division, noting that it took 

place in “various kinds of laboratories,” each 

designed for a different kind of research. 

Studies of vitamin and mineral content 

of foods were performed in “nutrition 
18 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

laboratories where rats and guinea pigs 

serve as subjects,” as many pages of invoices 

collected over the years can attest. The 

Bureau seems to have had a policy during 

these years of sending rats to other nutrition 

labs, particularly those of high schools, free 

of charge. Correspondence from this era 

indicates that the Bureau’s generosity was 

complicated by the fact that it only owned 

one travel cage. Many gentle reminders were 

sent out to science teachers informing them 

that by holding onto the cage in which their 

new rats had traveled, they were holding 

up delivery to some other equally deserving 

school. 

Food composition work in these early 

years consisted of collection of data “from 

numerous chemical laboratories in the 

United States and other countries” (8). 

Through this data collection the Bureau 

performed an important service to other food 

scientists and nutritionists, consolidating 

a large body of knowledge in one place. 

Researchers at the Bureau could use this 

information to inform their own work, 

and the Bureau could also serve as a 

clearinghouse for all food composition 

work. As individual laboratories focused 

on single elements of composition, the 

Bureau kept track of who was conducting 

specific research in order to share 

potentially valuable information between 

laboratories. In 1925 Stanley headed the 

Committee on the Vitamin Content of Food 

in Relation to Human Nutrition, convened 

by the Association of Land Grant Colleges. 

Although the committee was not technically 

supported by the Bureau, Stanley’s work 

for it seems to have been part of her 

regular work as Chief. Her office sent out 

questionnaires to the heads of agricultural 

research stations in all the States. These 

research stations were affiliated with the 

land-grant universities. The committee 

had four goals: to find out what work was 

being done, to share that information, to 

establish uniformity in research practices 

so that results would be comparable, 

and to encourage research in particular 

directions. The committee argued: “If the 

work in the different States is planned with 

big national problems in mind and the 

methods are standardized so the work will 

be comparable, it will be possible to prevent 

duplication and get a more complete study 

in a much shorter period of time” (9).

The two main directions for suggested 

research were the vitamin content of foods 

as affected by methods of production and 

the influence of methods of preparation. The 

committee suggested that the work could 

start with green vegetables and be taken 

up in a variety of ways—with some groups 

studying the variation in vitamin content, 

others looking at the effect of “cultural 

conditions” on vitamin content, and still 

others considering the effect of storage and 

canning. Responses to the committee’s 

questionnaires reflect the newness of the 

Bureau and its lack of authority in the field. 

Respondents, mostly male, routinely referred 

to the chief as “Miss Stanley” in their 

greetings despite the fact that the request 

came from “Dr. Stanley” and that some even 

included her title in the address on their 

letters. Many dismissed the request with one 

line stating that there was no vitamin work 

currently in progress and no plans to begin 

any.

Perhaps the least respectful response came 

from Nevada. The Director of the State 

Experiment Station for that State wrote to 

Stanley: “We are not conducting any vitamin 

projects in this Station for we have not 

yet found local problems in which vitamin 

studies will serve toward a solution.” Other 

experiment station leaders and extension 

agents answered more enthusiastically. 

P.F. Trowbridge, for example, of the North 

Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station 

described meat-cooking research under 

way for which he was scheduled to travel 

through his State and signed his letter 

“Chairman Cooking Committee.” Twenty 

States were involved in some type of vitamin 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 19

research at the time that the survey was 

conducted.

The dietary studies—the more sociological 

work of the Division—were performed by 

nutritionists in the field, and they were 

designed “to find out how the food habits 

that exist compare with the requirements 

usually recognized as essential for good 

nutrition.” Keeping both the vitamin 

studies and the food habits research in 

mind, food scientists worked in “kitchen 

laboratories” to develop effective methods of 

preservation and preparation, “working out 

facts about the prevention of food spoilage 

through canning, pickling, preserving, and 

refrigerating.” With the everyday consumer 

in mind, the Division also produced recipes 

“for making a wide variety of foods not 

only palatable and digestible, but also so 

attractive that they will be used in homes 

the country over to bring about good 

nutrition.” The multifaceted approach to 

human nutrition, making use as it did of 

both a central agency and State stations, 

seemed well designed to serve the people. 

Reflecting the Bureau’s focus on the 

practical, one of the earliest projects under 

Stanley’s administration was a study of 

refrigerated foods. This study had the 

potential to help three groups: farmers, 

industrial manufacturers, and consumers. 

Electric refrigerators had newly become 

available for home use, and there was little 

understanding of how best to use them. In 

1927-1928, the Bureau made a study of 

home refrigeration and found that out of 

the 2,350 homemakers from 37 States who 

responded to their survey, 1,337 had icecooled refrigerators, 56 had electric, and 857 

had none. “In most cases,” the study found, 

“ice was used only for a portion of the year.” 

It seemed likely, given the common use of 

electric refrigerators in food processing, that 

these appliances would soon become more 

affordable for American families. 

The Bureau of Home Economics study of the 

relationship between time, contamination, 

and temperature was a simple first step 

in helping Americans to employ new 

technology to their advantage. Two cubes 

of good-quality top round beef were stored, 

one in a covered dish, one uncovered, in 

five refrigerators kept at 35 ̊, 40 ̊, 45 ̊, 50 ̊, 

and 55  ̊F. BHE employee Anna Pabst 

tested the surfaces for bacteria and also 

tested for penetration by bacteria. The 

study results were “bacterial development 

markedly checked at temperatures of 40 ̊ 

F. and below” and “A decided increase at 

temperatures of 45 ̊ F. and above” (10).

In 1931 the People’s Ice Company seized 

on the findings of the study to promote 

their own economic interests. Noting that 

“A study was made of the effect of different 

temperatures on the increase of bacteria 

in meat,” the advertisement particularly 

drew attention to the finding that “spoilage 

proceeded more rapidly in tightly covered 

dishes.” Arguing that only ice could 

provide the proper temperature, humidity 

level, and air purity for such storage, the 

advertisement was designed to make readers 

think twice about buying one of the new 

electric refrigerators that used chemicals, 

rather than ice, to keep food cool (11). 

Stanley was involved in subsequent work to 

provide industry standards for refrigerators 

of both the icebox and the electric type.

Representatives from the food and appliance 

industries were very interested in the work 

of the Bureau from its earliest days, as 

reflected by correspondence. When Dr. 

Hazel Munsell, a research chemist in the 

Division of Foods and Nutrition, published 

results of a study that found that cod liver 

oil lost much of its vitamin content when 

bottled in extract form, a representative of 

the JP Meyer company, which had plans to 

produce a cod liver oil extract, wrote to ask 

the Division to test their product. Stanley 

informed the representative that this was 

not the Bureau’s business. Frozen food 
20 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

pioneer Clarence Birdseye himself, whose 

sister Miriam coincidentally worked at the 

Bureau, wrote to Munsell to ask about the 

effect of freezing on the vitamin content 

of foods. Munsell had to report that little 

was yet known on this subject. In the early 

years, this was a common refrain, as the 

BHE received letter after letter requesting 

information on some topic not yet studied. 

The letters showed a keen interest in the 

work of the Bureau and no doubt helped 

researchers to determine what kinds of 

projects would be most useful to the public.

Hazel Stiebeling—Head of the Division of 

Food and Economics

In 1930, Stanley made one of her most 

significant decisions as Bureau Chief: she 

hired Hazel Stiebeling to head the Division 

of Food and Economics. Stiebeling’s first 

project was a survey of the eating habits of 

average Americans. The study would bring 

international attention to the Bureau, and 

Stiebeling would eventually replace Stanley 

as Chief when she retired in 1943. 

Stiebeling was from a farm family in Ohio. 

She studied at Columbia University with 

pioneer nutritionists Mary Swartz Rose 

and Henry C Sherman, earning her M.A. 

in nutrition in 1924 and her Ph.D. in 

Chemistry in 1928. With Swartz Rose and 

another author, she collaborated on a 

study on “visualizing” nutrition that offered 

useful ideas about how to make nutrition 

knowledge accessible to non-scientists (12). 

The food “pyramid,” which captured the 

public imagination (not always favorably), 

is an example of this idea. With Sherman, 

she published a study on how to determine 

the quantities of vitamin A and vitamin D in 

diets, using rats for experimental purposes. 

In 1935 the Science News Letter reported on 

a similar study performed at the Bureau. 

The report included photographs of two 

dramatically different rats with the playful 

caption “This white rat had Vitamin D, this 

white rat had none” (13).

When Stiebeling and Miriam Birdseye 

started their survey, the Great Depression 

had just begun and American eating habits 

were in the first phase of profound change. 

The study was not inspired by these 

changes—those living at the time had no 

way to know how far-reaching they would 

be—but when the results were published, 

the Bureau and the public were both quick 

to recognize how they might help families 

struggling with decreased incomes. The 

findings were first published in 1931 as 

two bulletins: “Adequate Diets for Families 

with Limited Incomes” by Stiebeling and 

Birdseye and “The Family’s Food at Low 

Cost” by Stiebeling, Birdseye, and Clyde B 

1930

Hazel Stiebeling was 

appointed by Louise 

Stanley to head the 

Division of Food and 

Economics.

1943

Hazel Stiebeling 

succeeded Louise 

Stanley as Chief of 

the Bureau of Home 

Economics upon 

Stanley’s retirement.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 21

Shuman, who was the Nutrition Director of 

the American Red Cross (14,15).

The study group included only families 

who were not on relief (a precursor to 

modern welfare), nor did it include AfricanAmerican families. Although the reasons 

for designing the study in this way cannot 

be found in the records, we can guess that 

Stiebeling and Birdseye were attempting 

to study “normal” conditions, which would 

be a reason to exclude families on relief. 

In the era of pervasive discrimination and 

segregation, African Americans also were not 

considered by most European Americans to 

be “normal” members of American society. 

Specific studies of nutrition in AfricanAmerican communities, however, had been 

conducted before the Bureau came into 

existence. Often, African-American colleges 

(Hampton and Tuskegee Normal Institutes) 

and their surrounding communities were 

the focal points for such studies (16,17,18). 

As early as the 1890s, W.O. Atwater, the 

purported “father of nutrition research in 

America,” and Isabel Bevier, a noted home 

economist, directed dietary intake studies in 

this population and subsequently calculated 

the nutritional completeness of their diets 

based on the then knowledge base. In 1949 

African-American home economist Flemmie 

Kittrell published a study of nutrition of 

African-American families. The research, 

performed in cooperation with the BHE 

between 1935 and 1936, compared the food 

choices of African-American families with 

those of White families. 

Kittrell reasoned, “The problem of proper 

food and nutrition is really in the hands 

of the one who selects and prepares 

the three meals a day.” In other words, 

nutrition is a matter of choices as much 

as culture and availability. Her study 

found “that Negro families spent money 

as wisely as White families. When the two 

groups spent the same amount for food, 

their diets rated good, fair, and poor in the 

same proportions.” How to explain, then, 

that African-American families tended 

to have more nutrition-related illnesses 

than White families, proportional to their 

percentage of the population? Kittrell’s study 

revealed the intersection of race, class, and 

nutrition: “The records, show ... that on 

the whole Negro families have much lower 

incomes than White families and, therefore, 

have poorer diets in a larger proportion” 

(19). In later years, the work of the New 

Homemakers of America, the AfricanAmerican version of the Future Homemakers 

of America, as well as home economics 

teachers in African-American communities, 

would attempt to battle this problematic 

convergence. 

Nutrition researchers immediately began 

to apply the data Stiebeling and Birdseye 

had compiled and, even more extensively, 

to use the standards they proposed to 

study nutrition in particular populations. 

Stiebeling and Birdseye classified the 

population into groups shaped around age, 

gender, and level of physical activity and 

assigned to each an ideal calorie intake and 

dietary allowances for protein, calcium, 

phosphorus, iron, vitamin A, and vitamin C. 

The architecture of this classification system 

was integrated into the Recommended 

Dietary Allowances and, subsequently, 

into the Dietary Reference Intakes as they 

were developed. Stiebeling was careful 

to distinguish between “minimums” (the 

minimum requirement) and “allowances” 

(what was beneficial). The values that 

she proposed—1,500 calories for a boy 

between ages 4 and 6 and a girl between 

ages 4 and 7, for example—represented “a 

goodly margin of safety over the minimum” 

(20). The survey identified an adequate 

diet at minimum cost, an adequate diet at 

moderate cost, and a liberal diet. The diets 

were arrived at through scientific study but 

also through survey of the diets of healthy, 

active individuals. A.E. Harper has noted 

that a report Stiebeling published in 1933 

based on this work “Included a set of what 

she called ‘dietary allowances,’ ” apparently 
22 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

the first use of this term. Harper also credits 

Stiebeling with producing “the first dietary 

standard to include quantitative values for 

several vitamins and minerals” (21).

Using data from her study, Stiebeling 

collaborated with Martha Elliot and 

Agnes Hanna from the Bureau of Labor to 

produce the pamphlet “Emergency Food 

Relief and Child Health for Every Child 

Every Day,” which was intended as a guide 

for relief agencies (22). For nutritionists, 

in government and out, the giving of 

food as relief to needy families presented 

an opportunity to change American 

thinking about food. If food relief could be 

coordinated with the latest knowledge in 

nutrition, the national diet might actually be 

standardized in terms of nutrition. People of 

different cultural backgrounds and regions 

would continue to eat different foods, but all 

would receive the same nutrition from their 

food at a level adequate to their needs. Too 

often, critics have attacked nutritionists with 

the claim that they have wanted all people 

to eat the same food. In fact, Stiebeling was 

attempting to make sure that all Americans 

were adequately nourished, however they 

wanted to arrive at that state. Because it 

would be difficult for ordinary people to 

conceive of their food simply as nutrition, 

examples were given of types of food. 

However, there is no indication that by using 

examples common to their own foodways, 

nutritionists like Stiebeling were actually 

attempting to impose a single American 

cuisine.

Knowing in historical hindsight just how 

dire the crisis was to become, Stiebeling’s 

bulletin makes for poignant reading. 

The pamphlet’s cover provides the basic 

requirements for a child’s diet while 

simultaneously emphasizing that this is 

the bare minimum and not what children 

really should have in a soundly functioning 

economy. The requirements, referred to as 

the “irreducibles” were “At least one pint 

of milk (he should have 11⁄2 to 2 pints); 

two teaspoonfuls of cod-liver oil if he is 

less than 2 years old (he should have 3 

to 4 teaspoonfuls); one vegetable or fruit 

(he should have three or four); and also

plenty of bread, cereals and other energy 

and body-building foods.” Stiebeling used 

the important phrase “margin of safety” in 

this pamphlet to subtly argue that the bare 

minimum could not be acceptable when 

there was no crisis. One can sense that 

Stiebeling and her coauthors feared that 

if they gave these bare minimums, relief 

agencies would accept them as sufficient 

and not try to provide more. At the same 

time, they clearly wanted to make sure that 

these minimums were met. As the pamphlet 

explained, “The standard of all relief should 

be such as to provide a fully adequate diet, 

which allows variety and an ample margin 

of safety in all the nutritive essentials and 

every effort to maintain such a standard 

should be made even under emergency 

conditions.” The minimums were not an 

invitation to scrimp, rather a base upon 

which to build.

The pamphlet’s authors understood the 

conditions on the ground. They had, after 

all, been researching them and knew that 

many communities were running short 

of relief. In these cases, “at least enough 

money must be allowed to provide the 

‘irreducible amounts’ of the protective and 

other foods,” but these were “not adequate 

for long-time use [italics in original].” 

Fearing, correctly, that the worst was yet to 

come, Stiebeling and her coauthors made 

suggestions for “Conditions of Extreme 

Economic Distress,” when “the need for 

relief may be so widespread as to resemble 

conditions following disaster.” In such 

circumstances, the government would need 

to step in. State or local agencies could buy 

milk in bulk to distribute it, particularly to 

children, and basic sustenance could be 

achieved if “Clean whole wheat or crushed 

wheat, locally prepared, [was] cooked in 

large quantities and distributed by a central 

agency.” Here the three authors were 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 23

subtly making an argument about national 

nutrition and government policy.

Contrary to President Herbert Hoover’s 

strategy of relying on private and community 

aid, they suggested that it was the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to make sure 

its people were fed and to take nutrition 

into account in doing so. Equating economic 

depression with natural disaster was not 

a rhetorical move that everyone would 

accept. For many conservatives, sending 

in the National Guard to sandbag in flood 

plains was one thing, feeding those who 

could not feed themselves was something 

else altogether. Essentially, the fear was 

that the citizen would become dependent on 

the government and, through dependence, 

become a strain on its resources. For 

government nutritionists, the idea that 

Americans would become “dependent” on a 

basic level of nutrition seemed like a good 

outcome from a terrible crisis. While they 

stopped short of suggesting a federally 

directed food relief effort, Stiebeling and 

her coauthors did warn that “Irregular, 

unplanned, or uncoordinated food relief 

given to a family by several agencies is 

undesirable” because it made it impossible 

to know whether the family was getting 

proper nutrition. It is easy to imagine, for 

example, that given poor funds, all relief 

agencies in an area would provide the 

cheapest food possible, perhaps bread, 

potentially stale. Families would receive 

food, certainly, but not nutrition. The kind 

of coordination required would probably be 

easiest at the county or State level. 

Furthermore, relief must come with 

education or its potential would go 

unfulfilled. Families might “need help in 

learning to use and prepare unfamiliar foods 

to the best advantage and to adapt them to 

personal and national customs.” Because so 

few Americans had knowledge of proteins, 

vitamins, and other basic principles of 

nutritional science, they probably would 

need help figuring out how to make the 

best use of whatever relief they received. 

For an example not given in the pamphlet, 

rather than eating bread on its own, a 

family might make breadcrumbs that could 

serve to “stretch” meat or bean dishes. It 

is worth noting here, too, that Stiebeling 

advocated helping the hungry maintain 

their foodways rather than “converting” 

them to one particular cuisine. She clearly 

understood that food that was not palatable 

would not be eaten, even in dire straits. And 

if families could adapt and adopt new food 

sources, their chances for living nutritionally 

balanced lives after the Depression seemed 

much greater. Having assimilated soybeans 

during the crisis, for example, they might be 

more likely to try something else new and 

nutritious once times were not so lean. To 

reach the people, the pamphlet’s authors 

recommended that “Relief agencies contact 

local home economics teachers as well 

as public health nurses, dieticians, and 

nutritionists.” At the same time that she 

was doing the Bureau’s work of helping the 

needy, Stiebeling was also creating broader 

social authority for home economics as 

a field, one way of insuring the Bureau’s 

survival in tough economic times.

By 1932, Hoover and his limited approach 

to the Depression were out of favor, and the 

Nation had a president in Franklin Roosevelt 

who seemed to share Stiebeling’s sense 

that the government had a responsibility to 

help the needy directly. In a 1934 article, 

Stiebeling took up the idea of wide-scale 

coordination and planning for an adequately 

nourished nation. She cited estimates 

made by Dr. O.E. Baker as to how many 

acres of land would be needed to produce 

enough food to keep all Americans at one 

of the three levels of diet. It was clearly 

Steibeling’s hope that Baker’s data would 

be used proactively by government agencies 

to ensure adequate diets for all Americans. 

Stiebeling acknowledged that this was 

not a foregone conclusion: “Whether we 

can succeed in the program of bringing 

fully adequate diets within the reach of 
24 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 1945

The Food and 

Agriculture Organization 

of the United Nations 

was founded and 

adopted Hazel 

Stiebeling’s standards 

for determining adequate 

nutrition. 

1948

The World Health 

Organization was 

established and 

chose to follow Hazel 

Stiebeling’s standards 

for adequate diets.

1939

The Yearbook of 

Agriculture provided 

much of the 

information that the 

public would need 

to achieve good 

nutrition.

all depends on how earnestly we apply 

ourselves to the challenge of entering an 

economy of planned abundance.” While 

the mere suggestion that the American 

Government might attempt a planned 

economy for the welfare of all citizens may 

surprise contemporary readers, Stiebeling 

was writing in a time of international 

interest in just such reforms. The Great 

Depression had prompted governments in 

Europe as well as America to try to establish 

some kind of control over the vagaries of the 

economy.

The standards that Stiebeling set for 

determining whether individuals were 

receiving adequate nutrition were quickly 

adopted by the Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations after its 

founding in 1945 and by the World Health 

Organization when it was established in 

1948. They also quickly attracted the anger 

of flour millers, who felt that the bulletin 

“was designed to reduce the use of wheat 

and wheat products” (23). Stiebeling recalled 

the controversy: “Agricultural economists 

calculated that this country’s capacity to 

produce would find no problem in supplying 

demand if everyone in the population were 

consuming the nutritionally adequate diets 

at these food budgets, expenditure levels; 

and that there would follow an increased 

demand for milk and for deep green-and 

yellow-colored fruits and vegetables, leafy 

greens in particular. But the meat industry 

was upset with the diet plans because the 

most economical budgets included less 

than average-per-caput amounts of lean 

meat. Wheat growers were unhappy because 

the most costly budgets included less of 

grain products than average-per-caput 

consumption” (24).

As a journalist noted in 1935, “It used to 

be conceded that a government bureau 

was safe in working out and publicizing 

diets the use of which would be of great 

value to millions of families on relief.” The 

Bureau, however, had “run up against a 

high pressure lobby which threatens its 

existence.” Led by lobbyist H.T. Corson, 

farmers, millers, and bakers, as well as 

Chambers of Commerce, flooded Congress 

with telegrams objecting to “an alleged BHE 

attempt to reduce wheat consumption.” This 

“attempt” could be found in “Diets at Four 

Levels of Nutritive Content and Cost” (25). 

Debate erupted during consideration of the 

budget for the Department of Agriculture. 

U.S. Representative from Kansas Clifford 

R. Hope (R) claimed that “every one of 

these diets” described in “Diets at Four 

Levels” “suggests the use of a smaller 

proportion of cereals and wheat flour than 

the average consumption in this country 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 25

today.” Hope accused the BHE of “typical 

bureaucratic arrogance” in not consulting 

wheat producers, millers, and bakers as 

they developed the recommended diets. 

Dismissing the bulletin as “propaganda,” 

Hope supported a rider to the budget 

appropriation that would prohibit the USDA 

from publishing any material that called for 

limited consumption of any food produced 

by American farmers or manufacturers (26). 

Nutritionists, however, had enough friends 

in Congress to secure a proviso to the rider 

that essentially nullified it.

Ironically, journalist Rodney Dutcher 

calculated that the wheat consumption 

suggested in “Diets at Four Levels” was 

actually higher than the national average at 

the time. What wheat and bread industry 

lobbyists objected to was the setting of 

any limit, even if it was only suggested, for 

consumption of their product (25).

The 1930s were busy years for the 

nutritionists at the Bureau, who cooperated 

with researchers in other USDA divisions 

to improve foodstuffs in the interests 

of improving nutrition without asking 

Americans to change their eating habits. 

Writing in Scientific Monthly, a popular 

science newsletter, Louise Stanley reported 

on three projects that the Bureau was 

involved in during 1933. In collaboration 

with the Bureau of Animal Industry, BHE 

nutritionists worked to increase the levels of 

vitamin D in eggs with the goal of improving 

the nutritional quality of children’s diets 

without changing what children actually 

ate. Feeding castor oil to laying hens, the 

study revealed, translated into higher levels 

of vitamin D in the diets of children who 

consumed these eggs.

Stanley reported that, also in collaboration 

with the Bureau of Animal Industry, “Meat 

studies are in progress to determine the 

influence of such production factors as 

breed, sex, feed and age of the animal, on 

the edible quality of the meat” (27). These 

studies drew the attention of the national 

press. In 1931 local newspapers across the 

country noted, “Uncle Sam is paying some 

of his employees to eat!” In the early days 

of the Depression, this would certainly have 

drawn attention. The article went on to 

reassure readers that all this was done in 

their own interest: “This eating is done to 

safeguard the health of food consumers and 

guarantee them the tenderest meats.” What 

the writer termed “epicurean exercises” 

were not performed “with the intent to fill 

an empty stomach,” and the testing was 

made potentially less enjoyable by the 

absence of seasonings (28). On the women’s 

pages of newspapers, too, the work of the 

Bureau was noted. “In the last four years,” 

one “Household Hints” column explained, 

“the bureau of home economics ... has 

been accumulating meat shrinkage data in 

connection with the nation-wide co-operative 

study of the factors that influence the 

palatability of meat” (29). 

The palatability study was a remarkable 

attempt to provide an entire nation with 

reliable information on how to get the most 

out of the meats they were able to buy. Too 

often, nutritionists have been portrayed 

as uninterested in taste, seeing food as 

fuel rather than a part of sensory life. This 

study is a good example of the careful work 

nutritionists have done to understand not 

just what people ought to eat, but what they 

would like to eat. As a writer in Scientific 

Monthly noted in 1934, “until recently 

we have not been able to make definite 

comparisons of muscle to learn the effects 

of breeding, feeding, and management upon 

the palatability and food value” (30). 

Over the course of their experiments, from 

1925 to 1931, the Bureau “roasted 2,200 

legs of lamb, 800 rib roasts of beef, 450 cuts 

of fresh pork, and about 50 cured hams 

for judging.” One of the most important 

outcomes of the Bureau’s meat research in 

this period was the popularization of the 

meat thermometer, a device that had not 
26 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

been commonly used in American homes. 

The Bureau had a thermometer made to 

its own specifications and encouraged its 

use through publication of recipes that 

called for precise temperatures. Use of the 

thermometer would, it was hoped, make 

it “possible to write household recipes for 

cooking meat that are more definite than 

recipes ordinarily found in cookbooks.” 

Interestingly, although some recipes do 

specify a temperature for “doneness,” this 

has not over the intervening years become 

the standard in recipe writing. This gap 

between progress made at the Bureau 

and progress made in the home was not 

unique to the matter of meat thermometers. 

The story of the Bureau, and indeed of 

all nutrition work done by the USDA, is 

partly a story of this failure of the public to 

assimilate Bureau research into ordinary 

life. It is also a story of life-saving success, 

but the failures must be seen as equally 

important in looking to the future.

In 1939 the question of how to bring the 

results of Bureau research in nutrition into 

ordinary American homes was the topic 

of several articles in USDA’s Yearbook of 

Agriculture. Louise Stanley wrote about 

the major change that the development of 

the field of nutrition had brought. Where 

for generations families had relied on local 

traditions and folk wisdom to tell them 

which foods to eat, they could now turn 

to scientific results for guidance. Stanley 

expressed respect for folk wisdom, developed 

as it has been “by trial and error over long 

period, with much suffering by the way.” 

However, in modern society, food was 

different from that enjoyed by our ancestors. 

More of it was processed, and some of it was 

new in that it was eaten in parts of the world 

where it was not grown. “In this situation,” 

Stanley argued, “tradition and habit are 

no longer safe guides to the selection of 

foods.” Worse, “they can lead to dangerous 

mistakes.” Nutritional science was not out 

to replace folk wisdom, to “wipe out habits 

and traditions.” Tactfully, diplomatically, 

Stanley reassured readers that they were not 

being dismissed as ignoramuses. Nutrition 

instead “supplements” traditions, perhaps 

sometimes “corrects them” and “shows 

how to use them intelligently” (31). While 

traditions might be important culturally 

and could very well be sound, the research 

of nutritionists must also be taken into 

account for health in the modern world. 

How to blend tradition and science to 

the best effect was the difficult work 

of the Division of Foods and Nutrition. 

Hazel Stiebeling wrote thoughtfully about 

how traditions formed, while Paul Howe 

considered whether habits related to food 

could actually be changed. Both questions 

are vital to the practice of nutritional 

science. Stiebeling was hopeful in her 

outlook, assuming that education would 

be enough to change American food habits. 

The trouble was what form that education 

could take. She argued that people typically 

took their lead in foodways from those they 

considered their social betters. It is open 

to debate whether all social groups do take 

their cues about food in the same way, but 

accepting Stiebeling’s premise, this habit 

could be bad for public health, because 

whoever comprised that emulated group 

might not themselves have good nutritional 

habits. Perhaps Stiebeling was implying 

that by educating the wealthy in nutrition, 

a trickle-down effect could be counted on to 

improve nutrition across classes, because 

the middle class emulated elite foodways 

while the poor copied the middle class.

Another problem with nutritional education 

that Stiebeling identified was the human 

body itself. It would be useful if one could 

see the effects of bad nutrition clearly as 

they occurred and “if obvious manifestations 

of the effect of diet on nutritional well-being 

followed day-by-day food consumption with 

dramatic swiftness.” The body, however, 

inconveniently for nutritionists but very 

conveniently for human survival, has the 

ability “to store certain reserves during 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 27

periods of plenty to be drawn upon in times 

of dietary poverty.” While the effects of 

conditions like pellagra could be seen—and 

the BHE was able to make huge strides in 

wiping out pellagra—the results of other 

kinds of malnutrition were much subtler. 

Worse, the benefits of good nutrition were 

not visible as such to the average person. 

This continues to make it difficult to sell the 

idea of nutritional education to the American 

public.

Stiebeling believed that although much 

research remained to be done in nutrition, 

enough had already been completed to 

significantly improve the human diet 

if only “present knowledge, incomplete 

and far from precise though it is, were 

widely disseminated and put into common 

practice.” Inhibiting this beneficial shift 

in food habits, Stiebeling cited lack of 

understanding of the benefits of good 

nutrition, poor consumption habits, and, 

unusually severe in the era in which she 

wrote: “the lack of purchasing power on the 

part of many urban families, and especially 

in the case of rural families, insufficient 

success in planning and carrying out a foodproduction program designed to complement 

food purchases” (32). These same barriers 

to nutrition education continue to plague 

Americans in the 21st century.

In the same year that she published this 

more abstract musing on nutrition and 

society, Stiebeling also made important 

adjustments to the USDA’s dietary 

allowances. As Alf Harper relates, she 

and another important USDA researcher, 

Esther Phipard, “expanded the dietary 

allowances to include thiamin and 

riboflavin ... increased the number of age 

groups and ... proposed that to establish 

allowances, average requirements should 

be increased by 50% to allow for variability 

among the requirements of individuals 

in the population” (21). Harper identifies 

the increase of average requirements as 

a fundamental improvement in the work 

of determining “dietary standards and 

daily allowances” across international 

organizations and up to the present day.

Paul Howe offered the imagined internal 

monologue of a “housewife who had good 

knowledge of nutrition,” planning her 

family’s dinner. The monologue is worth 

quoting at length and with commentary for 

the way in which it reveals nutritionists’ 

ideals.

“Soup?” the fantasy figure asked herself, 

“It’s appetizing and not too filling.” Howe 

recognized the importance of stimulating the 

appetite, aware that good nutrition could 

not be achieved where palatability was not 

considered.

“Meat?” Howe’s housewife continued, “Yes. 

No animal protein for the grown-ups so far 

today.” Good nutrition was not just a matter 

of knowing about vitamins; it required 

keeping track of the whole family’s food 

experiences throughout each day in order to 

achieve balance.

“Potatoes? Yes.”

“Other vegetables? Broccoli, turnips, beets, 

or carrots? Make it broccoli and carrots—

not enough Vitamin A so far.” Here she 

performed a quick assessment of the meal 

and analyzed it for vitamin content. She 

would have to know not only that broccoli 

and carrots were good sources of vitamin A 

but also that the foods she had chosen so 

far were not. 

“Salad? Lettuce with cottage cheese and 

pineapple—more carotene and more 

calcium.” Again she checked for what was 

missing and added it in a way that she 

thought would be palatable to the family.

“Dessert? Cottage pudding? No; calcium 

is still low.” In order to raise the meal’s 

calcium content, she decided to “make 

it pumpkin pie and a cup of coffee with 

cream.”
28 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

To double check, she then rattled off the 

meals of the day:

“We had grapefruit this morning, tomato 

juice this noon, and broccoli, carrots, butter, 

and salad tonight to provide sufficient 

vitamins C and A. The meat, bread, and 

cottage cheese, and the peanut-butter 

sandwiches this noon provide plenty of 

protein. The calcium may be a little low, 

but pumpkin pie has helped and there was 

skim milk in the bread. The children have 

had milk for breakfast and lunch, so their 

calcium intake is well taken care of.” And 

although “we only had white bread,” the 

“B factor,” could be accounted for because 

“there were meat, peanut butter, cheese, and 

vegetables to help out” (33). 

While Howe admitted that “most of us do 

not go through an analysis such as this,” 

it seemed to be his wish that one day those 

“with the responsibility for inducing us 

to eat foods that are needed even though 

we may not like them” would receive the 

kind of education that would make this 

monologue not only possible but routine. 

Howe thought that, beyond education, 

habits might be changed by using the 

human attraction to novelty. “Man,” Howe 

reasoned, “likes what he is used to, but he 

also likes change.” Howe suggested using 

the insights of the new field of psychology 

to induce people to eat nutritiously. Good 

research and reasonable arguments would 

not be enough, for “man’s instinct is so 

overlaid by conditioning that he cannot be 

trusted to select food with any relation to 

his physiological needs.” Yet in the end, he 

had faith in early nutrition education for 

children and well-designed bulletins like the 

BHE’s “Market Basket” for adults to change 

the food habits of the Nation.

Other articles in the 1939 Yearbook of 

Agriculture provided much of the information 

that the public would need to achieve 

good nutrition. Using simple language and 

compelling examples, D. Breese Jones wrote 

of “The Protein Requirements of Man,” Henry 

Sherman and three other authors described 

“The Mineral Needs of Man,” and Lelia 

Booher and five other authors presented 

“The Vitamin Needs of Man.” The coauthors 

for Sherman’s article were Mabel Dickson, 

Margaret Cammack Smith, and Esther 

Petersen Daniel; and those for Booher’s were 

Elizabeth C. Callison, O.L. Kline, Sybil L. 

Smith, Frederick W. Irish, and E.M. Nelson. 

As of 1939, Booher and Callison could 

report, “with dramatic rapidity, the vitamins 

are now being purified, definitely isolated 

and even produced synthetically in the 

laboratory”—all of which made it much 

easier to perform experiments testing their 

properties. Vitamin A had been found in 

many foods, particularly “fatty food products 

of animal origins” and was associated with 

the presence of carotene and cryptoxanthin 

in vegetables. The best food sources of 

vitamin A, Booher and Callison reported, 

were animal livers, particularly those 

of certain fish. Milk and eggs, the latter 

depending on the hens’ diet, could also be 

good sources. The first sign of deficiency in 

vitamin A was night blindness, for which 

tests on young infants had been devised. 

To better understand the vitamin A 

needs of the human body, a study was 

performed on five adult volunteers between 

1937 and 1938. Three women and two 

men “consented” to be participants in 

this 6-month study by the BHE. During 

this period, the five ate only food that 

was prepared for them in a BHE kitchen 

laboratory. “Literally every bite these 

people ate was weighed.” Although “the 

diet was neither unpleasing nor unduly 

monotonous,” the vitamin A content was 

kept as low as possible. In order to reassure 

readers that the experiment did not qualify 

as torture, a sample menu was given. 

Breakfast, “the least variable of the meals,” 

was “grapefruit, toast, bacon, oleomargarine 

(with no added Vitamin A), honey, skim 

milk, and black coffee.” A “representative 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 29

dinner” would consist of “chicken, potatoes 

and oleomargarine, cauliflower, a small 

portion of cranberry sauce, pears, and skim 

milk.” For supper, the lucky five might 

dine on “navy bean soup, saltines, a small 

serving of apple, celery, and nut salad with 

lemon juice dressing, cocoa, and angel food 

cake.” 

The subjects neither gained nor lost weight 

during the experiment, but all lost night 

vision. The length of time it took for night 

vision to be lost varied from subject to 

subject. Booher and Callison surmised that 

this was probably because each person had 

different amounts of vitamin A stored in 

their livers based on pre-experimental diets. 

When night blindness set in, adding doses 

of cod liver oil to the diet restored night 

vision. Once it returned, the cod liver oil was 

taken away, and night blindness returned. 

Subjects were then given supplements of 

carotene crystals dissolved in cottonseed oil. 

To restore night vision, much more of this 

second supplement was needed than the 

amounts of cod liver oil that had performed 

the same function. As of 1939, it was “not 

understood exactly why this should be true.” 

Because vegetable sources of vitamin A were 

important parts of “low-cost dietaries,” the 

Bureau was working to discover why it was 

that vitamin A from these sources was “not 

better utilized.”

Reporting on studies of vitamin B, O.L. 

Kline of the Bureau noted that although 

vitamin B1 had been first recognized at the 

end of the 19th century, it was not until 

1936, just 3 years before the report, that it 

had been synthesized in a laboratory. The 

crystalline form was now “being widely used 

in the study of the physiological function 

of the vitamin in the human body.” As yet, 

researchers had only been able to determine 

minimum vitamin A requirements, and 

“there is little agreement as to the increased 

amount that may be required for optimum 

conditions.” Kline expressed the hope that 

“improvements in methods for determining 

the Vitamin B1 content of blood and urine 

and the use of crystalline B1 in clinical 

studies will yield in the future more reliable 

information on the minimum, as well as 

optimum, requirement.” While the Bureau 

had not repeated its vitamin A experiment 

for B1, data from a study of American family 

diets indicated that most were getting at 

least the minimum required amount of B1 in 

their diets. Beriberi, the main B1 deficiency, 

was not common among American families.

Like vitamin B1, Sybil Smith reported, 

vitamin C had only recently been recognized 

as the reason that green vegetables, 

oranges, and lemons cured scurvy and 

had only about 6 years previously, been 

“finally separated from foods, identified as 

a chemical compound of known structure, 

and manufactured for use in laboratory and 

clinical work.” However, also like B1, “there 

is still considerable uncertainty as to how 

the vitamin acts in the body and how much 

of it is needed by people of different ages.” 

One problem was that although scurvy 

was now very rare, many other conditions 

of vitamin C deficiency existed with much 

more subtle symptoms so that it was very 

hard to tell when people were suffering 

from it. Other difficulties in studying C were 

that it is “quite unstable and easily lost” 

in consumption and that it was difficult to 

use color tests to determine its presence 

in foods. As Smith explained, “thus far no 

test has been found that will react with 

vitamin C and not with other reducing 

agents,” so, because C reacts more rapidly 

than most other agents, test results had 

to be read very quickly to get any idea of 

the C content of foods. Using guinea pigs, 

researchers had been able to determine that 

C helps to keep intercellular material “in 

a stiff jellylike ... state.” It seemed also to 

help prevent infection and to speed healing 

from wounds. Like vitamin B1 researchers, 

vitamin C researchers were not attempting 

to understand the relationship between 

minimum and optimum levels of C in the 

diet. Capillary strength, urine, and blood 
30 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

tests were all methods to study C content 

and the effect of differing levels of the 

vitamin. Smith admitted that although 

experiments like those performed for vitamin 

A were “a tedious process beset with many 

difficulties, open to many errors, and subject 

to many interpretations,” they were also the 

most popular kind of study and “most of the 

attempts that have been made to determine 

human requirements have been based” on 

the model.

One of the controversies involved with 

these studies was the question of whether 

the optimum level of a vitamin was the 

saturation point—the point at which the 

vitamin was no longer being absorbed and 

began to appear in urine. In the case of C, 

Smith reported, research seemed to suggest 

that saturation was the optimum because 

C had so many health benefits. Despite 

much research using guinea pigs to study 

the relationship between C and gingivitis, 

stomach ulcers, and recovery from wounds, 

“there are many unanswered questions 

that make it difficult to give requirements 

for vitamin C with certainty.” It did seem, 

however, that minimum and saturation 

levels had been determined and that within 

this range, age would determine individual 

needs.

Reporting on contemporary knowledge of 

vitamin D, Frederick Irish, a chemist with 

the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 

echoed the theme that all the previous 

writers had sounded: much was still to 

be learned. “The mechanism by which 

vitamin D functions,” he explained, “has not 

been determined with finality.” What was 

understood so far was that D helped the 

body to absorb calcium and phosphorus. 

Recognizing that vitamin D needs varied 

significantly through the year, with sunlight 

replacing the vitamin when days were 

longer, experts still were unable to agree 

on D minimums for infants and young 

children. This disagreement arose “in part 

from the use of different criteria in judging 

the adequacy of a particular vitamin D 

intake.” Some used prevention of rickets 

as the standard, while others looked at 

total calcium retention. Optimal vitamin D 

amounts for older children, adolescents, and 

adults had not yet been determined, though 

data from a study of children in orphanages 

in and around New York City suggested that 

summer sunshine was sufficient, even in 

areas of urban air pollution.

E.M. Nelson, chief of the Vitamin Division 

of the FDA, began his report with the 

admission that “The vitamin E requirement 

of man is not known.” Only recently had 

it been “reported that a substance having 

the properties of vitamin E has been 

synthesized in the laboratory.” In rats, E 

deficiency was associated with reproductive 

difficulties, and there was some thought 

that it might be responsible for miscarriages 

in humans. Goats, however, seemed to 

manage fine without it. By 1939, “studies 

on human requirements for vitamin E have 

been confined” to studies of the effect of 

wheat germ oil on sterility and repeated 

miscarriages. So far, wheat germ oil, a 

source of vitamin E, had had no effect on 

either condition. Nelson reasoned that 

should vitamin E be found at some later 

point to be essential to human nutrition, 

it was found in so many foods that there 

would be no threat of deficiency in the 

population at large.

As with vitamins A, B1, and C, Lelia Booher 

reported that the significance of riboflavin 

was not truly understood until very recently. 

In 1933, English and American scientists 

working independently both announced the 

“discovery of the biological significance of 

this substance,” the “water soluble, yellow 

pigmented vitamin” that could be found in 

many foods. Booher, who was Chief of the 

Foods and Nutrition Division at this time, 

described the gruesome effects of depriving 

laboratory rats of riboflavin while feeding 

them a diet adequate in all other nutrients. 

Loss of hair, dermatosis, and the loss of 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 31

digits, joint-by-joint, were, however, happily 

halted and (except in the case of lost digits) 

reversed by the restoration of riboflavin. 

Booher explained that many foods contained 

small amounts of riboflavin and that it was 

thus very difficult to test for the substance. 

Even as she wrote, “methods strictly 

chemical in nature are in the process of 

being developed.” 

In contrast to E.M. Nelson’s tone of 

disinterest in vitamin E, Booher’s writing 

suggested real excitement at being part of a 

new science finding its way one experiment 

at a time. The data on riboflavin that existed 

in 1939 had mostly been acquired through 

the “biological assay” method, like that used 

for the vitamin A studies, but with rats as 

subjects rather than humans. Because 

riboflavin was so widespread in the foods 

humans eat, Booher explained, deficiency 

was probably not a problem. She did note, 

however, that a recent study by Henry 

Sebrell and Roy E. Butler had reported on 

what appeared to be riboflavin deficiency 

connected to cases of pellagra in humans. 

Once readers had discovered the vitamin 

“needs” of their own bodies, they could 

turn to Esther Daniel’s explanation of the 

“Vitamin Content of Foods” to learn how 

to fill those needs efficiently. Charlotte 

Chatfield and Georgian Adams explained 

how to read food composition tables, a skill 

that could be invaluable to the consumer 

but which few had acquired, leaving such 

understanding to experts without realizing 

both how accessible and how important 

this information can be. The pair gave lists 

of foods that would help readers think of 

meals in terms of nutritional value as well 

as flavor. Far from pushing on the public 

foods that were healthy but unpalatable, 

the article offered many choices within 

categories of foods that were “excellent” or 

“good” sources of particular nutrients. 

The lists included foods such as sesame 

seeds, sweet potato tops, and burdock 

roots that might not have been familiar 

outside regional cuisines, giving the 

national public an opportunity to make an 

exercise in good nutrition also an exercise 

in newness. This was the tactic Paul Howe 

had suggested: appealing to the human 

interest in change that coexists with our 

love of continuity. Chatfield and Adams 

noted that contemporary knowledge of 

nutrition, even among experts, was far from 

complete and that much more work must be 

done before the public would have the best 

possible information with which to make 

food choices. For example, while the authors 

could list foods rich in calcium, magnesium, 

or iron, “It is not enough to know how much 

of each of these elements is present in the 

food materials. Chemists are now being 

called on not only to give the quantity of 

calcium or iron in different substances but 

also to supply information that will throw 

light on the availability of these elements 

to the body.” After all, knowing that turnip 

greens are rich in calcium would be useless 

if it was determined that this calcium was 

not accessible to the metabolisms of those 

who ate the greens. 

The lists that Chatfield and Adams provided 

suggested a new way of thinking about 

food—the model proposed by Howe’s 

fictional housewife. Using this method, one 

thought about nutrition and the composition 

of foods first and flavor second. Flavor was 

essential, but it was not the driving force in 

decision-making. Because of this ranking, 

it has been hard both for the message of 

nutrition to spread and for critics to see that 

nutritionists do not dismiss palatability, only 

rate it differently from the hungry person in 

the restaurant. 

Faith Clark and Hazel Stiebeling offered 

further help to the average consumer with 

“Planning for Good Nutrition,” and Miriam 

Birdseye addressed “What the Modern 

Homemaker Needs to Know” about food 

in order to get the most food value for her 

family’s budget. The main point of Birdseye’s 
32 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

article, which contrasted a Christmas dinner 

of the 17th century with one of 1939, was 

that the majority of Americans’ foodstuffs 

were now industrially processed where once 

they had been produced in and around the 

home.

Stiebeling, Marius Farioletti, F.V. Vaughn, 

and J.P. Cavin took a broader view of the 

problem in “Better Nutrition as a National 

Goal.” The 1939 Yearbook of Agriculture

provided not only a report on the state 

of food in the United States but also a 

platform for action on the individual 

level and the national stage. Articles by 

Harry Gorseline and A.K. Balls discussed 

issues of food preservation, while Edward 

Joss, Ernest Kelley, and Marius Farioletti 

wrote about national food standards and 

inspections, both of which were the result 

of efforts by consumer advocacy groups. 

Beyond piecemeal legislation to protect the 

food supply chain, Stiebeling suggested 

a national program that would integrate 

ideas of nutrition both with citizenship and 

with Federal regulation of the economy. 

Bringing Americans to proper nutritional 

status, “is far more than an individual 

problem,” she warned, and to solve it “would 

require a great deal of education; increased 

purchasing power, or lower food distribution 

costs, or both.” And if existing problems 

were really to be solved, “considerable 

increases in production of the so-called 

protective foods” would be necessary. 

Contrary to American cultural and social 

traditions, the government might have to tell 

farmers what to grow. 

As of 1939, the average American’s diet was 

nutritionally inadequate despite the fact 

that “if our present knowledge of foods and 

nutrition were generally applied, it would 

revolutionize dietary habits and have farreaching implications for national health 

and agriculture.” In an interview the same 

year for Country Gentleman, Stiebeling’s 

language was even more dramatic: if 

Americans could apply existing nutrition 

knowledge, “we would be a different race” 

(34). 

To bring Americans to good nutrition, 

consumption of leafy green and yellow 

vegetables would have to be increased by 

100 percent, tomatoes and citrus by 70 

percent, eggs by 35 percent, and milk and 

butter by 20 and 15 percent, respectively. 

Better nutrition would mean lower hospital 

expenses (and since most of those who were 

poorly nourished were themselves poor, this 

meant public expense), higher productivity 

in industry and agriculture, and longer life 

spans, also resulting in greater demand for 

agricultural products. Stiebeling was making 

the economic case for better national 

nutrition. The government, industry, and 

agriculture—no one could afford poor 

national nutrition.

Studies of family food expenditures had 

revealed the fascinating information 

that well-to-do families spent a smaller 

proportion of their income on food than did 

poor families. Indeed, the richer a family 

was, the smaller a proportion of its weekly 

budget went for food. To Stiebeling, this was 

an indicator of mistaken priorities, and “the 

question is often asked whether families, 

particularly those at low-income levels, 

would spend appreciably more for food if 

incomes were increased or whether the extra 

income would go chiefly for automobiles 

or clothes, or other uses.” Studies had 

determined that wealthier families tended 

to consume more of the “protective” foods 

than poor families did. The question, then, 

was how to get these foods to those with 

low incomes. Could prices be reduced, 

either by simply reducing prices relative 

to incomes or by raising incomes? And 

if they could be reduced, how low would 

they have to go to increase consumption? 

However, the problem was not purely an 

issue of economics; the public had to learn 

what it needed. Many agencies existed that 

were dedicated to propagating nutritional 

information. Extension agents and workers 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 33 1940

Prior to America’s entry into 

WWII, the National Research 

Council established the 

Committee on Nutrition. 

Hazel Stiebeling, Helen 

Mitchell, and Lydia Roberts 

provided a“tentative 

standard” to be used in 

evaluating both civilian and 

military diets.

in public health clinics, among many 

other evangelists, were working with great 

commitment to educate the people. The 

question was, Stiebeling concluded with 

a hint of bitterness, “whether the general 

public can be persuaded that the matter 

is worth its attention and worth the price.” 

The price, presumably, would be a major 

overhaul in the national management of 

production and employment.

While the general public may have remained 

largely uninterested, Federal authorities 

became intensely interested in national 

nutrition just 2 years after Stiebeling’s 

report, when America entered the Second 

World War and large numbers of recruits 

were found unfit to fight because of poor 

nutrition. By 1940, in anticipation of the 

possibility of America’s entry into the war, 

the National Research Council established 

the Committee on Nutrition, a government 

advisory board. Responding to a national 

sense of urgency, the council’s chair, Russell 

Wilder, gave three people less than 24 hours 

to come up with a standard to be used in 

evaluating both civilian and military diets. 

Stiebeling was a natural choice for this 

group and was joined by Dr. Helen Mitchell 

and Dr. Lydia Roberts. Given their task in 

the evening, they were requested to provide 

a standard by the next morning. The team, 

as directed, delivered a “tentative standard” 

to use in continuing research into the 

problems of national defense (21). Beginning 

with a synthesis of existing research, 

the larger working group then consulted 

with scientists active in related research 

and opened the topic up to a meeting of 

the American Institute of Nutrition. The 

standards were first released in 1941 

and then more widely published in 1943, 

thereafter serving as a starting point for all 

future research in standards (21).

In 1941 President Franklin Roosevelt 

called together leaders in the field of 

nutrition and emergency management 

for a National Nutrition Conference for 

Defense, recognizing that “if people are 

undernourished, they can not be efficient in 

producing what we need in our unified drive 

for dynamic strength.” Although doubtless 

fully committed to the effort of the moment, 

some nutritionists might have wondered 

why poor nutrition only seemed to be an 

emergency during wartime. Reporting on 

the conference, Rowena Carpenter of the 

BHE noted data provided by the Bureau 

that 45 million Americans lived on diets 

that were nutritionally inadequate even 

“when measured by the most conservative 

standards” (35). The problem went far 

beyond cases of pellagra, beriberi, rickets, 

and scurvy, Carpenter reported, to the more 

widespread “hidden hunger” of those who 

had lived for long periods on barely adequate 

diets. Over time, malnutrition took its toll 

on their muscle tone, teeth, stomachs, and 

psyches. It was now the task of Helen S. 

Mitchell— under the direction of Paul V. 

McNutt, Coordinator of Health, Nutrition, 

Welfare, Recreation, and Related Activities 

for the Federal Emergency Management 

Administration—to pool the resources of 

all the States to raise levels of nutrition 

throughout the Nation. 

For the most part, these resources consisted 

of educators of various backgrounds and 
34 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

President Franklin 

Roosevelt called 

together leaders in the 

field of nutrition and 

emergency management 

for a National Nutrition 

Conference for Defense. 1941

The Bureau of Home 

Economics moved 

to the 12,000-acre 

facility in Beltsville, 

MD.

affiliations. In every State, “Every person 

professionally trained in medicine, public 

health, nutrition, dietetics, nursing, 

social service, and allied fields should be 

mobilized for nutrition work in their own 

communities.” Some practical measures 

already agreed upon were the extension 

of existing school lunch programs and 

the Food Stamp Plan, part of the USDA’s 

Surplus Marketing Administration, created 

during the depression to help manage 

the fact that widespread hunger occurred 

despite agricultural surpluses. 

At the 1941 conference, Dr. Lydia Roberts, 

of the University of Chicago, presented 

“diet standards” devised by the Food 

and Nutrition Committee of the National 

Research Council. “The new defense 

diet standards,” presented in the form 

of Recommended Dietary Allowances, 

were “suitable for any time but especially 

important to follow right now” (36). Although 

an attempt was clearly being made to 

help Americans consider the standards 

as permanently useful, the language of 

emergency—“right now”—simultaneously 

undermined that message. The standards 

as announced were “one pint of milk daily 

for an adult, more for children. One serving 

of meat. One egg daily or some suitable 

substitute such as beans. Two servings 

of vegetable daily, one of which should be 

green or yellow. Two servings of fruit daily, 

one of which should be a good source of 

vitamin C, such as citrus fruits or tomatoes. 

Bread, flour and cereal, most and preferably 

all of it whole grain or the new enriched 

bread, flour and cereals. Some butter or 

margarine with vitamin A added. Other 

foods to satisfy the appetite.” 

A lasting benefit that came from this 

conference was the establishment of 

enriched breads and flours as the industry 

standard. The Committee on Food and 

Nutrition, which became the Food and 

Nutrition Board, set “minimum and 

maximum limits for the enrichment of bread 

and flour with thiamine, riboflavin, niacin 

and iron.” This was a controversial move, as 

E. Neige Todhunter remarked years later: 

“Some have maintained that the public 

should be educated to the use of natural 

foods that would supply all nutrients.” 

What, after all, were all the bulletins for, if 

nutritionists were going to admit that no one 

was following their advice to consume whole 

grains? Todhunter the realist admitted, 

“Experience of centuries has shown that 

people are reluctant to change their food 

habits and that education regarding food 

choices is a slow process. Nutritionists 

could (and did) continue recommending 

whole grains, but in the meantime the 

slow-changing public might as well get its 

nutrients from enriched flour” (37).

1941 was also the year that the Bureau 

moved to Beltsville, MD, an adventure 

chronicled humorously by Ruth O’Brien. 

“To get its research units into less 

crowded quarters,” O’Brien explained, the 

laboratories were moved to the 12,000-acre 

facility in Beltsville. The day of the move 

was a “cold, rainy day,” which presented 

a problem for the Bureau’s “living test 

tubes,” or rats. O’Brien reported that “more 

than 3,000 of the ‘very special’ ones made 

the 17-mile journey in stylish fashion 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 35

(carried in air-conditioned ambulances); the 

remainder of the rat colony went in heated 

trucks.” This was because “as parts of longterm experiments, they represented large 

investments.” The utmost care was taken to 

protect them, including spreading canopies 

between trucks and buildings to keep the 

rain off their scientifically precious backs 

(38). 

Once the relocation was completed, a press 

release announced, “The Bureau’s staff, 

being foresighted, is looking ahead into the 

home freezing of foods, as well as studying 

the effect on palatability and nutritive 

values of different methods of processing 

and packaging foods.” In addition, “there 

are the home-front information programs 

on nutrition, food conservation, and the use 

of temporary food abundances.” Truly, “the 

Bureau cooperates manfully (even if it is 

mainly staffed by the ‘opposite sex’) with [the 

Office of War Information]” (39). 

Throughout the duration of the war, 

newspapers and magazines published 

advice from BHE nutrition experts on how 

to make the most of rations nutritionally. 

For example, an article published in the 

Science News Letter in 1942 reported the 

BHE response to sugar rationing: “To help 

[homemakers] meet their families’ cravings 

for sweets, the Department of Agriculture’s 

Bureau of Home Economics has published a 

carefully tested list of more than a score of 

reduced-sugar recipes.” Using professional 

advice, “Americans will discover that even 

with less sugar it’s a sweet world after all” 

(40).

In the film Wartime Nutrition, produced 

by the Office of War Information, Surgeon 

General Thomas Parrish urged viewers to 

“make a real effort to choose a nutritious 

diet” and argued, “Every citizen should 

have a down-to-earth working knowledge of 

modern nutrition.” Each one of us “must do 

this,” Parrish declared, “for today we have 

no choice. War demands that no one waste 

food.” In order to learn how to make the 

most of what was available, an announcer 

noted that public nutrition courses had 

been established in “churches, schools, and 

factories.” A classroom full of young women 

watching attentively as instructors prepared 

a meal, while frequently referring to a food 

chart, underscored the film’s message that 

“appetite alone is not a safe guide to good 

nutrition.”

One of the more unusual ways in which 

government nutritionists attempted to 

help Americans make the most of what 

they could get in wartime was a series of 

“nutrition tests” of wild game in 1944. The 

research was performed in the College 

Park, MD, laboratories of the National 

Fish and Wildlife Service, but the goal 

was to determine what role game animals 

could play in human nutrition. Vitamin 

assays were made, protein and fat content 

determined, and moisture assessed for the 

following: boiled, roasted, and baked beaver; 

roasted muskrat; broiled and roasted 

opossum; baked, broiled, fried, and roasted 

rabbit and parts of rabbits; and boiled and 

roasted raccoon and raccoon livers (41). 

The growing recognition of the “vital 

importance of nutrition in a national crisis” 

was reflected in the reorganization of the 

Bureau in 1943. That year, BHE was 

merged with USDA’s Division of Protein 

and Nutrition Research in Beltsville, MD, 

to become the Bureau of Human Nutrition 

and Home Economics (BHNHE). The 

nutrition work of the Office of Defense 

Health and Welfare Services was also 

placed within the newly named bureau. 

Gladys Baker, historian of the USDA, 

argued, “these administrative moves 

helped to establish the preeminence of the 

Department of Agriculture as the seat of 

nutrition research and programs among 

government agencies” (42). Stanley stepped 

down as Chief of the Bureau but continued 
36 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 1943

The Bureau of Home Economics 

was merged with USDA’s Division 

of Protein and Nutrition Research 

in Beltsville, MD, to become the 

Bureau of Human Nutrition and 

Home Economics. The nutrition 

work of the Office of Defense 

Health and Welfare Services was 

also placed within the newly 

named bureau.

Louise Stanley stepped 

down as Chief of the 

Bureau but continued 

working as Coordinator 

of Research in Home 

Economics for USDA’s 

Agricultural Research 

Administration.

Henry Sherman 

was placed in 

charge of the 

newly reorganized 

Bureau, but he 

only served one 

year.

working as Coordinator of Research in 

Home Economics for USDA’s Agricultural 

Research Administration. She was given the 

important responsibility of consulting with 

other nations concerning food problems and 

research. 

The Journal of Home Economics reported 

proudly, “Because of Dr. Stanley’s rich 

background, she was the one asked to 

head up this work.” The appointment 

was significant in the history of home 

economists, especially nutritionists, 

and of women. It reflected well on the 

efforts of nutritionists that the Federal 

Government viewed their work as a point for 

international collaboration and support; and 

it was a milestone in the history of gender 

ideologies in America that a woman should 

be chosen to represent the United States 

in this strategic area. Stanley retired from 

the Agricultural Research Administration 

in 1950, completing almost 30 years of 

government service. Her work had paved 

the way for home economists internationally 

by providing a model for fruitful scientific 

involvement of the government in the issues 

of daily domestic life. Under her leadership, 

the American public became aware of, and 

to some degree educated in, the science of 

nutrition and how it could improve lives 

and strengthen communities. The fact that 

that important effort continued after her 

departure reflected well on the standards 

she set for the Bureau in particular and the 

field of human nutrition in general.

Hazel Stiebeling—Leader of the Bureau of 

Human Nutrition and Home Economics

Henry Sherman was placed in charge of 

the newly reorganized Bureau, but he 

only served one year and was replaced in 

1944 by Hazel Stiebeling, who had served 

as his assistant director. The fact that 

Stanley, Sherman, and Stiebeling were all 

nutritionists reflected nutrition’s rapid rise 

to an accepted science and its power, greater 

than that of any other division of home 

economics, to capture the attention of the 

public and their leaders. 

Stiebeling was to shepherd the Bureau 

through the next 19 years as America 

entered the Cold War and an era of rising 

spending power and consumerism. While 

political leaders emphasized the need for 

a nation strong in every way, consumer 

goods manufacturers, including food 

producers, attempted to create new markets 

by appealing to the individual’s sense of 

entitlement rather than to his reason. 

After a depression and a war, didn’t a 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 37 1944

Hazel Stiebeling 

replaced Henry 

Sherman and 

shepherded the 

Bureau for the next 

19 years.

working man or busy housewife deserve a 

cream-filled cake or salty snack? What if 

nutritionists shook their heads in dismay? 

The crises passed; did we still really need 

to listen to those killjoys? Nutritionists 

in the USDA found themselves called on 

to resist communism by ensuring a wellnourished populace and simultaneously 

help consumers resist or at least understand 

the lures of industrial capitalism, especially 

when it came to food.

Stiebeling’s years of research into diet 

were put to use in 1944 when agricultural 

production goals were set and “the nutrition 

research that had been carried on in the 

Department [of Agriculture] all through 

the thirties” was used to define production 

goals. A 1943 study conducted by the 

BHNHE in collaboration with the Bureau of 

Agricultural Economics had “indicated that 

certain changes in American production 

and consumption habits would result in 

more efficient overall use of” the Nation’s 

productive capacity (42). In order to set 

viable goals, one historian of the USDA 

wrote, “it was necessary to forecast the 

extent to which farmers could and would 

shift production patterns and the degree 

to which consumers would accept dietary 

changes.” The example given was that 

of skim milk, a staple of many American 

diets in 2008, but considered better for 

livestock in 1944. Studies, however, had 

indicated that skim milk could “provide 

essential nutrients more efficiently than 

pork chops, poultry, or eggs,” so farmers 

were encouraged to raise production 

levels while, presumably, food science and 

consumer research staff at the BHNHE were 

charged with the responsibility of teaching 

Americans how to use it. 

By 1945, the year the war ended, it seemed 

that the work of the Bureau’s nutritionists 

had made real changes in the American 

diet. According to a study comparing food 

consumption data from the years between 

1909 and 1945, the yearly per capita 

consumption of tomatoes and citrus had 

more than doubled, rising to 119 pounds 

from 44. One writer argued that this was 

due to “an extensive educational campaign” 

designed to promote the importance of 

vitamin C. It now seems clear that the 

expanded use of refrigeration and the growth 

of the canning industry also contributed 

to this increase and to the simultaneous 

increase in per capita consumption of 

leafy green and yellow vegetables from 77 

to 134 pounds (43). Where technological 

developments made these fruits and 

vegetables more available, the work of 

nutritionists had helped to make them more 

desirable. 

Disney released 

the film “Something 

You Didn’t Eat,” 

produced for the 

USDA and the Office 

of War Information 

and intended for 

classroom use.

The BASIC 7 FOOD GROUPS

1946

The Journal of Home 

Economics reported that 

“a weak spot has been 

remedied” in the “Basic 

7” chart that the Bureau 

produced to popularize 

knowledge about 

nutrition.

1945
38 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

In 1946, the Journal of Home Economics

reported that “a weak spot has been 

remedied” in the “Basic 7” chart that the 

Bureau produced to popularize knowledge 

about nutrition (44). The Bureau had been 

working towards this chart since the 1930s 

when Stiebeling and Birdseye produced 

their recommendations for relief agencies. 

A wartime eating guide had been issued in 

1941 and another chart issued in 1945. 

It seemed essential to nutritionists at the 

Bureau for Americans to have nutrition 

information in the simplest and most 

compelling form possible. 

As of 1945, the chart had lacked 

recommended daily consumption figures for 

the food groups. It had been hard to assign 

figures “with shortages and surpluses still 

plaguing us,” in the aftermath of the war, 

but “our nutrition staff took on the job,” 

Ruth Van Deman was proud to announce, 

and quantities had been added to the chart. 

Moving from an era of scarcity through a 

period of rationing suddenly into bounty 

and prosperity, Americans would need 

to think carefully about consumption. 

Taking a cue from the field of advertising, 

nutritionists simplified their message and 

made it graphic with their basic seven-food 

chart. “A Guide to Good Eating” featured 

bright color illustrations of foods against a 

blue background. The basic seven and their 

recommended daily servings were milk—

two to three glasses for an adult, three to 

four for a child; vegetables—two or more 

servings (other than potato); fruits—two or 

more servings; eggs—three to five, one a day 

optimal; meat, cheese, fish, and poultry—

one or more serving; cereal and bread—two 

or more servings; and butter—two or more 

tablespoons. Smaller print encouraged use 

of whole grains for bread and cereal and 

suggested dried beans, peas, or peanuts 

to take the place of meat and cheese 

“occasionally.” 

Lest Americans lack the culinary 

imagination to turn this chart into three 

meals a day, the Bureau also produced a 

chart of suggested menus for a day of full 

nutrition. Breakfast would be fruit, cereal, 

toast, bread, and a “beverage.” Lunch and 

dinner both featured a meat/fish/cheese/

egg dish, vegetables, bread, and butter, 

but lunch also included fruit and milk 

while dinner included potatoes, salad, an 

unidentified “dessert,” and an unidentified 

“beverage.” In the accompanying photos, 

the dessert appeared to be something like 

ambrosia—which might have contained one 

fruit serving—while the beverage was coffee. 

The inclusion of dessert in these sample 

menus was interesting, as sugars were not 

included in the basic seven. Perhaps the 

chart’s designers worried that if they did 

not include the dessert that was traditional 

to mainstream American foodways, readers 

would not accept their recommendations as 

real meals. Recognizing that the American 

family was undergoing change as the war 

ended and millions of GIs returned home 

to new brides, the Bureau issued a popular 

bulletin titled “Food for Two” to help these 

small families begin their lives together with 

good nutrition. Existing cookbooks tended to 

be directed at an audience of large families, 

and some still assumed the presence of a 

household servant despite the fact that the 

war had largely put an end to the use of 

servants by American families of the middle 

class. 

A related bulletin was “Food for the Family 

With Young Children,” which responded to 

the beginning of the baby boom. Parents 

of young children who had themselves 

been raised during the Depression, a time 

of scarcity and a time before widespread 

knowledge of nutritional science, were not 

necessarily able to turn to their parents for 

guidance on all issues of childcare, because 

the postwar era was so different. Younger 

parents had larger numbers of children, 

and there were many more consumer goods 

available, including food.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 39

A writer in What’s New in Home Economics

declared, “Thousands of GI couples have 

stretched their food dollars and, at the same 

time, lived well because Hazel Stiebeling 

and her staff provided them with this 

direct and simple guide” (45). The bulletin’s 

authors used a real family, Richard and 

Margaret Wright and their two children, 

to reach readers and assure them of the 

information’s relevance. The style of the 

bulletin was similar to a particular kind of 

spread that appeared in popular magazines 

like Life that followed a day in the life 

of a celebrity. With this kind of article, 

readers experienced a sense of intimacy 

and familiarity with the family. Because 

readers were already familiar with this 

formula, BHNHE writers could rely on the 

public to respond to it positively and, more 

importantly, to identify themselves with 

the Wrights. When celebrities participated 

in this kind of journalism, they did so to 

sell their own work—the movies they were 

appearing in or books they had produced. 

For the BHNHE, the “feature” on the Wrights 

was selling ideas and behavior that would 

improve nutritional status.

The Wrights, like an increasing number of 

young American families, lived in a singlefamily home in a suburban setting. Both 

children were younger than school age, and 

Margaret’s day revolved around housework 

and childcare, while Richard worked outside 

the home. This traditional gendered division 

of labor, which put women in charge of 

family nutrition, had been somewhat 

disrupted during the war, as large numbers 

of men were away from home and woman 

had gone into the paid workforce. During the 

Depression, too, families had experienced 

unfamiliar domestic arrangements. 

Unemployed men had stayed home while 

women—who tended to work or be able to 

find work in sectors not as affected by the 

Depression as the industrial sector—were 

out of the house during the day. In addition, 

in many families, all members had to work 

to discover and exploit new food sources. 

For example, children might get their only 

meal of the day at school while women 

working as domestics might be fed by their 

employers. Postwar foodways and thinking 

about nutrition represented an attempt to 

return to an idea of “normal,” which was 

now complicated and potentially enriched 

by the spread of nutrition education. 

Indeed, in answer to the question “How does 

Margaret select food and prepare meals?” 

the bulletin’s authors explained that “she 

follows good nutritional advice, practicing 

what she learned in classes” (46). 

This mention of classes could serve to jog 

the memory of female readers and remind 

them that they, too, had taken home 

economics classes that could help them 

manage the new role of family meal provider. 

Unlike former generations of women in 

her family, Margaret had been educated to 

think of her husband and children in terms 

of their nutritional needs, not just their 

likes and dislikes. She knew the quantities 

and kinds of food they needed for optimum 

health, and she took a rational approach to 

her children’s diets, introducing new foods 

in small amounts and when the children 

were hungry. The Wrights’ food sources were 

somewhat different from those of the typical 

suburban family and more reflective of older 

foodways. Milk was delivered to the house, 

as were chickens and fresh eggs. The family 

grew vegetables in their own small garden, 

and Margaret canned and preserved some 

of them, although the bulk of their food was 

purchased from a local market. Notably, the 

bulletin encouraged readers with infants to 

breastfeed them, using the phrase “feeding a 

baby nature’s way,” rather than the blunter 

modern term. Where social conventions of 

the time tended to favor formula feeding, 

the BHNHE nutritionists came out subtly 

in favor of “mother’s milk” because it 

“increases the baby’s chances for growing up 

without sickness or feeding difficulties.” 
40 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

The bulletin emphasized the importance 

of milk for young children, a concept 

that was still new to the general public. 

Because many Americans had not grown 

up consuming the amounts of milk now 

considered healthy, the recommended 

quantities could seem overwhelming. 

Margaret Wright dealt with this problem 

by being creative about how she served 

milk to her children: “Instead of having the 

children drink all of their milk, Margaret 

often uses part of it in custard, ice cream, 

junket, or milk soups for variety.” Mothers, 

who were (and still are) largely responsible 

for family nutrition, would have to learn to 

think of meals in terms of their composition 

of numerous chemical elements, not just 

as a combination of dishes or flavors. The 

ideal diet of “foods that are good for the 

whole family,” and that which the Wrights 

enjoyed, included at least three cups of 

milk per day for each member and “citrus 

fruits and tomatoes, eggs, liver, green leafy 

vegetables, and whole grain or enriched 

cereals and breads.” Notably missing from 

the list was red meat, a staple of traditional 

American diets. While the Wrights’ weekly 

shopping list included 7 1⁄2 to 8 1⁄2 pounds of 

meat, poultry, or fish, and one of these was 

served “at least once daily,” traditional cuts 

of meat were deemphasized and “at least 

once a week, Margaret tries to serve liver, 

heart, or kidneys, for these variety meats 

are particularly high in iron and vitamins.” 

Her menu list also included beans, peas, 

and eggs as alternates for animal protein. 

Lunches were very light and essentially 

vegetarian, including unusual dishes like 

apple-cabbage salad and cottage cheese and 

nut sandwiches. These choices made the 

Wrights unusual among their peers, and 

the otherwise enthusiastic reader’s interest 

might falter here, for organ meats were not 

typically enjoyed in mainstream American 

foodways. Similarly, Wartime Nutrition

recommended “chicken, fish, liver, or 

sweetbreads” as “excellent main dishes” for 

the evening meal, despite the fact that the 

last two were not popular among American 

consumers. 

Further setting the Wrights apart from their 

national cuisine, sweets were limited to 

“simple puddings made of milk and eggs and 

fresh and cooked fruit.” Instead of candy, 

the children enjoyed chewing on soft dried 

fruit. To an American woman raised to think 

of the perfect layer cake as her crowning 

achievement and in a land where taffy pulls 

could be major social events, this kind of 

rethinking might feel like too much too soon. 

Even if adults were treated to the occasional 

pie—pastry was considered inappropriate 

for children—adopting the Wrights’ diet 

was farther than most families would be 

willing to go. Nonetheless, the grocery 

lists and menus included in the bulletin 

could encourage readers to begin thinking 

differently about food. 

Advice on “how to reduce your food bill” 

encouraged readers to think seasonally, 

because produce tends to be cheaper when 

it is in season, and to remember that “you 

pay for the fat on the meat you buy,” so 

it makes sense to save and use the fat 

for cooking. To help families save money, 

the bulletin also suggested using dried or 

evaporated milk and buying cheaper cuts 

of meat, as well as the “variety” meats that 

were “bargains in vitamins and minerals.” 

Beans and peas, including soybeans, were 

suggested as main dish fare, and molasses 

was praised as a healthier sweetener than 

white sugar. Whole grains were, of course, 

preferred, and “expensive ready-baked 

items” were to be avoided for their cost but 

also, presumably, because they tended to 

lack significant nutritional value. 

Margaret’s model menus are notable 

for their variety as much as for their 

resourcefulness. A pot roast served on 

Sunday supplied meat for a beef casserole 

on Monday and hash on Wednesday, 

while a lamb shoulder (another unusual 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 41

meat for Americans) became minced lamb 

on riced potatoes for Saturday dinner. 

Oatmeal left over from Monday morning’s 

breakfast became a pudding with prunes 

for dessert on Tuesday at lunchtime. The 

innovation here was that Margaret Wright 

was planning her leftovers, rather than 

coming up with something to do with scraps 

as they occurred. This kind of forethought, 

which was not usually showcased in sample 

menus, took careful planning and a broad 

knowledge of nutrition and cuisine.

Lest this life of calculation seem too 

complicated, the bulletin reassured 

readers, “Most of the time Margaret is able 

to plan the same meals for all. Otherwise 

the days would never be long enough for 

housework, nor would she have enough 

energy left to enjoy her little family.” This 

acknowledgement that thinking about 

nutrition could seem time-consuming 

could have another positive effect aside 

from giving readers the courage to try a 

new way of thinking about food. Preparing 

the same foods for children and adults 

probably meant improving the diet of most 

adults. Where most Americans would have 

recognized that children needed a particular 

diet to achieve proper development and 

health, when it came to adults, the issue 

seemed less important. Thus to serve to 

adults the same balanced meals served 

to children would be more than just 

convenient. 

Battling the idea that nutrition was a drag 

on culinary pleasure, the bulletin boldly 

declared, “Eating is fun at the Wrights’ 

table.” The family tried new things and 

Mr. Wright always modeled good behavior 

by complementing Mrs. Wright “when 

something is especially good.” This was a 

family who did not overanalyze, but who 

also did not take food for granted. To help 

American families make their own wise food 

choices, the Bureau published a useful 

guide to Food Values in Common Portions, 

which outlined the quantities of all the 

basic nutrients and vitamins in average 

servings of commonly consumed foods such 

as milk, eggs, and meat when these foods 

were prepared in the most popular ways. 

Thus, a reader could learn not just the 

nutritive value of a glass of milk, but also 

of a serving of pudding made with milk, 

and of different cuts and preparations of 

beef (47). Just as Bureau nutritionists had 

borrowed from the techniques of advertising 

to create the basic seven charts, advertising 

copywriters quickly picked up the language 

of nutritional guidelines and used it to 

sell goods. Maltex cereal, for example, was 

advertised in the Journal of Home Economics

as central to the “Maltex 100% Breakfast,” 

offering “four of the “Basic Seven” types of 

food in a single meal: fruit, buttered toast, 

milk, and Maltex—the hot brown, Toasted 

Wheat and Malted Barley cereal” (48). The 

company even offered to send readers a 

free “Daily Diet Record” so that they could 

keep track of their consumption of the Basic 

Seven (49). In 1945 Disney released the film 

“Something You Didn’t Eat,” produced for 

the USDA and the Office of War Information 

and intended for classroom use. A pamphlet 

about the film showed a family marching 

together under the call to action, “US Needs 

Us Strong. Eat the Basic 7 Every Day.” 

The 9-minute cartoon about the “basic 

seven” was shown to college and adult 

home economics clubs as well as to school 

children. A review in the American Journal of 

Nursing found the film an “unusually good 

presentation, entertaining and convincing” 

and praised sound, editing, and “technic” 

as “excellent” (50). Administrators at the 

BHNHE were clearly thinking of the most 

modern means of getting their message to 

the public.

In the meantime, they were also continuing 

an ambitious program of research into 

foods and nutrition. Bernice K. Watt and 

Margaret A. Attaya, for example, brought 

together the results of 17 studies to report 

on “Vitamin Retention in Quantity Cooking 

of Vegetables” in 1945. Although the BHNHE 
42 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

always considered individual homemakers 

its audience, institutional managers were 

an equally important group, because 

through good nutrition in institutional 

settings, many people might be subtly but 

permanently educated in the nature of a 

nutritionally sound diet. While many studies 

had so far determined the vitamin content 

of foods, Watt and Attaya explained, none 

had yet explored the effect of cooking on 

the vitamin content compared to the raw 

food. This was data that nutrition-minded 

cooks would need to know in order to make 

wise purchasing and preparation decisions. 

Interestingly, and a source of frustration for 

Watt and Attaya, some of the studies had 

been made “in actual feeding operations” 

rather than “under experimental conditions” 

(51). In some cases, preparation included 

adding ingredients, which could complicate 

calculations of vitamin content remaining 

after cooking. Although their data were 

clearly imperfect, Watt and Attaya were 

able to produce a range of vitamin loss for 

potatoes, sweet potatoes, carrots, tomatoes, 

squash, a variety of dark leafy greens, peas, 

beans, asparagus, broccoli, cauliflower, 

cabbage, turnips, parsnips, and rutabagas. 

Their major conclusion, not surprisingly, 

was that more study under more perfect 

conditions was needed before truly reliable 

figures could be given.

In 1946 the Journal of Home Economics

published a study by two researchers with 

the BHNHE revealing the amount and 

“Nutritive Value of the US Food Supply.” 

Faith Clark and Jeanette McCay calculated 

that simply as a matter of supply data, the 

United States produced enough food to 

keep each man, woman, and child healthily 

nourished and with calories to spare. This 

was truly remarkable in comparison to the 

situation in other countries in the immediate 

post-war period. However, Clark and McCay 

cautioned that simply because the food 

existed did not in any way mean that all 

Americans had access to an equal share of 

it (52). By taking data from the USDA that 

indicated how much food was produced for 

domestic human consumption and taking 

into account non-edible parts of edible foods 

such as pits and bones and by dividing this 

quantity by the national civilian population, 

Clark and McCay arrived at figures for the 

nutritive values available if all Americans 

had an equal share of the national food 

supply. What they found surprised them. 

Clark and McCay thought that “every 

nutrition student who studies” the tables 

they had produced “will be struck by facts 

he has never appreciated before.” Among 

the “surprises” they listed were the fact 

that “milk contributes much of our protein” 

1946

The Journal of Home Economics

published a study by two Bureau of 

Human Nutrition and Home Economics 

researchers that revealed the amount 

and “Nutritive Value of the US Food 

Supply.” 

Hazel Stiebeling was the U.S. 

representative to the Food and 

Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the 

newly formed United Nations and 

attended the group’s conference in 

Copenhagen, Denmark.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 43

and that grains supplied almost as much 

protein as meat, fish, and poultry combined. 

American diets had increased by more than 

10 percent for six nutrients since before the 

Second World War, and they had increased 

in calories by 2 percent and in protein by 

14 percent. Thiamin consumption had 

increased nearly 50 percent, largely due to 

the enrichment of bread flour. The authors 

of the study generously concluded that 

America could share its food wealth with 

less fortunate nations and still feed its 

people well.

In a 1947 article in the Journal of Home 

Economics, Hazel Stiebeling argued that 

sharing the world’s resources was not just 

ethical but actually essential to world peace. 

The world would never “have lasting peace 

until we make considerable progress in 

eliminating the present great disparities in 

health and levels of living.” She identified 

food as a central element to health. The 

world food situation was improving but 

still grim. Although estimated shortfalls 

had decreased, the world would still be 

8 million metric tons short of “grains, 

bread, or its equivalent” (53). Stiebeling 

was reporting the findings of the Food and 

Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the newly 

formed United Nations. She was the U.S. 

representative to the FAO and had attended 

the group’s conference in Copenhagen, 

Denmark, in September 1946. Although the 

FAO had managed to compile interesting 

data on the composition of diets in countries 

with high-calorie, medium-calorie, and lowcalorie diets, Stiebeling cautioned that data 

were lacking on what individual families 

actually ate versus what was theoretically 

available to them. Studies of family 

consumption must be made before the truth 

about national diets could be known. It was 

very likely, she suggested, that many people 

in high-calorie diet countries were living on 

diets much like those of people who lived in 

low-calorie diet countries. Bringing this data 

and these issues to the general population 

of nutritionists was an important service 

in that it might inspire new and sorely 

needed research.

Federal support for such research came in 

1947 with the Flannagan-Hope Act, which 

directed that Congress make available 

funds for research into improvement in 

agricultural production and research. Title I 

of the Act also directed that funds be made 

available for research into “the problems of 

human nutrition and the nutritive value of 

agricultural commodities.” Foods, textiles, 

and building materials were included in 

these commodities, so the bill was really 

a boost for several divisions of the Bureau 

1947

In the Journal of Home 

Economics, Hazel Stiebeling 

argued that sharing the world’s 

resources was not just ethical but 

actually essential to world peace.

The Flannagan-Hope Act 

provided Federal funding 

for agricultural production 

research, including research 

into “the problems of human 

nutrition and the nutritive value 

of agricultural commodities.”
44 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

(54). The law supported cooperation among 

Federal, State, and local agencies by 

specifying that “research facilities owned by 

the federal government, state agricultural 

experiment stations, and the facilities of 

the federal and state extension agencies 

shall be used in carrying out the provisions 

of Title II.” Title II involved improvement 

of the marketing and distribution of farm 

products. In particular, the USDA was 

encouraged to research possible uses for 

anything that American farmers produced 

or could produce in excess of demand. For 

research into “the utilization of agricultural 

products involving the development of 

present, new, and extended uses,” USDA 

laboratories were to be used as much as 

possible, although the option to contract the 

work out to private agencies was left open.

Perhaps most exciting for home economists, 

projects funded through this legislation 

were to be taken up “in addition to” and 

not instead of existing projects. The Act 

would expand the work of home economics 

research groups throughout the country. 

Although no appropriations had yet been 

made, leaders in the field were busy 

preparing to take full advantage of funds 

once they became available by sketching 

out research ideas. A committee of the Land 

Grant Colleges Association that included 

Agnes Fay Morgan, Lita Bane, and Hazel 

Stiebeling was providing leadership, and 

“many regional and national conferences are 

being held for joint thinking and planning.” 

By January 1948, Ruth O’Brien and 

Georgian Adams could report that many 

projects funded through the FlannaganHope or Research Marketing Act were 

underway. Many were not directly of interest 

to home economists, but some, particularly 

those funded through section nine of the 

Act were of interest to home economists. As 

an example, O’Brien and Adams described 

the “nutritional status study,” a cooperative 

project of researchers at the Bureau 

and at the Western, North Central, and 

Northeastern regional experiment stations. 

It was “planned as a comprehensive study 

of the nutritional requirements of different 

population groups as indicated by the 

nutritional status of individuals in relation 

to their food intake (55). Simultaneously, the 

Bureau was collaborating with experiment 

station researchers in the Southern region 

to collect data on the “food consumption 

and food habits by families in typical 

tobacco farming communities, in typical 

cotton farming communities, and in typical 

mountain farming communities of the 

South.” 

At the same time as these conferences were 

meeting, Americans were being asked to 

think about food internationally. President 

Harry Truman convened the Citizens’ Food 

Committee (CFC) in 1947 to encourage 

Americans to reduce their use of foods 

that could be shared with the Nation’s 

former allies who were still struggling in the 

postwar period. Taking up the work initiated 

by Katherine Fisher of Good Housekeeping 

Magazine, who served on the Committee, 

Callie Mae Coons, Assistant Head of the 

BHNHE, prepared menus and recipes that 

the CFC published daily in an attempt to 

get Americans to “Save Wheat, Save Meat, 

Save the Peace.” Coons’ suggested meals 

were published in newspapers as the “Peace 

Plate,” reflecting the belief that in a volatile 

postwar world, peace could only be assured 

if everyone had enough to eat. Wheat- and 

meat-free “peace plates” included such 

treats as “Golden Fish Sauté” and “Baked 

Caramel Custard.” Despite the herculean 

efforts of Coons and her coworkers at the 

BHNHE to help Americans conserve food, 

pressure from meat producers (especially 

poultry producers angered by the call for 

eggless days), brewers, distillers, and the 

restaurant industry proved too much, 

and the Federal Government’s support for 

the program faded within a year. Home 

economists were not eager to abandon the 

campaign, and one wrote in 1948 in the 

Journal of Home Economics that “the food 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 45

conservation program is still on. The food 

emergency will last for some time—through 

this crop year, next crop year, and maybe 

the next. A group of home economists 

has formulated a workable program. 

Hundreds of others have contributed to its 

effectiveness. All of us can continue to carry 

it out through our individual professional 

activities and our own personal lives.” 

Intelligent use of food resources might be 

a fad for the Federal Government, easily 

forgotten when business interests objected, 

but for home economists, it was a basic 

responsibility (56). 

In 1947, the American Home Economics 

Association legislative committee committed 

to support legislation that would provide 

appropriations for the BHNHE, as well as 

supporting work of the home economics 

experiment stations and cooperative 

extension services. Some of the important 

studies completed over the next decade 

included a series of studies to investigate 

whether a “growth factor” could be passed 

from hen to chick in the egg. This series 

of studies, carried out by Frank Csonska 

with collaboration from other researchers, 

could presumably have an impact on diets 

fed to poultry but might also serve as a 

starting point for further research in human 

prenatal nutrition. Another series of studies, 

conducted by BHNHE researchers Madelyn 

Womack and Mary Marshall, looked at 

nitrogen balance and amino acids in rat 

diets. Womack was also involved in research 

that discovered a quick way to find the 

nutritional value of cottonseed proteins, 

offering innovation in methodology as well 

as scientific findings. 

While many researchers worked on projects 

of their own design, others made use of the 

great collection of data provided by their 

peers. Summing up several years’ worth 

of studies involving more than 1,000 rats, 

D. Breese Jones and Alvin Caldwell made 

the interesting discovery that, regardless 

of the purpose of the experiment, female 

rats had a greater ability than male rats 

to survive on low-protein diets. In 1951, 

another team of BHNHE researchers 

asked the simple question of what kinds 

of conclusions could be drawn relevant to 

human nutrition from work with rats as the 

experimental model. Feeding rats a diet of 

“foods cooked as for human consumption” 

did not produce ideal health for the rats. 

Therefore, the authors concluded, “it is 

evident that the application of the results 

of animal studies to recommendations 

for human dietary practices should be 

undertaken with caution, and the task of 

interpreting experimental data in the light 

of human needs should be kept in mind in 

planning such studies” (57). Researchers 

must keep in mind physiological differences, 

differences in metabolism, and the different 

rates of aging between rats and humans, as 

well as the different signs and symptoms of 

nutrition-related diseases in the two species.

25th Anniversary of the Bureau

The BHNHE celebrated its 25th anniversary 

in 1948. During the annual meeting of the 

American Home Economics Association 

in Minneapolis, MN, 600 conference 

attendees went to a celebratory banquet 

where they dined on “Minted fruit cocktail. 

The Bureau of Human 

Nutrition and Home 

Economics celebrated 

its 25th anniversary. 

1948
46 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Beef tenderloin with fresh mushrooms. 

Parsley potatoes. Garden asparagus. Spring 

salad. Relishes. Hot rolls. Ice cream” and 

a birthday cake with coconut frosting 

(58). A photograph from the event shows 

a smiling Stiebeling, bride-like, wielding a

cake knife. The crowd was urged to join in 

singing “Gone Are the Days” to the tune of 

“Old Black Joe.” The words to this song, 

apparently composed for the occasion, 

celebrated the increased participation of 

women in the public sphere: 

“Gone are the days when only men can roam,

Gone are the days when the girls all stay at home

For now you’ll see women working everywhere,

There’s not a single line of work they will not dare

These women, these women,

How they do love to roam; 

You’ll find them almost any place

Except at home.”

A celebration at the Bureau itself took 

place on July 1, 1948. Employees and 

guests were treated to a lively afternoon of 

tributes, followed by dinner in the USDA 

cafeteria. The fare on this occasion was 

no doubt a little blander than that served 

in Minneapolis, although selections from 

the usual cafeteria menu were apparently 

followed later by cake and ice cream. 

Stiebeling asked Ruth O’Brien to find 

out how other divisions of the USDA, 

such as the Forestry Service and the Soil 

Conservation Service, had celebrated their 

anniversaries. O’Brien found that these 

bureaus, headed by men, had enjoyed very 

little in the way of birthday parties. The 

difference might have been one of gender 

roles, since women are typically expected to 

observe anniversaries more faithfully than 

men, or it might have been a question of 

subject matter. Those who studied aspects 

of everyday life, including food and housing, 

might be expected to have parties on the 

mind more than those who studied soil and 

trees.

In preparation for the party, Kathryn 

Cronister of the Information Division sent 

out a call for limericks on the theme of the 

BHE. To start them off, she provided this 

frame: 

“There was a queer lady from Maine

Who thought all our work was in vain

-----

-----

And now days she counts it all gain.” 

Busy researchers only needed to come up 

with one rhyming couplet to show their love of 

the Bureau. Rising to the challenge, the staff 

provided 72 couplets, among which were the 

following:

“Til our figures she checked/Found them correct”

“Til we heeded her hollers/on spending her dollars”

“Then we helped her with canning/And financial 

planning”

“We showed her examples of well-laundered 

samples”

“With soaps and detergent/We proved it was urgent”

“In her kitchen by preaching/We cut stoops and 

reaching”

“We kept right on pitchin’/Came up with a kitchen”

“Til our taste-testing of spuds/Helped her buy some 

new duds.” 

While most of the “poets” expressed pride in 

the Bureau’s work, one employee submitted 

the less self-congratulatory “By golly she’s 

right/But we put up a fight” (59).

For the press statement announcing 

the anniversary, Stiebeling described 

the Bureau’s origins: “Our Bureau was 

established because women of the country 

... and particularly those in the American 

Home Economics Association, kept asking 

the Department of Agriculture and State 

Colleges for information on food, clothing, 

and housing, which could come only from 

research” (60). That Stiebeling credited 

both experts and amateurs for the Bureau’s 

existence reflects the huge role that the 

Bureau was able to play in the development 

of the many fields that together made up 

home economics. After 25 years, the BHNHE 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 47

was “considered a small bureau”; it had a 

staff of 240 serving the 32 million American 

women who, as full-time homemakers, were 

the “nation’s largest occupational group,” 

according to Stiebeling. Stiebeling was 

obviously proud of the immense amount and 

high quality of work her bureau produced, 

but the juxtaposition of the small staff 

with the huge audience certainly suggested 

that resources might be improved through 

greater funding that could support a larger 

staff. Even the anniversary celebrations 

suffered from lack of funding, as a poem 

in the archives mourns that the planning 

committee “put out a plan with bated 

breath/But everyone gave it the kiss of 

death. In a land that flows with milk and 

honey/No one in Home Economics had any 

money” (61). 

The theme of insufficient resources emerged 

again in a skit prepared to celebrate the 

Bureau’s anniversary with a little comedy 

at the expense of legislators. In the 

skit, a fictional Senator Claghorn asked 

preposterous questions of the Bureau’s 

staff before he would approve its funding. 

Addressing Kathryn Cronnister, the fictional 

senator said, “Many of my clients, and 

some members of Congress, charge that 

your division is causing strife in the land 

by telling the truth. I need not point out to 

you that this is a serious charge against a 

Government Bureau.” An example of one 

way to remedy this terrible truth telling 

problem, he suggested, was to “change your 

publications so as then to advise people to 

eat more cereals which will keep easily and 

less of the perishable fruits, vegetables, and 

milk.” As for the ever-popular bulletins, 

Claghorn asked why they needed updating 

at all, “Since Mrs. America lives in an 

obsolete house, is now busily adjusting 

obsolete clothing to present needs, has 

obsolete equipment for home canning, 

why not continue the obsolete canning 

direction? Why not help Mrs. America to be 

consistent?”(62).

Bureau employees also celebrated the 

silver anniversary with the release of a film, 

Research for Better Living, which provided 

a virtual tour of the Beltsville facilities. A 

script and shot list indicate that the film 

showed a wide variety of food and nutrition 

research in process. One shot showed 

“Hammerle inoculating jars: Gilpin inserting 

thermocouple and putting jar in canner,” 

while a voice over explained “We come first 

to the laboratories where we work to improve 

home methods of food preservation and 

preparation. Here are carrots, being canned 

experimentally in family-sized equipment. 

Some of the jars are inoculated with spoilage 

organisms. After processing, they will be 

incubated ... and later examined for keeping 

qualities” (63). 

More appetizing shots of palatability tests 

on turkey legs and frozen strawberries (not 

served together) were offered along with the 

image of a Bureau employee assembling a 

cake that used dried apples. For the turkey 

leg, the voice over explained, “Some of our 

work deals with unfamiliar forms of foods. 

Many of the turkeys now raised are too big 

for the average buyer. But a turkey leg ... 

or quarter ... or a turkey steak may be just 

right.” Frozen strawberries were assessed by 

“trained judges from our staff,” who tested 

“the berries for natural flavor, for sweetness, 

tenderness, and general acceptability.” Not 

only “trained judges” were used, the film 

revealed. Dishes designed for school lunches 

were tested by school children, shown 

enjoying (or perhaps not enjoying) creamed 

carrots and peas.

The Bureau’s favorite “living tool[s],” lab 

rats, also were featured in the film, as was a 

newer technology, the “power pack,” which 

“by its ten thousand volts ... can separate 

materials differing only slightly in physical 

or chemical nature.” Lest the Bureau’s 

work seem too technical and perhaps selfcontained, a conference of “policy makers,” 

was portrayed, discussing “milk charts.” 
48 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

The film summed up the work of the Bureau 

as “(1) food preparation and preservation, 

(2) composition and nutritive value of food, 

and (3) nutritional requirements. A fourth 

and relatively new area relates to food and 

nutritional problems of the school lunch 

program.”

This “relatively new area” came to be part 

of the Bureau’s work with the passage of 

the National School Lunch Act in 1946. The 

Act gave the USDA the power to administer 

a school lunch program through State 

agencies. States hired dieticians to design 

menus and oversee lunchrooms while 

USDA nutritionists set to work researching 

children’s nutrition. Susan Levine, in her 

history of the school lunch program, has 

referred to the passage of the Act as “an 

uneasy compromise among an unusual 

set of allies” (64). It was, she argues, “a 

historic act and a triumph for a generation 

of home economists, nutritionists, and child 

welfare advocates who had long struggled to 

improve American diets.” But it was “also a 

triumph for the Department of Agriculture 

and a generation of farm policymakers who 

believed that government-supported price 

supports were essential to the growth and 

prosperity of the farm sector.” The interests 

of the farm sector were not always aligned 

comfortably with the best possible nutrition 

for America’s school children or with feeding 

the poor. Because the Act required schools 

to accept agricultural surpluses, farmers 

came to see the lunch program as a kind of 

insurance against overproduction. Beyond 

guaranteed “staples such as dry milk, lard, 

flour, rice, and cornmeal,” Levine writes, 

lunchroom administrators and staff “never 

knew what other foods might appear. 

One year, for example, the Department of 

Agriculture distributed six million dollars’ 

worth of beef but the next year offered 

only half that amount.” Participants in a 

national conference on nutrition held in 

1952 and discussed in greater depth below, 

noted that this “plentiful foods program,” 

while potentially a good thing for national 

nutrition, seldom provided much advance 

warning about which foods would be 

plentiful when, making it difficult to plan 

balanced meals. A discussion group reported 

“the [plentiful foods] program was only 

indirectly related to improving the nutrition 

of the Nation’s population, but that its value 

could be greatly increased if information on 

nutritional characteristics could be included 

with information on supplies” (65). This 

would be especially helpful to school lunch 

programs, struggling not just to feed the 

hungry but also to educate the Nation’s 

future consumers in the tenets of good 

nutrition.

Another problem with the administration 

of the Act was that while the Act created 

the need for school dieticians in each 

State to design nutritious menus, many 

States scrimped on funding, hiring only 

one dietician to supervise all schools and 

leaving daily food production to untrained 

and poorly paid cafeteria workers. According 

to a 1959 report by Marvin Sendstrom of 

the USDA, however, funding was provided 

for “inservice training for local school lunch 

workers” and the Federal Government also 

supplied “aids in menu planning, food 

buying, standardized quantity recipes, 

food handling, and storage, and equipment 

requirements for preparing and serving 

foods” (66). The Consumer and Marketing 

Services of the USDA administered the 

program. Guidance in nutrition and training 

for workers were administered through 

the State educational agencies with the 

cooperation of “colleges and universities 

within the state.” To assist local agencies 

in meeting dietary guidelines, the Bureau 

prepared a set of recipe cards for use in 

school lunchrooms. Published in 1947, 

these “school lunch recipes for 100” 

suggested “main dishes which conform to 

the recommended protein requirements, 

vegetables, salads, and salad dressings, 

breads, desserts” (67).
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 49

The Second Quarter-Century—Its Start

Meanwhile, having made important progress 

in understanding food composition, Bureau 

researchers embarked on a series of studies 

of food consumption that attempted to 

create a map on which to draw dietary battle 

lines. Finding out what people really ate 

could help nutritionists identify weak points 

in national nutrition. Once these weak 

points were identified, researchers might use 

studies of food habits to develop meaningful 

ways to intervene or offer new food options. 

In the winter of 1948, for example, Bureau 

researchers studied “the Nutritive Content 

of Homemakers’ Meals” in four American 

cities. Knowing what the people who made 

most of the Nation’s meals were themselves 

eating could serve as a starting point for 

changing habits and improving nutrition. 

The study included “approximately 1,000 

homemakers” in Birmingham, Al; Buffalo, 

NY; Minneapolis, MN; and San Francisco, 

CA; and it was “based on reports of their 

meals for a 24-hour period.” 

Having completed a number of studies of 

family nutrition that looked at the family 

as a single unit, Bureau researchers were 

shifting their focus to individuals within the 

family to get a clearer picture of the complex 

that was family feeding. Faith Clark and 

Lillian Fincher chose to look at homemakers 

for several reasons, including the fact that 

because they were responsible for most 

family meals, homemakers were likely to 

have a good sense of quantities and thus be 

good at self-reporting. Homemakers were 

chosen also because “several investigators 

have reported that the homemaker may 

have the poorest diet in the family” (68). 

Despite the difficulty of calculating exact 

quantities of individual foods consumed, 

Clark and Fincher were able to determine 

that the average homemaker in their study 

consumed approximately 1,780 calories per 

day. 

While this number was above the basal 

energy requirements for “a woman 

corresponding to the average height and 

age of the group,” it was below the 1948 

Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) of 

2,000 calories for a sedentary woman, 2,400 

calories for a moderately active woman, and 

3,000 calories for a very active woman. The 

difference between recommendation and 

practice “raised several questions about 

the interpretation of food consumption 

data in relation to recommendations for 

food intake.” Although many of the women 

seemed to be overweight, “the data for 1 

day suggest ... that many of the diets may 

have been low or borderline in protein.” 

Of the nutrients studied, diets were most 

deficient in calcium, reflected by the finding 

that “the average homemaker in this study 

used a little over a cup of milk a day or its 

equivalent in cream, ice cream and cheese.”

In general, older homemakers consumed 

fewer calories and had lower levels of 

essential nutrients in their diets. The 

higher the family income, the higher the 

level of education a homemaker had; and 

the younger she was, the more likely she 

was to have a diet approaching the RDAs. 

Clark and Fincher made the interesting 

suggestion that “their food habits may 

thus be indicative of changes that take 

place as new generations are influenced by 

nutritional knowledge.” A valuable discovery 

of the study might well be that such studies 

(and the dissemination of their findings) had 

value.

For 3 days in 1952, “more than 400 

representatives of governmental and 

nongovernmental agencies” involved in 

food and nutrition programs gathered in 

Washington, DC, to discuss the state of 

nutrition science and education. They 

were there to attend the National Food 

and Nutrition Institute sponsored by the 

USDA, the National Institutes of Health, the 

Food and Nutrition Board of the National 

Research Council, and the Interagency 
50 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Committee on Nutrition Education and 

School Lunch. In the foreword in the 

published proceedings of the meeting, 

Stiebeling wrote that the “broad base of 

sponsorship for the conference, which 

included participation by many other 

agencies within and outside the government, 

resulted in a conference that gave 

perspective to a wide range of problems,” 

all related to “our common interest—the 

nutritional betterment of our people”(69).

Speakers at the meeting celebrated the 

amount of discovery about human nutrition 

made in the past 20 years and urged their 

colleagues to expand their research to 

build on this foundation. They presented 

summaries of the latest research on the 

nutrition of adults, children, the elderly, 

and rural and urban families, which yielded 

a rich portrait of the Nation’s nutritional 

status and prospects. Experts in the field 

addressed laws affecting food supplies and 

the effect of food processing on nutrition. 

Presenters also spoke about nutritional 

deficiency as a factor in disease as well as 

addressing a newer problem, the threat of 

atomic warfare. Roy Lennartson, Assistant 

Administrator of Marketing of USDA’s 

Production and Marketing Administration, 

discussed the need to organize food supplies 

for emergency preparedness while Vincent 

B. Lamoureux, Radiological Defense 

Consultant with the Federal Civil Defense 

Administration, offered the grim advice that 

“food animals ... that have received a heavy 

dose of radiation should be slaughtered 

immediately and used for food.” The 

radiation itself would not make livestock 

“unfit for consumption,” but the longer an 

animal such as a cow suffered the effects of 

a blast, the less appealing its meat would be 

(70).

Dealing with less grisly but perhaps more 

pressing matters, National Institutes 

of Health Director W.H. Sebrell, Jr., an 

authority on human nutrition, noted that 

most of the deficiency diseases had been 

controlled nationally through the successful 

introduction of fortified and enriched 

dietary staples. But another danger loomed: 

“Obesity has replaced the vitamin deficiency 

diseases as the number one nutrition 

problem in the United States.” Sebrell 

reported that one quarter of the Nation’s 

adults were obese and that obesity was 

associated with a host of illnesses as well as 

shorter life spans (71). 

While it was important to focus on solving 

global nutrition problems, obesity of the 

U.S. population deserved close attention 

from nutritionists in the future. Sebrell felt 

confident of the abilities of the Nation’s food 

and nutrition researchers to solve future 

problems, because their past work had made 

a significant difference to the population. 

By markedly reducing rates of dietary 

deficiency diseases, nutrition programs had 

contributed in an “outstanding” way to the 

strength of the Nation’s economy. Nutrition 

programs “and allied sciences—to speak in 

purely economic terms—have led to a more 

productive population, and thus to higher 

purchasing power and consumption.” Noting 

that most of the existing work on nutrients 

had been done “in vitro,” Sebrell called for 

more research into “actual body processes.”

Charles Glen King, Scientific Director of 

the National Nutrition Foundation, Inc., 

and a professor of chemistry at Columbia 

University, singled out recent research in 

fats as the most important ongoing work 

(72). Esther Phipard, Assistant Head of 

the Family Economics section of BHNHE, 

supported both Sebrell’s worries about 

obesity and King’s interest in fat with 

her report that the percentage of protein 

remained constant while that derived 

from fat in the average American diet had 

risen “rather markedly” over the 43 years 

between 1909 and 1952. Phipard noted, 

“whether or not this shift in the source of 

our calories ... is nutritionally desirable is 

questionable” (73). Phipard reported that 

while consumption of important nutrients 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 51

appeared to be rising in diets at all economic 

levels, the rich and well educated still ate 

better than the poor and less educated, 

and most people did not achieve perfect 

nutrition no matter their socioeconomic 

status or education. In particular, calcium 

and vitamin C were in shortest supply in the 

diets of average Americans. 

Discussion groups tackled the topics of 

food supplies, food distribution, nutrition 

education, food laws, and emergency food 

planning, bringing together the Nation’s 

experts to reflect on current conditions and 

propose action for future improvements. 

A panel discussion on coordination of 

nutrition programs gave as a good model for 

organizing the collaborative efforts among 

the Public Health Service, the American 

Dietetic Association, and the American 

Diabetic Association in putting together 

materials to educate diabetics on the role 

of diet in their disease. The panel saw 

elementary school lunches as the most 

important site for collaboration, noting that 

in these schools there were “26,000,000 

boys and girls at the age when food habits 

were being established and are susceptible 

to the concerted influences” of the adults 

around them (74). Most heartening of 

all the Institute’s recommendations was 

the exhortation for nutrition educators 

to remain “aware of the importance of 

maintaining a healthy attitude toward food 

and of retaining some of the fun of eating.”

In 1953, the same year the proceedings 

of this important meeting were published, 

the Bureau was “abolished” by the order 

of the Secretary of Agriculture. Despite 

the harsh terminology, in reality, the work 

continued much as before, with the Bureau 

now a division within USDA’s Agricultural 

Research Service (ARS). This might be 

seen as an attack on the work of home 

economists, a group that was predominantly 

female, except that many other bureaus, 

such as the Bureau of Entomology and the 

Bureau of Animal Industry, mostly staffed 

by men, also became divisions of the ARS 

as part of this major reorganization. In 

1957 ARS was reorganized again, and all 

home economics work was centralized in 

three divisions under the Institute of Home 

Economics. Stiebeling was Director of the 

Institute, Callie Mae Coons headed the 

Human Nutrition Division, Gertrude Weiss 

headed the Household Economics Division, 

and Esther Batchelder headed the Clothing 

and Textiles Division (75).

Throughout the 1950s, food and nutrition 

researchers in the ARS published an 

important series of bulletins on staple 

foods. Each of these bulletins, subtitled 

“Facts for Consumer Education,” focused 

on a single foodstuff—tomatoes, peaches, 

pork, milk, bread—and provided all known 

nutrition information, a history of usage 

and national consumption data, as well as 

instructions for purchasing, cooking, and/

or preserving. Bulletins concerning fruits 

and vegetables also gave values for seasonal 

and regional availability. Meat bulletins 

discussed different cuts. The bulletins 

also included a section of “Questions from 

Homemakers” that reflected the massive 

amount of correspondence received by 

ARS food experts. Here, a reader could find 

answers to such common questions as “is 

an iridescent or ‘rainbow’ film on the cut 

surface of ham a sign of spoilage?” or “Is 

bread fattening? Should it be included in a 

reducing diet?”(76, 77).

By 1954, Stiebeling could confidently claim 

that “Progress has been made in getting 

knowledge about nutrition to the public, 

and families have become increasingly 

conscious of the importance of good 

nutrition to health” (78). Gertrude Weiss 

noted of homemakers, “When they are 

asked about their food choices, references to 

vitamins and minerals are frequent in their 

answers. Many are specific and accurate 

about the food value they are seeking.” 

Although “some still have false ideas about 

the nutritive value of foods ... the important 
52 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

point for marketing is that the consumers 

are nutrition-conscious” (79). 

While the average homemaker typically 

responsible for family meals was the main 

intended audience of bulletins produced by 

ARS’s Human Nutrition Research Branch, 

the Branch also produced material to 

assist professionals in the field. Probably 

the most important publication of the 

1950s for practicing nutritionists and food 

scientists was the 1955 Energy Value of 

Foods: Basis and Derivation. Updating the 

work of Atwater, Annabel L. Merrill and 

Bernice K. Watt wrote that their book had 

been “prepared to provide more background 

information on food energy data than that 

given in current textbooks and food tables 

and to show the basic data drawn upon in 

deriving the revised calorie factors now used 

in tables of food composition in this country” 

(80). As up-to-date as the work was, Merrill 

and Watt acknowledged that there was 

much yet to learn. In particular, like Sebrell, 

they saw the need for more research in 

fats. There were, the two wrote, “problems 

with direct bearing on the digestibility of 

protein, fat, and carbohydrate that have 

not been resolved satisfactorily at this 

time.” Revisions were “anticipated” as more 

research was conducted on “the various 

constituents in the nitrogenous matter, fat, 

and carbohydrate of food.” Certainly no 

nutritionist who read the work would have 

disagreed that theirs was still a new and 

evolving science.

To make important choices easier for the 

nutrition-conscious public, the Human 

Nutrition Division of the ARS published 

new food guidelines in 1958 (81). The Basic 

Four was, according to ARS historian Dr. 

Helen Souders, “a new and simplified dietary 

guide based on most recent research on 

food consumption habits, nutritional needs, 

and nutritive value of foods” (82). Taking 

what they knew not only of food composition 

but also of how Americans ate, Division 

workers were able to assemble a guide that 

they believed could be understood and 

therefore acted upon by the ordinary person. 

Simple and colorful, with a contemporary 

design style, Leaflet No. 424 was designed 

to make good nutrition look easy, modern, 

and even fun. Daily allowances from each 

of the four groups—milk, meat, vegetables, 

and bread/cereal—were provided in the 

simplest possible terms. Adults were 

encouraged to have two or more cups of 

milk or milk products, two or more servings 

of meat including fish, poultry, and eggs 

(with dry beans, peas, or nuts as suggested 

alternatives), four or more servings of fruit 

and vegetables (with one serving a citrus or 

another source of vitamin C), and four or 

more servings of whole grain, enriched, or 

restored bread or cereal. 

The fine print at the bottom of the page 

invited supplementation: “plus other foods 

as needed to complete meals and to provide 

additional food energy and other food 

values.” What the average reader would 

make of this addendum is not clear. The 

vagueness of the wording “complete” made 

room for cultural differences in meals. The 

authors might be referring to foodstuffs that 

were used for flavor rather than sustenance, 

things like herbs, spices, or onions and 

garlic. They might be referring to sweets, 

which were notably missing from the four 

groups, though they could certainly be 

assembled from elements of each group. 

Where the “Basic Four” pamphlet was aimed 

at the consumer with the least amount 

of nutritional education, another bulletin 

published the same year was designed 

to help diet and nutrition professionals 

such as extension agents and home 

economics teachers convey this important 

information to the public. Louise Page and 

Esther F. Phipard, both employed in ARS’s 

Household Economics Research Branch, 

wrote Essentials of an Adequate Diet: Facts 

for Nutrition Programs in consultation with 

workers in the Human Nutrition Research 

Branch (83). 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 53

Here, the message in the fine print of the 

Basic Four pamphlet was made clear. 

The recommended daily servings of the 

four groups were designed to provide a 

“foundation for a good diet.” In real life, 

very few would restrict themselves to the 

foundation: “To round out meals and to 

satisfy the appetite, many people will use 

more of these foods and everyone will use 

foods not specified—butter, margarine, other 

fats, oils, sugars and unenriched refined 

grain products.” Often, these extra foods 

would be “combined” with those from the 

Basic Four in “mixed dishes, baked goods, 

desserts and other recipe dishes. Other 

foods, such as oils and sugar, would be 

added to the basics “to enhance flavor and 

improve appetite appeal.” Ever mindful 

of the fact that palate is king, Page and 

Phipard encouraged nutrition workers to 

be understanding of menus that used more 

than just the basics. 

Based on past research, “experience shows 

that with the patterns of eating in this 

country, the additional foods will bring the 

calorie level up to or beyond 100 percent.” 

This in itself should not worry workers 

involved with nutrition programs; what 

mattered was whether dietary needs were 

being met. Was the foundation there, in 

other words, or was most or all of the meal 

“extras?”(83). To make it easier for nutrition 

workers (and potentially the public) to 

understand the differences among foods 

that supplied the same nutrients, the 

bulletin assigned points to foods. The points 

were assigned based on milligrams of each 

important nutrient within a foodstuff. Thus, 

a cup of whole milk counted for 10 points 

toward calcium allowance, while one-quarter 

cup of cottage cheese earned 2 points. The 

goal was to reach about 20 calcium points, 

or at least 600 milligrams of calcium in one 

day’s diet.

 Since Americans had rather quickly caught 

on to the idea of calories and the possibility 

(for better or worse) of counting them, this 

system theoretically made sense. Twenty 

meat points per day, which could be 

reached using a variety of protein sources 

including dried beans and eggs, would 

provide about 30 grams of protein daily. 

Because milk products also supply protein, 

any quantities above those required to 

meet calcium requirements could also be 

counted in this category. Many vegetables 

contain, in common serving sizes, more 

than the recommended daily allowance 

of some vitamins. The bulletin therefore 

encouraged readers to think in terms of 

weekly consumption of foods in the fruit 

and vegetable category. Page and Phipard 

recommended “at least 140 vitamin A 

points a week,” which of course came to 

20 points per day but which could be eaten 

in whatever way that made sense to the 

individual or family.

Using the points system to ensure basic 

nutrition, one would still come up short 

on recommended calorie intake, so Page 

and Phipard suggested that most people 

would eat more servings in any one category 

than what was required, and that some 

of the foods not considered to be among 

the basic four would also add to calories. 

Variation was, they stressed, as essential 

to understanding diets and working with 

individuals as food values themselves. 

Convenient as it might be, it would not be 

possible to design one diet for all people 

because of “differences in nutritional needs 

of individuals and variation in nutritive 

value of foods.” A food guide that would 

serve the Nation would also need to be 

“flexible enough to allow for regional and 

seasonal differences in food supplies, 

for food preferences, and for different 

food budgets.” Nonetheless, the bulletin 

did include sample menus for 2 days, 

interesting from a modern perspective for 

their generous inclusion of iced cake at 

lunch and chocolate sauce on ice cream 

with dinner. Despite the acknowledgment 

of regional differences, the meals are 
54 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

resolutely of the Northeastern or Midwestern 

cuisine that had come to be understood 

as mainstream American. The nutrition 

extension worker in any other region 

would simply have to work out for herself 

how much cornbread or tortilla was the 

equivalent of a “roll, enriched” that appeared 

with lunch.

Taking up the question of regional variation 

not in diet but in nutrition research, the 

ARS participated in a nationwide study, 

which was published as the Nutritional 

Status of the USA in 1959 (84). This 

publication represented the contributions 

of experiment stations in all 50 States as 

well as the activities of the Human Nutrition 

Research Branch. The report was something 

like a nutritional census of the Nation. 

Paul Sharp, Director of the California 

Agricultural Experiment Station, prepared 

the introduction to the report. The goal 

of the study, he explained, “was to obtain 

factual information of the nutritional level of 

the nation by means of sampling appreciable 

numbers of the population of the United 

States with reference to such variables as 

age, sex, geographical location, etc.” The 

study would serve “as a bench mark for the 

nutritional status of our people.” Noting 

that “Never before has a program involving 

such breadth and depth of information 

been undertaken,” Sharp suggested that it 

be repeated in 5 to 10 years to learn if the 

“nutritional status of our people is improving 

or deteriorating” (84).

Four technical committees, each assigned a 

region, conducted the study. The committees 

were composed of researchers from each 

State in the region and a representative of 

the Human Nutrition Division of the USDA. 

The Northeast group investigated how best 

to collect nutritional data. In some studies, 

skilled nutritionists interviewed people who 

had been trained to keep food diaries. In 

others, food inventories were made at the 

beginning of a week and rechecked at the 

end of the week. The quantity missing at 

the end of the week was then divided by the 

“household size in equivalent persons,” a 

number determined by dividing the number 

of meals served in the house by 21. A 

problem with this kind of calculation, which 

the report acknowledged, was that this gave 

information of meals prepared, not what was 

actually eaten. Despite national abundance 

and widespread availability of nutrition 

education, researchers in the project found 

American diets lacking in vitamins A and 

C, calcium, and iron. Americans needed 

more fruits and vegetables, specifically, 

Agnes Fay Morgan suggested, “the choice 

should be in favor of dark green and deep 

yellow vegetables, and tomatoes, berries, 

citrus fruits and melons.” Despite these 

deficiencies, which seemed to stem from 

national foodways in which these strongflavored foodstuffs were not preferred, 

Morgan confidently declared that the 

national nutritional status “on the whole 

was found to be good, probably the best 

that has ever been reported for any similar 

population groups.”

The research that the USDA nutritionists 

had been doing received the greatest 

recognition when Hazel Stiebeling was 

awarded the Distinguished Federal Civilian 

Service Award in 1959 (85). Stiebeling was 

the only woman among the five to receive 

the award. The award noted “the translation 

of her vast scientific knowledge into practical 

dietary guides has improved the health of 

all Americans.” While Stiebeling’s ability 

to consolidate and disseminate nutrition 

research earned her the award, the efforts 

of the many scientists who produced that 

“vast scientific knowledge” and worked to 

make it accessible to ordinary Americans 

were being recognized at the same time. 

One Chicago journalist mourned that 

Stiebeling’s award did not get more attention 

from the press. Guessing “She’d rate high 

with Saint Peter,” Edwin Lahey speculated 

that the Distinguished Service Awards did 

not attract much attention from the public 

because nobody cares about “payrollers”—
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 55

the Federal employees whose work was 

recognized by the award (86). Furthermore, 

only one of the awardees, Lahey wrote, really 

deserved the award. Stiebeling “made a truly 

wholesome contribution to our lives,” he 

informed his readers, “She has been working 

for your federal government since 1930.” 

Despite Stiebeling’s noble service, however, 

Lahey rather floridly continued, “She is just 

another one of the tired middle-aged women 

you see on the bus in Washington when the 

day is done.” In fact, an article published 

just 2 years later rescued Stiebeling from 

this inaccurately drab portrait. She “uses 

her Buick car for pleasure trips and also 

for journeys to Beltsville, where she visits 

the laboratories,” a writer for the The Milk 

Industry explained (87).

In 1959, the year the Nutritional Status, 

U.S.A. was published, the Yearbook of 

Agriculture was once again dedicated to 

research on food. In the 20 years since 

the last “Food” Yearbook, much had 

changed, but nutritionists still had a sense 

of their field as new and full of potential. 

Elizabeth Neige Todhunter declared the 

story of nutrition, “a story of a fight against 

ignorance and superstition,” an old story, 

but also “primarily a story of progress in 

this century—indeed in the last few years; 

a story so new that it is far from its end” 

(37). She noted, “The problems of nutrition 

continue to grow more complex.” It was 

not enough to have identified nutrients, 

for “New discoveries reveal that there is 

close interrelationship between many of 

the nutrients.” Because “Numerous factors 

affect the availability of the different 

nutrients as they exist in food,” she 

explained, “the biochemical individuality of 

each person must be kept in mind.” In other 

words, there would be no one-diet-for-all 

solution to the problems of malnutrition. 

The information that each individual would 

need to understand her own nutritional 

needs was collected and disseminated at 

the national level by the Food and Nutrition 

Board of the National Research Council. In 

the 1959 Yearbook of Agriculture, Stiebeling 

explained how this organization operated: 

“This Board, made up of 24 scientists 

from universities, research organizations, 

and industry, interprets scientific opinion 

on problems of food and nutrition for the 

Government.” Representatives from each 

of the government branches “concerned 

with food and nutrition attends the 

meetings.” Once consensus was reached, 

and here it is important to remember that 

industry representatives were part of the 

conversation, the Board then “publishes 

dietary allowances that say how much of 

each nutrient is recommended for persons 

differing in age and activity” (88).

These recommendations were then 

translated into simpler language and a 

more usable form by USDA nutritionists 

and published as “food guides and 

weekly market lists.” The diet plans were 

“revised from time to time” to pass on the 

newest knowledge in nutrition to ordinary 

Americans. Stiebeling was able to report 

marked improvement in national nutrition. 

Referring back to the 1930s, when she 

herself published the first important studies 

of American nutrition, Stiebeling explained, 

“A third of our families then had diets that 

were classed as poor.” If the studies were 

repeated in 1959, however, “only about 

10 percent of households would have 

poor diets.” This was cause for pride, but 

Americans still tended to “neglect” certain 

foods, those rich in vitamin A, vitamin C, 

calcium, and riboflavin, so that “the food 

consumed by some families in the United 

States still falls somewhat short of scientific 

goals.” Years of nutrition research had also 

revealed to Stiebeling and other nutritionists 

that diet was but “one of the complex set 

of conditions” contributing to health. As 

one of the indications of the success of 

nutrition education and of bread and flour 

enrichment, as well as improvements in 

food processing, American children were 
56 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

growing up to be “sturdier and taller” than 

their ancestors. Asking what the value of 

this change might be, Stiebeling made what 

now seems like an odd claim that there 

was some connection between body build 

and intelligence, citing the work of Dr. Ales 

Hrdlicka of the Smithsonian Institute and 

Francis Galton, the most famous proponent 

of eugenics. The fact that she would refer 

to studies that were hardly scientific seems 

strange, but it perhaps can be attributed to 

her enthusiasm for the great improvements 

of the past 20 years.

Faith Clark and Berta Friend also 

celebrated improved nutrition over the 

half-century between 1909 and 1958, 

but they simultaneously drew attention 

to a potentially troublesome trend (89). 

Americans were getting more of their calories 

from fat than had their ancestors. This was 

the same trend Esther Phipard had noted 

in 1952 at the National Nutrition Institute. 

Clark and Friend attributed the “increasing 

richness of our diet” to the increasing 

richness of the Nation. “Foods high in fat,” 

they noted, “generally are expensive. It has 

been said that a country’s wealth can be 

measured by its consumption of fat.”

Four chapters in the Yearbook dealt with 

the difficult problem of how, in a capitalist, 

free-market society, ordinary people learned 

about food and nutrition. Of particular 

concern to ARS nutritionists were food 

fads and misinformation (90). As slow as 

Americans were to adopt the researchbacked recommendations of government 

experts, they were just as quick to fall for 

the latest diet offered by the least qualified 

charlatan. Helen Mitchell offered the 

sobering calculation that “Ten million 

Americans ... waste 500 million dollars a 

year on quack diets and fake pills and the 

junk of non-scientific medicine men.” With 

evident rage, Mitchell warned readers away 

from food fads, taking time particularly 

to debunk the Dr. Hay diet, devised by 

William Howard Hay, which was based in 

the idea that acid and alkali foods could 

not be digested together. She described 

the workings of the for-profit diet quack 

in an attempt to empower readers to resist 

his lures. Most insidious, she noted, were 

those who used the language but not the 

research of nutrition to sell their products 

with “half-truths and misinterpretations of 

scientific data.” These people “know how 

to use lingo that sounds like science to 

promote their own moneymaking projects.” 

Unscientific diets were potentially dangerous 

to the person who followed them, but 

even more frightening, especially from 

Mitchell’s perspective, they discredited 

the field of nutrition itself. A food fad that 

recommended some particular way of eating 

as a cure for illness “tends to undermine 

public confidence in scientific nutrition 

and threatens true progress in the sciences 

supported by true agencies.” Because the 

public had come to rely on science for 

answers, unscrupulous people were able to 

use scientific-sounding terminology to win 

confidence, which in turn, because their 

claims were false at best and fatal at worst, 

cheapened the public’s opinion of science 

itself. Despite the muckraking work of the 

Committee on Government Operations, 

which published a report on false and 

misleading advertising of diet products, and 

despite the strong influence of “tradition” 

in American foodways, “High-power 

advertising has had a significant effect on 

the buying and eating habits of Americans,” 

and advertisers have not always felt “a 

responsibility to consumers to the extent of 

checking the authenticity and implications 

of their claims.”

Hazel Stiebeling also commented on 

the relationship between tradition and 

aspiration in food choices (91). Although 

“the group in which we are born and 

develop first determines what tastes good 

to us and what first tends to bring physical 

and psychological pleasure,” our choices 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 57

were also shaped by whom we aspire to be. 

A study had revealed, for instance, that 

nearly 90 percent of married women avoided 

serving foods that their husbands did not 

like. In the interests of being a “good wife” 

as the role was culturally defined—a woman 

who pleased rather than challenged her 

husband—these women avoided foods that 

they or their children might very well like or 

need. 

Stiebeling also understood that “Many 

people come to like foods that they think 

will enhance their social position and 

to avoid foods they fear may lower their 

status.” This aspirational eating could have 

negative consequences as, for instance, in 

the case of “White bread, white sugar, white 

rice,” which were once “prestige foods and 

still are for some groups,” or when food 

was gendered as when “Some think salads 

belong to women’s parties and rabbits and 

are not for men.” Looking at how we make 

our food choices, Stiebeling mused, could 

tell us a lot about our society: “Advertising 

and other promotion bring familiar and 

new food products to our attention and 

influence our choices in countless blunt 

and subtle ways. There is much in all this 

to give us thought about human behavior.” 

Stiebeling advocated keeping an open mind 

and inquisitive palate in the interests of both 

health and pleasure and encouraged readers 

to learn to like what was good for them, 

clearly considering taste as much or more a 

matter of nurture than of nature.

Whether because of the strength of tradition 

or the persistence of ignorance or issues 

of supply, one-tenth of the American 

population had diets that could be classified 

as “poor” in 1955. Two researchers in the 

Division of Household Economics, Faith 

Clark and Corinne Le Bovit, assessed the 

nutritional health of the Nation in relation 

to a variety of factors, such as education, 

location, and family wealth (92). Clark and 

Le Bovit compared figures from 1936, 1942, 

1948, and 1955 to determine what changes 

had occurred and to answer again the 

question “Are We Well Fed?” They found that 

among those who did not have a generally 

poor diet, there were nevertheless significant 

nutrient deficiencies, especially in thiamine. 

Although the poor had been catching up to 

the middle class in terms of nutrition from 

1936 to 1948, their progress seemed to have 

stalled by 1955, although those who were 

better off economically were still not meeting 

100 percent of recommended consumption 

of all nutrients. Challenging the persistent 

myth of the “picture of the dining table in 

the farm home groaning with dishes of meat, 

vegetables, and milk and pie,” Clark and 

Le Bovit found that although farm families 

consumed more calories, there was no 

difference between them and urban families 

in terms of “allowances in all nutrients.”

Looking to the future of national nutrition, 

Ruth Leverton published the latest revised 

Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) in 

the 1959 Yearbook of Agriculture (93). Over 

the previous 40 years, the idea of the calorie 

had captured public imagination, and many 

diets were based on half-truths or outright 

lies about how many calories the human 

body needed to function and what else it 

needed, besides calories, to maintain health.

Carl Malmberg had written as far back as 

the 1920s of a trend to “eat and puke” as 

a way of staying slim, and there were more 

diet books, pills, teas, and “salts” on the 

market than anyone could keep track of. 

Leverton’s information, as up-to-date as she 

could make it, had the potential to replace a 

fog of impressions with a simple science of 

eating. Giving different recommended calorie 

intakes for people of different age, sex, 

height, and weight, Leverton made it clear 

that there was no one magic number for all. 

The amounts recommended were “intended 

for persons normally active in a temperate 

climate,” a sort of middle ground. Using the 

recommendations, a person could judge his 

or her own level of activity and climate and 

adjust accordingly.
58 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

The RDAs were not minimums, as those 

published in Canada, nor were they 

designed for the average person, as the 

British standards were. Instead, they were 

“intended to cover the needs of substantially 

all healthy people and to provide a margin of 

safety as well.” It was this margin of safety 

that made the RDAs unique, as postwar 

Americans could feel comfortable about their 

food supply. As Leverton noted, however, 

they were not the final word on nutritional 

requirements. “The recommended 

allowances are not referred to as optimal—

the best possible—amounts,” she explained. 

Nutritionists knew that these amounts 

were better than minimums and included 

the margin of safety, but future research 

would have to determine whether “larger 

amounts will bring additional benefits in 

health.” Likewise, requirements for a variety 

of nutrients such as zinc, potassium, and 

importantly, fat and carbohydrates were not 

yet known. A continuously researched and 

periodically revised set of dietary allowances 

would thus be “the tools for planning food 

supplies and consumption for a healthy 

individual, family, and Nation.”

Among the articles in the Yearbook to 

address some of these nutrients, perhaps 

the most important for future research 

was Callie Mae Coons’s discussion of fats 

and fatty acids (94). Coons summarized 

several years of research into the properties 

of fats and fatty acids, noting that really 

sophisticated research in this field had 

become possible only after the Second World 

War. Coons credited “the use of radioactive 

elements” for making it “possible to follow 

fatty acids, cholesterol, and other lipids 

(fatlike substances) through digestion 

and absorption to their destination in the 

body organism.” Simultaneously, the role 

of fats and fatty acids in the American 

diet was undergoing change as more and 

more calories were derived from fat and as 

dietary fats became less visible, through the 

increasingly complex processing of foods 

that marked modern foodways, particularly 

in the northern region of the Nation. As 

yet, “the chemist has not found out all that 

happens to a fat or oil during processing” 

and “Biochemists and physiologists cannot 

yet tell us how the body utilizes some of the 

products formed during hydrogenation, such 

as isoacids, transisomers, and conjugated 

fatty acids.” Nonetheless, much was already 

known about mortality rates and cholesterol 

levels, and Coons pointed to interesting 

studies of how rising dietary cholesterol 

levels increased mortality levels. Supplying 

average cholesterol levels as well as charts of 

grams per 100 grams of fatty acids in a wide 

variety of foods, Coons brought the most upto-date knowledge on this topic to the public 

and suggested important avenues for further 

research.

Hazel Stiebeling Retires

On June 30, 1963, Hazel Stiebeling retired 

from public service “after a fruitful and 

distinguished career of 33 years of public 

service.” The American Home Economics 

Association passed a resolution recognizing 

her achievements, specifically celebrating 

her promotion of “practical interpretations 

of research for the betterment of families, 

and ... [development of] methods for 

obtaining data on food consumption and 

nutrition of population groups” (95). New 

York State Congressional Representative 

Benjamin Rosenthal (D) honored Stiebeling’s 

commitment to public service but 

worried that her departure was part of a 

movement to limit the effectiveness of the 

ARS. The same day that her retirement 

was announced, Rosenthal noted, “the 

Department announced that the two 

research divisions formerly headed by 

Dr. Stiebeling would be consolidated with 

the four research divisions assigned to 

development of improved utilization of farm 

commodities.” Rosenthal feared that this 

reorganization would be “a sad case of a 

whale swallowing a valiant fish” in which 

“the Department’s consumer-oriented 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 59

research will inevitably be subordinated 

to its vastly larger program of commodity 

utilization research which is conducted 

primarily in the interest of producers” (96). 

How nutritionists of ARS negotiated their 

role as intermediaries between producer 

and consumer forms an important part 

of the story of the years since Stiebeling’s 

retirement.

References

1. Bureau of Home Economics. 1923. J 

Home Econ 15:458.

2. Harding, TS. 1980. Two Blades 

of Grass: A History of Scientific 

Development in the US Department of 

Agriculture. New York, NY: Arno Press. 

219 p.

3. The new Chief of the new Bureau. 

1923. J Home Econ 15:494-5.

4. Stanley, L. 1933. Home economics 

research by the Federal Government. 

Scientific Monthly 37:531-4.

5. Baker, GL. 1976. Women in the US 

Department of Agriculture. Agric 

History 50:190-201. 

6. Memorandum to the staff of the 

Bureau of Home Economics. 1925 Nov 

14. 1 leaf. Located at: Box 725, first 

folder (untitled), National Archives and 

Records Administration, College Park, 

MD; RG 176.

7. Wharton. [Initials unknown.] 

Memorandum to staff of the Bureau 

of Home Economics. 1925 Sep 11. 1 

leaf. Located at: Box 725, first folder 

(untitled), National Archives and 

Records Administration, College Park, 

MD; RG 176.

8. Organization Charts and Functions. 

1929. Located at: Box Bureau of Home 

Economics, National Archives and 

Records Administration, College Park, 

MD; Collection 334.

9. National problem suggested for study. 

[No date]. Located at: Box 606, Folder: 

Vitamins—Methods, Bureau of Human 

Nutrition and Home Economics 

papers, National Archives and Records 

Administration, College Park, MD; RG 

176.

10. Meat in the household refrigerator. 

1931. Located at: Box 536, first 

“Refrigeration” folder, National 

Archives and Records Administration, 

College Park, MD; RG 176. [A study by 

Anna M. Pabst, formerly of the Bureau 

of Home Economics, summarized by 

Louise Stanley, Chief. (1931 Aug 6).]

11. Advertisement for People’s Ice 

Company. 1934. Coshocton, OH: 

Coshocton Tribune. Mar 28.

12. Rose, MS, MC Hessler, HK Stiebeling, 

and C Taylor. 1928. Visualizing food 

values. J Home Econ 20:781-7.

13. New government charts indicate diet 

requirements. 1935. Science News 

Letter March 16;27(727).

14. Stiebeling, HK, and M Birdseye. 

1931. Adequate diet for families with 

limited incomes. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication 

No 113. 16p.

15. Stiebeling, HK, M Birdseye, and CB 

Shuman. 1931. The Family’s Food 

at Low Cost. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. 4 p.

16. Atwater, WO, and CD Woods. 1897. 

Dietary Studies With Reference to 

the Food of the Negro in Alabama in 

1895 and 1896. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office 

of Experiment Stations, Experiment 

Station Record. 84 p. 

17. Frissell, HB. Dietary studies among 

the Negroes in 1897. 1899. In HB 

Frissell and I Bevier, Dietary Studies 

of Negroes in Eastern Virginia in 1897 

and 1898, pp. 1-25. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Office of Experiment 

Stations Bulletin No. 71.

18. Bevier, I. Dietary studies among the 

Negroes in 1898. In HB Frissell and 

I Bevier, Dietary Studies of Negroes 

in Eastern Virginia in 1897 and 

1898, pp. 27-45. U.S. Department 
60 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

of Agriculture, Office of Experiment 

Stations Bulletin No. 71.

19. Kittrell, FP. 1949. The Negro family 

as a health agency. J Negro Educ 

18:422-8.

20. Stiebeling, H. 1934. A statistical 

analysis of the food requirements for 

the population of the United States. J 

Am Stat Assoc 29:186-92.

21. Harper, AE. 2003. Contributions of 

women scientists in the U.S. to the 

development of Recommended Dietary 

Allowances. J Nutr 133:3698-702.

22. Stiebeling, HK, M Elliot, and A Hanna. 

1931. Emergency Food Relief and 

Child Health. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Bureau of 

Home Economics. 10 p.

23. Baker, GL. 1976. Women in the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. Agric 

History 50:190-201.

24. Autobiographical sketch, “Hazel 

Stiebeling.” Located at: Papers of E 

Neige Todhunter, Vanderbilt University 

Medical Center Library, Nashville, TN.

25. Dutcher, R. 1935. The New Deal in 

Washington: even our diets are under 

attack. Frederick, MD: Frederick 

News-Post. Mar 27;4.

26. The diet balanced. 1935. New York 

Times. Mar 22;22.

27. Stanley, L. 1933. Home economics 

research by the Federal Government. 

Scientific Monthly 37:531-4.

28. Experts test meats to guide health. 

1931. Waterloo, IA: Waterloo Daily 

Courier. Oct 13;25.

29. Morton, M. 1931. Household hints. 

Olean, NY: The Olean Herald. Jan 

28;6.

30. Sheets, EW. 1934. Meat research in 

the United States. Scientific Monthly 

38:50.

31. Stanley L. 1939. From tradition to 

science. In Food and Life: Yearbook 

of Agriculture 1939, pp. 95-99. 

Washington, DC: United States 

Government Printing Office.

32. Stiebeling, H. 1939. Food habits, old 

and new. In Food and Life: Yearbook 

of Agriculture 1939, pp. 124-130. 

Washington, DC: United States 

Government Printing Office.

33. Howe, PE. 1939. Can food habits be 

changed? In Food and Life: Yearbook 

of Agriculture 1939, pp. 131-138. 

Washington, DC: United States 

Government Printing Office.

34. Herrick, GF. 1939. Interview of Hazel 

Stiebeling. Country Gentleman Dec. 

Located at: Folder “Stiebeling, Dr. 

Hazel—Biographical Information,” 

Special Collections, National 

Agricultural Library, Beltsville, MD.

35. Carpenter, R. 1941. National nutrition 

conference for defense. Scientific 

Monthly 53:87-91.

36. Diet standards for Americans of all 

ages announced. 1941. Science News 

Letter 39:39.

37. Todhunter, EN. 1959. The story of 

nutrition. In Food: The Yearbook 

of Agriculture, 1959, pp. 7-22. 

Washington, DC: United States 

Government Printing Office.

38. O’Brien, R. 1948. BHNHE celebrates 

a quarter century of service. J Home 

Econ 40:293-6.

39. USDA Newsletter. Located at: Folder 

“Home Economics Research in USDA” 

(statements 1940-49), Box 2, Record 

Group 310, National Archives and 

Records Administration, College Park, 

MD.

40. Neff, E. 1942. Life is sweet, anyway. 

Science News Letter Apr 11;234.

41. Ashbrook, FG. 1950. Transcendental 

gastronomic art. In A Stefferud, ed., 

Crops in Peace and War: The Yearbook 

of Agriculture 1950-51, pp. 653-

659. Washington, DC: United States 

Government Printing Office.

42. Baker, GL, WD. Rasmussen, V 

Wiser, and JM Porter. 1963. Century 

of Service: the First 100 Years of 

the United States Department of 

Agriculture. Washington, DC: United 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 61

States Government Printing Office. 

325 p.

43. Lewis, HB. Nutrition. 1947. Ann Am 

Academy Political Soc Sci 249:119-25.

44. From the Editor’s Basket. 1946. J 

Home Econ 38:661.

45. Farrell, MW. 1947. Better nutrition for 

all peoples. What’s New in Home Econ 

Feb, p. 49.

46. Food for the Family With Young 

Children. 1951. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Home and Garden Bulletin 

No. 5. 16 p.

47. Food Values in Common Portions. 

1951. Agriculture Information 

Bulletin No. 36. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home 

Economics. 8 p.

48. End Matter. 1943. J Home Econ 

Nov;35(9):20.

49. End Matter. 1944. J Home Econ 

Mar;36(3):20.

50. ANA Committee of Films. 1952. Am J 

Nursing 52(4):515.

51. Watt, BK, and MA Attaya. 1945. 

Vitamin retention in quantity cooking 

of vegetables. J Home Econ 37:340-4.

52. Clark, F, and J McCay. 1946. Nutritive 

value of US food supply. J Home Econ 

38:330-7.

53. Stiebeling, HK. 1947. The world 

nutrition situation. J Home Econ 

1947;39:7-11.

54. O’Brien, R. 1947. The Flannagan-Hope 

Act in relation to home economics. J 

Home Econ 39:150-2.

55. O’Brien, R, and G Adams. 1948. RMA 

home economics research. J Home 

Econ 40:120-2.

56. Our Significant Part. (Comment). 1948. 

J Home Econ Feb;40(2):87-8.

57. Callison, EC, E Orent-Keiles, and RU 

Makower. 1951. The effect of some 

combinations of human foods on the 

growth and health of the laboratory 

rat. J Nutr 43:131-52.

58. Menu. Located at: Box: 25th 

Anniversary of the Bureau of Human 

Nutrition and Home Economics. 

Special Collections, National 

Agriculture Library, Beltsville, MD; 

Collection 334.

59. Cronister, K. Memo to: Dr. Stiebeling, 

Dr. Reid, and Miss Huneke. 1948 Jun 

16. Located at: Box 2, Folder “25th 

Anniversary of BHNHE,” Record Group 

310. National Archives and Records 

Administration, College Park, MD.

60. Press statement “Bureau of Human 

Nutrition and Home Economics 

Celebrates Its 25th Birthday.” Located 

at: Box 2, Folder “25th Anniversary of 

BHNHE,” Record Group 310. National 

Archives and Records Administration, 

College Park, MD.

61 Anonymous poem. Located at: Box 2, 

Folder “25th Anniversary of BHNHE,” 

Record Group 310. National Archives 

and Records Administration, College 

Park, MD.

62 Script of Skit. Located at: Box 2, 

Folder “25th Anniversary of BHNHE,” 

Record Group 310. National Archives 

and Records Administration, College 

Park, MD. 

63. Script and Shot List of Research for 

Better Living. Located at: Box: 25th 

Anniversary of the Bureau of Human 

Nutrition and Home Economics. 

Special Collections, National 

Agriculture Library. Beltsville, MD. 

Collection 334.

64. Levine, S. 2008. School Lunch Politics: 

the Surprising History of America’s 

Favorite Welfare Program. Princeton, 

NJ: Princeton University Press. 272 p.

65. Travis, G. 1953. Group II Discussion 

report. Food distribution as it 

affects nutrition. In Proceedings of 

National Food and Nutrition Institute, 

December 8, 9, 10 1952, pp. 120-

121. Washington, DC: United States 

Department of Agriculture. (Also 

published as Agriculture Handbook No 

56.)

66. Sandstrom, M. 1959. School lunches. 

In Food: The Yearbook of Agriculture 
62 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

1959, pp. 691-700. Washington, 

DC: United States Department of 

Agriculture.

67. From the Editor’s Basket. 1947. 

Tested recipes for 100. J Home Econ 

Jan;39(1):46.

68. Clark, F, and L Fincher. 1954. 

Nutritive Content of Homemakers’ 

Meals: Four Cities, Winter 1948. 

Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 

112. Washington, DC: United States 

Department of Agriculture. 67 p. 

69. Stiebeling, H. 1953. Foreword. In 

Proceedings of National Food and 

Nutrition Institute, December 8, 9, 10 

1952, p. ii. Washington, DC: United 

States Department of Agriculture. 

(Also published as Agriculture 

Handbook No 56.)

70. Lamoureux, VB. 1953. Atomic war and 

food. In Proceedings of National Food 

and Nutrition Institute, December 8, 

9, 10 1952, pp. 109-111. Washington, 

DC: United States Department of 

Agriculture. (Also published as 

Agriculture Handbook No 56.)

71. Sebrell, WH. 1953. Nutrition—

past and future. In Proceedings of 

National Food and Nutrition Institute, 

December 8, 9, 10 1952, pp. 3-12. 

Washington, DC: United States 

Department of Agriculture. (Also 

published as Agriculture Handbook No 

56.).

72. King, CG. 1953. Significance of recent 

advances in nutrition research. In

Proceedings of National Food and 

Nutrition Institute, December 8, 9, 

10 1952, pp. 13-18. Washington, 

DC: United States Department of 

Agriculture. (Also published as 

Agriculture Handbook No 56.)

73. Phipard, EF. 1953. Dietary adequacy 

of family food supplies. In Proceedings 

of National Food and Nutrition 

Institute, December 8, 9, 10 1952, pp. 

30-40. Washington, DC: United States 

Department of Agriculture. (Also 

published as Agriculture Handbook No 

56.)

74. Heseltine, M. 1953. Summary of 

panel discussion on coordination of 

nutrition activities. In Proceedings of 

National Food and Nutrition Institute, 

December 8, 9, 10 1952, pp. 141-

143. Washington, DC: United States 

Department of Agriculture. (Also 

published as Agriculture Handbook No 

56.)

75. Washington News. 1957. J Home Econ 

Apr;49(4):258.

76. Wolgamot, I, and L Fincher. 1954. 

Pork: Facts for Consumer Education. 

Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 

109. Washington, DC: United States 

Department of Agriculture. 22 p.

77. Wolgamot, I, and L Fincher. 1955. 

Bread: Facts for Consumer Education. 

Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 

142. Washington, DC: United States 

Department of Agriculture. 22 p.

78. Stiebeling, HK, and F Clark. 1954. 

Our national diet. In Marketing: The 

Yearbook of Agriculture, 1954, pp. 

202-207. Washington, DC: United 

States Department of Agriculture.

79. Weiss, G. 1954. Food for families. 

In Marketing: The Yearbook of 

Agriculture, 1954, pp. 195-202. 

Washington, DC: United States 

Department of Agriculture.

80. Merrill, AK, and BK Watt. 1973. 

Energy value of foods ... basis and 

derivation. Agriculture Handbook No. 

74, slightly revised. Washington, DC: 

United States Government Printing 

Office. 109 p.

81. Food for Fitness: a Daily Food Guide. 

1958. U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Leaflet No. 424. Washington, DC: 

United States Government Printing 

Office. 1 p.

82. Souders, H. Historical outline of 

food and nutrition research in the 

Department of Agriculture from W.O. 

Atwater to 1976, prepared 1976 Oct. 

Located at: Folder: Stiebeling, Dr. 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 63

Hazel—Biographical Info, Special 

Collections, National Agriculture 

Library, Beltsville, MD.

83. Page, L, and E Phipard. 1956. 

Essentials of an Adequate Diet: 

Facts for Nutrition Programs. 

Agriculture Information Bulletin 

No. 160. Washington, DC: United 

States Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service. 20 p.

84. Morgan, AF, ed. 1959. Nutritional 

Status U.S.A. California Agricultural 

Experiment Station Bulletin No. 769. 

Berkeley, CA: Agricultural Experiment 

Station.130 p.

85. Eisenhower gives decorations to five. 

1959. New York Times. Jan 21:10.

86. Lahey, E. 1959. Well-deserved service 

award lost in obscurity. Corpus 

Christi, TX: The Times. Jan 27.

87. Ashworth, K. 1961. The Milk Industry. 

49(5):84. 

88. Stiebeling, HK. 1959. Food in 

our lives. In Food: The Yearbook 

Agriculture, 1959, pp. 1-6. 

Washington, DC: United States 

Department of Agriculture.

89. Clark, F, and B Friend. 1959. Changes 

in sources of nutrients. In Food: The 

Yearbook Agriculture, 1959, pp. 600-

608. Washington, DC: United States 

Department of Agriculture.

90. Mitchell, HS. 1959. Don’t be fooled 

by fads. In Food: The Yearbook 

Agriculture, 1959, pp. 660-668. 

Washington, DC: United States 

Department of Agriculture.

91. Stiebeling, HK, and TA Dries. 1959. 

Habit–and more. In Food: The 

Yearbook Agriculture, 1959, pp. 631-

635. Washington, DC: United States 

Department of Agriculture.

92. Clark, F, and C Le Bovit. 1959. Are 

we well fed? In Food: The Yearbook 

Agriculture, 1959, pp. 620-628. 

Washington, DC: United States 

Department of Agriculture.

93. Leverton, R. 1959. Recommended 

allowances. In Food: The Yearbook 

Agriculture, 1959, pp. 227-230. 

Washington, DC: United States 

Department of Agriculture.

94. Coons, CM. Fats and fatty acids. In

Food: The Yearbook Agriculture, 1959, 

pp. 74-87. Washington, DC: United 

States Department of Agriculture.

95. Eileen, Q. 1963. Resolutions from the 

1963 annual meeting. J Home Econ 

55:554-5.

96. Congressional Record—Appendix. 

“Dr. Hazel K. Stiebeling.” Extension 

of Remarks of Hon. Benjamin S. 

Rosenthal New York in The House of 

Representatives. 1963 Jun 27:A4137-

38.
64 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

In 1941, the food and nutrition research activities of the Bureau of Home 

Economics moved from Washington, DC, to Beltsville Building 307 (Beltsville, MD), 

pictured above. Many of these activities remained in this facility for six decades 

before moving to new buildings nearby. The Bureau of Home Economics was 

administratively incorporated into the Agricultural Research Administration when it 

was formed in 1942. The agency was renamed the Agricultural Research Service 

in 1953. Redirection of research programs and reorganizations in the late 1950s 

and early 1960s resulted in the removal of “Home Economics” from organizational 

names.

Source: National Agricultural Library Digital Exhibit “Apron Strings and Kitchen 

Sinks: The USDA Bureau of Home Economics.”
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 65

Abbreviations

AOAC	 Association of Official Analytical

Chemists

ARS	 Agricultural Research Service, 		

USDA

APHIS	 Animal and Plant Health 	 	

Inspection Service

BARC	 Beltsville Agricultural Research

Center

BHE Bureau of Home Economics

BHNRC 	 Beltsville Human Nutrition 	 	

Research Center

CFEI	 Consumer and Food Economics

Institute

CFERD	 Consumer and Food Economics

Research Division

CNC	 Consumer Nutrition Division

DLW	 double labeled water

DRI	 Dietary Reference Intakes

EPNL	 Energy and Protein Nutrition

Laboratory

FAO	 Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United

Nations 

GFHNRC	 Grand Forks Human Nutrition

Research Center 

GRHNRL	 Grand Forks Human Nutrition

Research Laboratory

GRAS	 generally recognized as safe

GTF	 glucose tolerance factor

HDL	 high density lipoprotein

HNC Human Nutrition Center 

HNIS Human Nutrition Information 

Service

HNRD Human Nutrition Research 

Division

HPLC	 high performance liquid

chromatography

IOM	 Institute of Medicine of the

National Academies

LDL	 low density lipoprotein

NASA	 National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

NCI	 National Cancer Institute

NCL	 Nutrient Composition Laboratory

NFCS	 National Food Consumption

Survey

NHLBI	 National Heart, Lung, and Blood

Institute 

NI Nutrition Institute 

NIH	 National Institutes of Health

NIST	 National Institute of Standards

and Technology

NMD	 Nutrition Monitoring Division

NRFL	 Nutrient Requirements and

Functions Laboratory

PER	 protein efficiency ratio

PNL	 Protein Nutrition Laboratory

PL	 Phytonutrients Laboratory

RDAs	 Recommended Dietary

Allowances

SCOGS	 Select Committee on GRAS

Substances

SEA	 Science and Education

Administration

UMCP	 University of Maryland-College

Park

USAID	 United States Agency for

International Development

USDA	 United States Department of

Agriculture

USFDA	 United States Food and Drug

Administration

WHO	 World Heatlh Organization

Chapter 4

Research at the Beltsville Human 

Nutrition Research Center,

1963-2010

Gary R. Beecher 

Gary R. Beecher, Ph.D., is formerly

Research Chemist and Research Leader,

USDA-ARS Beltsville Human Nutrition

Research Center, Beltsville, MD. He is

now retired.
66 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Introduction

In the late 19th century, W.O. Atwater

established an extensive and comprehensive

research program on all aspects of human

nutrition. He directed these programs within

USDA’s Office of Experiment Stations, while

concurrently a professor of chemistry at

Wesleyan University and Director of the

new Storrs (CT) Experiment Station (1,2).

Following Atwater’s illness (1904) and death

(1907), many of his research programs were

transferred to the USDA in Washington, DC.

His successor at the Office of Experiment

Stations, Charles F. Langworthy, maintained

Atwater’s research focus for a while, but he

soon became interested in practical issues

of food preparation and storage. These

interests predominated throughout the

first half of the 20th century, as evidenced

by the formation of the Bureau of Home

Economics (BHE) in 1923 (3). Nonetheless,

a research program was maintained

that investigated nutrient and dietary

requirements, the composition of foods,

and tabulation of the consumption of these

foods. Often this research was conducted

at State’s experiment stations and later

under contracts from BHE and its successor

organizations. In an earlier chapter in

this volume, Megan Elias traces activities

within this Bureau (3). This present chapter

describes accomplishments and activities in

nutrition research from about 1963 to 2010.

Other chapters describe food consumption,

food composition, and nutrition education

activities within USDA (4-6).

Administrative Chronology

As noted above, all human nutrition-related

activities within USDA were originally

located in Washington, DC. However, due

to space constraints, research activities

requiring laboratory and animal facilities

were moved in 1941 to generous, new space

at the Beltsville Agricultural Research

Center in Beltsville, Maryland (BARC),

where these functions remain today (3).

The Consumer and Food Economics

Division, which included diet appraisal,

food consumption, food composition data

tabulation, family economics, and survey

statistics, was relocated to offices in

Hyattsville, MD, in 1963; and it has moved

several times since. 

In 1963 Senator Milton R. Young (R) of North

Dakota submitted a proposal to Congress

for substantial increases in funding of the

food and nutrition program of USDA (7). The

proposal was adopted. It called for physical

expansion of the “Beltsville Center,” doubling

of the scientific effort, and considerable

increase in funding. In addition, the

appropriation language established

three regional human nutrition research

laboratories; however, only the centers at

Grand Forks, ND, and Houston, TX, were

developed under this initiative (8,9). The

concept for the Jean Mayer USDA Human

Nutrition Research Center on Aging at 

Tufts University in Boston, MA, came from

the White House Conference on Nutrition 

in 1969, other national meetings, and

political activities of the era (10). At BARC,

the immediate response to Senator Young’s

proposal was to hire several “new” scientists

and staff, including Willis A. Gortner as

Director of the Human Nutrition Research 

Division (HNRD) (table 1). 

Willis A. Gortner, 

appointed Director of 

the Human Nutrition 

Research Division 

in 1964, completely 

reorganized the division 

in 1969. 

1969
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 67

Gortner, son of world-renowned biochemist

Ross A. Gortner of the University of

Minnesota, was trained in the Department

of Biochemistry and Pharmacology at

the University of Rochester. He had been

a faculty member of Cornell’s School of

Nutrition and later transferred to Beltsville

from the Pineapple Research Institute in

Honolulu, HI (11).

Perhaps Gortner’s boldest action was to

completely reorganize the Human Nutrition

Research Division (HNRD) in 1969 and

redirect programs to expand research on

human nutrient requirements and nutritive

value of foods (table 1). “Food science”

research was greatly diminished with

administration of applied investigations,

e.g., food preparation, transferred to the

Consumer and Food Economics Division,

although staff and facilities remained at

Beltsville. The reorganized HNRD consisted

of four laboratories, each responsible for

research on a broad class of nutrients,

i.e., carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and

vitamins and minerals. Each laboratory

had at least two investigative units that

focused on nutrient requirements and food

composition (table 1). Simulteneously,

strong research/administrative leaders

were recruited for each laboratory. This

leadership team consisted of Gortner,

Director; C. Edith Weir, Associate Director;

Leon Hopkins, Assistant to the Director

(and Acting Laboratory Chief, Carbohydrate

Nutrition Laboratory, until Sheldon Reiser

arrived); and Sheldon (Shelly) Reiser,

James (Jack) Iacono, David Vaughan, and

Walter Mertz as leaders of Carbohydrates,

Lipids, Proteins, and Vitamins and Minerals

laboratories, respectively. Except for Gortner

and Weir, who were already ARS scientists,

the other team members were recruited

as follows: Hopkins from the U.S. Food

and Drug Administration (USFDA); Reiser

from the Veterans Administration Hospital,

Indianapolis, IN; Iacono from the University

of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati,

OH; Vaughan from the U.S. Air Force Arctic

Aeromedical Laboratory, Fairbanks, AK;

and Mertz from Walter Reed Army Institute

of Research, Washington, DC. Although

the original laboratories have changed

leaders, modified their mission and name,

and new laboratories and groups have been

added or transferred to/from the “Beltsville

Center,” the primary focus of research has

remained to “...define ... the role of food and

its components in optimizing human health

and in reducing the risk of nutritionally

related disorders in the diverse population.”

(A. Yates, personal communication).

During 1972, the USDA Agricultural

Research Service (ARS) underwent a major

reorganization to regionalize administration

of its many field stations and units (table 1).

At the same time, a National Program Staff

was established to coordinate nationwide

research programs within the agency. One

effect of this change on the newly renamed

Nutrition Institute (NI) was to separate the

Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research

Laboratory (GFHNRL) into an independent

research center (GFHNRC). This laboratory,

instituted as part of the general program

expansion nearly a decade earlier, had been

a satellite of the Vitamins and Minerals

Laboratory and had provided human

studies facilities for HNRD. Because the

Grand Forks facility became independent,

Walter Mertz was 

appointed Director of 

the newly renamed 

Nutrition Institute after 

ARS underwent a major 

reorganization.

1972
68 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Date Detail of events

1963 Nutrition and Consumer Use Research merged with ARS Utilization Research

(regional utilization laboratories) under one Deputy Administrator (Fred Senti, Deputy

Administrator; Ruth Leverton, Assistant Deputy Administrator for Nutrition-Related

Activities).

	 Two divisions were formed: Human Nutrition Research Division (HNRD) (C. Edith Weir,

Acting Director) and Consumer and Food Economics Research Division (CFERD) (Faith

Clark, Director).

	 HNRD laboratories–Experimental Nutrition, Food Composition, Food Quality and Use,

Human Metabolism 

	 CFERD–Family Economics Branch, Food and Diet Appraisal Branch, Food Consumption

Branch, Survey Statistics Staff. CFERD relocated from Washington, DC, to Hyattsville,

MD.

1963 Report to Congress, “Proposed Program for Expanded Research in Food and Nutrition,” in

part called for the expansion of the “Beltsville Center” and thus the doubling of scientists

and five-fold increase in funding over 3 years.

1964 Willis Gortner was appointed Director of HNRD.

1969 Human Nutrition Research Division was reorganized and programs were redirected to

emphasize research on human requirements of nutrients and on nutritive value of foods.

Research on “food science” was discontinued, and research on food preparation, quality,

and acceptability was transferred to CFERD (W. Gortner, Director, C.E. Weir, Associate

Director, and Leon L. Hopkins, Assistant to Director.) Research programs were divided

among four laboratories: Carbohydrate Nutrition, Lipid Nutrition, Protein Nutrition,

and Vitamin and Mineral Nutrition. Each laboratory had two investigations units: food

composition and human requirements. Carbohydrate Nutrition Laboratory also had a

Human Nutrient Metabolism Investigations Unit, and Protein Nutrition Laboratory also

housed the Histopathology Investigations Unit. 

	 CFERD renamed Consumer and Food Economics Institute (CFEI).

1970 Human Nutrition Laboratory at Grand Forks, ND, was dedicated and was established as

a “field station” of HNRD with mission to investigate trace elements and conduct human

metabolic studies.

	 Robert Rizek was appointed Director of CFEI.

1972 The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) was reorganized to regionalize administration

of research programs into four regions–Northeast, North Central, South, and West. The

National Program Staff was established to coordinate nationwide research programs. W.

Gortner was appointed the first National Program Staff Scientist for Nutrition and Family

Living.

	 HNRD was renamed Nutrition Institute (NI); Walter Mertz was appointed Director. 

Table 1. Organizational changes and related events of Beltsville human nut
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 69

Date Detail of events

	 The Dairy Products Laboratory located in Washington, DC, was transferred to the Eastern

Regional Research Center, Philadelphia, PA. Cheese and Butterfat Investigations Section

of this laboratory, located in Building 157 at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center

(BARC), was transferred to NI as Dairy Foods Nutrition Laboratory. Several other scientists

and technical staff of the Washington, DC, operation transferred to various NI and CFEI

laboratories/branches. 

	 Non-Ruminant Nutrition Laboratory, Nutritional Microbiology Laboratory, and Ruminant

Nutrition Laboratory, which focused on animal nutrition, transferred from Animal Sciences

Institute at BARC to the NI. 

	 Human Nutrition Laboratory at Grand Forks became an independent research center—

Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center (GFHNRC).

 

1973 Building 308 at BARC was renovated to accommodate meal preparation and supervised

feeding of human subjects. 

1975 Nutrient Composition Laboratory (NCL) was formed in response to the request from NIH

National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) for accurate and extensive data on fatty

acid, cholesterol, and selected mineral content of foods.

1976 Dairy Foods Nutrition Laboratory was abolished. Personnel retired or transferred to other

laboratories within NI.

	 Gortner retired.

1977 James (Jack) Iacono was appointed National Program Staff Scientist for Nutrition and

Family Living

1978 Science and Education Administration (SEA), USDA, was formed under the new

Democratic Administration. All human nutrition research activities moved from ARS to a

parallel organization, Human Nutrition Center (HNC), within SEA. 

	 D. Mark Hegsted was appointed Administrator, and James (Jack) Iacono Associate

	 Administrator. Research programs were coordinated from the Administrator’s Office.

1978 CFEI was renamed Consumer Nutrition Center (CNC).

	 Animal nutrition-oriented laboratories were transferred back to the Animal Sciences

Institute at BARC.

 

1980 Energy metabolism program was initiated within Protein Nutrition Laboratory. It was

renamed Energy and Protein Nutrition Laboratory.

1981 SEA was abolished under the new Republican Administration. The Human Nutrition

Research Centers were integrated into ARS regional organization.

	 NI was renamed Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center (BHNRC).

rition research programs 1963 to 2010
70 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Table 1. Organizational changes and related events of Beltsville human nut

Date Detail of events

1981	 Gerald F. Combs, Sr., was appointed Nutrition National Program Leader to coordinate

human nutrition research activities within USDA and among Federal agencies in response

to the 1977 Congressional mandate that USDA coordinate human nutrition research in

areas of mutual interest between USDA and the Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare.

	 CNC formed a new agency, Human Nutrition Information Service (HNIS). It was

administratively placed under the Assistant Secretary for Food and Nutrition Service

separating it from the Assistant Secretary responsible for ARS. Consumer Nutrition

Division (CND) and Nutrition Monitoring Division (NMD) were developed within HNIS. Food

Consumption Research Branch (food consumption surveys) and Nutrient Data Research

Branch (food composition data) were organized within NMD, with Robert Rizek as Director.

Food and Nutrition Information Center of the National Agricultural Library also was

administratively transferred to HNIS.

1982 Collaboration initiated between NIH’s National Cancer Institute (NCI) and BHNRC on

metabolic research of nutrients and food components as related to changes of markers for

cancers.

1990 Jacqueline L. Dupont was appointed Nutrition National Program Leader.

1992 W. Mertz retired.

1993 Joseph Spence was appointed Director of BHNRC.

	 W.O. Atwater Centennial Celebration Symposium was held “to commemorate 100 years of

human nutrition research in the U.S. Department of Agriculture and to honor the memory

of its initiator and mover, Wilbur O. Atwater.” Proceedings were published as a supplement

to the Journal of Nutrition (1994;124(9S):1707S-1890S).

 

1994 HNIS activities were transferred to ARS (HNIS was abolished). Food consumption survey

and food composition data activities were administratively moved to BHNRC as Food

Surveys Research Group and Nutrient Data Laboratory, respectively. Nutrition education

component (Dietary Guidelines, Pyramid, etc) of HNIS was moved to USDA Center for

Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP). Metabolism-related laboratories of BHNRC were

renamed with minor reorganization: Diet & Human Performance, Metabolism & Nutrient

Interactions, and Nutrient Requirements & Functions.

 

1995 Carotenoids Research Unit was formed—a new organizational unit to bring together

scientists conducting research on health-related metabolism of carotenoids and to make

research more visible. Beverly Clevidence was appointed first unit leader. 

1995	 Food Surveys Research Group and Nutrient Data Laboratory moved from Hyattsville to

Riverdale, MD; occupied building jointly with several Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) organizations.

1997 Phytonutrients Laboratory (PL) was formed. Carotenoids Research Unit activities were

integrated and its mission was expanded to include metabolic studies on a broad range of

health-related plant components. Beverly Clevidence was appointed first Research Leader.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 71

trition research programs 1963 to 2010—Continued

Date Detail of events

	 Scientists with expertise in plant physiology and in plant isotope labeling techniques

transferred to PL from other BARC laboratories.

1998 Carla Fjeld was appointed Nutrition National Program Leader.

1999 Food Surveys Research Group and Nutrient Data Laboratory moved from Riverdale, MD, to

Building 005, BARC. 

	 Kathleen Ellwood was appointed Nutrition National Program Leader.

	 Community Nutrition Research Group was formed, primarily from Food Surveys Research

Group, and with specific mission to monitor and assess the capacity of communities

to meet their food and nutrition needs for a better understanding of linkages between

nutrition, agriculture, health, and community. Ellen Harris was appointed Group Leader.

2000 Immunology program moved from Animal Sciences Research Institute to BHNRC and

was incorporated into Nutrient Requirements and Functions Laboratory. It was renamed

Diet, Genomics, and Immunology Laboratory. Joe Urban was appointed Research Leader.

Expertise was added to use swine as model for immunological and associated research

relevant to humans.

2002 Joseph Spence was appointed Acting Nutrition National Program Leader.

2003 BHNRC occupied facilities in two new buildings on BARC campus.

2004 Joseph Spence was appointed Deputy Administrator for Nutrition, Food Safety and Quality.

	 Mary “Molly” Kretsch and David Klurfeld were appointed Nutrition National Program

Leaders.

 

2006 Allison Yates was appointed Director of BHNRC. 

	 Phytonutrients Laboratory was abolished. Some of its personnel retired, transferred to

other BHNRC laboratories, or moved to academia.

2007 Metabolism units of BHNRC were reorganized, with a total of six laboratories/groups:

Food Surveys Research Group; Nutrient Data Laboratory; Food Composition and Methods

Laboratory; Food Intake and Energy Regulation Laboratory; Food Components and Health

Laboratory; and Diet, Genomics and Immunology Laboratory.

2008 Joseph Spence was appointed Director of Beltsville Area, which included BARC.

2009 Molly Kretsch was appointed Deputy Administrator for Nutrition, Food Safety and Quality.

	 John Finley was appointed Nutrition National Program Leader.

2011 Allison Yates was appointed Associate Director of Beltsville Area. 
72 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

renovations began on the third floor of

Building 308 on the Beltsville campus to

convert it into facilities for controlled meal

preparation and feeding of human subjects.

During and following facility modifications,

collaborative studies were conducted at

universities that had the required facilities

and access to an appropriate population

of subjects, e.g., University of Maryland at

College Park (UMCP). Also, Gortner was

appointed the first National Program Staff

Scientist for Nutrition and Family Living,

Mertz was appointed Director of NI, and

several laboratory units were added to the

Institute (table 1). 

Shortly thereafter, James C. Smith, Jr.,

at the Veterans Administration Hospital,

Washington, DC, joined the Institute as

the Leader of the Vitamins and Minerals

Laboratory, the position vacated by Mertz

when he became Director. Mertz, a native

of Germany, was trained as a surgeon at

the University of Mainz, University Hospital

of Frankfurt, and County Hospital in Bad

Hersfeld, Germany (12). As part of his

medical training and early in his career,

he chose experimental research in the field

of diabetes as a thesis topic. In 1953 he

was awarded a research fellowship funded

by the US Brewers’ Yeast Council to work

at the National Institute of Arthritis and

Metabolic Diseases, part of the National

Institutes of Health (NIH). At the NIH, Mertz

teamed with Klaus Schwarz, and they

identified glucose tolerance factor (1959) as

an organic complex that contained trivalent

chromium and demonstrated its effect on

glucose uptake by fat tissues. This was the

first indication that a form of chromium

was biologically beneficial. From 1961 to

1969, Mertz was Head of the Department

of Biological Chemistry at Walter Reed

Army Institute of Research, Washington,

DC, where he and his colleagues showed

that chromium nutriture affects glucose

metabolism in humans (12). These studies

were the first to show that chromium (III) is

an essential nutrient for humans and that it

potentiates the action of insulin in glucose

uptake. In 1969 he moved to HNRD as Chief

of the newly organized Vitamin and Mineral

Nutrition Laboratory (table 1). 

A new laboratory, the Nutrient Composition

Laboratory (NCL), was formed in 1975.

This was accomplished by selecting one

scientist and one staff person from each of

the “original four HNRD” laboratories for

the new operation. Kent Stewart (Protein

Nutrition Laboratory) was appointed the

first leader of this group. Although there

had been activity on the composition of

foods within the USDA since Atwater’s time,

1978

D. Mark Hegsted 

was appointed 

Administrator 

of the Human 

Nutrition Center 

within the newly 

formed Science 

and Education 

Administration.

James (Jack) Iacono 

was appointed 

Associate 

Administrator 

of the Human 

Nutrition Center 

within the Science 

and Education 

Administration.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 73

the formation of this new laboratory was

prompted by a request from the Director

of the National Heart, Lung and Blood

Institute (NHLBI) of NIH for accurate and

extensive data on the fatty acid, cholesterol,

and selected mineral content of foods, all of

which were thought to be part of the etiology

of chronic disease (13). At the same time,

cooperative agreements were established

between NHLBI and NCL, Consumer and

Food Economics Institute (CFEI), and the

School of Public Health at the University of

Minnesota (Nutrition Coordinating Center)

to provide “tools” for the investigation of

potential relationships between vascular

disease, diet, and nutrient intake. Thus

with the re-emphasis of food composition

research and tabulation, and scientific and

financial collaboration with NIH, human

nutrition research activity of the USDA

was propelled into the new era of “diet and

chronic disease.”

A change in the administration at the

highest levels of ARS occurred in 1978 with

the formation of the Science and Education

Administration (SEA). All human nutrition

research activities, including research on

requirements and health, food composition

activities, food surveys, and nutrition

education, were moved from ARS into a

parallel organization, Human Nutrition

Center, within SEA (table 1). Worldrenowned nutritionist D. Mark Hegsted was

appointed Administrator of the new Center.

He selected Jack Iacono as his associate

for his knowledge of the “federal system,”

as well as for his accomplishments as a

scientist.

During this administration and with an

infusion of funds for a room-size human

calorimeter, associated instrumentation,

and facility modifications, research on

energy metabolism of humans began at

Beltsville and restarted within USDA after

a long hiatus from the days of Atwater. This

activity was administratively located in the

newly renamed Energy and Protein Nutrition

Laboratory under the leadership of C.E.

Bodwell. A few other minor administrative

changes occurred at the same time (table

1). Administratively, SEA and the Human

Nutrition Center existed for only a few

years until the Reagan Administration. At

that time, research programs at Beltsville

were reincorporated into ARS, but the

former CFEI (food composition tabulation,

food surveys, and nutrition education)

was formed into a new agency, Human

Nutrition Information Service (HNIS). Also,

the human nutrition research programs 

at Beltsville were renamed the Beltsville

Human Nutrition Research Center (BHNRC).

Gerald Combs, Sr., was appointed the new

Nutrition National Program Leader within

ARS, and several coordinating committees

were formed that continue today and that

foster coordination of nutrition research

activities within USDA, as well as across all

Federal agencies (14). In the early 1980s,

a new collaborative program was begun

with scientists at the National Cancer

Institute (NCI), part of the NIH (table 1). This

program had its origin with a committee of

the National Academy of Sciences whose

publication, Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer,

reported the committee’s extensive findings

(15). Mertz was a member of this committee,

and through his vision a long and productive

collaboration was established that

Gerald Combs, Sr., 

was appointed 

the new Nutrition 

National Program 

Leader within ARS.

1978
74 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

investigated numerous dietary components

on markers for cancer inhibition and

suspectability. 

During the decade of the 1980s and early

1990s, administrative changes were

minor. Combs retired; Jacqueline Dupont

and Frankie Schwenk were named his

replacements; Mertz retired; and Joseph

Spence was appointed as BHNRC Director.

Spence transferred from the State University

of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo, where he

was Professor of Biochemistry and Associate

Dean for Research and Graduate Studies at

the School of Medicine. He also had served

as a Health Science Administrator at NHLBI.

In the mid-1990s, HNIS was abolished

with administrative responsibility for its

units transferring to ARS-BHNRC (for food

consumption surveys and food composition

data) and to the newly created USDA Center

for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP)

(for nutrition education). After 13 years

of administrative separation, with these

changes, all USDA food survey and food

composition activities were together again

within ARS. 

Also during the 1990s, there were minor

modifications of programs and unit names

within BHNRC, as a result of the change

in direction of research on diet and healthrelated issues (table 1). For example, a

Carotenoids Research Unit was formed to

bring together those scientists conducting

metabolic research on this group of plant

components. Because this group did

not easily fit into BARC’s organizational

structure or into the accounting and

reporting framework of ARS, soon it was

established as a more traditional unit as

the Phytonutrients Laboratory. Beverly

Clevidence was appointed Research

Leader, a similar position she had held

with the Carotenoids Research Unit.

Later in the decade, Clevidence became

Research Leader of the Diet and Human

Performance Laboratory, and Earl Harrison

was appointed Research Leader of the

Phytonutrients Laboratory. Scientists

with expertise in isotope labeling of plants

(Steven Britz and Charles Caldwell) were

transferred in 2000 from a plant physiology

unit at BARC to this laboratory, which

gave the group unique expertise in the

development of labeled foods as well as

the capability to follow the label through

ingestion and metabolism. Also, National

Program Leaders changed during the 1990s.

Carla Fjeld succeeded Dupont and Schwenk;

and Kathleen Ellwood, a former scientist at

BHNRC, succeeded Fjeld (table 1). 

Early in the 21st century, a small

immunology program within the Animal

Sciences Institute at BARC was transferred

to BHNRC, which reformed the original

Vitamins and Minerals Laboratory (now

Nutrient Requirements and Functions

Laboratory [NRFL]). Orville Levander, who

was Research Leader at NRFL, returned to

full-time research, and Joe Urban became

Research Leader of the newly renamed Diet,

Genomics and Immunology Laboratory. A

series of retirements permitted the addition

of scientists with appropriate expertise

to expand the program of nutrition and

immunology using pigs as a model for

humans. However, the events of September

11, 2001, and the subsequent Iraq War 1990

Joseph Spence 

was appointed 

BHNRC Director.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 75

greatly limited any increased funding and

further expansion of the program. Two

additional scientists (Tom Wang and Jae

Park) were transferred to this group from

the Phytonutrients Laboratory when it was

abolished in 2006. Nonetheless, a small but

strong program focused on nutrition and

immunity was developed. 

Spence moved to the National Program Staff

in 2002 and subsequently to the position

of Deputy Administrator of ARS, where he

exerted great influence to increase resources

for the human nutrition research program 

within ARS. In 2008, he became Director of

the Beltsville Area, which included BARC

and BHNRC. However, BHNRC operated with

a series of acting directors for several years,

which in retrospect was quite detrimental

to the program, especially during a period

of scarce budget increases and less than

favorable political environment for human

nutrition research.

Finally, Allison Yates was appointed Director

of BHNRC in 2006. Yates brought extensive

experience in human nutrition policy and

research. She had been Director of the

Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of

Medicine (IOM), National Academies for a

decade, specifically during the expansion of

Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs)

to Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs). Prior to

that, she was a member of several university

faculties where she instituted new programs

on nutrition research, dietetics, and health

sciences. In mid-2011, Yates joined Spence

as Associate Area Director, which once again

left BHNRC without permanent leadership. 

Mary (Molly) Kretsch and David Klurfeld

were appointed National Program Leaders

for Human Nutrition after Spence moved

to the position of Deputy Administrator

(table 1). Kretsch followed Spence as

Deputy Administrator when Spence was

appointed Area Director, and John Finley

was appointed National Program Leader to

fill her position. 

The largest physical change during this

period was the construction and occupancy

of two new research buildings for BHNRC

in 2003. These long-awaited new facilities

provide about 40,000 net square feet of

space that includes large kitchen and dining

facilities for ambulatory human studies,

expanded calorimeter accommodations,

and new laboratories for those experiments

dealing with nutrition and metabolic

research. Food composition activities and

food survey work also are currently located

on the BARC campus but in separate

buildings. 

2003

Ribbon cutting for 

BHNRC buildings 

that included a 

large kitchen and 

dining facilities for 

ambulatory human 

studies, expanded 

calorimeter 

accommodations, 

and new 

laboratories.

2006

Allison Yates was 

appointed Director 

of BHNRC.
76 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Much like Gortner 40 years earlier, Yates

reorganized the research programs at

BHNRC to provide emphasis on those

nutrition- and health-related issues that

are prominent in the U.S. population and

to begin the long rebuilding process. As of

2011, the program consists of Ellen Harris

as Acting Director, about 40 scientists, a

host of post-doctorates, and support staff

organized into 6 groups or laboratories.

These include Diet, Genomics, and

Immunology Laboratory; Food Components

and Health Laboratory; Food Intake and

Energy Regulation Laboratory; Food

Composition and Methods Development

Laboratory; Nutrient Data Laboratory; and

Food Surveys Research Group. In addition,

there are two small support groups: Human

Studies Facility, which provides dietary,

menu, and meal assistance in the conduct

of human studies; and an Administrative

support group that is part of the Director’s 

Office. 

Although there have been many

administrative changes within ARS and the

Beltsville human nutrition research program

over the past half-century, the scientists

have remained highly focused and have

continued to design and conduct creative

studies. The data from these relevant

investigations have helped to advance the

frontiers of human nutrition research and

thus have contributed greatly to expand

that knowledge base. Also, the numerous

technical support individuals, postdoctorates, visiting scientists (domestic and

foreign), and students have been critical to

the success of a complex Federal research

organization such as BHNRC. Highlights of

these research findings are discussed in the

following section.

Early Research Accomplishments 

In an earlier chapter, Megan Elias

focused on the many “home economics”

contributions of scientists within the agency

during its early history (3). However, there

also were efforts in metabolic research

and food composition during that time.

A significant accomplishment was the

development of a strain of rats for the

specific purpose of investigating noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (16).

The parent strain originated in 1942

through the cross of an albino OsborneMendell strain with rats of a hooded strain

from Pennsylvania State University. Mary

Marshall, one of the scientists intimately

involved with the project, named the new

strain “BHE” in honor of the Bureau of

Home Economics (M. Marshall, personal

communication). Extensive records were

kept and summarized on life span, response

to different diets, and tissue histology

(17,18). Research on the metabolic response

to dietary alterations of these animals

continued through the 1970s when the

colony was relocated to a contractor (19,20).

A sub-strain was later developed, BHE/cdb,

that had less animal-to-animal variability

relative to age-related abnormal glucose

tolerance and glomerulosclerosis, and fewer

complications of obesity and other kidney

diseases (16). Although not commercially

available, the BHE strain has been supplied

by the NIH Division of Research Resources,

and the sub-strain by former BHNRC

scientist Carolyn Berdanier through the

University of Georgia. 

Mary Marshall 

was one of 

the scientists 

intimately involved 

in metabolic 

research and food 

composition.

1962
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 77

In the mid-1950s, a group of scientists

were presented with a USDA Distinguished

Service Award for “Establishing vitamin

A requirements of young adults,

demonstrating variation in the bioavailability

of carotenes from different foods and

improvement of the vitamin A bioassay.”

This award was based on research by

Lelia Booher, Elizabeth Callison, and

their colleagues, who conducted human

studies on vitamin A requirements and

laboratory experiments with foods to assess

concentrations and bioavailability (21,22). 

About a decade later, a USDA Special

Service Award was presented for “The

development and use of microbial methods

for determining the amino acid content

of protein and food and determining

their nutritive value.” During the 1940s,

M.J. Horn and colleagues developed

microbiological and/or colorimetric methods

for the measurement of each of the essential

amino acids in proteins and foods. These

procedures were published in a series of

scientific articles and summarized in a

USDA publication that formed the basis of

the award (23).

The early research of D.B. Jones, a

colleague and coauthor of Horn’s, must

be highlighted. Jones carefully isolated

proteins from a large number of foods and

subsequently determined their nitrogen

content. It is these seminal data that

established the average nitrogen content

of proteins at 16 percent and from which

the factor 6.25 was derived that is applied

for the conversion of nitrogen to protein

(24). Although Jones was administratively

part of the Protein and Nutrition Division

of the Bureau of Agriculture Chemistry and

Engineering while he conducted this work

(1920s-1930s), his group was transferred to

the Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home

Economics in 1943, which brought Jones

and Horn together administratively. Jones

and colleagues subsequently evaluated

proteins of cereal grains for “their growth

promoting value,” precursor research to the

protein efficiency work of Womack et al. 2

decades later (25,26). 

Much of the early metabolic research with

human subjects was conducted under

contract or cooperative agreement with

universities and State experiment stations,

due in part to the lack of human studies

facilities at Beltsville. Studies conducted in

the mid-1950s established levels of linoleic

acid in healthy infants and children, a topic

that received attention through the latter

part of the 20th century (27,28). During that

time, a multi-center study was conducted

involving female subjects to investigate

the bioavailability of vitamin C from fruits,

vegetables, and crystalline ascorbic acid

(29). During the late 1950s and early

1960s, many studies were sponsored and

conducted that established human amino

acids requirements, evaluated the Food

and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (FAO) amino acid reference pattern,

and demonstrated that wheat alone could

nearly meet protein needs for humans

(30-32). At the same time, studies were

funded and conducted that demonstrated,

for the first time, increasing linoleic acid

content of a standardized diet (33) resulted

in decreased concentrations of serum

cholesterol (34,35). These experiments

were the first of many that later would be

conducted at BHNRC to demonstrate the

health benefits of dietary unsaturated fatty

acids. 

Later sponsored human studies

demonstrated that high amounts of dietary

protein resulted in negative calcium

balance (36). These studies were part of a

program at the University of WisconsinMadison to examine the generally high

protein consumption as part of the etiology

of osteoporosis and hip fractures. This

hypothesis was later questioned also by

sponsored research in Yugoslavia that

indicated that adequate nutrition was an

important determinant in the accretion of
78 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

bone mass in young adults, but it had little

effect on age-related bone mass later in life

(37). 

M. Isabelle Irwin and her small staff

provided scientific oversight for grants and

contracts during this period. However,

as resources diminished for this activity,

Irwin turned her attention to the review

of literature for human nutritional

requirements for specific essential nutrients.

She and her collaborators published nine

conspectuses in the Journal of Nutrition

that summarized research for amino

acids, protein, calcium, zinc, copper, iron,

vitamin A, vitamin C, and folacin (38,39

as examples). The Nutrition Foundation

published a book in 1980 with a foreword

by Gortner that combined all nine of the

conspectuses (40). Much of the information

in these publications was incorporated

into documentation for subsequent

Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs)

published by the National Academy of

Sciences. Unfortunately, Irwin’s productive

career was cut short by a tragic auto

accident near BARC as she was commuting

to her office. 

 

Protein Chemistry, Availability, Quality, and 

Health Effects 

The relative importance of proteins in

human nutrition at the time is evident with

the establishment of the Protein Nutrition

Laboratory (PNL) as part of the 1969

reorganization (table 1). However, there was

considerable protein nutrition research

at HNRD. Madelyn Womack, who had

received her advanced training under W.C.

Rose at the University of Illinois—in whose

laboratory, threonine, the “last” essential

amino acid had been discovered in 1935 and

where human studies had been conducted

on essential amino acid balances—and

Mary Marshall, who was trained at Iowa

State College (now Iowa State University),

had conducted studies with rats on the

utilization of various food proteins and on

the interaction of amino acids and proteins

with other dietary components (41,42). 

These studies were extended to investigate

protein quality and adult human protein

requirements, albeit with new collaborators,

C.E. Bodwell and D.A. Vaughan, who were

part of the scientific expansion of HNRD

(43,44). As food technology advanced to

produce semipurified protein fractions from

soybeans, collaboration was established

between the soybean industry and BHNRC

that demonstrated that the addition of soy

protein to ground beef had little effect on

protein, iron, or zinc status in a large group

of men, women, and children (45). The

results of this study provided the nutritional

“safety” information and resulting impetus

for the addition of soy proteins to many

food products including ground beef for the

Armed Forces.

As amino acid and protein requirements

became established for humans, concern

focused on laboratory methods for

determining the availability of amino acids

and digestibility of proteins in foods and

diets. Procedures based on microbiological

growth were developed in the mid-1950s

(46) and evaluated again 30 years later,

but with different microbes and/or for a

limited number of amino acids (47,48).

Madelyn Womack 

trained under 

W.C. Rose at the 

University of Illinois—

in whose laboratory 

threonine, the “last” 

essential amino acid, 

had been discovered 

in 1935.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 79

Despite the advantages of microbes as

“experimental models,” laboratory rats

provided more relevant data for humans.

As a result of numerous experiments,

Womack and collaborators reported a

“Modified PER” (Protein Efficiency Ratio)

procedure for estimating bioavailability of

individual essential amino acids (49). These

concepts were developed into a “protein

digestibility-corrected amino acid score”

method, the digestibility component of

which was subjected to an eight-laboratory

collaborative study with results in highly

acceptable precision and repeatability

(50). Based on the results of this major

cooperative study and those of many

preceding experiments, the rat bioassay for

protein digestibility obtained “official status”

from the Association of Official Analytical

Chemists (AOAC) shortly thereafter (AOAC

991.29—True protein digestibility of foods

and food ingredients).

Several additional scientists recruited during

the HNRD expansion were experienced in

protein chemistry and metabolism (Gary

Beecher, Irwin Hornstein, Sam Lipton,

Phillip McClain, and Kent Stewart). Lipton,

originally a member of the food composition

group, conducted amino acid analyses (51)

and later retired when this research was

phased out. McClain focused on collagen

structure and contributed significantly to

the understanding of the structure of these

unique proteins (52). He retired early for

medical reasons. Horstein relocated from the

Meat Laboratory at Beltsville to PNL, where

he investigated the structure of muscle

proteins in collaboration with Bodwell

and McClain (53,54). In around 1970 he

transferred to the United States Agency for

International Development (USAID). Stewart

developed procedures for the isolation and

characterization of trypsin inhibitors (55),

while Beecher investigated the effects of

exercise and high dietary protein levels on

protein metabolism and on bone health of

rats (56,57). Shortly after coming together

at PNL, Stewart and Beecher developed

new instrumentation for the rapid analysis

of samples in solution (58), which is

the sample introduction component for

several current sophisticated analytical

instruments. Stewart transferred from PNL

in 1975 to become research leader at the

new Nutrient Composition Laboratory, and

Beecher followed in 1982.

With the introduction of the energy program

into PNL in the early 1980s (table 1), the

waning of issues relative to protein nutrition

in the U.S. populace, and the retirement or

transfer of key scientists who had conducted

research on the many aspects of protein

nutrition, this program had become phased

out by 1990. Simultaneous with this decade

of change, the laboratory was renamed the

Energy and Protein Nutrition Laboratory,

and it was subsequently renamed again

to more accurately describe the energy

research being conducted by the group (see

Energy Metabolism and Associated Research

below). 

 

Animal Models for Nutrition and Chronic 

Disease Research 

While the BHE rat provided a model for

the investigation of non-insulin-dependent

diabetes mellitus, it was intentionally

bred as a non-obese animal. However, as

early as the 1970s, it was obvious that

obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypertension,

and associated diseases were occurring in

the U.S. population simultaneously and for

which there was a dearth of animal models.

Although the Zucker (fa/fa) rat had been

bred elsewhere in the early 1960s as an

obese, and possibly hypertensive, model, it

lacked other chronic disease characteristics,

most notably diabetes (59,60). In the early

1980s, Carl Hansen at the NIH developed a

spontaneous hypertensive, corpulent (fat) rat

strain (SHR/N-cp) that exhibited metabolic

and histopathologic characteristics similar

to type II diabetes of humans. Subsequently,

scientists at BHNRC, most notably Michaelis
80 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

and Sam Bhathena, and many other

supporting associates, collaborated with

Hansen to fully characterize the metabolic

response to dietary alterations of this new

animal model (61,62). Somewhat later,

a substrain of these rats was developed

to be salt sensitive (DSS/N-cp), and it

thereby provided a model in which obesity,

together with diet, hypertension, and its

complications, could be studied (63). The

untimely death of Michaelis, the retirement

of Bhathena, and separation or retirement

of other BHNRC collaborators marked the

end of this scientifically far-reaching and

productive joint endeavor. 

Carbohydrates, Fibers, and Human Health 

There was a concerted and long-term effort

at HNRD and its predecessor organizations

to investigate metabolic responses to various

dietary carbohydrates, similar to that for

proteins. Much of the early work focused on

characterizing the response of the BHE rat 

to dietary alterations of carbohydrate type

and amount (19). When new investigators

arrived as part of the 1960s expansion,

they also investigated specific aspects of

this model’s metabolism. Thus, insulin

levels and enzyme activities in response

to carbohydrate meals were characterized

(64,65), and the increased requirement

for biotin by this strain was identified

(66). A unique finding for the BHE rat was

that ingesting specific types of dietary

carbohydrates early in its lifespan altered its

metabolic pattern at maturity (67,68).

Carolyn Berdanier, Bela Szepesi, and Mei

Ling Chang investigated metabolic responses

of rats to “starve-refeed” protocols during

the 1970s. When the “refeeding” diet

contained only sucrose as the carbohydrate

source, glycogenesis initially occurred

but shortly (within 1 day) was replaced by

extensive lipogenesis, manifested by fatty

livers (69). The observed enzyme “overshoot”

of that regimen was directed by the hormone

glucocorticoid, which was involved in the

synthesis of specific RNA for pentose shunt

enzymes (70-72). This was the first time that

scientists had demonstrated the involvement

of glucocorticoid in the regulation of

pentose shunt enzymes at the DNA

transcriptional level. This model became

popular with other investigators who were

interested in hormonal control of metabolic

enzyme activity. Shortly thereafter,

Szepesi and coworkers demonstrated that

dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids and

triglycerides inhibited hepatic glucose6-phosphate dehydrogenase and malic

enzyme, enzymes involved in the pentose

shunt and gluconeogenesis, respectively

(73,74). However, they failed to connect

these observations to control at the DNA

transcriptional or RNA translational level.

Research by David Trout and collaborators

on dietary influences of gastric empty in

the rat showed that when mixed diets were

fed, the carbohydrate component left the

stomach first (75). However, this effect could

be slowed when xanthan gum was added

to the diet and when the carbohydrate

was glucose (76). In terms of meal-eaters

vs. animals fed ad libitum, contents of

stomachs of meal-fed animals emptied more

rapidly than those of their “nibbler” partners

(77). In general, water-soluble components

of the meal tended to exit stomachs of

rats faster than the more lipid-compatible

nutrients.

One of June Kelsay’s areas of research,

after her returning with a Ph.D. from the

University of Wisconsin-Madison, was to

test the feasibility of parotid saliva as a

non-invasive source of biological fluid, a

research area outlined in a brochure on the

HNRD program issued in 1971. Although

Kelsay and her colleagues focused only on

changes in dietary carbohydrates to induce

changes in saliva content, they showed that

concentrations of blood (serum) and saliva

lactate and pyruvate responded similarly

to a wide variety of ingested sugars and
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 81

carbohydrates (78). In addition, responses

were not changed if the test dietary

carbohydrates were ingested in the absence

or presence of foods (79). In contrast, when

saliva amylase and protein concentrations

were followed with the same experimental

protocol, large inter-individual variability

resulted even though intra-individual

deviations were relatively small (80). These

experiments demonstrated the feasibility

of saliva as a selected source of biological

fluid components similar to serum. Kelsay’s

group next investigated the interaction

of oral contraceptives with the type of

carbohydrate (sucrose vs. starch) in the diet

of women. In general, oral contraceptives,

but not carbohydrate source, increased

several markers for diabetes and vascular

disease over the relatively short duration

of the studies (81,82). Kelsay subsequently

initiated long-running studies on metabolic

effects of dietary fibers, and she also was a

driving-force behind the “Beltsville One-Year

Dietary Intake Study,” both of which are

discussed below. 	 	

Shortly after Reiser and his technical

assistant, Judith Hallfrisch, arrived

at Beltsville, the Select Committee on

GRAS Substances (SCOGS) published a

report that stated in part, “...Other than

the contribution made to dental caries,

there is no clear evidence in the available

information on sucrose that demonstrates

a hazard to the public when used at the

levels that are now current and in the

manner now practiced” (83). This stimulated

a formal response by Reiser and Szepesi

that contested the generality of the decision

of SCOGS and highlighted specific areas

of research in support of their position 

that sucrose consumption was part of the

etiology of diabetes (84). This document set

the stage and provided the stimulus for the

direction of the balance of Reiser’s research

career. He and his colleagues examined the

metabolic effects of sucrose and fructose

ingestion (vis-à-vis high fructose corn

sweeteners introduced in 1967) with both

rats and human subjects (85,86). The many

studies conducted by these investigators

were summarized in a journal article (87)

and at least two books (88), and the results

were discussed in the 10th edition of the

Recommended Dietary Allowances (89).

However, the most succinct summary

was published in a letter to the editor by

Hallfrisch and Reiser, the last paragraph of

which stated, “Our research over the last

10 y in both animal and human studies has

consistently shown that sucrose or fructose

substitution for complex carbohydrate

results in adverse changes in risk factors

for heart disease and diabetes” (90). Reiser

retired in 1990 and died in 2012.

Early in the 1970s, Denis Burkitt and Hugh

Trowell of the United Kingdom generated

interest in dietary fiber based on their

association of unrefined foods and fiber

intake with reduced disease processes in

West Africa and England, respectively.

Shortly thereafter, Kelsay initiated a longterm dietary fiber research program at

Beltsville by first reviewing the literature

(91) and then by conducting studies

with humans, along with Kay Behall and

collaborators at the University of Maryland

at College Park (UMCP) who addressed

some of the gaps of knowledge in the “fiber

story.” Generally, diets high in fiber (fruits

and vegetables vs. their juices, which are

low in fiber) resulted in decreased apparent

digestibility of energy, nitrogen, and fat,

and increased stool weights; but they

gave variable results relative to mineral

balances, which may have been caused by

experiments of different durations (92,93).

Digestibility of fiber fractions ranged from

very high for hemicellulose, intermediate

for cellulose, and low for lignin (94).

Subsequently, Behall carried the “fiber

banner” and began to investigate the effect

of dietary soluble fibers on markers for

diabetes and vascular disease. She first

teamed with scientists at the Johns Hopkins

University School of Medicine in Baltimore,

MD, to investigate the effects of guar gum,
82 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

which indicated that this fiber was safe

for subjects with non-insulin-dependent

diabetes mellitus, attenuated their insulin

response, and reduced hyperlipidemic

effects in men (95,96). Next, dietary amylose

and amylopectin were compared by an inhouse team who demonstrated that amylose,

but not amylopectin, normalized insulin

response in hyperinsulinemic subjects

and lowered fasting triglycerides (97).

These data suggested that amylose had

potential for diabetic management through

dietary means. Behall and Howe went on

to provide evidence that resistant starch,

a small (~15%) component of amylose, as

well as poorly digestible fiber, contributed

some energy (2+kcal/g fiber) to human

subjects (98). However, ingestion of either

amylose or amylopectin had no significant

effect on energy expenditures (99). These

observations, demonstrated previously

in ruminants, validated the biological

importance of lower gastrointestinal tract

microflora and their contribution to dietary

energy in humans, especially when healthful

diets containing fiber are consumed. 

Hallfrisch, who had earlier received a Ph.D.

at UMCP while at Beltsville, returned from a

fellowship at the National Institute on Aging,

part of the NIH, following the retirement of

Reiser and was appointed research leader

at the Carbohydrate Nutrition Laboratory

(subsequently renamed Metabolism and

Nutrient Interactions Laboratory). She

teamed with Behall and Scholfield to study

the metabolic effects of cereals and cereal

grains, a program they pursued for the

remainder of their research careers. In

general, inclusion of amylose, soluble fiber

from oats or barley, or incorporation of these

grains into the diet all had beneficial effects

on glycemic response and on cardiovascular

risk factors in subjects who were at risk

(100-103). Studies with whole-grain diets

(wheat, rice, and barley) reduced blood

pressure in mildly hypercholesterolemic

men (104). However, Z-Trim®, a noncaloric fiber isolated from grains, was less

effective than native soluble fiber in terms

of moderating glycemic response (105).

Results of several of these studies, along

with those of other investigators, were cited

in the IOM-DRI report for macronutrients

(106), all of which have contributed greatly

to our understanding of the health benefits

of cereal grains. 

Lipids, Diet, and Vascular Disease 

Limited research on dietary lipids had been

conducted at HNRD or sponsored by the

Division prior to the 1969 reorganization.

However, when Iacono was appointed

research leader, he brought interest

and experience in lipid metabolism. He

immediately conducted a small nutritional

epidemiological study that showed a

beneficial relationship between habitual

diets and the lipids of platelets and

erythrocytes of men living in Milan and

Sicily, Italy, and Cincinnati, OH (107).

Several additional events helped the lipid

research program at BHNRC. These included

several small studies with human subjects

that showed encouraging results between

diet and vascular disease risk factors, the

appointment of Joseph Judd as research

leader after Iacono became the National

Program Leader for Nutrition, and expansion

of the human studies facilities. Coupled

with these activities was the appointment

of Norberta Schoene, who immediately

specialized in metabolism of platelets

(108), and the transfer of two groups from

the Dairy Products Laboratory (table 1):

Aldo Ferretti and Vincent Flannagan, who

were specialists in chemical separations

and mass spectrometry, and Elliot Berlin

and his group, who had expertise in

physical chemistry. Ferretti and Flannagan

developed sophisticated techniques for the

measurement of prostaglandins in biological

fluids (109), while Berlin’s group focused

on membrane fluidity and the influence of

dietary lipids on this important biological

parameter (110). Beverly Clevidence later
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 83

joined the team, and dietitians and staff

perfected the techniques and details for

conducting well-designed and highly

controlled nutrition-related human studies

(111). 

Research in the late 1970s and early 1980s

demonstrated that dietary polyunsaturated

fatty acids reduced moderately elevated

blood pressures in adult men who were fed

diets having both normal and low amounts

of fat. These investigations provided

the strongest evidence at that time for

moderating mild hypertension in adults by

dietary means (112,113).

In controlled feeding studies with adult

men, relationships were determined between

modest changes in the amount of ingested

dietary fat and essential fatty acid (linoleic

acid) on blood pressure and eicosanoid

metabolite (PGI2 and PGF2a) excretion.

Prostaglandin excretion was positively

correlated with systolic and diastolic blood

pressures. Also, alterations in excretion of

metabolites were related to variation in the

amount of essential fatty acid consumed.

Prostaglandins have well-established roles

in blood pressure control, and these studies

provided a possible explanation for the

beneficial effects of polyunsaturated fat

intake on blood pressure (113-115). 

Controlled diet studies with healthy

adult male volunteers demonstrated that

modifications in the amount of dietary fat

and fatty acids and other nutrients (e.g.,

dietary fiber) could modulate concentrations

of plasma cholesterol, triglycerides,

lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins. In a study

with healthy adult men, it was determined

that feeding low-fat diets with reduced

cholesterol, as compared with high-fat diets

with high cholesterol (typical U.S. diet), did

not reduce plasma cholesterols unless there

was a simultaneous increase in the intake

of polyunsaturated fatty acids. In another

study, changes in the type and amount of

dietary fat combined with increased dietary

fiber intake were associated with major

improvements in plasma lipid profiles of

healthy adult men. Such dietary changes

could be achieved with moderate effort and

have the potential of decreases in major risk

factors for cardiovascular disease (116-118).

In the mid-1990s, two major studies

at BHNRC demonstrated that when

compared with oleic acid, dietary trans 

fatty acids raised LDL-cholesterol to a

concentration similar to that of the most

hypercholesterolemic saturated fatty

acids, lauric, myristic, and palmitic acids.

Further, high trans fatty acid levels resulted

in reductions of HDL-cholesterol. This

research refuted a body of evidence that

had led to acceptance by most scientists,

regulatory agencies such as the Food and

Drug Administration (FDA), and health

professionals that dietary trans fatty acids

at levels in the U.S. diet had no major

health effect. As a result of this study, major

reconsideration of the safety of partially

hydrogenated fats was undertaken in the

United States, Canada, and England.

Scientists at BHNRC demonstrated that

margarine manufactured with and without

partially hydrogenated vegetable oils was

effective in improving plasma lipoprotein

profiles compared with butter when fed to

46 normocholesterolemic men and women

as part of a controlled diet typical of that

consumed in the United States. Earlier

work at BHNRC on dietary trans fatty acids

formed during partial hydrogenation of

vegetable oils led to questions regarding the

advisability of continuing the consumption

of margarine prepared in this manner.

Furthermore, the cholesterol-raising effects

of trans fatty acids were being widely

interpreted in the lay press and in some

influential scientific circles as indication

that a return to use of butter with its

high levels of saturated fatty acids might

be desirable. This investigation provided

strong evidence that this was not so. This

study served to place the findings of the
84 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

earlier trans study in a practical perspective

for public health recommendations in the

United States (119-121). Later, a large study

with human subjects (~100) was conducted

to elucidate differential metabolic effects

between naturally occurring and industrialproduced trans fatty acid isomers (122).

In two recent dietary studies at BHNRC,

scientists have shown that the cholesterollowering effects of sterol esters are

independent of both the fat level in the

product supplemented with the sterols and

of the type and amount of fat in the diet with

which the sterol esters are consumed. The

lowering of LDL cholesterol by sterol ester

supplementation of foods offers one of the

most effective dietary means of reducing this

cardiovascular disease risk factor. Further,

research at BHNRC showed that this is

equally effective in typical American diets

and diets moderately reduced in fat level

and saturated fat (123,124).	

Simultaneous with many of the human

studies that investigated the effect of diet

on plasma lipids and other cardiovascular

disease markers, Schoene evaluated the

response of platelets to dietary alterations.

Her team was the first to demonstrate

mechanistic release of arachidonic acid

from platelets for conversion to a thrombotic

econsanoid (108). Using spontaneously

hypertensive/stroke-prone rats as a model,

this group showed that diets containing

fish oils decreased the development of

hypertension (125). This was important new

evidence showing that n-3 fatty acids in fish

oil were counteracting the overproduction

of eicosanoids from arachidonic acid and

thereby reducing the risk of chronic disease.

Meta-analyses of clinical trials recently

reported that dietary n-3 fatty acids lowered

blood pressure in human subjects. Other

dietary factors that have been shown by

Schoene’s group to be important in platelet

health include adequate selenium and soy

isoflavones (126). As part of these studies,

apparent platelet volume has been proposed

as a new biomarker for early activation of

these blood cells (127). 

Scientists at both BHNRC and the National

Cancer Institute (NCI) became interested in

the effects of moderate alcohol consumption

on lipid and hormone metabolism, those

associated with hormone-sensitive cancers,

such as breast cancer. In a controlleddiet study with premenopausal women,

moderate alcohol consumption was found

to be beneficial to plasma lipoprotein levels

(128). However, similar experiments with

both premenopausal and postmenopausal

women showed possible harmful effects of

moderate alcohol intake on those serum

hormones associated with breast cancer

(129,130). These observations provided a

possible explanation for the epidemiological

association found between alcohol

consumption and incidence of breast cancer.

P.P. (Uni) Nair came to NI/BHNRC in the

late 1970s with interest and expertise

in the relationship of diet and colonic

cancers. He was one of the “prime movers”

in the development of a multi-center study

to investigate this association (131). At

Beltsville, he and his group pursued the

purported association of fecapentaenes,

potent mutagens in the stools of some

individuals, with the incidence of colon

cancers. An early case-control study

demonstrated a lack of this association

(132). Further studies on stool samples

collected from a large number of subjects in

the area showed that 50% of the mutagenic

samples (Salmonella mutagenicity assay)

contained elevated fecapentaenes (133).

However, fractionation of the mutagenicity

of these samples indicated that other

components of stool were important in

the etiology of colorectal cancer. This

assumption was validated by genotoxicity

studies of the individually isolated

facepentaenes from human stools (134).

Subsequently, Nair and his group developed

a procedure for the isolation of exfoliated

colonic epithelial cells from stool samples
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 85

(135). Nair and the group with whom he

later associated employed this procedure

as a sensitive, noninvasive technique for

the potential identification of markers of

colorectal cancer (136).

 

Beltsville One-Year Dietary Intake Study 

Several observations converged in the late

1970s and early 1980s that prompted the

“Beltsville Year-long Diet Study” led by

Kelsay and Mertz. These included decreased

caloric intake reported by subjects in the

1977-78 Nationwide Food Consumption

Survey (NFCS) compared with similar

data from the 1965 NFCS even though

body weights increased slightly over the

same period, caloric intakes 300-400kcal

below then current RDAs for several

groups of women reported from Health

and Examination Survey II (1976-80),

and observations from several studies at

BHNRC wherein caloric intake needed to

be increased above subject-reported values

so that body weights could be maintained

throughout experiments (137). Thus, 29

“healthy” subjects, partitioned about equally

among gender and age classification,

were enrolled into a one-year-long study. 

Dietary food intake was recorded daily,

and duplicate foods and beverages were

collected for 1 week, 4 times throughout

the study, as were samples for nutrient

balance studies. With the exception of

calcium and iron intakes for females,

reported intakes of calories and 19 nutrients

met or exceeded the 1980 RDAs (138).

However, daily caloric intakes were nearly

13% lower during diet collection periods

compared with the mean recorded for the

entire year (139). In addition, there were

significant reductions in reported intakes of

all nutrients during the collection periods.

This later observation calls into question the

validity of the negative balances reported

for several minerals (Cu, Mg, Mn, Zn) and

other measurements that relied on duplicate

diet collections. A follow-up study with

over 250 free-living, middle-aged human

volunteers of both sexes indicated that

energy intakes calculated from 7-day daily

food records collected prior to the study

did not maintain the subjects’ weights

during the 45+-day study (140). On average,

the underreporting of calorie intake via

food records was 18%, based on weight

maintenance. Subsequently, Mertz raised

the question: “Food intake measurements:

is there a ‘gold standard’?” which he

answered with an unequivocal “no” based

on the above observations and several other

lines of evidence (141). As a result, dietary

recall techniques that were used for all U.S.

national food consumption surveys were reexamined, modified, and validated. Details

of these studies have been summarized by

Moshfegh (4). Kelsay retired in 1987. 

Vitamins and Minerals Research, and 

Interactions With Food Components 

Like several other areas of nutrition

research, there already was longstanding

activity in vitamins and minerals research at

the Bureau prior to the 1969 reorganization.

As noted previously, Booher and Callison

were awarded the USDA Distinguished

Service Award for their research on the

establishment of vitamin A requirements

of humans and bioavailability from foods

(21,22). Sweeney and Marsh followed

this work with investigations of the

bioavailability of carotene isomers from

foods and their conversion to vitamin A in

rats (142). However, much earlier (1927),

McLaughlin reported on the utilization of

calcium from spinach by human subjects

(143). In the early 1960s, Hathaway

published a comprehensive summary of

metabolic data on magnesium in human

nutrition, which included estimates of

requirements for several age groups (144).

This compendium served as a major

resource of scientific information for several

subsequent RDA deliberations.
86 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

The increased funding for HNRD, the

arrival of Gortner, and the reorganization

of the division resulted in the hiring of

several scientists with expertise in mineral

nutrition. All of these scientists came with

training in laboratories of then worldrenowned mineral nutritionists: Leon

Hopkins (Wm Hoekstra and Klaus Schwarz),

Eugene Morris (Boyd O’Dell), Walter Mertz

(Klaus Schwarz), Orville Levander (Carl

Bauman and Wm Hoekstra), and James

C. Smith, Jr. (Klaus Schwarz). The ability

to attract scientists with such outstanding

credentials is a testament to the foresight

and tenacity of Gortner and Weir (and later

Mertz) to build an outstanding mineral

research organization.

Although Hopkins was hired as assistant

to Gortner, he also conducted research and

reported the essentiality of vanadium for

chicks (145). Unfortunately, he left HNRD

shortly after the 1972 reorganization (table

1). Morris bridged the 1969 reorganization

by initially measuring the mineral contents

of wheat and wheat products (in the food

composition group), but he subsequently

elucidated an important iron complex

of wheat. He and Rex Ellis, an organic

chemist who had transferred from the Dairy

Products Laboratory, isolated and reported

monoferric phytate as the major form of iron

in wheat (146). They further demonstrated

this form of iron as readily available when

fed with meals to rats, dogs, or humans

(146-148). At the same time, they observed

that a soluble fraction of whole-wheat bran,

from which phytate had been removed, was

quite inhibitory to iron absorption (148).

Further characterization of this fraction was

not conducted. Morris retired in 1996.

When Mertz transferred to HNRD as

Laboratory Chief of Vitamins and Minerals,

he brought with him an active research

program on chromium nutrition. At NIH

and at Walter Reed General Hospital, he and

his colleagues had shown that chromium

III is an essential nutrient for humans and

that it is a component of a “factor” (glucose

tolerance factor [GTF]) that potentiates

the action of insulin in glucose uptake by

tissues. He and his team at HNRD—led by

E.W. Toepfer, who had been in charge of the

food composition group and who had been

trained by H.C. Sherman—evaluated a series

of foods for chromium content in relation

to biological activity (149). Subsequently,

they isolated and partially purified a GTF

from brewer’s yeast and further showed

that it contained chromium III, nicotinic

acid, and several amino acids, including

histidine, which was thought to complex

with chromium III as part of the factor (150). 

Shortly after Mertz was appointed Director

of NI, Toepfer retired, and the “chromium

torch” was passed to newly hired Richard

Anderson. Mertz, however, remained very

active on the nutrition research front,

served on numerous National Academies

and international nutrition committees, was

coauthor of three RDAs, and wrote scientific

reviews vociferously, even after he retired in

1992 (12). One of the National Academies

committees he served on was Diet, Nutrition

and Cancer (15), which prompted a longstanding collaboration with Peter Greenwald

and his colleagues at the Division of Cancer

Prevention, National Cancer Institute, NIH

(table 1). Most importantly, Mertz was an

outstanding ambassador for Beltsville, had

an open-door policy for scientists, technical

staff, and visitors alike, and always enjoyed

a good discussion about nutrition research.

He received many awards and accolades for

his outstanding research achievements and

contributions to the field of nutrition. (See

Professional Awards section.)

In the early 1970s, the levels of chromium

in biological fluids was very much in

question. Although the practical application

of atomic absorption spectrometry for

mineral determinations was a little more

than a decade old and held promise

for increased sensitivity over previous

colorimetric and other methods, published
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 87

values for chromium in human biologics

kept declining with instrumental and

procedural improvements. Interlaboratory

comparisons often varied by as much as

two orders of magnitude and could not

be reconciled. Barbara Guthrie, a visiting

nutritionist at HNRD from the University

of Otago, New Zealand, along with staff

scientists Claude Veillon and Wayne Wolf,

identified and corrected the analytical

issue (background [smoke] interference)

with atomic absorption spectrometry (151).

They then reported lower normal biological

values for chromium employing definitive

isotope dilution techniques (152). These

observations ushered in the application of

Certified Reference Materials to establish

accurate measurements in biological

samples and ended the dramatic downward

trend in biological chromium values due to

analytical errors (153). While Wolf moved

to the newly formed Nutrient Composition

Laboratory, Veillon remained at the Vitamins

and Minerals Laboratory, where he was

instrumental in the preparation and

analysis of a contaminant-free bovine serum

as a Certified Reference Material for selected

minerals in biological materials (154), and

where he developed many new, state ofthe-art techniques for the measurement

of important elements and their isotopes

in biological systems (155). Many of these

procedures allowed cutting-edge metabolic

studies to be conducted on trace elements at

Beltsville and other research centers. Veillon

retired in 2003.

 

Anderson and his team characterized several

aspects of the metabolism of chromium

in humans. These included dramatic

increase in serum levels by providing

200μg CrCl3 as a dietary supplement (156),

nonlinear absorption of dietary chromium

as the intake of the trace element was

raised (157), increased urinary excretion

of chromium when high-sugar diets

were fed (158), reduced excretion with

exercise training (159), normalization

of abnormally high or low blood glucose

levels during a glucose tolerance test when

additional dietary chromium was provided

(160), and alleviation of hypoglycemia

with supplementation (161). The latter

observations were extended to Type II

diabetics, who benefited substantially from

chromium supplementation (162). Recently,

heterogeneous response of diabetics to

additional chromium has been attributed in

large part to variability in baseline insulin

sensitivity (163). 

This group also determined that it is difficult

to reach a safe and adequate intake of

chromium (50-200μg/da) in well-balanced

diets of normal foods, suggesting that

supplements are required (164). Although

tri-chloride and picolinate are common

forms of chromium as a supplement,

both are limited in their bioavailability.

A histidine complex of chromium was

developed that is substantially more

bioavailable than other forms and is stable

over time (165). U.S. and international

patents have been granted for this

formulation, which has accelerated its

commercial availability as a supplement.

The toxicity of chromium supplements was

re-examined by feeding rats two forms of

this trace element that were equivalent to

several thousand times the recommended

upper limit for human beings without

adverse affects (163). 

A survey of foods and spices that evaluated

insulin potentiating factor in vitro as

well as chromium content indicated

that several of these dietary components

increased insulin activity but had low

to nominal concentrations of chromium

(167). Cinnamon was further investigated,

and tea was later studied (168). Human

studies by Anderson and his collaborators

involving subjects who had Type II diabetes,

metabolic syndrome, or insulin resistance

indicated that cinnamon supplementation

benefits many of the markers associated

with these maladies (169). Fractionation of

both cinnamon and teas suggested that the
88 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

active, non-chromium, insulin-enhancing

component(s) may be a series of complex

polyphenols (168,169). In collaboration with

other scientists of the newly reorganized

Diet, Genomics, and Immunology

Laboratory, a recent study indicated that a

green tea extract along with a high-fructose

diet fed to rats regulated gene expression

in the glucose uptake and insulin-signaling

pathway (170). These results provide a

new vision in terms of understanding the

mechanism of the complex insulin-mediated

glucose uptake process. 

Orville Levander transferred from the FDA

in 1969 as part of the HNRD reorganization.

He brought with him experience in selenium

nutrition as well as its interaction with

other heavy metals. Levander and his team

demonstrated selenium to be a highly

effective catalyst for the reduction of

cytochrome c by glutathione (171) with the

resultant oxidation of sulfur and selenium,

and their potential carcinogenic affects.

However, this group was most interested in

the role of selenium in human nutrition per

se. In collaboration with scientists at the

University of California at Berkeley, they

conducted the first short-term depletion/

repletion study with human beings that

demonstrated rapid biochemical changes

when low amounts of selenium were fed

(172). The results of these experiments

provided the first estimates of selenium

requirements for adult men. These subjects

were fed liquid formula diets and housed in

a metabolic ward. As part of the Beltsville

Year-long Diet Study, estimated intakes

to maintain selenium balance for healthy,

free-living men and women were 80 and

60 micrograms per day, respectively (173).

The first study to employ a stable isotope of

selenium with human subjects determined

that pregnancy required additional

selenium (174). While it may be easy to

make a statement relative to the outcome

of this human study, considerable effort

went into the labeling of the chickens and

the resulting tissues that were used as

food sources of 76Se for this study (175).

The results of all of these investigations

provided corroborative data for the 1989

RDA for selenium (176). With sponsorship

by NCI and collaboration with scientists

from several universities, a study was

conducted in South Dakota (a seleniferous

soil area of the United States) to examine the

health of individuals, primarily ranchers,

exposed to higher-than-normal dietary

intakes of selenium (177). Although intakes

were considerably higher in this area than

average for the United States, there was no

evidence of selenosis in these individuals.

These observations were used by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency to set a

toxicological level for selenium as part of

clean up of superfund waste sites. 

Levander and his group also developed

an animal model for determining the

bioavailability of selenium in foods (178).

Platelet levels of glutathione peroxidase

were found to be a useful index of selenium

status. Subsequently, these procedures

were applied in a human study in Finland (a

country that had low soil levels of selenium)

to examine the bioavailability of selenium

in inorganic and food sources (179).

Ultimately, these procedures were employed

by scientists in Finland to monitor increases

in food selenium levels and bioavailability

through application of selenium-containing

fertilizers to such crops as wheat and rye.

During the remainder of his active

career, Levander turned his attention

to the interaction of several nutrients,

food components, and disease vectors.

In collaboration with scientists at the

University of Miami, FL, studies showed that

fish oils, their concentrates, or flaxseed oil

protected vitamin E-deficient rats against

malarial infection (180). Subsequently,

a long-term collaboration with Melinda

Beck and her group at University of North

Carolina, Chapel Hill, was established

that investigated dietary alterations on

the virulence of viruses. Firstly, this team
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 89

demonstrated that heart damage caused

by a myocarditic strain of coxsackie virus

was markedly increased in mice deficient

in either selenium or vitamin E (181).

Subsequently, a benign strain of the virus

also was shown to cause cardiopathology

when introduced to mice on the same

dietary regimen (182). These observations

prompted studies that demonstrated that

nutritionally compromised hosts were fertile

grounds for genetic changes of the virus

(183). Additional studies with influenza virus

showed that lung damage was markedly

increased in mice deficient in selenium

(184). Again, investigations demonstrated

a substantial change in the genomic

structure of the virus when the host was

nutritionally stressed. In collaboration with

scientists at the University of Buenos Aires,

Argentina, studies showed that heart muscle

from selenium-deficient mice responded

less forcefully to in vitro stimulation than

similar muscle from well-nourished control

animals (185). Recently, Levander and

collaborators at BHNRC demonstrated that

copper deficiency of mice also increases the

virulence of coxsackie viruses (186). Taken

in total, these studies re-emphasize the

importance of proper nutrition in any efforts

to stave off viral infections. 

As were many scientists, Levander was

involved in many other projects. A project

that should be highlighted is research on

the development of heterocyclic amines as a

result of cooking meats by different methods

and the subsequent metabolism of these

compounds by human beings (187,188).

This study was one of many funded through

the cooperative agreement between BHNRC

and NCI. Heterocyclic amines are thought

to be quite carcinogenic and even today

are often raised in the popular press. After

a long and outstanding career, Levander

retired in the mid-2000s. He died in

December 2011 of conditions related to

Parkinson’s disease.

In the early 1970s, sponsored studies by

HNRD in K. Michael Hambidge’s laboratory

at the University of Colorado, School of

Medicine identified zinc deficiency as

high as 8% in a group of U.S. children

who manifested growth and health issues

(189). These observations were the basis

of extensive funding from several sources

for Hambidge and his group to further

investigate dietary zinc-health relationships.

When James C. Smith, Jr., came to NI

in 1977, he brought with him expertise

in zinc nutriture, a topic that was boldly

announced on the “DR ZINC” license plates

of his Triumph sports car. Smith had earlier

collaborated with M.I. Irwin and J.A. Halsted

on the conspectus, “Zinc Requirements of

Man” (39). During his postdoctorate, he

had worked with Klaus Schwarz to develop

a metal-free barrier system (isolator) for

laboratory animals for the identification

of additional “essential” trace elements

(190). Forrest Nielsen used such a system

to identify nickel deficiency in chicks

(191) during his short tenure at Beltsville,

between affiliations with the U.S. Army

Metabolic Research and Nutrition Laboratory

in Denver, CO, and GFHNRL. Based on

collaborations begun at the Veterans

Administration Hospital, Washington, DC,

Smith’s group developed a simplified direct

method for the measurement of zinc in

plasma by atomic absorption spectroscopy

that was sanctioned as the “Selected

Method” by the American Association of

Clinical Chemists (192). 

Smith and his colleagues continued to

pursue research on zinc nutrition at NI/

BHNRC by determining concentrations of

this element in hospital diets and in diets

of a selected sub-population of women

in the far southwest of the United States

(193,194). This group also identified the

heritable aspects of elevated plasma zinc

levels of a family (195) and the interaction

of zinc deficiency with bone formation (196)

and dental caries (197). Subsequently,

data relative to zinc requirements,
90 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

bioavailabilities, and recommended dietary

allowances were summarized and published

in preparation for the 1989 RDAs (198) and

reviewed over a decade later (199). 

As early as 1973, Smith and colleagues

reported an interaction between zinc

nutriture and the metabolism of vitamin

A in germ-free animals (190). Although

several animal studies were conducted

in the interim that suggested zinc was

involved in liver retinol binding proteins

(200), it wasn’t until the late 1980s and in

collaboration with colleagues at Mahidol

University that a population of children

was identified in Thailand where this

hypothesis could be tested in humans (201).

These children were generally at risk for

inadequate zinc and/or vitamin A nutriture.

Supplementing this population with twice

the RDA for both nutrients improved

indices of both zinc and vitamin A status,

improved dark adaptometry tests, and

normalized conjunctival epithelium (202). A

subsequent study with the same population

and in collaboration with Tim Kramer,

who had transferred from the Grand

Forks Human Nutrition Research Center

(GFHNRC), showed a trend toward increased

proliferative response of T lymphocytes to

tuberculin antigen in females but not males

when supplemented with zinc and vitamin

A (203). Although the precise biochemical

mechanisms were not elucidated with these

human studies, the beneficial health and

well-being outcome for the children was

undeniable. While this area of research

was being conducted, Smith and his group

also were pursuing an understanding of

the metabolism of carotenoids as part of

the BHNRC-NCI collaborative efforts. The

results of these studies are described in the

Phytonutrient section of this chapter.

 

Meira Fields came to BHNRC as a visiting

scientist with interest in the interaction of

copper nutriture and general carbohydrate

metabolism (204). She immediately began

collaborations with Reiser and Smith and

soon found that dietary copper deficiency

in rats was exacerbated with sucrose

as the sole carbohydrate in the diet

compared with starch (205). Additional

studies identified fructose as the key

dietary component that interacted with low

copper levels to elicit dramatic biochemical

and pathological changes (206). In

general, copper deficiency reduced blood

ceruloplasmin activity, hepatic copper,

and ATP levels, but increased plasma

cholesterol and triglycerides. Additionally,

dietary sucrose or fructose in conjunction

with low copper caused dramatic liver and

heart hypertrophy, reduced hematocrit,

hemoglobin, albumin levels, as well as

superoxide dismutase (SOD) and glutathione

peroxidase activities, but increased glucose

response to glycemic stress and liver

iron concentrations (206,207). During a

2-month experiment, about one-third of

the animals died that were fed copperdeficient diets in combination with either

fructose or sucrose, whereas only a few

succumbed to a combination of low copper

and starch nutriture. The primary cause

of death was extensive heart pathologies

(208). The team (Fields, Reiser, Smith, et

al.) went on to demonstrate that dietary

fructose greatly inhibited copper absorption,

but not copper distribution, when animals

were administered 67Cu intraperitoneally

(209-211). They suggested that the effect of

fructose might be as simple as chelation of

available dietary copper (212). 

Fields and her collaborators further

characterized the adverse effects of highfructose–low-copper diets by showing that

male rats, but not females nor castrated

males, were susceptible (213) and that

the fructose effect could be titrated in a

dose-response manner (214). Additional

treatments such as high dietary levels

of vitamin E or coenzyme Q10 and

administration of clofibrate did little to

ameliorate the effect, whereas giving

garlic oil extract or deferoxamine, an

iron chelator, abolished the pathological
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 91

effects of the dietary regimen (215-219).

Further studies with dietary iron indicated

relatively low levels (17ppm diet) coupled

with high fructose and deficient copper

abolished heart lesions but induced

pancreas atrophy (220). Additionally, 20%

ethanol in drinking water in combination

with low dietary copper and starch gave

outcomes similar to low copper with high

fructose (221), and the source of dietary

protein was ineffective in alleviating the

problem (222), with the exception of dried

skim milk, which ameliorated the severity

of the outcome (223). Further evaluation of

hyperlipidemia in this model showed that

copper deficiency along with high dietary

fructose was responsible for elevated blood

cholesterol, and a combination of low dietary

copper, high fructose, and high fat resulted

in increased concentrations of blood

triglycerides (224). A single experiment with

dietary zinc deficiency in rats was unable to

demonstrate a dietary “fructose effect” (225).

Limited studies with pigs indicated that

copper deficiency greatly reduced all of

the typical biological markers for copper

status, similar to rats, and that high

dietary fructose nearly doubled heart sizes

and substantially increased liver weights

compared with glucose-fed or adequately

nourished copper groups (226). Similar

to rat studies, when dried skim milk was

introduced as the source of protein into

the rations of pigs, the effects of copper

deficiency were unaltered by the type of

dietary carbohydrate (fructose, glucose,

and starch) (223). An additional study

showed that dietary sucrose, compared

with cornstarch and in combination with

casein as the protein source, did not

exacerbate copper deficiency in weanling

pigs (227). Even though heart sizes were

dramatically increased by copper deficiency

in all of the studies with pigs, none of the

animals succumbed to the dietary regimens.

Nonetheless, collagen crosslinking, but

not total collagen, of the myocardium and

bicuspid valve was decreased in copperdeficient groups (228), suggesting that a

mechanism by which heart failure had

occurred in rats. The authors of one of the

studies with pigs made a bold statement

in the abstract and conclusion of the

paper, “Thus, these data fail to support the

hypothesis that the Cu X CHO interaction

observed in rats represents a health risk

for humans.” (The authors assumed that

pigs represented a cardiovascular model for

humans.) Fields, Reiser, and Smith were

not authors, but Mark Failla, one of the

coauthors, was then a scientist at BHNRC

(227). What is particularly bold about this

statement is that several years earlier, a

human study at BHNRC that examined

this interaction had been terminated early

because of several heart incidents in the

subjects (212). 

The human study (212) was designed to

investigate the dietary carbohydrate and

copper status interaction that had been

observed in rats. Typical American diets

for the period were provided except that

copper intake was decreased to ~1 mg/

da, zinc intake increased to nearly 20 mg/

da, and diets provided 20% energy either as

fructose or as cornstarch. Four individuals

experienced myocardial incidents. They

consisted of a diagnosed infarction by

a subject consuming low copper and

cornstarch for 4 weeks, two incidences of

tachycardia, and a heart block occasion by

persons who were currently or who had been

on the low copper and fructose regimen.

Immediately after the fourth and most

serious incident, the study was terminated,

and all subjects were repleted with dietary

copper. All subjects were followed for an

extended period of time, and additional

adverse health incidents were not observed.

Although there was a remote possibility

that these myocardial occurrences were due

to chance (<0.05%), when taken together

with limited other observations, these data

strongly point to the role of adequate dietary

copper and complex carbohydrates in the

maintenance of heart health (212). In the
92 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

long history of human studies at HNRD/

NI/BHNRC, this is the only study that was

prematurely terminated. Fields retired in

2001. 

Robert Reynolds came to BHNRC in the late

1970s. He immediately began investigations

of vitamin B6 metabolism during pregnancy

and lactation of both rats and women

(229-231). Unlike in rats, in which vitamin

B6 levels dropped dramatically during

pregnancy and early lactation regardless

of dietary levels, the concentration of

this vitamin in women was maintained

throughout these same periods. At the same

time, concerns were raised that indicated

that dietary supplementation of vitamin B6

by lactating women depressed circulating

levels of prolactin that cut short production

of milk. Reynolds and his group debunked

this myth with a carefully designed human

study (230). However, Reynolds’ ultimate

interest was in metabolism during climbing

at high altitudes and under other stressful

conditions. He trained and was a member

of a Mount Everest climb in 1989. He also

convinced other members of the climbing

team to be subjects of an experiment

that investigated dietary preferences and

changes in body composition during the

climb (232,233). These results showed

that high-altitude climbers preferred highfat foods, unlike previous reports of high

carbohydrate consumption, and that muscle

mass was preserved at the expense of body

fat. Reynolds moved to academia in the early

1990s, when his interests in metabolism at

high altitudes and the mission of BHNRC

conflicted. 

Mark Failla arrived at BHNRC in the mid1980s and was instrumental in establishing

cell culture technology as another model for

investigating several aspects of nutrition.

The Caco-2 cell line, an immortilized line of

heterogeneous human epithelial colorectal

adenomacarcinoma cells, developed by

the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer

Research primarily for drug studies, had

become popular for investigating nutrient

absorption and bioavailability in vitro.

Failla and collaborators established this

line at BHNRC and applied it to absorption

aspects of iron and zinc (234,235). In

addition, they developed cultures systems

for several hepatic cell types, various blood

cells, and splenic cell subsets (236-238).

Unfortunately, Failla returned to academia

in the early 1990s. 

Energy Metabolism and Associated Research 

As outlined above, the energy metabolism

program for humans was re-established

at NI/BHNRC in the early 1980s. C.E.

Bodwell, then Chief of the Protein Nutrition

Laboratory, was given responsibility for the

program, and the activity was housed in that

laboratory. Considering that this was a new

program for which all instrumentation had

to be constructed, much discussion ensued

about the type of system to build. Would it

be a combination direct-indirect calorimeter,

similar to Atwater’s system in Connecticut

many years earlier (239), an indirect system

like the large animal (bovine) units already

in Beltsville; or would it be something else,

such as the “water-circulating bodysuit”

demonstrated by Paul Webb, a contractor

of the NASA Space Program? A combination

direct-indirect system was agreed upon,

constructed, and installed in modified

laboratory space on the third floor of

Building 308 in Beltsville (240). This was

conveniently located adjacent to the kitchens

and dining facilities of the newly expanded

human studies facilities. A few years later,

a second indirect system was added. These

systems provided the gold-standard in which

human studies could be conducted and

against which adaptations of equipment and

the development of field procedures could

be evaluated. Considering the massiveness

of Atwater’s calorimeters and the new ones,

advances in this technology is exemplified by
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 93

the development of the hand-held indirect

calorimeter recently described by BHNRC

retirees and former scientists (241). 

From the late 1970s to the early 1990s,

there were substantial scientific personnel

changes within PNL, a laboratory that had

absorbed the Dairy Foods Laboratory and

later was named the Energy and Protein

Nutrition Laboratory (EPNL). A number

of scientists retired (Alford, Lakshmanan,

Lipton, McClain, McDonough, Vaughan,

Womack, and Wong) or transferred (Beecher,

Hitchens, Hornstein, and Stewart), thereby

making way for the addition of new

investigators with expertise in disciplines

associated with energy metabolism (Marable,

Conway, Miles, Seale, Rumpler, and Baer).

Some of these investigators were at BHNRC

for various periods of time (Marable, Miles,

and Seale), one retired (Conway), and two

remain active (Baer and Rumpler). Also

during this period, there was a change of

laboratory leadership due to the unexpected

and untimely death of Bodwell and the

transfer of Paul Moe from the large animal

energy group at Beltsville to EPNL as

research leader. 

The direct-indirect human calorimeter

system installed at EPNL was only the

second in the United States at the time and,

like any new instrument, was validated for

accuracy (240) and repeatability of actual

energy expenditures (242). Also, response

times between the direct gradient layer

calorimeter and the indirect system were

dissimilar, so a series of algorithms were

developed to compensate for the delayed

response of the direct calorimeter (243). As

part of the later studies, it was demonstrated

that heat emission during sleep was greater

than energy expenditure, a process that was

reversed during arousal and that provided

insight into heat regulation of the body. A

series of studies were conducted to obtain

estimates of variance for energy expenditure

due to such events as day-to-day variation,

circadian cycle, menstrual cycle of women,

body composition, and physical activity (244

as example). Such estimates were previously

unavailable and were required for the design

of future energy studies with humans. 

Subsequently, several studies investigated

interactions of dietary alterations and

metabolic states with energy expenditure. A

series of experiments elucidated the effect

of moderately reduced energy intake and

weight reduction on energy expenditure.

Reduced energy expenditure was accounted

for by a decreased thermic response due

to the consumption of meals with lower

calories and a reduction in body mass

as a result of weight loss (244). However,

when similar results were reported on a

body weight basis, there were no changes

in energy expenditure or in energy

requirements (245). These studies also

demonstrated that the low metabolic rate

often reported by obese individuals is not a

function of moderate restriction of calories

but possibly that of such factors as reduced

activity and inheritance and/or pathology.

Based on a series of experiments, a theory

was developed that suggested that the

rate and extent of fat oxidation served

as an integrating mechanism for relating

energy demand to energy availability (246).

Research with alteration of dietary fiber

indicated that this component reduced

the energy value of the diet by about 8

MJ/g fiber added to the diet, which was

greater than the energy contributed by the

fiber (247). Work with moderate alcohol

consumption over long periods of time with

a large number of subjects demonstrated

that the human body adapted to alcohol and

used it as an energy source as efficiently

as other dietary components (248). These

were new and controversial data, because

epidemiological data and earlier short-term

human studies had all reported that high

levels of alcohol intake contributed very little

energy. 
94 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Collaboration with a Japanese tea firm

stimulated research with oolong tea. Studies

on energy metabolism demonstrated that

energy expenditure was proportional to

caffeine consumption, but that fat oxidation

rates were higher with tea than with

caffeine alone (249). These results provided

a basis for the anecdotal observations that

long-term tea consumption contributes to

somewhat lower body weight. 

In a uniquely designed study using freechoice cafeteria-style meals but with

additional supplements, it was shown that

high carbohydrate intake, but not high fat

or high protein intake, suppressed voluntary

food and energy intake for a few weeks

(250). Unfortunately, the metabolism of the

subjects adapted and the high carbohydrate

effect was lost after 2 months. 

The burgeoning obesity epidemic in the

United States and the need for accurate

field measures of energy intake and

energy expenditure moved the calorimetry

discipline at BHNRC into the arena of

methods development. Doubly labeled water

(DLW) with stable isotopes 2H2

18O had been

used to measure energy expenditure in

small animals as early as 1955—a method

Schoeller, working with human subjects,

accidentally rediscovered in the early 1980s

(251). The need to understand energy

metabolism in detail in human subjects,

political pressure to increase production

of labeled water in the late 1970s, thereby

decreasing its cost, and advances in mass

spectrometry instrumentation provided

the opportunity to use this technique

extensively. A paper by Seale, Miles,

and Bodwell reporting methods for the

calculation of energy expenditure employing

DLW with one subject was published in

1989 (252). Thereafter followed a series of

publications that compared DLW results

with direct and indirect calorimetry

data (253), that validated the technique

over 7 days (254), and that compared

energy expenditure among DLW, indirect

calorimetry, and dietary records calculations

(255). The validation of the DLW technique

as a field method permitted it to be used

to evaluate and improve physical activity

questionnaires (256,257) and to apply it

as a new tool to estimate calorie intake

errors from food frequency questionnaires

(258). The DLW technique also was used

as the basis for modifications of the USDA

Automated Multiple-Pass Method, the

dietary intake component of the National

Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

(259). Moe retired in 1997.

Although Joan Conway contributed greatly

to the validation of the human calorimeters

at BHNRC, she also had other research

interests. One of these was measurement of

and understanding body composition. In the

mid-1980s, she teamed with Karl Norris—of

the Instrumentation Laboratory at Beltsville

and inventor of non-invasive near infrared

spectroscopy for assessment of quality of

agricultural products—to develop a system

for the estimation of body composition

(260). Results from this system compared

favorably with stable-isotope dilution,

skinfold, and ultrasound measurements,

but the system was not produced

commercially, perhaps because a patent

was never sought for the concept and the

instrument. Subsequently, she determined

that anthropometric measurements used to

predict body fat distribution in Caucasian

subjects were somewhat different for

African-American women (261,262). A review

of ethnicity and energy stores suggested

that physiological measurements were

more appropriate than ethnic background

in terms of characterizing the location

of energy stores within the body (263).

Collaboration with scientists in the Growth

Biology Laboratory at BARC investigated

the application of new intrumentation

(dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) for the

assessment of body composition in humans

for similar measurements in pigs and

chickens (264,265). Results from these and

other studies suggested that substantial
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 95

procedural and instrumentation refinement

were required before comparable results

from traditional methods could be obtained. 

Another of Conway’s research interests

was assessment of physical activity/

energy expenditure, particularly field

measurements. Comparison of eight

different physical activity questionnaires

indicated that results could be used to

obtain reasonable group means, but that

data on individual energy expenditure were

less than optimal (266). A decade later,

using results from doubly labeled water for

comparison, 7-day physical activity records,

but not 7-day recalls, provided acceptable

estimates of energy expenditure (256).

However, energy expenditure of individuals

(men) whose occupations involved significant

intermittent moderate activity was the most

difficult to assess with physical activity

questionnaires (267). Conway retired in

2007. 

Phytonutrient Metabolism and Associated 

Programs 

The terms “phytonutrient” and

“phytochemical” crept into the lexicon

of nutritionists as part of the increased

consumption of dietary supplements during

the 1970s and 1980s, particularly those

botanically derived. The passage of the

Dietary Supplement, Health and Education

Act (1994) thrust the consuming public in

the position of “test subjects” for dietary

supplements, i.e., the FDA could no longer

require health safety data prior to the 

marketing of a supplement. Over time, these

terms referred to compounds in plant foods,

other than essential nutrients for which

there are DRIs, but which have potential for

health promotion. The program began at NI/

BHNRC in the early 1980s, when scientists

at NCI became interested in nutrients

and phytonutrients that might be able to

modulate markers for cancer. The first

cooperative agreement with NCI was written

very broadly, including investigations of

β-carotene. The β-carotene effort was multifaceted with research oriented toward

metabolism by humans and food analysis

(6). James C. Smith, Jr. was asked by Mertz

to direct the metabolic research program,

primarily because of the provitamin A

activity of this carotene. Historically, this

was the reactivation of a small program that

Sweeney had conducted with laboratory

animals prior to his retirement a decade

earlier (142). 

One of the early issues with β-carotene and

other absorbed carotenoids was accurate

and precise measurement in serum and

plasma. Due to their ease of oxidation

and the early-stage development of highperformance liquid chromatography (HPLC)

systems, particularly column construction

and packing materials, considerable efforts

were required to develop reliable and

reproducible analyses. Smith collaborated

with John (Jack) Bieri, an emeritus and

retired vitamin E nutritionist from NIH,

to develop a system with then current

instrumentation for the measurement 

of all prominent carotenoids in plasma

(268). Neal Craft, a member of Smith’s

team, refined this system to reduce losses

of carotenoids during analysis, which

improved both accuracy and precision

(269). Shortly thereafter, Craft transferred

to the National Bureau of Standards (later

renamed National Institute of Standards and

Technology [NIST]), where he characterized

HPLC columns for carotenoid separations

and contributed to the development of

the first Certified Reference Material for

β-carotene and other carotenoids in plasma.

These were major advances that greatly

improved the reliable measurement of these

phytonutrients in plasma (serum) and foods.

Subsequently, methods were developed for

the measurement of carotenoids and their

metabolites in both serum and human milk

in collaboration between Smith’s group

and investigators at the Food Composition

Laboratory (270,271). 
96 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

This newly developed methodology was

employed to show the relatively short

storage stability of carotenoids in lowtemperature frozen plasma (269), and

the lack of a plasma response when men

ingested a relatively high-fat meal with low

levels of carotenoids (272). Subsequently,

the first ever human study was conducted

that followed plasma concentrations of 7

carotenoids for 11 days after the ingestion

of pure β-carotene or a single meal of

high-carotenoid foods (273). Results from

this study showed that maximum plasma

concentrations of β-carotene occurred

24-48 hours after ingestion of the pure

compound or carrots, a relatively long lag

period. Several additional observations

were also made that included huge interindividual variability of β-carotene response

(an early observation of responders and

non-responders), greater bioavailability of

β-carotene from the pure form than from

carrots, and lack of plasma response of

those carotenoids in broccoli (lutein and

β-carotene) and tomato juice (lycopene) at

the low levels provided by the diet. During

this period, the oxidation of LDL-cholesterol

as a major contributor to cardiovascular

disease was gaining popularity, so a

report of the distribution of carotenoids

among plasma lipoproteins, as potential

antioxidants, was very timely (274). These

early experiments were the foundation upon

which the phytonutrient research program

at BHNRC was built and continues today

(2011). 

Smith, Clevidence, and their collaborators

expanded investigations by studying

the metabolism of other prominent

food carotenoids. Lutein, although not

commercially available but potentially

important in eye health, was isolated from

extracts of marigold petals (275) and shown

to be absorbed over a time course similar to

β-carotene (276). This was the first report

of absorption kinetics of purified lutein in

humans. Lycopene, a carotenoid found in

only a few red-colored foods and thought to

mitigate specific cancers, was demonstrated

to have saturatable absorption kinetics at

modest intakes (277). However, phytoene

and phytofluene, minor carotenoids of

tomatoes, were extremely bioavailable.

Additional human studies on carotenoid

bioavailability were correlated with plasma

antioxidant activity (278), and oxidation

products of both lutein and lycopene were

isolated from plasma, further substantiating

the potential antioxidative role of these

phytonutrients (276). Results of these

human studies were cited in the IOM-DRI

Report on Dietary Antioxidants and Related

Compounds (279). 

At this time, a question arose as to whether

cellular cleavage of β-carotene into retinol

was primarily central or eccentric. Smith

and research associate Alexandrine

During developed sensitive procedures for

monitoring the central cleavage enzyme,

15-15’ dioxygenase (280), which were then

employed to demonstrate its activity in a

clone of Caco-2 cells, in small intestinal

mucosa preparations from man, and in

human liver for the first time (281). Results

from these and additional studies showed

that this enzyme is both copper and iron

dependent (282). Calculations based on

enzyme activities of normal human tissues

indicated a capacity for central β-carotene

cleavage of about 12 mg/day, one-fifth by

the small intestine and the balance by the

liver. This capacity is well within the range

of the average intake of β-carotene reported

from recent national surveys (~2 mg/day),

and highly supportive of central cleavage as

the primary conversion of this carotenoid to

retinol. Smith retired in 2000.

Earl Harrison arrived at BHNRC in the

late 1990s from the Medical College of

Pennsylvania in Philadelphia with expertise

and interest in vitamin A metabolism. He

quickly teamed with During and employed

cell culture techniques to investigate

intestinal absorption and metabolism of

carotenoids (283). This small team went
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 97

on to demonstrate that carotenoid uptake

into intestinal and other cells is a carriermediated process that involves scavenger

receptor SRBI (284). With the closing of the

Phytonutrients Laboratory in 2006, Harrison

and During transferred to academia. 

In the late 20th century, flavonoids became

a popular category of phytonutrients due to

their health-related promotion (based on in

vitro and epidemiologic studies) and their

abundance in many foods. Anthocyanins,

a subclass of flavonoids, were chosen by

Janet Novotny and her group to study

due to their purported association with

several health benefits and dearth of

metabolic data. Human studies with several

foods (red cabbage, purple carrots, and

strawberries) containing these components

demonstrated that absorption was linear at

low and moderate consumption but showed

saturation at high intake levels (285,286). In

nature anthocyanins have sugars and other

compounds attached to them; however,

these studies showed that removal of acyl

groups enhanced absorption (287, 288).

Advances in laboratory instrumentation led

to identification and quantification of new

anthocyanins and new food sources of these

phytonutrients (289).

By the mid-1990s, interest was growing

among many nutritionists in stable-isotope

labeling of organic components of foods

and following them through harvest, food

preparation, digestion, and metabolism.

Mineral nutritionists had been using these

techniques with specific labeled elements

for several years (174). A group of scientists

at BARC coalesced at around this time

with expertise spanning plant physiology

to human metabolism and with unique

abilities to label large amounts of plants,

characterize the labeled compounds, and

conduct human studies (290). At the

time, this was one of the few groups in

the world with this capability. Validation

studies followed β-carotene and lutein from

13C-labeled kale into these components

of plasma as well as into retinol with

relatively high appearance of label at peak

plasma concentrations (0.7% of dose for

β-carotene and retinol, 3.6% for lutein)

(291). Simultaneous with these experiments,

analytical procedures were developed that

increased sensitivity and employed advanced

instrumentation (292). The combined plant

labeling and advanced analytical techniques

permitted a detailed study of vitamin K

absorption and kinetics in humans (293).

This study showed peak 13C-phylloquinone

plasma concentrations at 6-10 hours

after ingestion of labeled kale with a mean

maximum concentration of 2.1 nmol/l

(6 subjects). Results of modeling studies

demonstrated an average bioavailability of

phylloquinone from kale of 4.7% and plasma

and tissue half times of 8.8 and 215 hours,

respectively. In addition, one subject of this

small study showed minimal absorption

of labeled phylloquinone, suggesting a

responder/nonresponder phenomenon

similar to that of β-carotene absorption.

Recently, conditions were developed whereby

anthocyanins were labeled with 13C in 

young red cabbage hydroponically grown

in the presence of 13CO2 (294). A total of 36

anthocyanins were labeled, of which 11 were

reported for the first time.

Tea, especially green tea, has been

purported to be a healthful food (beverage).

With the increasing interest in flavonoids

in the 1990s, Beverly Warden, a visiting

scientist from Florida International

University, conducted a human study

that demonstrated small but significant

absorption and excretion of primary

flavonoids from black tea (295). Subsequent

experiments by Judd, Clevidence, Baer, et

al. demonstrated that high consumption

of black tea (5 cups/day) lowered plasma

cholesterol by 7% or more (296). However,

consumption of oolong tea, either taken

alone or fortified with additional catechins or

other polyphenols, failed to modify glucose
98 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

metabolism in healthy adult volunteers

(297). Nonetheless, taken together with

the beneficial energy outcome, these

observations generally added credence to the

healthful contribution of tea as a beverage.

Judd retired in the mid-2000s.

Jae Park arrived at BHNRC in the late

1990s and selected phenolic acids and

their naturally occurring derivatives to

investigate relative to biological activity.

Several of these types of compounds

(N-coumaroyldopamine [caffedymine] and

N-caffeoyldopamine), identified in such

foods as cocoa, were found to inhibit platelet

activation through suppression of p-selectin,

a platelet activation marker (298,299).

Recently, Park has shown that additional

compounds of similar structure, serotomide

and safflomide, and found in specific

groups of foods, blocked receptors on cells

that are similar to receptors of the central

nervous system of humans (300). These

results support the concept that foods have

biological effects other than solely providing

nutrients and energy. Park transferred

to the Diet, Genomics, and Immunology

Laboratory in 2006 when the Phytonutrients

Laboratory was closed.

Tom Wang came to BHNRC in 1999 with

considerable experience in cellular and

receptor biology. He investigated the

molecular action of phytochemicals on

regulation of human sex hormone receptors,

specifically estrogen and androgen

receptors, which are keys in the modulation

of breast and prostate cancer, respectively.

Wang and his collaborators were the

first to identify concentration-dependent

modulation of human prostate cancer cells

by genistein employing DNA microarray

analysis (301). Genestein is a prominent

isoflavone of soybeans and soy-based foods,

and these results suggest potential benefit of

such foods. Using cell culture models, Wang

and his team demonstrated that genistein

exerted biological effects on androgenresponsive genes through inhibition of

both androgen and estrogen receptor

mediated pathways (302). This was the first

demonstration of the alteration of androgenresponsive genes by a phytonutrient through

multiple pathways. Wang joined the Diet,

Genomics and Immunology Laboratory when

the Phytonutrients Laboratory was closed in

2006. 

Modeling 

Advances in computer technology have

allowed sophisticated mathematical

equations and other complex problems to

be solved relatively quickly. These advances

have led the way for mathematical modeling

to be applied to biological systems, which

has focused high-cost research with animal

models or human subjects on those areas

where there is a dearth of data required

for accurate modeling. Janet Novotny, with

expertise in modeling, came to BHNRC as

a postdoctorate in 1993 and was hired as a

research scientist in 1996. In collaboration

with Andrew Clifford and his colleagues at

the University of California-Davis, Novotny

developed the first model of β-carotene

metabolism to predict its conversion to

vitamin A in vivo (303). The results of these

studies, which indicated that conversion of

β-carotene to vitamin A was substantially

lower than originally estimated, were

used by organizations worldwide to adjust

recommended intakes of these nutrients.

Subsequently, Novotny assisted Phyllis

Bowen’s group at the University of IllinoisChicago on modeling lycopene metabolism

as part of an NCI Phase I clinical trial, which

demonstrated that lycopene absorption

becomes saturated at increasing levels of

intake (304). Results from these studies

were incorporated into a European Food

Safety Authority report that established

intakes of lycopene of 0.5 mg/kg body

weight/day as posing no health risk.

Collaborative studies with other groups

have resulted in modeling of α-linolenic acid

and α-tocopherol metabolism (305,306),
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 99

as well as molybdenum kinetics (307).

Modeling data from energy metabolic studies

at BHNRC indicated that small decreases

in organ mass as a result of dieting fully

accounted for the reduction in resting

energy expenditure during weight loss

(308). A decrease in visceral organ size of

only 300 g was sufficient to account for the

reduction in energy expenditure. Through

these studies and others, Novotny and her

collaborations have established BHNRC

as a leader in nutritional pharmacokinetic

modeling over a relatively short period of

time. 

Diet, Genomics, Immunology, and Related 

Programs

As noted above, a new dimension was added

to the research program of BHNRC with the

transfer of Joe Urban and the framework of

an immunology research program from the

Livestock and Poultry Sciences Institute at

BARC in late 2000 (table 1). The focus of this

program is to investigate selected nutrients

and phytochemicals/phytonutrients on

function of the immune system. Pigs are

used as models because of the similarity of

their metabolism to that of humans. Harry

Dawson came to this program in 2001 with

training in vitamin metabolism at A.C.

Ross’s laboratory at Pennsylvania State

University. A major contribution by Dawson

has been the development of the Porcine

Immunology and Nutrition Database that

spans immunologically related genes that

have been classified under many categories

of activity. One of the purposes of this

activity is to compare similarities of these

genes between pigs and humans. Dawson

and collaborators have begun to investigate

the role of foods in the control of the many

immunological and inflammatory processes

(309-311).

 

Allen Smith, a virologist trained at Rutgers

University, was hired into the research

program shortly before the addition of

immunology emphasis. He has expanded

on the program initiated by Levander by

investigating nutritional states of mice that

increase susceptibility to bacterial and

viral infections (312-314). Recently, he has

characterized a common food contaminant,

Salmonella, investigated requirements for

growth, and reported conditions for optimal

virulence in mice (315-317). 

Gloria Solano-Aguilar came to the program

in 2001 and has led the project related to

the effects of different probiotic bacteria

on immune and intestinal function. Swine

have been standardized as a model for the

validation of these effects. Also, a specific

and functional gene marker (tuf) has been

identified for strain B12 of Bifidobacterium,

which will serve as a tool to follow this

common probiotic among the many

bacteria/microflora of the gastrointestinal

tract and its effect on immune response and

other intestinal functions (318). 

Schoene currently is associated with

the Diet, Genomics and Immunology

Laboratory, where she is investigating a

variety of nutrients and food components

on cell function in culture. Zinc was found

to be an important nutrient in the control

of cell cycle function in normal human

brochial epithelial cells, HepG2 liver cells,

and human heptoblastoma cells (319-322).

Extracts rich in anthocyanins, polyphenols

from cinnamon, or phytoalexin glyceollins

from soybeans altered cellular growth

and function in HT29 colon cancer cells,

hematologic tumor cells, and human

prostate cancer cells LNCaP, respectively

(170,323,324). Recently, in collaboration

with scientists at UMCP, reseveratrol was

shown to modulate growth and increase zinc

concentrations in normal human prostate

cells in culture (325).

Although the nutrition- and metabolicrelated programs of BHNRC are much

smaller than those of HNRD shortly after the

1969 reorganization, they are highly focused
100 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

on the interaction of diet and markers for

chronic disease. In addition, the Center is

staffed by scientific experts and equipped

with tools to investigate these difficult

and complex interactions. Its location

in one of the world’s largest and most

diversified agricultural research facilites,

as well as being near a major agricultural

university (UMCP) and several large medical

complexes, provides ideal opportunities for

the scientific interaction required to solve

complex diet and health issues. 

International Activities

Nearly all BHNRC scientists have presented

data, chaired sessions, and led discussions

at international scientific meetings, and

some have participated in international

collaborations. A few have been invited to be

part of special international collaborations.

FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture 

Organization/World Health Organization).

In the late 1990s, Joan Conway took a

sabbatical leave with FAO, where she was

part of the Secretariat that organized and

conducted a review of “Vitamin and Mineral

Requirements in Human Nutrition” as part

of an FAO/WHO activity. A consultation

with experts was held in Bangkok, Thailand,

in 1998. A report of the consultation was

issued in 2002, and a final WHO publication

followed in 2004 (326). 

PL 480 Projects. Current U.S. international

food assistance programs began after World

War II (326). One of the programs outlined

in Title II of Public Law 480 of 1954 (Food

for Peace Program) and administered by the

U.S. Agency for International Development

(USAID) continually reviews nutrient

adequacy of foods provided for this program.

One such review conducted in early 1996

concluded that new and improved products

were needed for this program. As part of

this initiative, a task force of ARS scientists

was assembled to formulate a revised set

of nutrient specifications that would allow

flexibility in meeting nutritional needs with

least cost blends of available commodities.

Judd, Moe, and Smith were members of this

task group along with Robert Jacob, Virginia

Holsinger, and Peter Reeds from other ARS

laboratories. A summary of the discussions

and recommendations was prepared for

USAID, entitled “Report of USDA ARS Task

Group on Nutrient Standards for Grain

Blends— February 7, 1997.” Other BHNRC

scientists (Beecher and Reynolds) also

were called upon for advice as part of other

similar meetings to evaluate and improve

nutritional quality of foods destined for the

Food for Peace Program. 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 101

Awards

The following is a partial listing of awards

given to scientists of BHNRC and its

predecessors by professional societies,

USDA, and other government agencies.

1942	 Ruth Leverton, Borden Award, 	 	

American Home Economics

 Association 

1947	 Millicent Hathaway, Borden Award, 		

American Home Economics

 Association

1953	 Ruth Leverton, Borden Award, 	 	

American Home Economics

 Association

1961	 Ruth Leverton, Honorary Doctor of 	 	

	 Science, University of Nebraska

1964	 Hazel Stiebeling, Fellow of American

Institute of Nutrition, Charter Member

1969	 Walter Mertz, Research and 	 	 	

	 Development Award, U.S. Army

1971	 Walter Mertz, Osborne and Mendel 	 	

	 Award, American Institute of Nutrition

1971	 Walter Mertz, Superior Service Award,

	 U.S. Department of Agriculture

1972	 Ruth Leverton, Distinguished Service

Award, U.S. Department of Agriculture

1973	 Lelia Booher, Fellow of American 	 	

	 Institute of Nutrition, Charter Member

1973	 Ruth Leverton, Conrad Elvehjem

Award for Public Service in Nutrition,

American Institute of Nutrition

1974	 Willis Gortner, Fellow of Institute of

Food Technologists

1975	 Mildred Adams, Fellow of American 		

Institute of Nutrition

1976	 Callie Mae Coons, Fellow of American

Institute of Nutrition

1977	 Ruth Leverton, Fellow of American 	 	

Institute of Nutrition

1977	 Ruth Leverton, Federal Women’s 	 	

	 Award

1977	 Ruth Leverton, Medallion Award, 	 	

American Dietetic Association

1979	 James C. Smith, Jr., Klaus Schwarz

Medal, International Association of

Bioinorganic Scientists

1982	 Walter Mertz, Lederle Award,

American Institute of Nutrition

1982	 Madelyn Womack, Fellow of

American Institute of Nutrition

1984	 Louise Stanley, induction into the 	 	

	 National Agriculture Hall of Fame

1986	 Orville Levander, Osborne and Mendel

Award, American Institute of Nutrition

1986	 Walter Mertz, Certificate of Merit

Service to Agriculture of Gamma

Sigma Delta, University of Maryland

Chapter

1987	 Walter Mertz, International Award for

Modern Nutrition of the World Health

Organization, the United Nations

1987	 Walter Mertz, Distinguished Service

Award, U.S. Department of Agriculture

1989	 Walter Mertz, Fellow of American 	 	

Institute of Nutrition

1995	 Orville Levander, Klaus Schwarz

Medal, International Association of

Bioinorganic Scientists

1995 Walter Mertz, induction into the ARS

	 Science Hall of Fame

1998	 James Iacono, Fellow of American 	 	

Institute of Nutrition

Joseph Spence, Award for Sustained

Accomplishment, U.S. Department of

Agriculture

2001	 James C. Smith, Jr., Fellow of 	 	

	 American Society for Nutrition

2004	 Joseph Spence, Presidential Rank

Meritorious Executive Award, U.S.

Department of Agriculture

2006	 Orville Levander, Fellow of American

	 Society for Nutrition

2010	 Marilyn Polansky, USDA Employee

with Most Years of Full-Time Federal

Service. (She retired in 2011 after 56 

years with USDA.)
102 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Acknowledgments 

Many people have helped in the assembly

of this historical document, to whom I am

grateful. I especially want to acknowledge

the efforts of J.C. Smith, Jr. for his

forebearance in reviewing, editing, and

commenting on the manuscript. The

unpublished notes by H.J. Souders entitled

“Agricultural Research Service, USDA

Highlights of Contributions of Food and

Nutrition Research,” which detailed this

activity from the late 1800s to 1976, as

well as the personal records of Mrs. Mary

Marshal, were extremely helpful. Comments

by Dr. Robert Doherty also are greatly

appreciated. 

Disclaimer

The publications cited here are not intended

to be a complete list for scientists at BHNRC

and its predecessor organizations; rather,

they are intended to be representative of

the research discussed in the chapter.

Publication lists for each scientist are

available at NIH’s National Library of

Medicine (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/)

and USDA’s National Agricultural Library

(www.nal.usda.gov). 

References 

1.	 Swan, P. 2017. Laying the

Foundation, 1893-1923. In J Dupont 

and GR Beecher, eds., History of

Human Nutrition Research in the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service: People,

Events, and Accomplishments.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research

Service.

2.	 Carpenter, K. The life and times of

W.O. Atwater (1844-1907). J Nutr.

1994;124:1707S-14S.

3.	 Elias, M. 2017. The Bureau of

Home Economics. In J Dupont 

and GR Beecher, eds., History of

Human Nutrition Research in the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service: People,

Events, and Accomplishments.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research

Service.

4.	 Moshfegh, A. 2017. History of food

consumption surveys conducted by

the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In J Dupont and GR Beecher, eds.,

History of Human Nutrition Research

in the U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service: People,

Events, and Accomplishments.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research

Service.

5.	 Welsh, S. 2017. History of nutrition

education at the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, 1902-2011. In J Dupont 

and GR Beecher, eds., History of

Human Nutrition Research in the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service: People,

Events, and Accomplishments.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research

Service.

6.	 Beecher, GR. 2017. History of food

composition activities at the U.S.

Department of Agriculture. In J 

Dupont and GR Beecher, eds., History

of Human Nutrition Research in 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service: People,

Events, and Accomplishments.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research

Service.

7.	 Young, M. 1963. Proposed Program

for Expanded Research in Food and

Nutrition, pp. 1028-1031. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 103

8.	 Sandstead, HH, and FH Nielsen. 2009.

The origin and evolution of the Grand

Forks Human Nutrition Research

Center, 1970-90. J Nutr 139:173-7.

9.	 Nichols, BL. 2009. Establishment of

the USDA/ARS Children’s Nutrition

Research Center at Baylor College

of Medicine and Texas Children’s

Hospital in 1978. J Nutr 139:188-91.

10.	 Rosenberg, IH. 2009. History of the

USDA Human Nutrition Research 

Center on Aging at Tufts University. J

Nutr 139:192-3.

11.	 Lind, SC. 1943. Biographical memoir

of Ross Aiken Gortner. National

Academy of Sciences Biographical

Memoirs 23:138-80.

12.	 Smith, JC, Jr, and W Maret. 2008.

Walter Mertz (1923-2002). J Nutr

138:247-9.

13.	 Beecher, GR, KK Stewart, JM Holden,

et al. 2009. Legacy of Wilbur O.

Atwater: human nutrition research

expansion at the USDA–interagency

development of food composition

research. J Nutr 139:178-84.

14.	 Beecher, GR, GF Combs, Sr, and

JC Smith, Jr. 2017. Coordination of

human nutrition research activities at

the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In J Dupont and GR Beecher, eds.,

History of Human Nutrition Research

in the U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service: People,

Events, and Accomplishments.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research

Service.

15.	 Committee on Diet, Nutrition and

Cancer. 1982. Diet, Nutrition and

Cancer. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press. 496 p.

16.	 Berdanier, CD. 1991. The BHE rat:

an animal model for the study of noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.

FASEB J 5:2139-44.

17.	 Adams, M. 1964. Diet as a Factor in

Length of Life and in Structure and

Composition of Tissues of the Rat With 

Aging. Home Economics Research

Report No. 24. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office. 108 p. 

18.	 Marshall, MW, AM Allen Durand,

and M Adams. 1969. Different

characteristics of rat strains: lipid

metabolism and response to diet,

defining the laboratory animal. In 4th

International Symposium of ICLA, pp.

381-413. Washington, DC: National

Academy of Sciences Press.

19.	 Chang, ML, JA Lee, EM Schuster, and

DL Trout. 1971. Metabolic adaptation

to dietary carbohydrates in two strains

of rats at three ages. J Nutr 101:323-

9.

20.	 Lakshmanan, FL, JC Howe, EM

Schuster, and RE Barnes. 1981.

Response of two strains of rats to a

high-protein diet containing sucrose

or cornstarch. Proc Exp Biol Med

167:224-32.

21.	 Booher, LE, and EC Callison. 1939.

An experimental determination of the

minimum vitamin A requirements of

normal adults. J Nutr 17:317-31.

22.	 Callison, EC, E Orent-Keiles, R

Frenchman, and EG Zook. 1949.

Comparison of chemical analysis and

bioassay as measures of vitamin A

value of some vegetables and the effect

of comminution upon the bioassay

value. J Nutr 37:139-52.

23.	 Horn, MJ, DB Jones, and AE Blum.

1950. Methods for Microbiological and

Chemical Determinations of Essential

Amino Acids in Proteins and Foods.

USDA Miscellaneous Publication

No. 696. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office. 12 p.

24.	 Jones, DB. 1941. Factors for

Converting Percentages of Nitrogen

in Foods and Feeds Into Percentages

of Protein. USDA Circular No. 183.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office. 22 p.

25.	 Jones, DB, and KD Widness. 1946.

The comparative growth-promoting

value of the proteins of wheat germ,
104 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

corn germ, and some other protein

foods of plant and animal origin. J

Nutr 31:675-83.

26.	 Jones, DB, A Caldwell, and KD

Widness. 1948. Comparative growthpromoting values of the proteins of

cereal grains. J Nutr 35:639-49.

27.	 Wiese, HF, RH Gibbs, and AE Hansen.

1954. Essential fatty acids and

human nutrition. I. Serum levels for

unsaturated fatty acids in healthy

children. J Nutr 52:355-65.

28.	 Hansen, AE. 1958. Essential fatty

acids in infant feeding. J Am Dietet

Assoc 34:239-41.

29.	 Davey, BL, KH Fisher, and SD Chen.

1956. Utilization of ascorbic acid in

fruits and vegetables. II. Utilization of

24 fruits and vegetables. J Am Dietet

Assoc 32:1069-72.

30.	 Swenseid, ME, and MS Dunn.

1956. Amino acid requirements of

young women based on nitrogen

balance data. II. Studies of isoleucine

and on minimum amounts of the

eight essential amino acids fed

simultaneously. J Nutr 58:507-17.

31.	 Oldham, RG, and FN Dickinson.

1965. Evaluation of nitrogen balance

of young women fed amino acids

proportioned as in the FAO provisional

pattern and as in egg, oats, milk and

peanuts. Am J Clin Nutr 17:360-6.

32.	 Bolowechi, S, C Friedemann, and O

Mickelsen. 1965. Wheat as a source

of the amino acids for men. Cereal Sci

Today 10:156.

33.	 Meyer, FL, ML Brown, HJ Wright, and

ML Hathaway. 1955. A Standardized

Diet for Metabolic Studies–Its

Development and Application.

USDA Technical Bulletin No. 1126.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office. 88 p.

34.	 Irwin, MI, and HF Wiese. 1961.

Variations in linoleic acid content of

dietary fat in relation to metabolism

of fat, nitrogen and minerals, and

to changes in blood lipids. J Nutr

74:217-25.

35.	 Campbell, AM, ME Swenseid, WH

Griffith, and SG Tuttle. 1965. Serum

lipids of men fed diets differing in

protein quality and linoleic acid

content. Am J Clin Nutr 17:83-7.

36.	 Walker, RM, and HM Linkswiler. 1972.

Calcium retention in adult males as

affected by protein intake. J Nutr

102:1297-302.

37.	 Matkovic, V, K Kostial, I Simonovic,

et al. 1979. Bone status and fracture

rates in two regions of Yugoslavia. Am

J Clin Nutr 32:540-9.

38.	 Irwin, MI, and DM Hegsted. 1971.

A conspectus of research on protein 

requirements of man. J Nutr 101:387-

429.

39.	 Halsted, JA, JC Smith, Jr, and MI

Irwin. 1974. A conspectus of research

on zinc requirements of man. J Nutr

104:345-78.

40.	 Irwin, MI, ed. 1980. Nutritional

Requirements of Man. Washington,

DC: Nutrition Foundation. 592 p.

41.	 Marshall, MW, and M Womack. 1954.

Influence of carbohydrate, nitrogen

source and prior state of nutrition on

nitrogen balance and liver composition

in the adult rat. J Nutr 52:51-64.

42.	 Womack, M, MW Marshall, and HE

Hildebrand. 1964. Utilization of wheat

gluten by adult rats of two ages. J

Gerontol 19:45-8.

43.	 Womack, M, and DA Vaughan. 1972.

Whey and whey products as cereal

supplements. J Dairy Sci 55:1081-4.

44.	 Bodwell, CE, EM Schuster, E Kyle,

et al. 1979. Obligatory urinary and

fecal nitrogen losses in young women,

older men, and young men and the

factorial estimation of adult human

protein requirements. Am J Clin Nutr

32:2450-9.

45.	 Miles, CW, CE Bodwell, E Morris, et al.

1987. Long-term consumption of beef

extended with soy protein by men,

women and children. I. Study design,
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 105

nutrient intakes, and serum zinc

levels. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 37:341-

59.

46.	 Horn, MJ, AE Blum, and M Womack.

1954. Availability of amino acids to

microorganisms. II. A rapid microbial

method of determining protein value. J

Nutr 52:375-81.

47.	 Hitchens, AD, FE McDonough, and PA

Wells. 1989. The use of Escherichia coli 

mutants to measure the bioavailability

of essential amino acids in foods. Plant

Foods Hum Nutr 39:109-20.

48.	 Wells, P, F McDonough, CE Bodwell,

and AD Hitchens. 1989. The use of

Streptococcus zymogens for estimating

tryptophane and methionine

bioavailability in 17 foods. Plant Foods

Hum Nutr 39:121-7.

49.	 Womack, M, DA Vaughan, and

CE Bodwell. 1975. A modified

PER for estimating changes in the 

bioavailability of individual amino

acids. In M. Friedman, ed. Protein

Nutritional Quality of Foods and

Feeds, Pt. I, pp. 113-124. New York,

NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

50.	 McDonough, FE, FH Steinke, G

Sarwar, et al. 1990. In vivo rat

assay for true protein digestibility:

collaborative study. J AOAC 73:801-5.

51.	 Lipton, SH, and CE Bodwell. 1973.

Oxidation of amino acids by dimethyl

sulfoxide. J Agric Food Chem 21:235-

7.

52.	 McClain, PE. 1977. Chemistry of

collagen crosslinking; relationship to

aging and nutrition. Adv Exp Med Biol

86B:603-18.

53.	 McClain, PE, ER Wiley, CE Bodwell,

and I Hornstein. 1971. Aminoacid composition and cross-linking

characteristics of collagen from

intramuscular connective tissue of

striated muscle (Bos Taurus). Int J

Biochem 2:121-4.

54.	 Bodwell, CE, F Irreverre, and I

Hornstein. 1971. Topomyosin B from

the African civet, Civettictis civetta.

Comp Biochem Physiol 40:571-4.

55.	 Stewart, KK, and RF Doherty. 1971.

Affinity chromatography of trypsin

inhibitors on trypsinogen-agarose

exchangers. FEBS Lett 16:226-8.

56.	 Dohm, GL, GJ Kasperik, EB Tapscott,

and GR Beecher. 1980. Effect of

exercise on synthesis and degradation

of muscle protein. Biochem J 188:255-

62.

57.	 Howe, JC, and GR Beecher. 1983.

Dietary protein and phosphorus:

effect on calcium and phosphorus

metabolism in bone, blood and muscle

of rat. J Nutr 113:2085-95.

58.	 Stewart, KK, GR Beecher, and PE

Hare. 1977. Inventors: the United

States of America as represented by

the Secretary of Agriculture, assignee.

Apparatus and method for rapid

analyses of plurality of samples.

United States patent US 4,013,413.

Mar 22.

59.	 Kava, R, MRC Greenwood, and PR

Johnson. 1990. New rat models of

obesity and type II diabetes. Zucker

(fa/fa) rat [Internet]. ILAR J Online

32(3). [cited 2009 Nov 10] Available

from: http://dels-old.nas.edu/ilar_n/

ilarjournal/32_3/32_3Zuckerfafa.

shtml. 	 	 	

60.	 Kurtz, TW, RC Morris, and HA

Pershadsingh. 1989. The Zucker fatty

rat as a genetic model of obesity and

hypertension. Hypertension 13:896-

901.

61.	 Michaelis, OE, and CT Hansen.

1990. New rat models of obesity and

type II diabetes. The spontaneous

hypertensive/NIH-corpulent rat: a new

model for the study of non-insulindependent diabetes mellitus and its

complications [Internet]. ILAR J Online

32(3). [cited 2009 Nov 10] Available

from: http://dels-old.nas.edu/ilar_n/

ilarjournal/32_3/32_3Zuckerfafa.

shtml. 

62.	 Ali, AA, MT Velasquez, CT Hansen,

et al. 2004. Effects of soybean
106 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

isoflavones, probiotics, and their

interactions on lipid metabolism

and endocrine system in an animal

model of obesity and diabetes. J Nutr

Biochem 15:583-90.

63.	 Michaelis, OE, MT Valasquez, AA

Abraham, et al. 1995. Development

and characteristics of a new strain

of obese hyperinsulinemic and

hyperlipidemic Dahl salt-sensitive rat.

The Dahl salt-sensitive/NIH corpulent

rat. Am J Hypertens 8:467-73.

64.	 Chang, ML, EM Schuster, JA Lee,

et al. 1968. Effect of diet, dietary

regimens and strain differences on

some enzyme activities in rat tissues.

J Nutr 96:368-74. 

65.	 Szepesi, B, CD Berdanier, SK

Diachenko, and PB Moser. 1971.

Insulin and enzyme responses of three

strains of rats. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med

137:668-73.

66.	 Berdanier, CD, and MW Marshall.

1971. Biotin intake and insulin

response in adult rats. Nutr Rep Intl

3:383-8.

67.	 Moser, PB, and CD Berdanier. 1974.

Effect of early sucrose feeding on the

metabolic patterns of mature rats. J

Nutr 104:687-94.

68.	 Berdanier, CD. 1975. Effect of

maternal sucrose intake on the

metabolic patterns of mature rat

progeny. Am J Clin Nutr 28:1416-21.

69.	 Chang, ML, and MA Johnson. 1976.

Stoppage of glycogenesis and “overshoot” of induction of lipogenesis and

its related enzyme activities in the liver

of fasted-refed rats. J Nutr 106:136-

41.

70.	 Szepesi, B, and CD Berdanier. 1971.

Time course of the starved-refed

response. J Nutr 101:1563-74.

71.	 Kaul, L, and CD Berdanier. 1975.

Effect of pancreatectomy and

adrenalectomy on the response to

meal feeding. J Nutr 105:1176-85.

72.	 Wurdeman, R, CD Berdanier, and

RB Tobin. 1978. Enzyme overshoot

in starved-refed rats; role of

glucocorticoid. J Nutr 108:1457-63.

73.	 Nace, CS, and B Szepesi. 1976.

Dietary fatty acids on the control of

glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase

and malic enzyme in the starved-refed

rat. J Nutr 106:285-91.

74.	 Nace, CS, B Szepesi, and O Michaelis.

1979. Regulation of glucose-6-

phosphate dehydrogenase and malic

enzyme in liver and adipose tissue:

effect of dietary trilinolein level in

starved-refed and ad libitum-fed rats.

J Nutr 109:1094-102.

75.	 Trout, DL, ES Conway, and JD

Putney. 1977. Dietary influences on

gastric emptying of carbohydrate

versus fat in the rat. J Nutr 107:104-

11.

76.	 Trout, DL, JD Putney, and ES

Conway. 1978. Relative rates of gastric

emptying of glucose vs. fat in rats

fed nonliquid meals. Am J Physiol

234:E660-6.

77.	 Trout, DL, RO Ryan, MC Bickard, and

DJ Brendza. 1982. Gastric emptying of

glucose and nutrient energy in mealfed rats. J Nutr 112:1151-61.

78.	 Kelsay, JL, KM Behall, JM Holden,

and HC Crutchfield. 1972. Pyruvate

and lactate in human blood and saliva

in response to different carbohydrates.

J Nutr 102:661-6.

79.	 Kelsay, JL, KM Behall, and WM Clark.

1974. Glucose, fructose, lactate and

pryruvate in blood and lactate and

pyruvate in parotid saliva in response

to sugars with and without other

foods. Am J Clin Nutr 27:819-25.

80.	 Behall, KM, JL Kelsay, JM Holden,

and WM Clark. 1973. Amylase

and protein in parotid saliva after

load doses of different dietary

carbohydrates. Am J Clin Nutr 26:17-

22.

81.	 Behall, KM, PB Moser, JL Kelsay, and

ES Prather. 1980. The effect of kind

of carbohydrate in the diet and use of

oral contraceptives on metabolism of
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 107

young women: II. Serum lipid levels.

Am J Clin Nutr 33:825-31.

82.	 Behall, KM, PB Moser, JL Kelsay, and

ES Prather. 1980. The effect of kind

of carbohydrate in the diet and use

of oral contraceptives on metabolism

of young women: III. Serum glucose,

insulin, and glucagon. Am J Clin Nutr

33:1041-8.

83.	 SCOGS-69. 1976. Evaluation of

the Health Aspects of Sucrose as a

Food Ingredient. Bethesda, MD: Life

Sciences Research Office, FASEB.

Contract No. FDA 223-75-2004. Also

USFDA/CFSAN. Database on Select

Committee on GRAS Substances

(SCOGS) Reviews [Internet]. U.S. Food

and Drug Administration. [cited 2009

Feb 11] Available from: www.cfsan.fda.

gov/~dms/opascogd.html.

84.	 Reiser, S, and B Szepesi. 1978.

SCOGS report on the health aspects of

sucrose consumption. Am J Clin Nutr

31:9-11.

85.	 Reiser, S, and J Hallfrisch. 1977.

Insulin sensitivity and adipose tissue

weight of rats fed starch or sucrose

diets ad libitum or in meals. J Nutr

107:145-55.

86.	 Reiser, S, HB Handler, LB Gardner,

et al. 1979. Isocaloric exchange of

dietary starch and sucrose in humans.

II. Effect on fasting blood insulin,

glucose, and glucagon and on insulin

and glucose response to a sucrose

load. Am J Clin Nutr 32:2206-16.

87.	 Hallfrisch, J. 1990. Metabolic effects of

dietary fructose. FASEB J 4:2652-60.

88.	 Reiser, S, and J Hallfrisch. 1987.

Metabolic Effects of Dietary Fructose.

Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 167 p.

89.	 Subcommittee on the Tenth Edition

of the RDAs. 1989. Recommended

Dietary Allowances. 10th edition.

Washington, DC: National Academy

Press. 297 p.

90.	 Hallfrisch, J, and S Reiser. 1988.

Dietary carbohydrates in the

prevention and treatment of metabolic

diseases. Am J Clin Nutr 47:163-4.

91.	 Kelsay, JL. 1978. A review of research

on effects of fiber intake on man. Am J

Clin Nutr 31:142-59.

92.	 Kelsay, JL, KM Behall, and ES

Prather. 1979. Effect of fiber from

fruits and vegetables on metabolic

responses of human subjects. II.

Calcium, magnesium, iron, and silicon

balances. Am J Clin Nutr 32:1876-80.

93.	 Kelsay, JL, WM Clark, BJ Herbst, and

ES Prather. 1981. Nutrient utilization

by human subjects consuming fruits

and vegetables as sources of fiber. J

Agric Food Chem 29:461-5.

94.	 Kelsay, JL, HK Goering, KM

Behall, and ES Prather. 1981.

Effect of fiber from fruits and

vegetables on metabolic responses

of human subjects: fiber intakes,

fecal excretions, and apparent

digestibilities. Am J Clin Nutr

34:1849-52.

95.	 Osilesi, O, DL Trout, EE Glover, et al.

1985. Use of xanthan gum in dietary

management of diabetes mellitus. Am

J Clin Nutr 42:597-603.

96.	 McIvor, ME, CC Cummings, MA

Van Duyn, et al. 1986. Long-term

effects of guar gum on blood lipids.

Atherosclerosis 60:7-13.

97.	 Behall, KM, and JC Howe. 1995. Effect

of long-term consumption of amylose

vs amylopectin starch on metabolic

variables in human subjects. Am J

Clin Nutr 61:334-40.

98.	 Behall, KM, and JC Howe. 1995.

Contribution of fiber and resistant

starch to metabolizable energy. Am J

Clin Nutr 62:1158S-60S.

99.	 Howe, JC, WV Rumpler, and

KM Behall. 1996. Dietary starch

composition and level of energy

intake alter nutrient oxidation in

“carbohydrate-sensitive” men. J Nutr

126:2120-9.

100.	 Behall, KM, and J Hallfrisch. 2002.

Plasma glucose and insulin reduction

after consumption of breads varying
108 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

in amylose content. Eur J Clin Nutr

56:913-20.

101.	 Behall, KM, DJ Scholfield, and J

Hallfrisch. 1997. Effect of beta-glucan

level in oat fiber extracts on blood

lipids in men and women. J Am Coll

Nutr 16:46-51.

102.	 Behall, KM, DJ Scholfield, and J

Hallfrisch. 2004. Diets containing

barley significantly reduce lipids in

mildly hypercholesterolemic men and

women. Am J Clin Nutr 80:1185-93.

103.	 Behall, KM, DJ Scholfield, and J

Hallfrisch. 2004. Lipids significantly

reduced by diets containing barley in

moderately hypercholesterolemic men.

J Am Coll Nutr 23:55-62.

104.	 Behall, KM, DJ Scholfield, and J

Hallfrisch. 2006. Whole-grain diets

reduce blood pressure in mildly

hypercholesterolemic men and women. 

J Am Diet Assoc 106:1445-9.

105.	 Hallfrisch, J, DJ Scholfield, and KM

Behall. 2002. Glucose and insulin

responses to a new zero-energy fiber

source. J Am Coll Nutr 21:410-5.

106.	 Food and Nutrition Board. 2005.

Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy,

Carbohydrates, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids,

Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids.

Washington, DC: National Academies

Press. 1,357 p.

107.	 Iacono, JM, DC Zellner, R Paoletti, et

al. 1973. Comparison of blood platelet

and erytrocyte lipids in man in three

age groups from three regions: Milan,

Cincinnati and Sicily. Haemostasis

2:141-62.

108.	 Schoene, NW, JT Judd, MW Marshall,

et al. 1980. Effects of diets varying

in fat and P/S ratio on arachidonic

acid metabolism in human platelets.

Adv Prostaglandin Thromboxane Res

8:1787-9.

109.	 Ferretti, A, and VP Flanagan. 1979.

Simultaneous mass spectrometric

measurement of prostaglandins E1

(PGE1) and PGE2 with a deuterated

internal standard. Lipids 14:483-91.

110.	 Berlin, E, JT Judd, MW Marshall, and

PG Kliman. 1987. Dietary linoleate

increases fluidity and influences

chemical composition of plasma low

density lipoprotein in adult men.

Atherosclerosis 66:215-25.

111.	 Dennis, BH, AG Ershow, E Obarzanek,

and BA Clevidence, eds. 1999. WellControlled Diet Studies in Humans:

A Practical Guide to Design and

Management. Chicago, IL: American

Dietetic Association. 418 p.

112.	 Iacono, JM, JT Judd, MW Marshall, et

al. 1981. The role of dietary essential

fatty acids and prostaglandins in

reducing blood pressure. Prog Lipid

Res 20:349-64.

113.	 Judd, JT, MW Marshall, and J Canary.

1981. Effects of diets varying in fat

and P/S ratio on blood pressure and

blood lipids in adult men. Prog Lipid

Res 20:571-4.

114.	 Ferretti, A, JT Judd, R BallardBarbash, et al. 1989. Modulating

influence of dietary lipid intake on the

prostaglandin system in adult men.

Lipids 24:419-22.

115.	 Judd, JT, MW Marshall, and J

Dupont. 1989. Relationship of dietary

fat to plasma fatty acids, blood

pressure, and urinary eicosanoids in

adult men. J Am Coll Nutr 8:386-99.

116.	 Marshall, MW, JT Judd, EJ Matusik,

Jr, et al. 1986. Effects of low fat

diets varying in P/S ratio on nutrient

intakes, fecal excretion, blood

chemistry profiles, and fatty acids of

adult men. J Am Coll Nutr 5:263-79.

117.	 Jones, DY, JT Judd, PR Taylor, et al.

1987. Influence of caloric contribution

and saturation of dietary fat on

plasma lipids in premenopausal

women. Am J Clin Nutr 45:1451-6.

118.	 Clevidence, BA, JT Judd, A Schatzkin,

et al. 1992. Plasma lipid and

lipoprotein concentrations of men

consuming a low-fat, high-fiber diet.

Am J Clin Nutr 55:689-94.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 109

119.	 Judd, JT, BA Clevidence, RA

Muesing, et al. 1994. Dietary trans

fatty acids: effects on plasma lipids

and lipoproteins of healthy men and

women. Am J Clin Nutr 59:861-8.

120.	 Judd, JT, DJ Baer, BA Clevidence,

et al. 2002. Dietary cis and trans

monounsaturated and saturated FA

and plasma lipids and lipoproteins in

men. Lipids 37:123-31.

121.	 Baer, DJ, JT Judd, BA Clevidence, and

RP Tracy. 2004. Dietary fatty acids

affect plasma markers of inflammation

in healthy men fed controlled diets:

a randomized crossover study. Am J

Clin Nutr 79:969-73.

122.	 Gebauer, SK, F Destaillats, Z

Mouloungul, et al. 2011. Effect

of trans fatty acid isomers from

ruminant sources on risk factors of

cardiovascular disease: study design

and rationale. Contemp Clin Trials

32:569-76.

123.	 Judd, JT, DJ Baer, SC Chen, et al.

2002. Plant sterol esters lower plasma

lipids and most carotenoids in mildly

hypercholesterolemic adults. Lipids

37:33-42.

124.	 Chen, SC, JT Judd, M Kramer, et al.

2009. Phytosterol intake and dietary

fat reduction are independent and

additive in their ability to reduce

plasma LDL cholesterol. Lipids

44:273-81.

125.	 Schoene, NW. 2001. Vitamin E and

omega-3 fatty acids: effectors of

platelet responsiveness. Nutrition

17:793-6.

126.	 Schoene, NW, and CA Guidry. 1999.

Dietary soy isoflavones inhibit

activation of rat platelets. J Nutr

Biochem 10:421-6.

127.	 Park, Y, NW Schoene, and WS

Harris. 2002. Mean platelet volume

as an indicator of platelet activation:

methodological issues. Platelets

13:301-6.

128.	 Clevidence, BA, ME Reichman, JT

Judd, et al. 1995. Effects of alcohol

consumption on lipoproteins of

premenopausal women. A controlled

diet study. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc

Biol 59:179-84.

129.	 Reichman, ME, JT Judd, C

Longcope, et al. 1993. Effects of

alcohol consumption on plasma and

urinary hormone concentrations in

premenopausal women. J Natl Cancer

Inst 85:861-8.

130.	 Dorgan, JF, DJ Baer, PS Albert, et

al. 2001. Serum hormones and the

alcohol-breast cancer association

in postmenopausal women. J Natl

Cancer Inst 93:710-5.

131.	 Nair, PP. 1984. Diet, nutrition intake,

and metabolism in populations at high

and low risk of colon cancers. Preface.

Am J Clin Nutr 40:879.

132.	 Schiffman, MH, RL Van Tassell, A

Robinson, et al. 1989. Case-control

study of colorectal cancer and

fecapentaene excretion. Cancer Res

49:1322-6.

133.	 Schiffman, MH, RL Van Tassell, AW

Andrews, et al. 1989. Fecapentaene

concentrations and mutagenicity in

718 North American stool samples.

Mutat Res 222:351-7.

134.	 Nair, PP, S Shami, E Sainz, et al.

1991. Quantitative assessment of the

genotoxicity of fecapentaenes. Mutat

Res 260:153-7.

135.	 Albaugh, GP, V Iyengar, A Lohani, et

al. 1992. Isolation of exfoliated colonic

epithelial cells, a novel, non-invasive

approach to the study of cellular

markers. Int J Cancer 52:347-50.

136.	 Lagerholm, S, S Lagerholm, S Dutta,

and P Nair. 2005. Non-invasive

detection of c-myc p64, c-myc p67 and

c-erbb-2 in colorectal cancer. Scan J

Gastroenterol 40:1343-50.

137.	 Mertz, W, and JL Kelsay. 1984.

Rationale and design of the Beltsville

one-year dietary intake study. Am J

Clin Nutr 40:1323-6.

138.	 Kim, WW, JL Kelsay, JT Judd, et

al. 1984. Evaluation of long-term
110 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

dietary intakes of adults consuming

self-selected diets. Am J Clin Nutr

40:1327-32.

139.	 Kim, WW, W Mertz, JT Judd, et al.

1984. Effect of making duplicate

food collections on nutrient intakes

calculated from diet records. Am J

Clin Nutr 40:1333-7.

140.	 Mertz, W, JC Tsui, JT Judd, et al.

1991. What are people really eating?

The relation between energy intake

derived from estimated diet records

and intake determined to maintain

body weight. Am J Clin Nutr 54:291-5.

141.	 Mertz, W. 1992. Food intake

measurements: is there a ‘gold

standard’? J Am Diet Assoc 92:1463-

5.

142.	 Sweeney, JP, and AC Marsh. 1973.

Liver storage of vitamin A in rats

fed carotene stereoisomers. J Nutr

103:20-5.

143.	 McLaughlin, L. 1927. Utilization of

the calcium of spinach. J Biol Chem

74:455-62.

144.	 Hathaway, ML. 1962. Magnesium in

Human Nutrition. Home Econ Res

Rpt No. 19. Washington, DC: US

Department of Agriculture. 94 p.

145.	 Hopkins, LL, Jr, and HE Mohr. 1974.

Vanadium as an essential nutrient.

Fed Proc 33:1773-5.

146.	 Morris, ER, and R. Ellis. 1976.

Isolation of monoferric phytate from

wheat bran and its biological value

as an iron source to the rat. J Nutr

106:753-60.

147.	 Lipschitz, DA, KM Simpson, JD Cook,

and ER Morris. 1979. Absorption of

monoferric phytate by dogs. J Nutr

109:1154-60.

148.	 Simpson, KM, ER Morris, and JD

Cook. 1981. The inhibitory effect of

bran on iron absorption in man. Am J

Clin Nutr 34:1469-78.

149.	 Toepfer, EW, W Mertz, EE Roginski,

and MM Polansky. 1973. Chromium in

foods in relation to biological activity.

J Agric Food Chem 21:69-71.

150.	 Toepfer, EW, W Mertz, MM Polansky,

et al. 1976. Preparation of chromiumcontaining material of glucose

tolerance factor activity from brewer’s

yeast extracts and by synthesis. J

Agric Food Chem 25:162-6.

151.	 Guthrie, BE, WR Wolf , and C Veillon.

1978. Background correction and

related problems in the determination

of chromium in urine by graphite

furnace atomic absorption

spectrometry. Anal Chem 50:1900-2.

152.	 Veillon, C, WR Wolf, and BE Guthrie.

1979. Determination of chromium in

biological materials by stable isotope

dilution. Anal Chem 51:1022-4.

153.	 Mertz, W. 1998. Chromium research

from a distance: from 1959-1980. J

Am Col Nutr 17:544-7.

154.	 Veillon, C, SA Lewis, KY Patterson, et

al. 1985. Characterization of a bovine

serum reference material for major,

minor and trace elements. Anal Chem

57:2106-9.

155.	 Veillon, C. 1986. Trace element

analysis of biological samples. Anal

Chem 58:851A-66A.

156.	 Potter, JF, P Levin, RA Anderson,

et al. 1985. Glucose metabolism

in glucose-intolerant older people

during chromium supplementation.

Metabolism 34:199-204.

157.	 Anderson, RA, and AS Kozlovsky.

1985. Chromium intake, absorption

and excretion of subjects consuming

self-selected diets. Am J Clin Nutr

41:1177-83.

158.	 Kozolovsky, AS, PB Moser, S Reiser,

and RA Anderson. 1986. Effects of

diets high in simple sugars on urinary

chromium losses. Metabolism 35:515-

8.

159.	 Anderson, RA, NA Bryden, MM

Polansky, and PA Deuster. 1988.

Exercise effects on chromium

excretion of trained and untrained

men consuming a constant diet. J

Appl Physiol 64:249-52.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 111

160.	 Anderson, RA, MM Polansky, NA

Bryden, et al. 1983. Chromium

supplementation of human subjects:

effects on glucose, insulin, and lipid

variables. Metabolism 32:894-9.

161.	 Anderson, RA, MM Polansky,

NA Bryden, et al. 1987. Effects

of supplemental chromium on

patients with symptoms of reactive

hypoglycemia. Metabolism 36:351-5.

162.	 Anderson, RA, N Cheng, NA Bryden,

et al. 1997. Elevated intakes of

supplemental chromium improve

glucose and insulin variables in

individuals with type 2 diatetes.

Diabetes 46:1786-91.

163.	 Wang, ZQ, J Qin, J Martin, et al.

2007. Phenotype of subjects with type

2 dieabetes mellitus may determine

clinical response to chromium

supplementation. Metabolism

56:1652-5.

164.	 Anderson, RA, NA Bryden, and MM

Polansky. 1992. Dietary chromium

intake. Freely chosen diets,

institutional diet, and individual foods.

Biol Trace Elem Res 32:117-21.

165.	 Anderson, RA, MM Polansky, and NA

Bryden. 2004. Stability and absorption

of chromium and absorption of

chromium histidinate complexes

by humans. Biol Trace Elem Res

101:211-8.

166.	 Anderson, RA, NA Bryden, and MM

Polansky. 1997. Lack of toxicity of

chromium chloride and chromium

picolinate in rats. J Am Coll Nutr

16:273-9.

167.	 Khan, A, NA Bryden, MM Polansky,

and RA Anderson. 1990. Insulin

potentiating factor and chromium

content of selected foods and spices.

Biol Trace Elem Res 24:183-8.

168.	 Anderson, RA, and MM Polansky.

2002. Tea enhances insulin activity. J

Agric Food Chem 50:7182-6.

169.	 Anderson, RA. 2008. Chromium and

polyphenols from cinnamon improve

insulin sensitivity. Proc Nutr Soc

67:48-53.

170.	 Cao, H, I Hininger-Favier, MA Kelly, et

al. 2007. Green tea polyphenol extract

regulates the expression of genes

involved in glucose uptake and insulin

signaling in rats fed a high fructose

diet. J Agric Food Chem 55:6372-8.

171.	 Levander, OA, VC Morris, and DJ

Higgs. 1973. Selenium as a catalyst

for the reduction of cytochrome C by

glutathione. Biochemistry 12:4591-5.

172.	 Levander, OA. 1982. Selenium:

biochemical actions, interactions and

some human health implications. In

AS Prasad, ed, Clinical, Biochemical

and Nutritional Aspects of Trace

Elements, pp. 345-368. New York, NY:

Alan R. List.

173.	 Levander, OA, and VC Morris. 1984.

Dietary selenium levels needed to

maintain balance in North American

adults consuming self-selected diets.

Am J Clin Nutr 39:809-16.

174.	 Swanson, CA, DC Reamer, C Veillon, et

al. 1983. Quantitative and qualitative

aspects of selenium utilization in

pregnant and nonpregnant women:

an application of stable isotope

methodology. Am J Clin Nutr 38:169-

80.

175.	 Swanson, CA, DC Reamer, C Veillon,

and OA Levander. 1983. Intrinsic

labeling of chicken products with a

stable isotope of selenium (76SE). J

Nutr 113:793-9.

176.	 Levander, OA. 1991. Scientific

rationale for the 1989 Recommended

Dietary Allowance for selenium. J Am

Diet Assoc 91:1572-6.

177.	 Swanson, CA, MP Longnecker, C

Veillon, et al. 1990. Relation of

selenium intake, age, gender, and

smoking to indices of selenium status

of adults residing in a seleniferous

area. Am J Clin Nutr 52:858-62.

178.	 Levander, OA, DP De Loach, VC

Morris, and PB Moser. 1983. Platelet

glutathione peroxidase activity as an
112 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

index of selenium status in rats. J

Nutr 113:55-63.

179.	 Levander, OA, G Alfthan, H Arvilommi,

et al. 1983. Bioavailability of selenium

to Finnish men as assessed by platelet

glutathione peroxidase activity and

other blood parameters. Am J Clin

Nutr 37:887-97.

180.	 Levander, OA, and AL Ager. 1993.

Malarial parasites and antioxidant

nutrients. Parasitology 107:S95-S106.

181.	 Beck, MA, PC Kolbeck, LH Rohr,

et al. 1994. Vitamin E deficiency

intensifies the myocardial injury of

coxsackievirus B3 infection of mice. J

Nutr 124:345-58.

182.	 Beck, MA, PC Kolbeck, LH Rohr, et

al. 1994. Benign human enterovirus

becomes virulent in selenium-deficient

mice. J Med Virol 43:166-70.

183.	 Beck, MA, Q Shi, VC Morris,

and OA Levander. 1995. Rapid

genomic evolution of a non-virulent

coxsackievirus B3 in seleniumdeficient mice results in selection of

identical virulent isolates. Nature Med

1:433-6.

184.	 Beck, MA, HK Nelson, Q Shi, et al.

2001. Selenium deficiency increases

the pathology of an influenza virus

infection. FASEB J 15:1481-3.

185.	 Gomez, RM, Levander, OA, and SterinBorda L. 2003. Reduced inotropic

heart response in selenium-deficient

mice relates with inducible nitric oxide

synthase. Am J Physiol 284:H442-8.

186.	 Smith, AD, S Botera, and OA

Levander. 2008. Copper deficiency

increases the virulence of amyocarditic

and myocarditic strains of

coxsackievirus B3 in mice. J Nutr

138:849-55.

187.	 Sinha, R, N Rothman, CP Salmon, et

al. 1998. Heterocyclic amine content

in beef cooked by different methods,

to varying degrees of doneness, and

gravy made from meat drippings. Food

Chem Toxicol 36:289-97.

188.	 Sinha, R, N Rothman, ED Brown, et

al. 1994. Pan-fried meat containing

high levels of heterocyclic aromatic

amines but low levels of polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons induces

cytochrome P4501A2 activity in

humans. Cancer Res 54:6154-9.

189.	 Hambidge, KM, C Hambidge, M

Jacobs, and JD Baum. 1972. Low

levels of zinc in hair, anorexia, poor

growth and hypogeusia in children.

Pediatric Res 6:868-74.

190.	 Smith, JC, and K Schwarz. 1967. A

controlled environment system for

new trace element deficiencies. J Nutr

93:182-8.

191.	 Nielsen, FH. 1971. Studies on the

essentiality of nickel. In W Mertz 

and W Cornatzer, eds, Newer Trace

Elements in Nutrition, pp. 215-253.

New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.

192.	 Smith, JC, Jr, GP Butrimovitz, and

WC Purdy. 1979. Direct measurement

of zinc in plasma by atomic absorption

spectroscopy. Clin Chem 25:1487-91.

193.	 Brown, ED, MA McGuckin, M Wilson,

and JC Smith, Jr. 1976. Zinc in

selected hospital diets. Comparison

of analysis vs. calculation. J Am Diet

Assoc 69:632-5.

194.	 Hunt, IF, NJ Murphy, J Gomez, and

JC Smith, Jr. 1979. Dietary zinc

intake of low-income pregnant women

of Mexican descent. Am J Clin Nutr

32:1511-8.

195.	 Smith, JC, JA Zeller, ED Brown, and

SC Ong. 1976. Elevated plasma zinc: a

heritable anomaly. Science 193:496-8.

196.	 Brown, ED, W Chan, and JC Smith,

Jr. 1978. Bone mineralization during

a developing zinc deficiency. Proc Soc

Exp Biol 157:211-4.

197.	 Brown, ED, NR Calhoun, RH Larson,

and JC Smith, Jr. 1979. An effect of

zinc deficiency on dental caries. Life

Sci 24:2093-7.

198.	 Smith, JC, Jr, ER Morris, and R.

Ellis. 1983. Zinc: requirements,

bioavailabilities and recommended
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 113

dietary allowances. Prog Clin Biol Res

129:147-69.

199.	 Sandstead, HH, and JC Smith, Jr.

1996. Deliberations and evaluations

of approaches, endpoints and

paradigms of determining zinc dietary

recommendations. J Nutr 126:2410S8S.

200.	 Smith, JC. 1980. The vitamin A-zinc

connection: a review. Ann N Y Acad

Sci 355:62-75.

201.	 Udomkesmalee, E, S. Dhanamitta, J.

Yhoung-Aree, et al. 1990. Biochemical

evidence suggestive of suboptimal zinc

and vitamin A status in schoolchildren

in northeast Thailand. Am J Clin Nutr

52:564-7.

202.	 Udomkesmalee, E, S Dhanamitta, S

Sirisinha, et al. 1992. Effect of vitamin

A and zinc supplementation on the

nutriture of children in northeast

Thailand. Am J Clin Nutr 56:50-7.

203.	 Kramer, TR, E Udomkesmalee, S

Dhanamitta, et al. 1993. Lymphocyte

responsiveness of children

supplemented with vitamin A and

zinc. Am J Clin Nutr 58:566-70.

204.	 Cohen, AM, A Teitelbaum, E Miller,

et al. 1982. Effect of copper on

carbohydrate metabolism in rats. Isr J

Med Sci 18:840-4.

205.	 Fields, M, RJ Ferretti, JC Smith,

Jr, and S Reiser. 1983. Effect of

copper deficiency on metabolism and

mortality in rats fed sucrose or starch

diets. J Nutr 113:1335-45.

206.	 Reiser, S, RJ Ferretti, M Fields, and

JC Smith, Jr. 1983. Role of dietary

fructose in the enhancement of 

mortality and biochemical changes

associated with copper deficiency in

rats. Am J Clin Nutr 38:214-22.

207.	 Fields, M, RJ Ferretti, JM Judge, et

al. 1985. Effects of different dietary

carbohydrates on hepatic enzymes of

copper-deficient rats. Proc Soc Exp

Biol Med 178:362-6.

208.	 Redman, RS, M Fields, S Reiser, and

JC Smith, Jr. 1988. Dietary fructose

exacerbates the cardiac abnormalities

of copper deficiency in rats. 

Atherosclerosis 74:203-14.

209.	 Fields, M, J Holbrook, D Scholfield, et

al. 1986. Effect of fructose or starch

on copper-67 absorption and excretion

by the rat. J Nutr 116:625-32.

210.	 Fields, M, N Craft, C Lewis, et al.

1986. Contrasting effects of the

stomach and small intestine of rats on

copper absorption. J Nutr 116:2219-

28.

211.	 Holbrook, J, M Fields, JC Smith,

Jr, and S Reiser. 1986. Tissue

distribution and excretion of

copper-67 intraperitoneally

administered to rats fed fructose or

starch. J Nutr 116:831-8.

212.	 Reiser, S, JC Smith, Jr, W Mertz, et

al. 1985. Indices of copper status

in humans consuming a typical

American diet containing either

fructose or starch. Am J Clin Nutr

42:242-51.

213.	 Fields, M, CG Lewis, T Beal, et al.

1987. Sexual differences in the

expression of copper deficiency. Proc

Soc Exp Biol Med 186:183-7.

214.	 Lewis, CG, M Fields, and T Beal.

1990. The effect of various levels of

fructose in a copper-deficient diet on

Cu deficiency in male rats. Br J Nutr

63:387-95.

215.	 Silverman, S, M Fields, and C Lewis.

1990. The effect of vitamin E on lipid

peroxidation in the copper-deficient

rat. J Nutr Biochem 1:98-101.

216.	 Lewis, CG, M Fields, WA Burns, and

MD Lure. 1993. Effect of coenzyme

Q10 supplementation on cardiac

hypertrophy of male rats consuming

a high-fructose, low-copper diet. Biol

Trace Elem Res 37:137-49.

217.	 Fields, M, CG Lewis, and MD Lure.

1992. Copper deficiency in rats: the

effect of clofibrate. J Am Coll Nutr

11:399-404.

218.	 Field, M, CG Lewis, and MD Lure.

1992. Garlic oil extract ameliorates the
114 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

severity of copper deficiency. J Am Coll

Nutr 11:334-9.

219.	 Fields, M, CG Lewis, MD Lure, et al.

1991. The severity of copper deficiency

can be ameliorated by deferoxamine.

Metabolism 40:1-3.

220.	 Fields, M, CG Lewis, MD Lure, et al.

1993. Low dietary iron prevents free

radical formation and heart pathology

of copper-deficient rats fed fructose.

Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 202:225-32.

221.	 Fields, M, CG Lewis, and MD Lure.

1994. Alcohol consumption mimics

the effects of a high-fructose, lowcopper diet in rats. Alcohol 11:17-23.

222.	 Fields, M, CG Lewis, and MD Lure.

1993. Copper deficiency in rats: the

effect of type of dietary protein. J Am

Coll Nutr 12:303-6.

223.	 Schoenemann, HM, ML Failla, and

M Fields. 1990. Consequences of

copper deficiency are not differentially

influenced by carbohydrate source

in young pigs fed a dried skim milkbased diet. Biol Trace Elem Res 25:21-

33.

224.	 Fields, M, and CG Lewis. 1999.

Dietary fructose but not starch

is responsible for hyperlipidemia

associated with copper deficiency in

rats: effect of high-fat diet. J Am Coll

Nutr 18:83-7.

225.	 Smith, JC, Jr, ML Failla, M Fields, et

al. 1987. Lack of an effect of dietary

fructose on severity of zinc deficiency

in rats. J Nutr 117:1443-6.

226.	 Scholfield, DJ, S Reiser, M Fields,

et al. 1990. Dietary copper, simple

sugars, and metabolic changes in pigs.

J Nutr Biochem 1:362-8.

227.	 Schoenemann, HM, ML Failla, and NC

Steele. 1990. Consequences of severe

copper deficiency are independent of

dietary carbohydrate in young pigs.

Am J Clin Nutr 52:147-54.

228.	 Vadlamuni, RK, RJ McCormick,

DM Medeiros, et al. 1993. Copper

deficiency alters collagen types and

covalent cross-linking in swine

myocardium and cardiac valves. Am J

Physiol 264:H2154-61.

229.	 Sloger, MS, and RD Reynolds. 1980.

Effects of pregnancy and lactation

on pyridoxal 5’-phosphate in plasma,

blood and liver of rats fed three levels

of vitamin B-6. J Nutr 110:1517-24.

230.	 Andon, MB, MP Howard, PB Moser,

and RD Reynolds. 1985. Nutritionally

relevant supplementation of vitamin

B6 in lactating women: effect on

plasma prolactin. Pediatrics 76:769-

73.

231.	 Andon, MB, RD Reynolds, PB MoserVeillon, and MP Howard. 1989. Dietary

intake of total and glycosylated

vitamin B-6 and the vitamin B-6

nutritional status of unsupplemented

lactating women and their infants. Am

J Clin Nutr 50:1050-8.

232.	 Reynolds, RD, JA Lickteig, MP

Howard, and PA Deuster. 1998.

Intakes of high fat and high

carbohydrate foods by humans

increased with exposure to increasing

altitude during an expedition to Mt.

Everest. J Nutr 128:50-5.

233.	 Reynolds, RD, JA Lickteig, PA Deuster,

et al. 1999. Energy metabolism

increases and regional body fat

decreases while regional muscle mass

is spared in humans climbing Mt.

Everest. J Nutr 129:1307-14.

234.	 Han, O, ML Failla, AD Hill, et al. 1994.

Inositol phosphates inhibit uptake and

transport of iron and zinc by a human

intestinal cell line. J Nutr 124:580-7.

235.	 Han, O, ML Failla, AD Hill, et al. 1995.

Reduction of Fe(III) is required for

uptake of nonheme iron by Caco-2

cells. J Nutr 125:1291-9.

236.	 Caperna, TJ, ML Failla, ET Kornegay,

et al. 1985. Isolation and culture of

parenchymal and nonparenchymal

cells from neonatal swine liver. J Anim

Sci 61:1576-86.

237.	 Bala, S, ML Failla, and JK Lunney.

1991. Alterations in splenic lymphoid

cell subsets and activation antigens in
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 115

copper-deficient rats. J Nutr 121:745-

53.

238.	 Bala, S, JK Lunney, and ML Failla.

1992. Effects of copper deficiency

on T-cell mitogenic responsiveness

and phenotypic profile of blood

mononuclear cells from swine. Am J

Vet Res 53:1231-5.

239.	 Nichols, BL. 1994. Atwater and USDA

nutrition research and service: a

prologue of the past century. J Nutr

124:1718S-27S.

240.	 Seale, JL, WV Rumpler, and PW Moe.

1991. Description of a direct-indirect

room-sized calorimeter. Am J Physiol

260:E306-20.

241.	 Spears, KE, H Kim, KM Behall,

and JM Conway. 2009. Handheld indirect calorimeter offers

advantages compared with prediction

equations, in a group of overweight

women, to determine resting energy

expenditures and estimated total

energy expenditures during research

screening. J Am Diet Assoc 109:836-

45.

242.	 Rumpler, WV, JL Seale, JM Conway,

and PW Moe. 1990. Repeatability

of 24-h energy expenditure

measurements in humans by indirect

calorimetry. Am J Clin Nutr 51:147-

52.

243.	 Seale, JL, and WV Rumpler. 1997.

Synchronous direct gradient layer

and indirect room calorimetry. J Appl

Physiol 83:1775-81.

244.	 Miles, CW, NP Wong. WV Rumpler, and

J Conway. 1993. Effect of circadian

variation in energy expenditure,

within-subject variation and weight

reduction on thermic effect of food.

Eur J Clin Nutr 47:274-84.

245.	 Rumpler, WV, JL Seale, CW Miles,

and CE Bodwell. 1991. Energy-intake

restriction and diet-composition effects

on energy expenditure in men. Am J

Clin Nutr 53:430-6.

246.	 Paul, DR, JA Novotny, and WV

Rumpler. 2004. Effect of the

interaction of sex and food intake

on the relation between energy

expenditure and body composition.

Am J Clin Nutr 79:385-9.

247.	 Baer, DJ, WV Rumpler, CW Miles,

and GC Fahey, Jr. 1997. Dietary fiber

decreases the metabolizable energy

content and nutrient digestibility of

mixed diets fed to humans. J Nutr

127:579-86.

248.	 Rumpler, WV, DG Rhodes, DJ Baer,

et al. 1996. Energy value of moderate

alcohol consumption by humans. Am

J Clin Nutr 64:108-14.

249.	 Rumpler, W, J Seale, B Clevidence,

et al. 2001. Oolong tea increases

metabolic rate and fat oxidation in

men. J Nutr 131:2848-52.

250.	 Rumpler, WV, M Kramer, DG Rhodes,

and DR Paul. 2006. The impact of the

covert manipulation of macronutrient

intake on energy intake and the

variability in daily food intake in

nonobese men. Int J Obes (London)

30:774-81.

251.	 Speakman, JR. 1998. The history and

theory of the doubly labeled water

technique. Am J Clin Nutr 68:932S8S.

252.	 Seale, J, C Miles, and CE Bodwell.

1989. Sensitivity of methods for

calculating energy expenditure by use

of doubly labeled water. J Appl Physiol

66:644-52.

253.	 Seale, JL, WV Rumpler, JM Conway,

and CW Miles. 1990. Comparison of

doubly labeled water, intake-balance,

and direct- and indirect-calorimetry

methods for measuring energy

expenditure in adult men. Am J Clin

Nutr 52:66-71.

254.	 Seale, JL, JM Conway, and JJ Canary.

1993. Seven-day validation of doubly

labeled water method using indirect

room calorimetry. J Appl Physiol

74:402-9.

255.	 Seale, JL, and WV Rumpler. 1997.

Comparison of energy expenditure

measurements by diet records, energy
116 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

intake balance, doubly labeled water

and room calorimetry. Eur J Clin Nutr

51:856-63.

256.	 Conway, JM, JL Seale, and DR

Jacobs, Jr, et al. 2002. Comparison

of energy expenditure estimates from

doubly labeled water, a physical

activity questionnaire, and physical

activity records. Am J Clin Nutr

75:519-25.

257.	 Mahabir, S, DJ Baer, C Giffen, et

al. 2006. Comparison of energy

expenditure estimates from 4

physical activity questionnaires with

doubly labeled water estimates in

postmenopausal women. Am J Clin

Nutr 84:230-6.

258.	 Mahabir S, DJ Baer, C Giffen, et al.

2006. Calorie intake misreporting

by diet record and food frequency

questionnaire compared to doubly

labeled water among postmenopausal

women. Eur J Clin Nutr 60:561-5.

259.	 Moshfegh, AJ, DG Rhodes, DJ Baer,

et al. 2008. The US Department of

Agriculture Automated Multiple-Pass

Method reduces bias in the collection

of energy intakes. Am J Clin Nutr

88:324-32.

260.	 Conway, JM, KH Norris, and CE

Bodwell. 1984. A new approach for

the estimation of body composition:

infrared interactance. Am J Clin Nutr

40:1123-30.

261.	 Zillikens, MC, and JM Conway. 1990.

Anthropometry in blacks: applicability

of generalized skinfold equations and

differences in fat patterning between

blacks and whites. Am J Clin Nutr

53:45-51.

262.	 Conway, JM, FF Chanetsa, and P

Wang. 1997. Intraabdominal adipose

tissue and anthropometric surrogates

in African American women with

upper- and lower-body obesity. Am J

Clin Nutr 66:1345-51.

263.	 Conway, JM. 1995. Ethnicity and

energy stores. Am J Clin Nutr

62:1067S-71S.

264.	 Mitchell, AD, JM Conway, and WJ

Potts. 1996. Body composition

analysis of pigs by dual-energy x-ray

absorptiometry. J Anim Sci 74:2663-

71.

265.	 Mitchell, AD, RW Rosebrough, and

JM Conway. 1997. Body composition

analysis of chickens by dual energy

x-ray absorptiometry. Poult Sci

76:1746-52.

266.	 Albanes, D, JM Conway, PR Taylor, et

al. 1990. Validation and comparison of

eight physical activity questionnaires.

Epidemiology 1:65-71.

267.	 Conway, JM, ML Irwin, and BE

Ainsworth. 2002. Estimating energy

expenditure from the Minnesota

Leisure Time Physical Activity and

Tecumseh Occupational Activity

questionnaires—a doubly labeled

water validation. J Clin Epidemiol

55:392-9.

268.	 Bieri, JG, ED Brown, and JC Smith.

1985. Determination of individual

carotenoids in human plasma by high

performance liquid chromatography. J

Liq Chromatogr 8:473-84.

269.	 Craft, NE, ED Brown, and JC Smith,

Jr. 1988. Effects of storage and

handling conditions on concentrations

of individual carotenoids, retinol and

tocopherol in plasma. Clin Chem

34:44-8.

270.	 Khachik, F, GR Beecher, and MB

Goli, et al. 1992. Separation and

identification of carotenoids and their

oxidation products in the extracts of

human plasma. Anal Chem 64:2111-

22.

271.	 Khachik, F, CJ Spangler, JC Smith,

Jr. 1997. Identification, quantification,

and relative concentrations of

carotenoids and their metabolites in

human milk and serum. Anal Chem

69:1873-81.

272.	 Brown, ED, A Rose, N Craft, et al.

1989. Concentrations of carotenoids,

retinol, and tocopherol in plasma in
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 117

response to ingestion of a meal. Clin

Chem 35:310-2.

273.	 Brown, ED, MS Micozzi, NE Craft,

et al. 1989. Plasma carotenoids in

normal men after a single ingestion of

vegetables or purified beta-carotene.

Am J Clin Nutr 49:1258-65.

274.	 Clevidence, BS, and JG Bieri. 1993.

Association of carotenoids with human

plasma lipoproteins. Methods Enzymol

214:33-46.

275.	 Khachik, F, inventor. 1995. The

Catholic University of America,

Washington, DC, assignee. Process

for isolation, purification, and

recrystallization of lutein from

saponified marigold oleoresin and

uses thereof. United States patent US

5,382,714. 1995 Jan 17.

276.	 Khachik, F, GR Beecher, and JC

Smith, Jr. 1995. Lutein, lycopene

and their oxidative metabolites in

chemoprevention of cancer. J Cell

Biochem Suppl 22:236-46.

277.	 Paetau, I, F Khachik, ED Brown,

et al. 1998. Chronic ingestion of

lycopene-rich tomato juice or lycopene

supplements significantly increases

plasma concentrations of lycopene and

related tomato carotenoids in humans.

Am J Clin Nutr 68:1187-95.

278.	 Clevidence, BA, F Khachik, ED Brown,

et al. 1997. In O Aruoma and S

Cuppert, eds, Human Consumption

of Carotenoid-Rich Vegetables.

Antioxidant Methodology, pp. 53-63.

Champaign, IL: AOCS Press.

279.	 Panel on Dietary Antioxidants and

Related Compounds, Subcommittees

on Upper Reference Levels of Nutrients

and Interpretation and Uses of Dietary

Reference Intakes, and the Standing

Committee on the Scientific Evaluation

of Dietary Reference Intakes, Food and

Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine.

2000. Dietary Reference Intakes for

Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Selenium,

and Carotenoids. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press. 507 p.

280.	 During, A, A Nagao, and JC Smith, Jr.

2002. Measurement of beta-carotene

15, 15’-dioxygenase activity by

reverse-phase HPLC. Methods Mol Biol

186:233-40.

281.	 During, A, MK Smith, JB Piper, and

JC Smith. 2001. Beta-Carotene 15,

15’-dioxygenase activity in human

tissues and cells: evidence of an iron

dependency. J Nutr Biochem 12:640-

7.

282.	 During, A, M Fields, CG Lewis, and

JC Smith. 1999. Beta-Carotene 15,

15’-dioxygenase activity is responsive

to copper and iron concentrations in

rat small intestine. J Am Coll Nutr

18:309-15.

283.	 During, A, and EH Harrison. 2004.

Intestinal absorption and metabolism

of carotenoids: insights from cell

culture. Arch Biochem Biophys

430:77-88.

284.	 During, A, and EH Harrison.

2007. Mechanisms of provitamin A

(carotenoid) and vitamin A (retinol)

transport into and out of intestinal

Caco-2 cells. J Lipid Res 48:2283-94.

285.	 Charron, CS, BA Clevidence, SJ Britz,

and JA Novotny. 2007. Effect of dose

size on bioavailability of acylated

and nonacylated anthocyanin from

red cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.

var. Capitata). J Agric Food Chem

55:5354-62.

286.	 Carkeet, C, BA Clevidence, and BA

Novotny. 2008. Anthocyanin excretion

by humans increases linearly with

increasing strawberry dose. J Nutr

138:897-902.

287.	 Kurlich, AC, BA Clevidence, SJ

Britz, et al. 2005. Plasma and urine

responses are lower for acylated vs.

non-acylated anthocyanins from raw

and cooked purple carrots. J Agric

Food Chem 53:6537-42.

288.	 Charron, CS, AC Kurlich, BA

Clevidence, et al. 2009. Bioavailability

of anthocyanins from purple carrot
118 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

juice: effects of acylation and plant

matrix. J Agric Food Chem 57:1226-

30.

289.	 de Brito, ES, RE de Araújo, C Alves,

et al. 2007. Anthocyanins present

in selected tropical fruits: acerola,

jambolão, jussara, and guarjiru. J

Agric Food Chem 55:9389-94.

290.	 Novotny, JA, SJ Britz, F Caulfield, et

al. 2003. Intrinsic labeling of plants

for bioavailability studies. Adv Exp

Biol Med 537:131-9.

291.	 Novotny, JA, AC Kurlich, SJ Britz,

and BA Clevidence. 2005. Plasma

appearance of labeled beta-carotene,

lutein, and retinol in humans after

consumption of isotopically labeled

kale. J Lipid Res 46:1896-903.

292.	 Kurilich, AC, SJ Britz, BA

Clevidence, and JA Novotny. 2003.

Isotopic labeling and LC-APCIMS quantification for investigating

absorption of carotenoids and

phylloquinone from kale (Brassica

oleraciea). J Agric Food Chem

51:4877-83.

293.	 Novotny, JA, AC Kurlich, SJ Britz,

and BA Clevidence. 2010. Vitamin

K absorption and kinetics in human

subjects after consumption of

13C-labelled phylloquinone from kale.

Br J Nutr 104:858-62.

294.	 Charronc, CS, SJ Britz, RM Mirecki,

et al. 2008. Isotopic labeling of

red cabbage anthocyanins with

atmospheric 13-CO2. J Am Soc Hort

Sci 133:351-9.

295.	 Warden, BA, LS Smith, GR Beecher,

et al. 2001. Catechins are bioavailable

in men and women drinking black tea

throughout the day. J Nutr 131:1731-

7.

296.	 Davies, MJ, JT Judd, DJ Baer, et al.

2003. Black tea consumption reduces

total and LDL cholesterol in mildly

hypercholesterolemic adults. J Nutr

133:3298S-302S.

297.	 Baer, DJ, JA Novotny, GK Harris, et

al. 2011. Oolong tea does not impove

glucose metabolism in non-diabetic

adults. Eur J Clin Nutr 65:87-93.

298.	 Park, JB, and NW Schoene. 2006.

Clovamide-type phenylpropenoic acid

amides, n-coumaroyldopamine and

n-caffeoyldepamine, inhibit plateletleucocyte interactions via suppressing

p-selectin expression. J Pharmacol

Exp Therap 317:813-9.

299.	 Park, JB. 2007. Caffedymine from

cocoahas COX inhibitory activity

suppressing the expression of a

platelet activation marker, P-selectin.

J Agric Food Chem 55:2171-5.

300.	 Park, JB. 2008. Serotomide and

safflomide modulate forskolinstimulated cAMP formation via 5-HT1

receptor. Phytomedicine 15:1093-8.

301.	 Takahashi, Y, JA Lavigne, SD

Hursting, et al. 2004. Using DNA

microarray analyses to elucidate

the effects genistein in androgenresponsive prostate cancer cells:

identification of novel targets. Mol

Carcinogenesis 41:108-19.

302.	 Takahashi, Y, SD Hursting, SN

Perkins, et al. 2006. Genistein affects

androgen responsive genes through

both androgen- and estrogen-induced

signaling pathways. Mol Carcinogen

45:18-25.

303.	 Novotny, JA, LA Zech, HC Furr, et

al. 1966. Mathematical modeling in

nutrition: constructing a physiologic

compartmental model of the dynamics

of b-carotene metabolism. Adv Food

Nutr Res 40:25-54.

304.	 Diwadkar-Navsariwala, V, JA

Novotny, DM Gustin, et al. 2003. A

physiological pharmacokinetic model

describing the disposition of lycopene

in healthy men. J Lipid Res 44:1927-

39.

305.	 Pawlosky, RJ, JR Hibbeln, JA Novotny,

and N Salem, Jr. 2001. Physiological 

compartmental analysis of alphalinolenic acid metabolism in adult

humans. J Lipid Res 42:1257-65.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 119

306.	 Clifford, AJ, FF de Moura, CC Ho,

et al. 2006. A feasibility study

quantifying in vivo human alphatocopherol metabolism. Am J Clin

Nutr 84:1430-41.

307.	 Novotny, JA, and JR Turnland.

2007. Molybdenum intake influences

molybdenum kinetics in men. J Nutr

137:37-42.

308.	 Novotny, JA, and WV Rumpler. 1998.

Modeling of energy expenditure and

resting metabolic rate during weight

loss in humans. Adv Exp Med Biol

445:293-302.

309.	 Cao, H, MA Kelly, F Dari, et al. 2007.

Green tea increases anti-inflammatory

tristetraprolin and decreases proinflammatory tumor necrosis factor

mRNA levels in rats. J Inflamm

(London) 4:1-12.

310.	 Dawson, HD, G Collins, R Pyle, et al.

2008. The retinoic acid receptor-alpha

mediates human T-cell activation

and th2 cytokine and chemokine

production. BMC Immunol 169:16-30.

311.	 Yasada, K, HD Dawson, EV Wasmuth,

et al. 2009. Supplemental dietary

inulin influences expression of iron

and infammation related genes in

young pigs. J Nutr 139:2018-23. 

312.	 Auyeung, K, AD Smith, A Zhao, et al.

2005. Impact of vitamin E or selenium

deficiency on nematode-induced

alterations in murine intestinal

function. Expt Parasitol 109:201-8.

313.	 Smith, AD, KB Madden, K Au Yeung,

et al. 2005. Effect of selenium

and/or vitamin E deficiencies on

Heligmosomoides polygyrus infections

in mice. J Nutr 135:830-6.

314.	 Scanlan, BJ, B Tuft, JE Elfrey, et al.

2007. Intestinal inflammation caused

by magnesium deficiency alters basal

and oxidative stress-induced intestinal

function. Mol Cell Biochem 306:59-69.

315.	 Xia, X, S Zhao, AD Smith, et al. 2009.

Characterization of Salmonella isolates

from retail foods based on serotyping,

pulse field gel electrophoesis,

antibiotic resistance and other

phenotypic properties. Intl J Food

Microbiol 129:93-8.

316.	 Liu, L, S Tan, W Jun, et al. 2008.

Osmoregulated periplasmic glucans

are needed for competitive growth

and biofilm formation by Salmonella 

enterica serovar Typhimurium in

leafy-green vegetable wash-waters and

colonization in mice. FEMS Microbiol

Letters 292:13-20.

317.	 Bhagwat, AA, W Jun, L Liu, et al.

2009. Osmoregulated periplasmic

glucans of Salmonella enterica serovar

Typhimurium are required for optimal

virulence in mice. Microbiol 155:229-

37.

318.	 Solano-Aguilar, G, H Dawson, M

Restrepo, et al. 2008. Detection of

Bifidobacterium lactis (Bb12) in

the intestine after feeding sows and

their piglets. Appl Environ Microbiol

74:6338-47.

319.	 Wong, SH, RS Shih, NW Schoene, and

KY Lei. 2008. Zinc induced G2/M

blockage is p53 and p21 dependent

in normal human bronchial epithelial

cells. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol

294:C1342-9.

320.	 Shih, RS, SH Wong, NW Schoene, and

KY Lei. 2008. Suppression of Gadd45

relieves the G2/M cell cycle blockage

and enhanced phosphorylation of p53

and p38 in zinc supplemented normal

human bronchial epithelial cells. Exp

Biol Med (Maywood) 233:317-27.

321.	 Wong, SH, Y Zhao, NW Schoene, et

al. 2007. Zinc deficiency depresses

p21 gene expression: inhibition of cell

cycle progression is independent of

the decrease in p21 protein level in

HepG2 cells. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol

292:C2175-84.

322.	 Alshatni, AA, CT Han, NW Schoene,

and KY Lei. 2006. Nuclear

accumulations of p53 and Mdm2 are

accompanied by reductions in c-Abi

and p300 in zinc-depleted human
120 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

heptoblastoma cells. Exp Biol Med

(Maywood) 231:611-8.

323.	 Malik, M, C Zhao, NW Schoene, et al.

2003. Anthocyanin-rich extract from

aronia meloncarpae inhibis growth

and cyclooxygenase-2 gene expression

in ht-29 colon cancer cells. Nutr

Cancer 46:186-96.

324.	 Payton-Stewart, F, NW Schoene, YS

Kim, et al. 2009. Molecular effects of

soy phytoalexin glyceollins in human

prostate cancer cells LNCaP. Mol

Carcinogenesis 48:862-71.

325.	 Zhang, JJ, M Wu, NW Schoene, et al.

2009. Effect of reseveratrol and zinc

on intracellular zinc status in normal

human prostate epithelial cells. Am J

Physiol Cell Physiol 297:C632-44.

326.	 World Health Organization. 2004.

Vitamin and Mineral Requirements

in Human Nutrition. 2nd edition.

Geneva, Switzerland: World Health

Organization. 360 p.

327.	 Marchione, TJ. 2002. Foods provided

through U.S. government emergency

food aid programs: policies and

customs governing their formulation,

selection and distribution. Am J Clin

Nutr 132:2104S-11S.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 121

Chapter 5

History of Food Composition 

Activities at the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture

Gary R. Beecher 

Gary R. Beecher, Ph.D., is formerly 

Research Chemist and Research Leader, 

USDA-ARS Beltsville Human Nutrition 

Research Center, Beltsville, MD. He is 

now retired.

Abbreviations

AH8 Agriculture Handbook No. 8

AMS Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA

AOAC	 Association of Official Analytical

Chemists (originally Association of 

Official Agricultural Chemists, now

AOAC International)

ARS Agricultural Research Service, USDA

BARC Beltsville Agricultural Research Center

BHE Bureau of Home Economics

BHNRC Beltsville Human Nutrition Research 

Center

CFEI Consumer and Food Economics 

Institute

CFERD Consumer and Food Economics 

Research Division

CRMs	 Certified Reference Materials

ERS Economic Research Service, USDA

EuroFir European Food Information Resource

FALCC Food Analysis Laboratory Coordination 

Center

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of 

the United Nations

FCL Food Composition Laboratory

FCMDL Food Composition and Methods 

Development Laboratory

FGIS Federal Grain Inspection Service, USDA

GC-MS gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

Hispanic

HANES Hispanic Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey

HNHE Human Nutrition and Home Economics

HNIS Human Nutrition Information Service, 

USDA

HNRD Human Nutrition Research Division

HPLC high performance liquid 

chromatography

HPLC-MS high performance liquid 

chromatography-mass spectrometry

ICP inductively couple plasma

ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass 

spectrometry

INFOODS International Network of Food Data 

Systems

IOM Institute of Medicine of the National 

Academies

IUNS International Union of Nutritional 

Scientists

LRC Lipid Research Clinics

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

MRFIT Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial

MS mass spectrometry

NBS National Bureau of Standards

NCI National Cancer Institute

NCL Nutrient Composition Laboratory

NDBS Nutrient Data Bank System

NDL Nutrient Data Laboratory

NDRB Nutrient Data Research Branch

NDRG Nutrient Data Research Group

NFNAP National Food and Nutrient Analysis 

Program

NHANES National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey

NHLBI National Heart, Lung and Blood 

Institute

NIH National Institutes of Health

NIR near-infrared spectroscopy

NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology

NLEA National Nutrient Labeling and 

Education Act

NNDB National Nutrient Data Bank

NNDC National Nutrient Data Bank 

Conference

ODS	 Office of Dietary Supplements, NIH

PDA personal digital assistant

SR Standard Reference

SRM Standard Reference Material

UMCP University of Maryland-College Park

UNDP United Nations Development Program 

UNU United Nations University

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USFDA United States Food and Drug 

Administration 

UV ultraviolet

VT Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University 
122 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Date Detail of events

1894 U.S. Congress appropriated $10,000 to be used for investigations leading to reports of “the 

nutritive value” of various foods and more “wholesome and edible rations” that are “more 

economical” than those commonly consumed. W.O. Atwater was named special agent in 

charge of nutrition investigations. Activity was administratively placed in USDA Office of

Experiment Stations. Atwater began to develop a network of about 30 collaborators (most 

were at State Experiment Stations and 1890s Colleges) to initiate studies on measurements 

of food composition and on assessing food intakes. He began work on 1895 publication 

(table 2), which outlined priorities for research and methodologies for future studies, but 

also reported food composition data and metabolic results.

1897 Congress increased annual appropriations to $15,000 for “nutritional studies.”

1901 Appropriations increased to $20,000 per year.

1904 Atwater suffered career-ending stroke; he died in 1907.

1905 C.F. Langworthy, Atwater’s assistant, was placed in charge of Nutrition Investigations.

1906 Headquarters of Human Nutrition Investigations and calorimetry studies were moved to 

USDA at Washington, DC.

 

1915 States Relations Service of USDA was formed that incorporated the Office of Experiment

Stations, a newly created Extension Service, and a separate Office of Home Economics

headed by Langworthy. The latter office absorbed Human Nutrition Investigations and

administered several other home economics-related programs.

 

1923 Bureau of Home Economics (BHE) was established with Louise Stanley as Chief and with 

three initial divisions: Food and Nutrition (Stanley, Acting Head), Textiles and Clothing 

(Ruth O’Brien, Head), and Family Economics (Hildegarde Kneeland, Head)—within which 

food composition compilations were conducted. Additional home economics-related 

divisions were organized later. 

1930 Hazel Stiebeling was appointed Head of Division of Family Economics (and food 

composition activities).

1941 BHE divisions requiring laboratory space moved to Beltsville Agricultural Research Center 

(BARC). Non-laboratory-requiring activities, including food composition work, remained in 

Washington, DC.

1942 Agricultural Research Administration was established. Stiebeling was appointed Assistant 

Chief of BHE.

1943 BHE merged with Protein and Amino Acid Investigations, part of Division of Protein and 

Nutrition Research at Beltsville, to form Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics 

(BHNHE). Stanley stepped down as Chief, Henry C. Sherman was appointed as new Chief, 

and Stiebeling was appointed as Assistant Chief. Five divisions were organized: Food and 

Nutrition, Family Economics (including food composition activities), Textiles and Clothing, 

Housing and Household Equipment, and Information.

Table 1. Organizations and related events of food composition activities in 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 123

Date Detail of events 

1944 Stiebeling was appointed Chief of BHNHE and Ruth O’Brien as Assistant Chief.

1945 Callie Mae Coons was appointed Assistant Chief of BHNHE.

1948 Twenty-fifth anniversary of the Bureau was celebrated.

1953 Agricultural Research Administration was renamed Agricultural Research Service (ARS).

1954 BHNHE activities were divided into two branches: (1) Human Nutrition Research (Food 

and Nutrition Division, and Food Composition and Diet Appraisal Research from Family 

Economics Division, with Coons as Chief) and (2) Home Economics Research (remaining 

divisions and sections of BHNHE, with O’Brien as Chief). Stiebeling was Director of 

BHNHE.

1955 Bureau of Home Economics Research was formed with Stiebeling as Director. Three 

branches were established: Human Nutrition Research (Coons, Chief), Clothing and 

Housing Research (O’Brien, Chief), and Household Economics Research, including food 

composition activities (Gertrude Weiss, Chief).

1957 Institute of Home Economics was formed with Stiebeling as Director. Three branches 

organized in 1955 were renamed divisions with leadership changes (Esther Batchelder, 

Chief of Clothing and Housing, and Faith Clark, Chief of Household Economics, including 

food composition activities).

1961 Nutrition and Consumer-Use Research was formed to more accurately reflect nature and

scope of ongoing research programs. Stiebeling was named Deputy Administrator, Ruth 

Leverton Assistant Administrator. Three divisions continued: Human Nutrition Research 

(Coons, Director), Clothing and Housing Research (Batchelder, Director), and Consumer 

and Food Economics Research with food composition activities (CFERD), renamed from 

Household Economics Research (Clark, Chief).

1962 Stiebeling retired, and Coons was appointed Assistant to the Administrator as Chief 

Nutrition Specialist.

1963 Nutrition and Consumer Use Research merged with ARS Utilization Research (regional 

utilization laboratories) with one Deputy Administrator (Fred Senti, Deputy Administrator, 

and Leverton as Assistant Deputy Administrator for nutrition-related activities). 

This resulted in a total of seven research divisions: Human Nutrition Research (HNRD) (C. 

Edith Weir, Acting Director), Clothing and Housing Research (Batchelder, Director), CFERD 

(Clark, Director), and the four regional utilization laboratories as divisions (Albany, CA, 

New Orleans, LA, Peoria, IL, and Wyndmoor, PA).

HNRD laboratories: Experimental Nutrition, Human Metabolism, Food Quality and Use, 

and Food Composition, which developed new analytical methods and analyzed foods for 

nutritive value (E.W. Toepfer, Chief).

the U. S. Department of Agriculture1
124 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Table 1. Organizations and related events of food composition activities in 

Date Detail of events

1963 CFERD branches: Family Economics Branch, Food Consumption Branch, Survey Statistics 

Staff, and Food and Diet Appraisal Branch, which had food composition compilation 

activities (Bernice Watt, Leader). 

CFERD relocated from Washington, DC, to Hyattsville, MD.

1963 Report to Congress “Proposed Program for Expanded Research in Food and Nutrition” in 

part called for expansion of “Beltsville Center,” doubling of scientists, and five-fold increase

in funding over 3 years.

1964 Willis Gortner was appointed director of HNRD.

 

1969 HNRD was reorganized and its programs redirected to emphasize research on human 

requirements of nutrients and on nutritive value of foods. Research on “food science” was 

discontinued, and research on food preparation, quality, and acceptability (Food Quality 

and Use) was transferred to CFERD. Food Composition Laboratory was abolished with 

scientists moved to four new laboratories. (Gortner, Director, Weir, Associate Director, 

and Leon L. Hopkins, Assistant to Director.) Research programs were divided among four 

laboratories: Carbohydrate Nutrition, Lipid Nutrition, Protein Nutrition, and Vitamin and 

Mineral Nutrition. Each laboratory had at least two investigations units—food composition 

and nutrient requirements. 

CFERD was renamed Consumer and Food Economics Institute (CFEI); food composition 

compilation activities were put under Nutrient Data Research Center.

1970 Clark retired; Robert Rizek was appointed Director, CFEI.

1972 Major reorganization of ARS to regionalize administration of research programs (four 

regions): Northeast, North Central, South, and West. 

A National Program Staff was established to coordinate nationwide research programs. 

Gortner was appointed first National Program Staff Scientist for Nutrition and Family

Living. 

HNRD was renamed Nutrition Institute (NI); Walter Mertz was appointed Director. 

Dairy Products Laboratory, Washington, DC, was transferred to Eastern Regional Research 

Center, Philadelphia, PA. Several sections of the Laboratory were transferred to NI, and 

several scientists transferred to Nutrient Data Research Center at CFEI.

Scientists with expertise in plant physiology and in plant isotope labeling techniques 

transferred to PL from other BARC laboratories.

1974 Bernice Watt retired. 

1975 Nutrient Composition Laboratory (NCL) was formed in response to National Heart, Lung 

and Blood Institute, NIH (NHLBI) request for accurate and extensive data on fatty acid, 

cholesterol, and selected mineral content of foods. Kent Stewart was appointed Chief of the 

newly formed group.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 125

 the U. S. Department of Agriculture1—Continued

Date Detail of events 

1977 Frank Hepburn was appointed Leader of Nutrient Data Research Group (food composition 

compilation activities).

James (Jack) Iacono was appointed National Program Staff Scientist for Nutrition and 

Family Living. 

1978 Science and Education Administration (SEA), USDA, was formed under the new 

Democratic Administration. All human nutrition research activities moved from ARS to 

a parallel organization, Human Nutrition Center (HNC), within SEA. D. Mark Hegsted 

was appointed Administrator, James (Jack) Iacono as Associate Administrator. Research 

programs were coordinated from Administrator’s Office. 

CFEI was renamed Consumer Nutrition Center (CNC).

1981 SEA was abolished under the new Republican Administration. 

CNC was transferred into a new agency, Human Nutrition Information Service (HNIS), 

and was administratively placed under the Assistant Secretary for Food and Nutrition 

Service, separating it from the Assistant Secretary responsible for ARS. Food and Nutrition 

Information Center of National Agricultural Library also was administratively transferred to 

HNIS. 

Two Divisions from the “old” CNC were formed: Consumer Nutrition Division and Nutrition 

Monitoring Division (NMD). Food Consumption Research Branch (food consumption 

surveys) and Nutrient Data Research Branch (food composition data) were organized within 

NMD with Rizek as Director. 

The Human Nutrition Research Centers were integrated into ARS’s regional organization. 

NI renamed Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center (BHNRC).

Gerald F. Combs, Sr., was appointed Nutrition National Program Leader to coordinate 

human nutrition research activities within USDA and across all Federal agencies.

1982 Gary Beecher was appointed Chief of NCL.

1983 Isabel Wolf was appointed Administrator of HNIS.

1985 Suzanne Harris was appointed Administrator of HNIS.

1987 Laura Sims was appointed Administrator of HNIS.

Ruth Matthews was appointed Chief, Nutrient Data Research Branch (food composition 

compilation activities)

1990 Sue Ann Ritchko was appointed Administrator of HNIS. 

1991 Jacqueline L. Dupont was appointed Nutrition National Program Leader. 
126 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Table 1. Organizations and related events of food composition activities in 

Date Detail of events

1993 Ellen Harris was appointed Director of HNIS Nutrition Monitoring Division.

Mertz retired; Joseph Spence was appointed Director of BHNRC. 

W.O. Atwater Centennial Celebration Symposium was held “to commemorate 100 years of 

human nutrition research in the U.S. Department of Agriculture and to honor the memory 

of its initiator and mover, Wilbur O. Atwater.” Proceedings were published as a supplement 

to The Journal of Nutrition 1994;124(9S):1707S-1890S.

1994 HNIS activities were transferred to ARS (after HNIS was abolished). Food consumption 

survey and food composition data activities were administratively moved into BHNRC 

as Food Surveys Research Group and Nutrient Data Laboratory, respectively. Nutrition 

education component (Pyramid, etc.) of HNIS moved to USDA Center for Nutrition 

Policy and Promotion, Alexandria, VA. Metabolism-related laboratories of BHNRC were 

renamed with minor reorganization—Diet & Human Performance, Metabolism & Nutrient 

Interactions, and Nutrient Requirements & Functions (NRFL). Food Composition 

Laboratory (FCL) retained its mission, renamed from NCL.

1995 Joanne Holden was appointed Research Leader of Nutrient Data Laboratory.

Food Surveys Research Group and Nutrient Data Laboratory moved from Hyattsville to 

Riverdale, MD; occupied building jointly with several Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) units. 

1997 James Harnly was appointed Research Leader of FCL.

1998 Carla Fjeld was appointed Nutrition National Program Leader.

1999 Food Surveys Research Group and Nutrient Data Laboratory moved from Riverdale, MD, to 

Building 005, BARC. 

Kathleen Ellwood was appointed Nutrition National Program Leader.

2002 Spence was appointed Acting Nutrition National Program Leader. 

2004 Spence was appointed Deputy Administrator for Nutrition, Food Safety and Quality.

Mary “Molly” Kretsch and David Klurfeld were appointed Nutrition National Program 

Leaders.

2006 Allison Yates was appointed Director of BHNRC. 

2007 Reorganization of metabolism units of BHNRC. Changes were driven by budget constraints 

and personnel retirements. Six laboratories/groups—Food Surveys Research Group; 

Nutrient Data Laboratory; Food Composition and Methods Laboratory (renamed from FCL); 

Food Intake and Energy Regulation Laboratory; Food Components and Health Laboratory; 

and Diet, Genomics and Immunology Laboratory.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 127

 the U. S. Department of Agriculture1—Continued

Date Detail of events 

2008 Spence was appointed Director of Beltsville Area, which included BARC as well as BHNRC. 

2009 Kretsch was appointed Deputy Administrator for Nutrition, Food Safety and Quality.

 John Finley was appointed Nutrition National Program Leader.

2011 Allison Yates was appointed Associate Director of Beltsville Area. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________

1Historical information compiled from Elias (5), Swan (216), and Souders (217), as well as 

from the library of “Director’s Notes” maintained by Jacob Exler. 
128 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Year Description

1895 Methods and Results of Investigations on the Chemistry and Economy of Food. USDA 

Office of Experiment Stations Bulletin No. 21. A comprehensive bulletin by W.O. Atwater

that not only reported energy and proximate values for selected foods but also discussed 

the results of human calorimetry studies, general metabolism, and food consumption 

surveys. Origin of 4, 9, 4 kcal/g for carbohydrate, fat, and protein, respectively. 

1896 Chemical Composition of American Food Materials. USDA Office of Experiment Stations

Bulletin No. 28. Updated 1899, 19063. 

1926 Proximate Composition of Beef. USDA Circular No. 38.

1928 Proximate Composition of Fresh Fruits. USDA Circular No. 50.

1929 Vitamins in Food Materials. USDA Circular No. 84.

1931 Proximate Composition of Fresh Vegetables. USDA Circular No. 146.

Factors for Converting Percentages of Nitrogen in Foods and Feeds Into Percentages of 

Protein. USDA Circular No. 183. Revised 19413. 

1937 Vitamin Content of Foods: A Summary of the Chemistry of Vitamins Units of Measurement, 

Quantitative Aspects in Human Nutrition and Occurrence in Foods. USDA Miscellaneous 

Publication No. 275. 

1939 The Vitamin B1 Content of Foods in Terms of Crystalline Thiamin. USDA Technical 

Bulletin No. 707.

1940 Proximate Composition of American Food Materials. USDA Circular No. 549.

1941 The Vitamin A Values of 128 Foods as Determined by the Rat-growth Method. USDA 

Technical Bulletin No. 802.

1945 Tables of Food Composition in Terms of Eleven Nutrients. USDA Miscellaneous Publication 

No. 572.

1950 Composition of Foods: Raw, Processed, Prepared. USDA Handbook No. 8.

1951 Folic Acid Content of Foods. USDA Handbook No. 29.

1955 Energy Value of Foods. Basis and Derivation. USDA Handbook No. 74. Revised 19733.

1956 Pantothenic Acid in Foods. USDA Handbook No. 97.

Food Yields Summarized by Different Stages of Preparation. USDA Handbook No. 102. 

Revised 19753.

1957 Amino Acid Content of Foods. USDA Home Economics Research Report No. 4. Reviewed 

and reprinted 1963.

Table 2. Compilations of food composition data and related information rele
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 129

Year Description 

1959 Fatty Acids in Food Fats. USDA Home Economics Research Report No. 7.

1960 Nutritive Value of Foods. USDA Home and Garden Bulletin No. 72. Revised 1976, 1990, 

20023.

1961 Vitamin B12—Microbiological Assay Methods and Distribution in Selected Foods. USDA 

Home Economics Research Report No. 13.

1963 Composition of Foods: Raw, Processed, Prepared. USDA Handbook No. 8. Revised.

1965 Vitamin E Content of Foods and Feeds for Human and Animal Consumption. University of 

Wyoming Bulletin No. 435. Research sponsored by HNRD2.

Proximate Composition of Beef from Carcass to Cooked Meat: Method of Derivation and 

Tables of Values. USDA Home Economics Research Report No. 31.

1966 Procedures for Calculating Nutritive Values of Home-Prepared Foods: as Used in 

Agriculture Handbook No. 8. Revised 1963. USDA, ARS Bulletin No. 62-13.

1969 Average Weight of a Measured Cup of Various Foods. USDA, ARS Bulletin No. 61-6.

Pantothenic Acid, Vitamin B6 and Vitamin B12 in Foods. USDA Home Economics Research 

Report No. 36. 

1975 Nutritive Value of American Foods in Common Units. USDA Handbook No. 456.

1976- Composition of Foods: Raw, Processed, Prepared. Agriculture Handbook (AH) No. 8. 

Revised. Updated in loose-leaf notebook format. First release: AH 8-1 Dairy and Egg 

Products; final release: AH 8-18 Baked Products. A total of 21 sections prepared and

released. 

1980 The Sodium Content of Your Food. USDA Home and Garden Bulletin No. 233.

1980- A series of provisional tables that included early tabulations of specific nutrients and

food components, e.g., Nutrient Content of Bakery Foods, Selenium Content of Foods, 

Vitamin D Content of Foods, and Vitamin K Content of Foods. Most of these data have been 

incorporated into the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference (see below). 

Some of these tables are available on the USDA Nutrient Data Laboratory Web site (see 

below).

1980- USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference (SR) 3. Electronic version of 

Agriculture Handbook No. 8, data updated and released each year; latest release SR-26 

(2013). 

1983 Iron Content of Food. USDA Home Economics Research Report No. 45.

1985 Key Foods. Revised 1998, 2003, 20053. Listing of “key foods” consumed in the United 

States based on data from the most recent food consumption survey. 

eased by USDA 1895-20111

1994

1992

2011
130 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Year Description

1987 Sugar Content of Selected Foods: Individual and Total. USDA Home Economics Research 

Report No. 48. Revised 19903.

1990- Supplements to Agriculture Handbook No. 8. Revised. Loose-leaf version. Updates released 

as individual foods (sheets) that replaced existing notebook entries. 

1993 USDA-NCC (NCI)2 Carotenoid Database for U.S. Foods. Updated 19983.

1995 Selected Foods Containing Trans Fatty Acids3.

1998 USDA-Iowa State University Database on the Isoflavone Content of Foods. Updated 2000,

2008 as Release 2.03.

2003 USDA Database for the Flavonoid Content of Foods. Updated 2011 as Release 33.

USDA Table of Nutrient Retention Factors, Release 5. Updated 2007 as Release 63. 

2004 USDA Database for the Choline Content of Common Foods. Updated 2008 as Release 23.

USDA Database for the Proanthocyanin Content of Selected Foods3. 

USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods. Updated 2005 as 

Release 23. 

2006 USDA Database for the Added Sugars Content of Selected Foods, Release 13. 

2007 Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity (ORAC) of Selected Foods. Updated 2010 as 

Release 23.

USDA Nutrient Data Set for Fresh Pork (Derived from SR), Release 1.0. Updated 2009 as 

Release 2.03.

2009 Dietary Supplement Ingredient Database, Release 13.

Oxalic Acid Content of Selected Vegetables (originally published as part of Agriculture 

Handbook 8-11, 1984).

USDA Nutrient Data Set for Retail Beef Cuts, Release 1.0. Updated 2011 as Release 2.03.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1Adapted from USDA Compiling Food Composition Data for Over 115 Years [Internet]. Beltsville, 

MD: USDA, ARS, Nutrient Data Laboratory; [cited 2009 Jun 30]. Available at www.ars.usda.

gov/Aboutus/docs.htm?docid=9418&pf=1&cg_id=0. Some information abstracted from selected 

publications (1,49,217). 

2Abbreviations: HNRD—Human Nutrition Research Division; NCC—Nutrition Coordinating Center, 

School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; NCI—National Cancer Institute, 

National Institutes of Health. 

3Documents available at http://www.ars.usda.gov/nutrientdata.

Table 2. Compilations of food composition data and related information 

released by USDA 1895-20111—Continued

1992
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 131

Introduction

Today, information on the nutritive value 

and health promotion of foods supports 

the quantitative study of nutrition and 

is widely used in many fields, including

epidemiological research, clinical practice, 

health policy and promotion, and food 

manufacture (1). W.O. Atwater recognized 

the need for food composition data as part 

of his early studies. As a result, formal 

and integrated food composition activities 

in the United States had their origins in 

Atwater’s and his colleagues’ laboratories 

in Connecticut (table 1). As early as 1892, 

Atwater and C.D. Woods reported energy 

and proximate values for selected American 

foods (2). These data were documented in 

detail by Atwater in an 1895 publication 

(table 2). Atwater and Woods published the 

first comprehensive food composition table 

for U.S. foods in 1896 (table 2). Prior to this 

publication, the composition of U.S. foods 

was based on European products that had 

been analyzed in laboratories in Germany 

(3). The 1896 tables were subsequently 

updated (1899, 1906) with data from 

Atwater’s laboratory, as well as from other 

research groups, and served as the food 

composition tables for the United States 

for two decades. Over the next 20 years, 

there was a hiatus of food composition data 

tabulations except for those data reported 

by H.C. Sherman in his textbook Chemistry 

of Food and Nutrition and its updates and 

revisions (4).

Early Accomplishments

Beginning in the mid-1920s, scientists in the 

newly created Bureau of Home Economics 

(BHE), Family Economics Division (5) 

published a series of circulars, handbooks, 

and pamphlets that updated and expanded 

the Atwater tables (tables 1, 2). Many of 

these updates followed the discovery of new, 

essential nutrients and methods for their 

assay in foods and biological materials. 

Although some data were generated in BHE 

laboratories, a large amount of information 

came from State Experiment Stations and 

Land Grant Institutions, as well as other 

national and international laboratories. In 

1925 Louise Stanley, Chief of BHE, chaired 

a Committee on Vitamin Content of Food 

in Relation to Human Nutrition convened 

by the Association of Land Grant Colleges. 

Subsequently, she personally contacted each 

of the State Experiment Station Directors 

to inquire about the vitamin research at 

their location (5). Undoubtedly, these efforts 

were responsible for the tabulation and 

publication of the first table on vitamin

content of U.S. foods as early as 1929 

(table 2). 

In the 1930s, A.L. Winton and K.B. Winton 

published an extensive four-volume series 

on the “Structure and Composition of Foods” 

(6-9). These works were stimulated by the 

passage of laws to suppress food fraud and 

were organized by food class, including 

spices and a few botanicals, emphasizing 

the relationship of structure to then-known 

chemical composition. This husbandand-wife team, who were associated with 

the Connecticut Experiment Station and 

later with USDA (not BHE), produced a 

voluminous amount of critical morphological 

Dr. W.O. Atwater 

recognized the need 

for food composition 

data.

1895
132 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

and chemical information on common foods 

and spices of the era.

At about the same time, D.B. Jones 

conducted seminal research by carefully 

isolating proteins from a large number 

of foods and feeds and subsequently 

determined their nitrogen content. It is 

these data that established the average 

nitrogen content of proteins as 16% and 

from which the factor 6.25 was derived that 

is applied for the conversion of nitrogen to 

protein content (table 2). Although Jones 

was administratively part of the Protein 

and Nutrition Division of the Bureau of 

Agriculture Chemistry and Engineering at 

Beltsville while he conducted this work, 

his group was merged with BHE in 1943, 

creating the Bureau of Human Nutrition and 

Home Economics (table 1). 

Heretofore, U.S. food composition tables 

reported limited groups of nutrients, 

i.e., proximates, vitamins, etc. In 1945 a 

comprehensive table on the composition of 

foods was published, which included new 

data for three minerals and five vitamins,

as well as proximate composition (table 

2). This table was collated and released in 

collaboration with the National Research 

Council and was intended for nationwide 

use. It served as the predecessor to the wellregarded and widely used USDA Handbook 

No. 8, Composition of Foods: Raw, Processed, 

Prepared, published in 1950, which also 

reported the same number of nutrients 

but for 750 foods (table 2). This popular 

handbook was updated and published in 

1963 with the addition of data for three 

more minerals (sodium, potassium, and 

magnesium), cholesterol, fatty acids, and 

information for about 1,200 foods. The 

Agriculture Handbook 8 (AH8) served as the 

reference source of U.S. food composition 

for several decades until all of the sections 

of the loose-leaf version were updated and 

published in 1992 (table 2). A very popular 

abbreviated version of AH8 is the USDA 

Home and Gardens Bulletin No. 72, first

published in 1960 and updated several 

times, most recently in 2002. 

As the fledgling laboratories of the Food and

Nutrition Division of BHE developed and 

grew, a large amount of food composition 

data was generated and published in 

conjunction with food data compilers (table 

1). As an example, L.E. Booher, the first

full-time head of the Food and Nutrition 

Division, and E.R. Hartzler published the 

first vitamin B1 table based on methods

they had developed using crystalline thiamin 

as a standard (table 2). Subsequently, 

Booher and R.L. Marsh reported the 

vitamin A values of over 100 foods based 

on the rat-growth method. This work was 

part of the extensive vitamin A research 

conducted by Booher, E.C. Callison, and 

colleagues, and for which they received the 

USDA Distinguished Service Award. The 

analyses of newly discovered vitamins in 

foods continued to the extent that a Food 

Composition Laboratory was organized in 

about 1963 within the Human Nutrition 

Research Branch (table 1) (10). During 

this period, E.G. Zook, E.W. Toepfer, and 

their colleagues reported the levels of folic 

acid, pantothenic acid, and vitamin B6 in 

foods, and H. Lichtenstein et al. published 

the vitamin B12 content of selected foods 

based on a new microbiological assay 

(table 2). Marilyn Polansky, who retired in 

2011, was part of this group. Just prior to 

her retirement, Polansky was cited as the 

USDA employee with the most years of fulltime Federal service (56 years) and was 

still working full-time at the Department. 

H.T. Slover and colleagues reported the 

first separation of tocopherols on newly

developed gas-liquid chromatography 

instrumentation (11). The data generated 

by this procedure were later added to 

the USDA food tables. Soon after, J.P. 

Sweeney and A.C. Marsh separated the 

various stereoisomers of α- and β-carotene 

on laboratory-assembled “high-pressure” 

liquid chromatography systems (12). Similar 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 133

instrumentation was commercialized and 

became very popular a few years later.

Even though there was considerable inhouse expertise and capability in USDA 

for nutrient analysis of foods, contracts 

and cooperative agreements were issued 

for specific data. For example, Folic Acid 

Content of Foods, published in 1951 (table 

2), was a cooperative effort with scientists at 

the Texas Agriculture Experiment Station. 

Similarly, the generation of vitamin E data 

for the 1965 table was supported by a 

contract with scientists at the University 

of Wyoming, and much of the data for 

Proximate Composition of Beef From Carcass 

to Cooked Meat: Method of Derivation and 

Tables of Values, published in 1965 (table 

2), was generated through a contract 

with meat scientists at the University of 

Wisconsin. 

Administratively, the compilation of 

food composition data was an activity 

of organizations associated with Family 

Economics or Consumer and Food 

Economics (table 1). This group was also 

the first to develop such calculations as

the nutritive value of the food supply 

(13) based on food production and 

disappearance statistics. This work evolved 

into food consumption surveys and similar 

summaries. Only briefly during the 20th

century were food composition activities 

combined with human nutrition research 

activities, e.g., 1954-1961 and 1994 to the 

present, when the group was transferred 

to the Beltsville Human Nutrition Research 

Center (BHNRC). Regardless of the 

organization or physical location, scientists 

who were compiling food composition 

data continued their work throughout the 

decades. C. Chatfield and G. Adams, the two

scientists responsible for reactivating food 

composition research in the Department 

after Atwater, compiled the early proximate 

composition data. B.K. Watt, A.L. Merrill, 

M.L. Orr, W.T. Wu, and R.K. Pecot compiled 

the original Agriculture Handbook 8; and 

Watt and Merrill, assisted by Pecot, Orr, 

C.F. Adams, and D.F. Miller, updated the 

work for the 1963 revision (table 2). Orr 

and Watt also compiled the first table

on the amino acid content of foods, a 

compilation for 18 amino acids of over 300 

foods. They followed this with a table of 

phenylalanine and tyrosine values of fruits 

and vegetables, specifically designed for

use in planning diets for phenylketonurics 

(14). Merrill and Watt summarized the 

energy values for foods, and Pecot and Watt 

assembled the data for the first edition

of Food Yields Summarized by Different 

Stages of Preparation, USDA Handbook 

Georgian Adams was 

one of the scientists 

responsible for 

reactivating food 

composition research 

in the Beltsville 

Human Nutrition 

Research Center 

(BHNRC).

1958

Bernice Watt helped 

update the original 

Agriculture Handbook 

8 for the 1963 

revision.

1963
134 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

No. 102, published in 1956 (table 2). R.H. 

Matthews and Y.J. Garrison coauthored 

an update of the work in 1975. While 

Chatfield, Adams, and Watt were recognized

for their publication Historically Important 

Contributions of Women in the Nutrition 

Society (15), several others contributed to 

each of the handbooks and circulars. The 

list of publications during this early period 

emphasizes the numerous accomplishments 

attained with relatively few scientists and 

staff.

Compilation of Food Composition Data 

1963-2011

The administrative merger of nutrition, 

consumer, and industrial use research at 

the level of ARS in 1963 (table 1) had little 

effect on the Consumer and Food Economics 

Research Division (CFERD), as it had been 

reorganized and renamed in 1961 (from 

Household Economics Research Division). 

Dr. Faith Clark continued as Division 

Director, and B.K. Watt was in charge of 

Food Composition within the Diet and 

Appraisal Branch of the Division (table 2). 

That same year, CFERD activity moved from 

offices in Washington, DC, to a new building

in Hyattsville, MD—a privately owned, 

leased building. 

The reorganization of the Human Nutrition 

Research Division (HNRD) in Beltsville in 

1969, however, had more impact on food 

composition activities at the Consumer and 

Food Economics Institute (CFEI) (newly 

renamed) (table 2). This reorganization 

abolished the Food Composition Laboratory 

at HNRD, a group that had generated 

considerable data, and integrated this 

research activity into the human nutrition 

metabolic units. Not only was this group 

active in measuring vitamin concentrations 

of foods as noted above, but a large 

collaborative project on the nutritive value 

of selected wheat and wheat products had 

been completed just prior to reorganization. 

A series of publications reported the results 

of this endeavor (16-25). Soon thereafter, 

Feeley et al. summarized the nutrient 

content of dairy products (26-28), Levander 

and colleagues reported on the selenium 

content of foods (29,30), and Toepfer et al. 

measured chromium in foods in relation 

to biological activity (31). Subsequently, 

collaborations and contracts were expanded 

at CFEI in an effort to generate food 

composition data that were being requested 

by scientists in a wide variety of disciplines. 

Dr. Robert Rizek was appointed Director of 

CFEI in late 1970 upon the retirement of 

Clark earlier that year (table 1). Murphy, 

Watt, and Rizek initiated the concept of a 

USDA Nutrient Data Bank with cooperation 

from other government agencies and the 

food industry (32). The U.S. Food and 

Drug Administration (USFDA) had been 

conducting their “Total Diet Study” since 

1961. It generated important data for 

some nutrients as well as for toxicants 

and contaminants, and in foods that were 

purchased at retail stores (33). In addition, 

the food industry was increasing analyses 

of its products as the role of diet in health 

was being recognized. At that time, the 

USDA Nutrient Data Bank was viewed as 

the potential reference source of data for the 

voluntary food-labeling initiative that would 

Dr. Robert Rizek was 

appointed Director of 

the Consumer and Food 

Economics Institute 

(CFEI) in late 1970. 

He helped initiate the 

concept of a USDA 

Nutrient Data Bank.

1970
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 135

be part of USFDA. However, proprietary 

issues with food industry-generated data 

prevented this partnership. A form was 

developed that unified submission of data

to CFEI and that was distributed to food 

analysis laboratories for their use. These 

early visions and decisions led to the current 

USDA National Nutrient Data Bank and the 

many products that are generated from it. 

During 1973-1974, J.E. Kinsella, a lipids 

specialist in food science and nutrition 

at Cornell University, elected to do his 

sabbatical at CFEI. While there he developed 

a comprehensive and collaborative program, 

in conjunction with CFEI scientists, to 

generate new data on the fatty acid and 

lipid content of foods. The results of these 

efforts were published in many journal 

articles, and the data were added to the 

newly developed Nutrient Data Bank (34-

36). In retrospect, many of these data were 

those that program administrators at the 

National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute 

(NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health 

were calling for to support the nutritional 

epidemiology programs that recently had 

been initiated. (See section on Nutrient 

Composition Laboratory.) Such diet and 

health investigations required current and 

complete composition data for retail foods, 

which quickly increased the workload and 

responsibilities of the scientists working in 

the Food Composition Group.

In 1975, the final printed total compilation

of USDA Handbook No. 456, authored by 

C.F. Adams, was published. It reported 

the nutritive values of American foods in 

household units, i.e., cups, ounces, pounds, 

rather than in scientific weights and

measures (table 2). This was a very popular 

handbook, and the aspect of common 

measures or units has been incorporated 

into the search characteristic of the current 

USDA electronic database system (www.

ars.usda.gov/nutrientdata). Concurrently, 

foods’ zinc values were summarized and 

released as a publication (37). Also, newly 

available data on the cholesterol content of 

foods were reported (38). 

To circumvent some of the publication 

delays in the release of new data, a looseleaf notebook format for AH8 was proposed 

with all data for a single food presented 

on one page. This format facilitated the 

updating of data in that only affected foods 

(pages) were required to be reprinted rather 

than the entire booklet. The first sections in

this format, 8-1 Dairy and Egg Products and 

8-2 Spices and Herbs, were published in 

early 1977. Twenty-one sections along with 

several supplements were published over the 

next 15 years (table 2). 

The first computer system arrived at CFEI in

1976. It consisted of a mainframe with key 

punch cards and data tapes as input/output 

media and employed the programming 

language COBOL. The integration of this 

new electronic management of information 

in the Nutrient Data Bank System (NDBS) 

was announced and described by R.R. 

Butrum and S.E. Gebhardt (39). In fact, 

the 1963 version of AH8 was released not 

only in printed version but also as the first

80-column card set intended for computer 

use (J. Holden, personal communication). 

Additional “computerized” versions of 

food composition information included 

USDA Handbook No. 456 and an update 

of AH8 that reflected recent changes in

food enrichment standards (40). The next 

“computerized” version of AH8 (1980) 

integrated the first few sections of the

revised AH8 in loose-leaf format, and was 

named the USDA Nutrient Database for 

Standard Reference (SR) (table 2). In the 

absence of electronic transmission, these 

data were available primarily as magnetic 

tapes. SR, the primary food composition 

data product, has been updated since 

1980 and released yearly since 1996. SR is 

available on the Nutrient Data Laboratory’s 

Web site, www.ars.usda.gov/nutrientdata.
136 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

As computer technology advanced, 

changes also were made in the Nutrient 

Data Bank System; the programming 

language was changed to PL1 in 1985. 

To make SR more accessible, a telephone 

Dial-up Bulletin Board was in place from 

the late 1980s through the mid-1990s. 

During the early 1990s, Loretta Hoover, 

Professor of Nutrition at University of 

Missouri-Columbia, was on sabbatical at 

CFEI specifically to evaluate the data bank

system and to make recommendations for 

its improvement. In 1996, for the first time,

SR was made available on the Internet 

for searching and downloading. A year 

later, the NDBS was converted to Oracle 

platform and upgraded with customized 

database management software. About this 

time, personal computers were replacing 

terminals linked to mainframe systems, and 

handheld computing devices were appearing 

in the marketplace. Software for the PalmOS PDA (personal digital assistant) was 

developed in 2002 to allow mobile access 

to SR. The next year, software to search 

SR was developed for Windows PC and was 

made available. All of these changes have 

greatly increased the availability and ease 

with which professionals and the public can 

access food composition information and 

data electronically. 

Not only had a computer been integrated 

into the management of food composition 

data at CFEI in the mid-1970s, but 

computers also were being used to assess 

nutrient intake, determine nutritional 

status, plan menus, and so forth. Although 

there were only a few locations, primarily 

academia, using computers at that time, 

these activities placed an extreme demand 

on food composition information, so much 

so that the National Invitational Conference 

on the Development of Nutrient Data Bases, 

sponsored by the American Academy of 

Pediatrics, was held at the University of 

Washington, Seattle, in the spring of 1976 

(41). This conference was “designed to share 

information, resources and software, but 

specifically designed to present our [health

care community] nutrient information 

needs to the United States Department 

of Agriculture [CFEI].” Rizek and Butrum 

represented CFEI among the 33 invited 

registrants at the meeting. This meeting 

represented the First National Nutrient Data 

Bank Conference. Faculty at the Department 

of Nutrition and Food Science of Utah State 

University hosted the second Data Bank 

Conference in the spring of 1977 (42). Thus 

began the annual meetings of the National 

Nutrient Data Bank Conference (NNDC), the 

most recent of which, the 35th, was held 

in Washington, DC, in 2011 as a satellite 

to the Experimental Biology meeting. Since 

1998, the meeting has been held in alternate 

years as a satellite to this large scientific

conference, and in 2008, the meeting 

became North American with its site in 

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 

At the request of the organizers of the 

second NNDC, USDA sponsored, hosted, 

and largely planned the third conference in 

1978, which was the first open meeting (43).

It was becoming obvious that as a result 

of automation, USDA’s food composition 

data were being used in many new and 

different ways, and that not only more and 

better data were needed, but also more 

education was required about the data’s 

applications and limitations. By 1980, USDA 

had joined with volunteers from industry, 

academia, and other government agencies to 

ensure that this conference would continue 

annually to provide a forum for this 

essential exchange of information. Today, 

the conference is incorporated, with its own 

Internet domain www.nutrientdataconf.org 

and a series of well-coordinated committees 

who execute and publish the details of 

each meeting (D. Haytowitz, personal 

communication). 

In 1977, Frank Hepburn was appointed 

leader of the Nutrient Data Research Group 

(NDRG), taking the position long held by 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 137

Watt, who had retired earlier (table 1). Watt 

had quietly compiled and published an 

extensive amount of food composition data 

in collaboration with coworkers as noted 

above. Like Atwater, she left as her legacy 

the first comprehensive food composition

table (AH8) of her era for the United States. 

Attracted from the American Institute of 

Baking as it was moving from Chicago, IL, 

to Manhattan, KS, Hepburn had been a 

collaborator with USDA scientists on earlier 

projects. During the 1970s, some contract 

employees working under a cooperative 

agreement with the University of Maryland 

at College Park (UMCP) later became fulltime Federal employees at NDRG, e.g., I. 

Marge Hoke and Jacob Exler. Other familiar 

scientists who were associated with NDRG 

during this era included Ritva Butrum, 

Rena Cutrufelli, Susan Gebhardt, David 

Haytowitz, Elaine Lanza, Ruth Matthews, 

Marie McCarthy, Elizabeth Murphy, Louise 

Orr, Betty Perloff, James Reeves, Martha 

Richardson, and Jean Stewart. Also, 

Barbara Anderson, Linda Posati, and John 

Weihrauch transferred from the Dairy 

Products Laboratory in Washington, DC, 

when the lab was moved to Philadelphia, PA 

(table 1); and Anne Marsh transferred from 

the Nutrition Institute in Beltsville at about 

the same time. 

Early in the next decade, a series of 

provisional tables were initiated to report 

available data for selected nutrients or 

other components in foods (table 2). Often, 

these nutrients were some of the most 

recently identified as essential (selenium,

for example) or were gaining scientific

prominence as a health-related food 

component. The available data for sodium 

and sugar contents of foods, although falling 

into the latter category, were published 

as full reports (table 2). Also during this 

period, the iron content of foods was 

updated by using data from recent analyses 

(table 2). This activity was the origin of 

“critical analysis of food composition 

data” (discussed below). The number of 

retail foods increased, and the number of 

nutrients and food components of interest to 

health scientists also grew simultaneously. 

Therefore, priorities were required to 

determine which foods should receive 

critical resources for sampling, analysis, and 

updating. Thus, the concept of “Key Foods” 

was developed and first reported in 1985

(table 2). Key foods have been identified as

those food items that contribute up to 75% 

of any one nutrient to the dietary intake of 

the U.S. population (44). This list has been 

updated frequently based on the findings in

the most recent food consumption survey. 

In the early 1980s, major administrative 

changes took place as human nutrition 

research within ARS was reorganized 

(table 1). All of the activities under the 

Consumer Nutrition Center (formerly CFEI) 

were transferred to a new agency, Human 

Nutrition Information Service (HNIS), and 

distributed in two divisions: Nutrition 

Monitoring and Nutrition Education. Food 

composition research was the responsibility 

of a branch within the Nutrition Monitoring 

Division: Nutrient Data Research Branch 

(NDRB). This new agency, HNIS, was placed 

under the Assistant Secretary for Food 

and Nutrition Service, a different Assistant 

Secretary from the person to whom ARS 

Frank Hepburn was 

appointed Leader of the 

Nutrient Data Research 

Group (NDRG), taking 

the position long held by 

Bernice Watt, who had 

retired.

1977
138 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

and its human nutrition research activities 

reported. This administrative separation 

was eased somewhat by the appointment 

of Isabel Wolf, Suzanne Harris, and Laura 

Sims as early HNIS administrators, who 

were scientists, and by the appointment of 

Gerald Combs, Sr., as Nutrition National 

Program Leader for human nutrition 

research activities, whose responsibilities 

encompassed and coordinated the efforts 

within several USDA and Federal agencies 

(45).

Revisions and updates of the loose-leaf and 

digital formats of AH8 were the primary 

focus during this HNIS era. These activities 

required considerable amounts of new and 

reliable food composition data that were 

supplied through numerous contracts with 

university and commercial laboratories. 

NDRB scientists also collaborated with 

commodity groups to assist in the 

production of reliable data that were 

integrated into AH8 updates, e.g., beef, 

pork, and eggs. Food companies also were 

encouraged to contribute data they were 

generating for nutrient labels. Although the 

close working partnership with industry that 

was envisioned in the 1970s may not have 

been realized, several AH8 sections benefited

substantially from data submitted by food 

companies. 

Another priority of activities during this 

period was providing data for food surveys. 

HNIS had individual food intake surveys 

in the field continually from 1985 through

1991. During this time, NDRB provided 

databases for all of them, as well as for 

the Nationwide Household Food Survey, 

Hispanic HANES, and NHANES III, phase 

1. These nutrient databases were publicly 

released as versions of the USDA Survey 

Nutrient Database. Generating these 

databases relied heavily on estimating 

nutrients in “mixed dishes.” Some of the 

contracts outlined above included studies to 

test reliability of recipe calculation methods.

With the many food composition database 

products and the varied formats (looseleaf AH8, computer files, etc.) produced by

HNIS scientists and staff during this period, 

a major activity was educating users and 

sharing details of each of the databases. 

Much of this endeavor was vested in the 

National Nutrient Data Bank Conference, 

where NDRB personnel served on steering, 

program, and communications committees, 

organized sessions for new users, provided 

updates about nutrient data products and 

activities for attendees, and arranged for 

speakers who could provide needed insights 

about issues related to food composition 

data. In addition, the doors of scientists 

1987

Ellen Harris 

became Director 

of the Nutrition 

Monitoring 

Division, replacing 

Robert Rizek.

Ruth Matthews 

was appointed 

Chief of the 

Nutrient Data 

Research Branch 

shortly after the 

retirement of 

Frank Hepburn.

1993
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 139

and staff were always open to national and 

international visitors, as food composition 

information became an important 

component of human health worldwide (see 

Food Composition International Activities). 

Ruth Matthews was appointed chief of the 

NDRB in 1987 shortly after the retirement 

of Hepburn (table 1). Matthews had been 

a scientist in the branch for many years, 

had contributed greatly to the compilation 

of data, and was familiar with all aspects 

of its operation. In 1990, Sue Ann Ritchko 

was appointed administrator of HNIS. Three 

years later, Ellen Harris became Director of 

the Nutrition Monitoring Division, replacing 

Rizek, who stepped down primarily because 

of the low response during the 1987-1988 

National Food Consumption Survey (46). 

Shortly thereafter (1994), all HNIS activities 

were transferred to ARS. The nutrition 

education component was ultimately moved 

to the USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and 

Promotion (CNPP). Food composition data 

and food consumption survey activities 

were integrated into the Beltsville Human 

Nutrition Research Center (BHNRC) as 

individual units (table 1). Thus, all food 

composition and food consumption activities 

were combined again with human nutrition 

research activities following a 13-year 

administrative separation. 

Joanne Holden was appointed Research 

Leader of the Nutrient Data Laboratory (food 

composition tabulation activities in BHNRC 

[NDL]) in 1995 (table 1). She had extensive 

experience with nutrition research and food 

composition work, having been a member 

of several laboratories of BHNRC, most 

recently the Food Composition Laboratory. 

Also, NDL moved from Hyattsville to 

Riverdale, MD, the same year. Four 

years later, the laboratory moved again to 

Building 005 on the Beltsville Agricultural 

Research Center (BARC) campus, where it 

remains today (table 1). Since the transfer 

of food data compilation activities back to 

ARS, updating and maintaining SR has 

been the primary focus of the laboratory 

as the official source of food composition

information for the United States. Also, 

NDL scientists have developed several 

smaller databases that report the levels of 

nutrients, food components, and biological 

activities believed to impact health (table 2). 

These databases follow scientific evidence

of the importance of food components to 

health and the ability to measure them in 

foods. Most recently, a database on the 

ingredients of dietary supplements has been 

released (table 2), which was prompted by 

data in reports from the National Center 

for Health Statistics that as early as 1974, 

nearly one-quarter of U.S. adults took 

dietary supplements daily (47). This trend 

has risen substantially over the last three 

decades, which accounts for a significant

level of intake for as many as 20 nutrients 

(48). All of these databases have been 

possible through extensive collaboration 

with governmental agencies, the food 

industry, and scientists in academia (see 

below). Today (2011) the scientific staff of

NDL includes, in addition to Holden, Seema 

Bhagwat, Jacob Exler, David Haytowitz, 

Susan Gebhardt, Linda Lemar, Melissa 

Nickle, Kristine Patterson, Pamela Pehrsson, 

Bethany Showell, Robin Thomas, and Denise 

Trainer. 

Joanne Holden was 

appointed Research 

Leader of the Nutrient 

Data Laboratory.

1993
140 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Nutrient Composition Laboratory 1975-2010

Six years after the Food Composition 

Laboratory of HNRD was abolished (table 1), 

a new laboratory was formed as a result of 

negotiations between Willis Gortner, Director 

of HNRD, and Robert Levy, Director, NHLBI 

(table 1) (49). NHLBI had funded two large 

nutritional epidemiology projects—Multiple 

Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT) and 

Lipid Research Clinics (LRC)—and requested 

the continuation of state-of-the art 

methodology for accurate food composition 

data from within a governmental agency 

rather than relying on individual grants and 

contracts, the traditional primary external 

funding mechanism of NIH. In addition, 

NHLBI was beginning to focus on individual 

dietary fatty acids as potential risk factors 

in vascular disease. NHLBI scientists were 

familiar with the methodology research of 

Hal Slover, a scientist at the Lipid Nutrition 

Laboratory who was world-renowned for 

accurate measurement of fatty acids and 

tocopherols (50,51). Thus began a 30-year 

collaboration between USDA and NHLBI 

(49). At the same time, NHLBI established 

collaborations with CFEI and the School 

of Public Health at the University of 

Minnesota (Nutrition Coordinating Center) to 

provide tools for the evaluation of potential 

relationships between diet, nutrient intake, 

and vascular diseases. 

The staff of the Nutrient Composition 

Laboratory (NCL) was initially formed by 

the “contribution” of one scientist and 

one support person from each of the four 

metabolic laboratories of HNRD. Kent 

Stewart, designated Laboratory Chief, Hal 

Slover, and Wayne Wolf formed the initial 

scientific core of the laboratory. Jose

Gutierriez, a microbiologist, was the fourth 

scientist asked to join NCL, but he opted for 

retirement instead. Soon thereafter, Doris 

Baker from USDA’s Agricultural Marketing 

Division and Betty Li from Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute and State University 

(VT) joined the laboratory to begin method 

development and analyses for food fiber and

carbohydrates, respectively. James Harnly, 

with a newly earned Ph.D. from UMCP, 

joined Wolf to enhance mineral analysis 

research capability. Also, Elaine Lanza 

from CFEI and Raymond (Rick) Thompson, 

Jr., from Michigan State University joined 

Slover to form a large lipids research and 

analysis group. Ritva Butrum and Mary 

Moss transferred from CFEI to lead food 

sampling. When Butrum transferred to 

the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at 

NIH, Joanne Holden joined Moss. Joseph 

(Joe) Vanderslice, who retired from the 

Department of Chemistry at UMCP after 

a sabbatical at NCL, also joined NCL to 

pursue research in vitamin analysis. The 

laboratory occupied the available space in 

several buildings on the BARC campus until 

newly renovated space was made available 

in Building 161 in the early 1980s. The 

flexible innovations built into the laboratory

furniture and accommodations during 

remodeling allowed the group to remain in 

this building 30 years later.

There was discussion related to the mission 

of this new laboratory. While some (Rizek 

and NHLBI administrators) considered it a 

government analytical laboratory for foods, 

others (Stewart and ARS administrators) 

proposed a strong research component. 

The result was a laboratory with a research 

mission, because of its administrative 

Kent Stewart was 

one of the scientists 

who made up the 

initial staff of the 

Nutrient Composition 

Laboratory and was 

its first Laboratory 

Chief.

1975
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 141

location within the research arm of USDA, 

but also with a mission to apply recently 

developed methodologies and techniques 

in the acquisition of food composition data. 

In retrospect, this dual mission has been 

very fruitful in terms of testing applications 

of new methodologies on foods and also in 

the engagement of scientists in the entire 

scheme of food composition activities—from 

representative food sampling and the many 

aspects of analysis to evaluation, tabulation, 

and publication of data.

After transferring to BHE in 1961, Slover 

developed substantial expertise in the 

separation and measurement of tocopherols, 

tocotrienols, and fatty acids in foods 

and biological samples employing newly 

developed gas liquid chromatography (11, 

18, 50-55). At the Nutrient Composition 

Laboratory, Slover and colleagues advanced 

technology for the measurement of fatty 

acids, tocopherols, and sterols by the 

application of capillary gas chromatography 

columns that increased resolution and 

required smaller sample sizes (56-58). 

As early as 1981, this group developed a 

system for the estimation of trans fatty acids 

in foods with these new techniques (59). It 

is interesting to note that during this era, 

Slover and many other analysts advanced 

the boundaries for column technology. In 

order to accomplish this goal, he had a 

complete system for “drawing” glass and 

quartz capillary columns in his laboratory, 

a technique that was akin to the art of glass 

blowing and a talent that was essential 

for the advancement of the application 

of gas chromatography to food analysis. 

Slover reviewed both packed and capillary 

column technology for gas chromatography 

and its analytical potential in 1983 (60). 

He and his group applied these newly 

developed methods to the analyses of a 

wide variety of foods, including fast foods 

(61) and margarines (62), as well as cooked 

and raw beef (63) and pork (64) that were 

part of large collaborative studies with the 

meat industry and several USDA agencies. 

(See discussion below.) Slover retired in 

the early 1990s. Thompson continued to 

develop techniques for cholesterol and sterol 

analyses (65). He retired in the late 1990s. 

Although research on methodology for fatty 

acids and other lipid components of foods 

was discontinued at NCL, the technology 

had been transferred to many laboratories 

including commercial analytical groups. This 

was in response to the Nutrition Labeling 

and Education Act of 1990 that required 

similar data on food labels, as well as to 

general consumer interest in fatty acids 

and cholesterol levels in foods in relation to 

health. 

Wolf, a specialist in inorganic nutrient 

analysis, developed new methodologies 

for these food components, especially for 

recently identified essential trace elements

(chromium, selenium), by coupling gas 

chromatography with atomic absorption 

spectrometry (66, 67). Subsequently, selenomethionine was identified as a healthrelated active form of dietary selenium, 

for which Wolf’s group developed highly 

sensitive and accurate methods (68, 69). 

This group also was active in the generation 

of data on inorganic nutrient content of 

mixed diets (70, 71) and meat-based foods 

(72-75). As part of Wolf’s interest in the 

application of Certified Reference Materials

(see discussion below), he recognized the 

need to improve analytical methods for 

niacin in foods. This led to the addition 

of chromatographic sample cleanup to 

“standard niacin analysis” (76) and a new 

validated procedure for the measurement 

of niacin in infant formula (77). Recently, 

isotope dilution technology has been 

coupled with liquid chromatography for the 

determination of this vitamin (78). 

Stewart brought with him to NCL the new 

analytical technology he and Gary Beecher 

had developed when they worked together 

at the Protein Nutrition Laboratory (79). 

He teamed with Vanderslice, a physical 

chemist, to mathematically describe the 
142 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

flow of solutions in the small bore tubing

(~0.25mm internal diameter) that was 

employed in these instruments (80,81). He 

also reviewed the history of this technology 

in the United States (82). However, Stewart’s 

primary emphasis was promotion of 

analytical concepts and techniques for 

the improved analysis of foods and diets. 

Some of these concepts involved critical 

review of data, which he and others first

applied to Iron Content of Food released in 

1983 (see discussion below) (table 2). He 

often discussed the many issues in the 

measurement of nutrients and other healthrelated components of foods and encouraged 

a wide range of scientists to apply their 

knowledge in the search of resolutions 

(83). Also born from this environment was 

the concept of an international scientific

journal devoted exclusively to all aspects 

of food composition research. Although 

there were several journals that published 

food composition-related papers (Analytical 

Chemistry, Journal of Agriculture and Food 

Chemistry, and Journal of Food Science, for 

example), there was no one journal that 

included publications on all aspects of 

this unique research. After many meetings 

and much planning with Academic Press 

and United Nations University, the first

issue of the Journal of Food Composition 

and Analysis was published in 1987 with 

Stewart as Editor and several papers 

authored by scientists at NCL. Today, this is 

the only peer-reviewed, international journal 

that reports all aspects of food composition 

and related research. Elsevier currently 

publishes this journal, and Katherine 

Phillips at VT serves as Editor. Stewart 

moved to VT in 1982, where he and Phillips 

developed the currently active Food Analysis 

Laboratory Coordination Center (FALCC). 

Gary Beecher was appointed Laboratory 

Chief of NCL in 1982 following Stewart’s 

move to VT (table 1). In terms of research 

program, Beecher took his lead from 

information in the then recently published 

Diet, Nutrition and Cancer (84) and the 

interest among NCI scientists in β-carotene 

as a possible food component that might 

decrease cancer risk. While β-carotene and 

other provitamin A-active carotenoids were 

known, their activities were combined and 

reported as a single vitamin A value in food 

composition tables, thereby negating the 

ability to evaluate individual components. 

In addition, there were other abundant 

carotenoids in many plant foods—lutein, 

lycopene, and zeaxanthin—that did not 

have provitamin A activity and were not 

measured, but they were suspected of being 

absorbed from the diet and metabolized 

by humans and thus having an effect on 

health. With the expertise of Fred Khachik, 

a research associate, the carotenoid analysis 

program at BHNRC was reactivated (12), 

and HPLC procedures were developed for the 

separation and measurement of the many 

carotenoids in fruits and vegetables (85-88). 

Many of the analytical issues experienced 

with the analysis of carotenoids in plasma, 

i.e., instability, oxidation, etc, (10) were also 

observed with foods, which complicated this 

research. The large number of carotenoids 

in the plant kingdom, the many possible 

derivatives, and the lack of commercially 

available standards often required a lengthy 

isolation and characterization process 

for foods. This was necessary so that the 

precise structure and their derivatives 

Gary Beecher 

was appointed 

Chief of the 

Nutrient 

Composition 

Laboratory.

1982
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 143

could be understood (89). These analytical 

procedures were subsequently employed 

to measure carotenoids in several foods 

(90,91). The data resulting from this activity 

and published information on the content 

of individual carotenoids of foods were 

combined into the first database for these

food components (92, table 2). It was the 

availability and application of this database 

that permitted J.M. Seddon et al. to draw 

an association between increased intake 

of carotenoids, specifically lutein and

zeaxanthin, and decreased risk of advanced 

age-related macular degeneration (93). As 

Beecher moved his research program to 

focus on flavonoids, Khachik transferred to

UMCP, where he continued investigation of 

carotenoids. Beecher returned to full-time 

research in 1996. 

Baker, who had expertise in cereal grains, 

transferred to NCL from a USDA Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS) laboratory on the 

BARC campus in 1976 as the Federal Grain 

Inspection Service (FGIS) was being formed 

from AMS. The probability was quite high 

that she would be transferred to a laboratory 

in the center of the country as FGIS began 

to fulfill its mission and research activity

was being diminished. 

The mid-1970s marked an awakening in 

the fiber content in foods and its potential

impact on human health. However, the only 

routine analytic technique then available 

measured “crude fiber,” the insoluble

residue that remains after severe treatment 

with sulfuric acid. A new “neutral detergent 

fiber” method had been proposed for

foods for which Baker developed routine 

procedures for cereals and cereal products 

(94,95). She also collaborated with a former 

AMS colleague, Karl Norris, a scientist 

at the Instrumentation Laboratory at 

BARC who was developing many practical 

agricultural applications for near-infrared 

spectroscopy (NIR), a technique he had 

invented earlier. Together they developed 

a procedure for the estimation of dietary 

fiber and other nutrients in foods (96).

From these agricultural applications, NIR 

technology has found its niche in quality 

control in the food industry as well as in the 

manufacture of many consumer products. 

Baker retired in the mid-1980s. Lanza 

continued this research with the comparison 

of data from traditional analytical methods 

in a nationwide sampling of ground beef and 

fruit juices (74,97). Lanza transferred to NCI 

in the late 1980s. 

Betty Li, an organic chemist and a transfer 

from VT, developed procedures for the 

quantification of individual sugars and

starch in foods employing gas-liquid 

chromatography instrumentation (98). 

Heretofore, the “carbohydrate” content 

of foods was calculated by subtracting 

the percentage of moisture, protein, fat, 

and ash from 100. Thus, the research 

efforts of Baker and Li were an attempt to 

begin to quantify, by direct measurement 

using modern instrumentation, specific

components of the “carbohydrate” or 

nitrogen-free extract (6) fraction of foods. 

Li applied these new techniques to the 

measurement of sugars in several foods, 

most notably breakfast cereals (99,100), 

fruit juices (101), and yogurts (102), as well 

as starch in fast-food fried chicken (103). 

The publications listing concentrations of 

sugars in ready-to-eat breakfast cereals 

by brand names for the first time caused a

substantial reaction by the industry, which 

is still an issue today for consumers who 

wish to limit their consumption of foods with 

high sugar content. 

Subsequent to Baker’s retirement, Li took 

on the task of developing new and modified

methods for the measurement of dietary 

fibers and similar components of foods.

There was already at least one “official”

AOAC (Association of Official Analytical

Chemists) method for measuring dietary 

fiber. However, that method had many steps,

employed several enzymes, and required 
144 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

pH adjustments rendering it extremely 

cumbersome. At this time, dieticians and 

nutritionists were demanding data on 

the fiber content of foods. Concurrently,

a small group of international analysts 

had coalesced (L. Prosky, N.G. Asp, J.W. 

DeVries, I. Furda, R. Mongeau, O. Theander, 

D.A.T. Southgate, and H.N. Englyst) to 

address these dietary fiber analysis issues.

From the outset, there was a philosophical 

difference between the European and the 

North American scientists over the definition

of components of the fiber fraction of foods

and their analysis. This difference was never 

resolved, and as a result, methods based 

on both definitions were developed. Li was

accepted into this group as she addressed 

the simplification of the AOAC method, by

removing an enzyme and its incubation 

step (104), and modified the procedure to

measure both soluble and insoluble fiber

(105). Soon she identified specific classes of

foods, i.e., legumes, fruits and vegetables, 

for which steps could be removed without 

altering results (106,107), and additional 

modifications were made to improve speed

and safety (108,109). Ultimately, a general, 

simplified procedure was developed that was

less costly and less labor intensive, but that 

gave acceptable results for many different 

foods and from several laboratories (110). 

These steps were combined with earlier 

methods to form a single procedure so 

that sugars, starch, and total dietary fiber

could be determined in a mixed food sample 

(111). A non-enzymatic gravimetric method 

for foods containing less than 2% starch 

was collaboratively studied and eventually 

approved as AOAC method 993.21. Li 

participated in numerous collaborative 

studies conducted by analysts in New 

Zealand, England, Sweden, Japan, and the 

United States. She also was a participant 

in the collaborative analytical fiber group to

develop official methods that are currently

employed for the determination of fiber

values listed on food labels. A comparison 

between data using an official method

and Li’s simplified procedure for many

different types of foods indicates the extreme 

challenge in the determination of food 

components that lack molecular species 

identification, e.g., dietary fiber (112). Li

retired in 2004.

The collection, processing, and preparation 

of representative food samples prior 

to analysis were goals of NCL from 

its beginning. Moss and Holden were 

instrumental in assuring that samples 

from the large beef and pork studies were 

appropriately selected from purveyors, 

shipped properly, reduced to representative 

retail cuts, and cooked according to common 

practice (72,73). Moss transferred to the 

food industry in the mid-1980s. However, 

Holden continued to provide expertise on 

representative sampling of retail foods in the 

United States based on population density 

and brand-name market share (74,103). 

Holden also was a major contributor to the 

application and refinement of the critical

evaluation system for food composition 

data while at the Nutrient Composition 

Laboratory, and was the driving force for 

the incorporation of many of its principles 

into the National Nutrient Databank (NNDB) 

system after she became Research Leader of 

the Nutrient Data Laboratory. (See Critical 

Evaluation of Food Composition Data below.) 

Joe Vanderslice developed analytical 

procedures for several water-soluble 

vitamins. He and his group first applied

high performance liquid chromatography 

(HPLC) to the separation and quantification

of the prominent forms of vitamin B6 (113). 

The inability to acquire HPLC columns 

employed for the original measurements 

required an extensive search for new 

columns and reinvestigation of vitamin B6 

separations (114). These procedures were 

subsequently applied to the quantification of

this vitamin in several foods, animal tissues, 

and plasma (115-118). Vanderslice’s group 

applied similar techniques to the separation 

and measurement of the various forms of 

thiamin (119). 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 145

The desire of scientists at NCI to conduct 

a large human study at BHNRC that 

investigated the effect of vitamin C from 

foods on several biological markers 

prompted Vanderslice to develop HPLC 

techniques for the measurement of all forms 

of this vitamin in foods (120). Because of 

the sensitivity of vitamin C to oxidation, 

robotic directed procedures were developed 

to extract and prepare samples for HPLC 

measurement (121). These procedures 

were then applied to the analysis of foods 

for the human study (122); the resulting 

data provided the basis for discussions of 

the variability of vitamin C in foods (123). 

At the same time, the question arose as to 

the amount of oxidized vitamin C in human 

plasma, which was addressed with many 

of these same techniques and found to be 

negligible (124). 

L. Faye Russell, a scientist with Agriculture 

Canada, arranged to complete her doctorate 

at UMCP, but she conducted her research 

with Vanderslice’s group. Her research 

consisted of a review of the current methods 

for the measurement of riboflavin in foods

and tissues (125), and then development 

of new extraction and HPLC techniques for 

the quantification of this vitamin (126). She

also developed a statistically based sampling 

plan for the measurement of riboflavin in

fast-food hamburgers (127).

Vanderslice and his group began to evaluate 

procedures for the measurement of folates 

and folic acid in foods (128). However, 

the development of separations of these 

vitamers and their validation was left to 

Pawlosky, Beecher, and Doherty (see below). 

Vanderslice retired in 1994.

James Harnly joined NCL in 1979. Research 

for his Ph.D. with Tom O’Haver at UMCP 

developed components for multi-element 

atomic absorption spectrometers. Atomic 

absorption spectroscopy for elemental 

analysis, then only about 15 years old, had 

excellent sensitivity. However, the original 

design employed a lamp that emitted a 

sharp, narrow wavelength of the spectrum 

unique for a single element. To measure 

a different element, the lamp needed to 

be changed and the monochromator reset 

to the appropriate wavelength. O’Haver 

and many of his students pursued the 

research and development required for 

the transition to an atomic absorption 

instrument that could measure several 

elements simultaneously. Harnly continued 

this line of research at NCL in collaboration 

with O’Haver and several students, as 

well as with several scientists around the 

world. One of those students, Nancy MillerIhli, later joined NCL as a scientist. Many 

aspects of each of the components of the 

new instrument were evaluated and further 

developed (129-136). Some advances were 

made only after technological developments 

in such components as monochromators 

and solid-state detectors (137). Nonetheless, 

this technology was never commercialized 

even though Perkin Elmer, the preeminent 

analytical instrument company for atomic 

absorption instrumentation at the time, 

showed interest. Several events doomed the 

new instrumentation including corporate 

decisions to promote inductively coupled 

plasma (ICP) analysis instrumentation 

because of higher profits and the

reorganization of Perkin Elmer, which 

closed its outstanding German research and 

development facility. Although a few retired 

Perkin Elmer scientists continue to work 

on the development of multielement atomic 

absorption spectrometry, it is doubtful it 

will become a widely accepted commercial 

instrument, especially given the current 

overwhelming market penetration of ICP and 

ICP-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). 

In 1997, Harnly was appointed Research 

Leader of the Food Composition Laboratory 

(FCL), renamed from Nutrient Composition 

Laboratory (table 1). Soon he focused on 

methodologies for the measurement of 

organic components of foods and dietary 

supplements. His group first developed
146 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

procedures for assessing allicin, a sulfurcontaining, purported health-related 

component of garlic (138), followed by gas 

chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS) methods for free amino acids in garlic 

and broccoli (139,140). Subsequently, he 

developed a new approach for the evaluation 

of the many organic compounds of plant 

foods and supplements. Employing the 

separation power of HPLC coupled with 

ultraviolet-visible and mass spectrometry 

detection, Harnly’s group developed 

standard procedures for the routine 

generation of “fingerprint profiles” of foods

and supplements (141,142). By applying 

new statistical techniques (analysis of 

variance-principle component analysis) to 

the data, sources of variation were readily 

identified (143,144). While this is a work in

progress, it demonstrates the feasibility of 

a new approach (plant metabolomics) to the 

characterization of plant compounds that 

may be important in human health. 

When Beecher returned to full-time 

research in 1996, he reviewed the many 

components of plant foods that have the 

potential to promote human health (145) 

and selected flavonoids as the next class

of compounds for analytical methodology 

research. Flavonoids, a broad class of 

polyphenols with several subclasses, are 

prominent in most plant foods and many 

botanical supplements. They are the primary 

organic constituents in teas, which received 

considerable health-related attention in 

the early 1990s. Although there were 

analytical procedures for individual foods or 

classes of flavonoids, a universal system of

measurement was lacking (146). An HPLC 

system was developed with ultravioletvisible detection that separated the major 

food flavonoids as their aglycones (147).

Also, a sample preparation scheme was 

developed that removed sugars attached 

to flavonoids but yet allowed accurate

quantification of the polyphenols (148).

These procedures were subsequently 

applied to the measurement of flavonoids

in a large number of plant food samples of 

the National Food and Nutrient Analysis 

Program (NFNAP) (see discussion below) 

(149). These data and other published 

results were integrated into a database on 

the flavonoid content of foods (150, table 2). 

During the late 20th century, Finnish 

scientists promoted lignans, another group 

of phytonutrients that have hormone-like 

biological activities. These compounds are 

found primarily in flax- and rye-based foods

and dietary supplements in the United 

States. Two new lignans were isolated and 

characterized from flaxseed meal (151), and

the available data on the lignan content of 

foods were summarized (152). 

Also during this period, the Department of 

Defense became interested in the health of 

its female soldiers, upon urging by Congress, 

and made available resources through a 

grants program. Early studies indicated 

that isoflavones, a subclass of flavonoids

and prominent in soy-based foods, had 

estrogen-like biological activities. Together 

with Pat Murphy at Iowa State University, 

who had considerable experience in the 

analysis of these compounds in soy and 

soy foods, Beecher and Holden submitted a 

proposal that was funded. Appropriate retail 

and institutional foods were sampled and 

James (Jim) Harnly 

was appointed 

Research Leader of 

the Food Composition 

Laboratory.

1997
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 147

analyzed (153), and a database derived from 

these and published values was assembled 

and released in 1998 (table 2). This database 

has been updated several times because of 

continued research and health interest in 

these compounds and continuing analysis of 

new foods. 

As a result of Beecher’s experience studying 

carotenoids and foods in general, he was 

invited to be a member of two Institute of 

Medicine (IOM) panels: Dietary Reference 

Intakes for Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Selenium 

and Carotenoids; and Establishment of the 

Basis for Daily Values for Food Labeling in 

U.S. and Canada. Beecher retired in 2001. 

Nancy Miller-Ihli, who had conducted her 

Ph.D. research with Harnly, joined NCL in 

1984. She focused her research on sample 

preparation for mineral analysis of foods. 

Whereas the standard procedure had been 

to oxidize carbonaceous material by ashing 

either in a furnace or digestion with strong 

acids prior to analysis, either procedure 

was long and labor intensive and, in the 

case of furnace ashing, often resulted 

in the loss of some elements through 

vaporization. Miller-Ihli sought to avoid this 

long sample preparation step and used the 

graphite furnace of the atomic absorption 

spectrometer as the “ashing” furnace, as 

well as the source of elemental vaporization 

for ultimate analysis. The problem was 

transfer of a very small, representative 

sample of solid food or other material into 

the furnace of the instrument. This was 

overcome by grinding samples to a specific

small particle size and then maintaining 

them in homogeneous slurry with ultrasonic 

mixing while a small aliquot was taken for 

introduction into the furnace (154). Perkin 

Elmer acquired rights to the prototype 

instrument and its patent, and produced it 

as an attachment for their instrumentation. 

An international collaborative study with 

more than a dozen laboratories validated the 

technology and also highlighted technical 

areas for improvement of performance 

(155). Subsequently, the slurry sampler 

and furnace were interfaced to ICP-MS and, 

using sensitive isotope dilution analysis, 

slurry conditions were optimized taking 

into consideration such factors as sample 

density, particle size, slurry mixing, and 

analyte extraction into the slurry (156). 

Miller-Ihli also developed highly 

accurate instrumental methods for the 

measurement of trace elements in foods, 

water, and commodities and subsequently 

demonstrated their application with a 

series of analyses. An ICP-atomic emission 

and an atomic absorption procedure were 

developed for foods (157) and employed 

in the analysis of trace elements in fruits 

(158). Subsequently, ICP-MS methods were 

substantially modified to improve accuracy

and precision (159). That procedure, as 

well as ICP-atomic emission, was used to 

assess the trace element composition of 

municipal waters in the United States (160). 

Miller-Ihli also was called on for advice 

in the measurement of lead in sugars. 

She developed a graphite furnace atomic 

absorption procedure that was relatively 

fast and gave accurate and precise values 

(161,162). Miller-Ihli retired in 2004.

Robert Pawlosky joined the Food 

Composition Laboratory in the late 

1990s. He came from the University of 

Minnesota and NIH with considerable mass 

spectrometry (MS) experience. He took the 

position previously held by Aldo Ferretti, 

whose program had been transferred from 

BHNRC’s Lipid Nutrition Laboratory to FCL 

although he retired before physically moving 

to Building 161. Fortunately, his associate 

Vince Flanagan, an MS expert dating back 

to the 1960s, waited several years before 

retiring. The Pawlosky-Flanagan team first

developed a sensitive HPLC-MS procedure 

for the measurement of deuterium-labeled 

β-carotene in biological samples from 

humans (163). Subsequently, they developed 

a method for the measurement of both 

endogenous and 13C-labeled β-carotene, 
148 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

lutein, and vitamin A in human plasma 

(164). Beverly Clevidence, Janet Novotny, 

and the BHNRC human studies group 

employed these procedures to investigate 

the metabolism of carotenoids (165). 

Next, Pawlosky turned his attention to 

folates in foods and biological samples. 

At the request of Christine Pfeiffer at the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

Atlanta, GA, a stable isotope dilution 

procedure was developed for the analysis 

of 5-methyltetrahydofolic acid in serum 

(166). This was followed by the development 

and validation of a similar method for folic 

acid in fortified foods (167) and analysis of

both folic acid and 5-methyltetrahydrofolic 

acid in fortified citrus juices (168).

These procedures were then applied to 

the validation of HPLC methods for the 

measurement of folates in foods (169,170). 

Pawlosky returned to NIH in 2002, and 

Flanagan retired shortly thereafter.

Rebecca Robbins, an organic chemist, joined 

FCL in 2001. She focused on methodology 

for analysis of phenolic acids in plant foods, 

which she reviewed (171). Subsequently, 

Robbins developed HPLC procedures for 

accurate measurement of these components 

(172). She left FCL for the snack food 

division of Mars, Inc., in New Jersey in 

2004.

As of the time of writing (2011), as a result 

of retirements and transfers of several 

scientists as well as budget constraints, the 

laboratory has five scientists. The laboratory

was renamed Food Composition and 

Methods Development Laboratory (FCMDL) 

in 2007. Harnly is the Research Leader and 

focuses on analytical fingerprinting and

profiling. Wolf continued his efforts in the

development of analytical procedures for 

organic species of selenium and selected 

water-soluble vitamins. He also worked 

with scientists at the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) and other 

organizations to facilitate availability and 

application of Certified Reference Materials

in food and biological analyses. These 

materials are critical to the area of analytical 

quality assurance and the laboratory 

qualification process. Wolf retired in March

2011. 

Three new scientists joined the laboratory 

during this decade. Wm. Craig Byrdwell 

currently is focusing his efforts on the 

development of sensitive methods for the 

analysis of various forms of vitamin D in 

foods (173). This is in support of a large 

effort to update data on the vitamin D 

content of foods (174) as a committee of IOM 

re-examined recommendations for vitamin D 

intake (175). 

Pei Chen is collaborating with Harnly on the 

chromatographic fingerprinting and profiling

of foods and dietary supplements (176). 

He also has developed sensitive analytical 

procedures for the determination of watersoluble vitamins in multi-vitamin dietary 

supplements (177,178). 

Devanand Luthria has investigated the 

important steps of sample preparation 

as part of analyses of foods and 

supplements (179,180). He has developed 

chromatographic procedures for the 

determination of total phenolics and 

phenolic acids and applied these methods to 

the analysis of foods (181,182). 

In the tradition of the origin of the Nutrient 

Composition Laboratory over 30 years 

earlier, this small group of scientists 

continue to develop new measurement 

concepts and apply modern analytical 

technology to the assessment of nutrients 

and health-related components in foods 

and dietary supplements. It is the only 

laboratory in the United States with this 

specific mission.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 149

Overarching Programs That Improved Food 

Composition Information 

Throughout the history of food composition 

activities in the United States, there have 

been many encompassing programs, in 

addition to the specific efforts of USDA

scientists that have contributed to the extent 

and quality of food composition data. A few 

of these programs are highlighted below. 

Collaborations—Interagency Federal 

Government. Collaborations with healthrelated agencies began in the 1970s 

when diet was recognized as a potential 

component of chronic disease (49). Thus, 

Levy and NHLBI were the impetus to 

reactivate a formal Nutrient Composition 

Laboratory at the Nutrition Institute that 

carried with it financial support for many

years. At the same time, resources were 

provided by NHLBI for the tabulation and 

reporting of food composition data. Shortly 

thereafter, Walter Mertz, Director of BHNRC, 

and Peter Greenwald at NCI developed 

cooperative research efforts that included 

support for the measurement and tabulation 

of several nutrients and components of 

foods associated with reduced cancer risk. 

At about the same time, the USFDA helped 

initiate the concept of the USDA Nutrient 

Databank and contributed data on many 

samples from its Total Diet Study (33). 

In the mid-1990s, primarily through the 

efforts of Abby Ershow at NHLBI and 

Joanne Holden and others at NDL, a 

large collaborative program was initiated 

to update nutrient data in the USDA 

National Nutrient Databank. This program, 

the National Food and Nutrient Analysis 

Program (NFNAP), generated the support 

of 17 Institutes and Offices of NIH as well

as USFDA and USDA. The objectives of 

NFNAP included the acquisition of nationally 

representative samples of those foods that 

were the major contributors of nutrients in 

the American diet. Thus, the “Key Foods” 

list was updated prior to each food sampling 

cycle by combining the most recent food 

consumption data and existing nutrient 

data (table 2). The “Key Foods” list helped 

to set priorities for food sampling and 

analyses under NFNAP. Although earlier 

food sampling was based on U.S. population 

distribution and, where applicable, on 

product brand-name market share (103), 

statistically based research was expanded, 

and a nationwide multi-stage, probabilitybased sampling plan was developed for 

the acquisition of representative samples 

of foods from across the country (183). A 

procedure was developed in conjunction 

with USDA procurement personnel to 

identify analytical laboratories based on 

accuracy in performance of analysis as well 

as cost. An agreement was established with 

the FALCC laboratory at VT to comminute, 

aliquot, store, and distribute food samples 

(184). This laboratory also had a high level 

of expertise in analytical quality control and 

was selected to serve as the quality control 

group for NFNAP (185). A report of the first

decade of the program indicated substantial 

differences in selected nutrient values of 

some foods compared with Databank data, 

which validated the contribution of the 

program to assure reliable, current food 

composition information (186). 

More recently, collaboration with the Office

of Dietary Supplements, NIH (ODS) was 

established to develop an analytically based 

dietary supplement ingredient database. 

With nearly one-half of American adults 

using a dietary supplement at the turn of 

the 20th century and the availability of only 

a “supplements label” database, ODS sought 

the expertise of scientists at both FCMDL 

and NDL for the development of a database 

of values based on independent analyses 

(187). The project began with a survey of 

adult multivitamin-mineral supplements 

for which data have been released (table 

2). Long-range goals of the program are to 

include values for all dietary supplements in 

the database (188). 
150 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Collaboration with scientists at other USDA 

human nutrition research centers also has 

been critical to the expansion and success 

of food composition activities. Ron Prior and 

his colleagues at the Arkansas Children’s 

Nutrition Center generated data from NFNAP 

samples on proanthocyanidin content and 

for antioxidant activities, both of which 

contributed greatly to respective databases 

(table 2). Also, Sarah Booth and her team 

of experts in vitamin K measurements and 

metabolism at the Jean Mayer USDA Human 

Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts 

University analyzed NFNAP samples, and 

the resulting data (189-191) were integrated 

into the USDA National Nutrient Databank 

system. There were many less extensive 

interactions with scientists at other centers 

that also contributed to the advancement of 

technology and success of both analytical 

and data tabulation activities. 

Extensive collaboration with the National 

Bureau of Standards/National Institute 

of Standards and Technology is discussed 

below as part of the activity involving the 

development of Certified Reference Materials

for foods. 

 

Collaborations—Academia and State 

Experiment Stations. Atwater laid the 

groundwork for collaborations with 

scientists at State experiment stations, 

colleges, and universities (table 1). These 

scientists were called on for their expertise 

in many areas to assist in the conduct 

of food composition projects throughout 

USDA’s history. Continuing into the 1970s 

and 1980s, collaborations with scientists 

at many universities—such as University of 

Georgia, University of Idaho, University of 

Illinois, and Oregon State University—were 

established to generate food composition 

data. Ruth Matthews often coordinated 

these collaborations at national scientific

meetings (192). Two recent collaborations 

that resulted in extensive data include 

Ron Eitenmiller’s group at the University 

of Georgia who generated data on folates, 

tocopherol, and tocotrienol content of 

foods (193), and Steve Ziesel’s team at the 

University of North Carolina at Chapel 

Hill, which is one of the few laboratories 

in the world capable of measuring the 

various forms of choline in foods. Data from 

the latter group have been released as a 

database (table 2). 

Collaborations—Food Industry. As indicated 

earlier, the importance of diet in the 

prevention of chronic disease was well 

recognized by the mid-1970s. Consequently, 

the food industry became interested in the 

nutrient levels of foods it was producing 

and concerned that those data were 

accurately represented in the Databank. 

The meat industry is one of the food 

purveyors that have worked closely with 

USDA’s food composition scientists over 

the years. As early as 1975, representatives 

at the National Livestock and Meat Board 

collaborated with food composition scientists 

and other scientists at the Meat Laboratory 

at BARC to plan a large beef study with 

the purpose of generating new data on 

the nutrient content of raw and cooked 

retail cuts. Samples from this study were 

among the first analyses conducted by

scientists at the newly formed Nutrient 

Composition Laboratory. Soon, a large 

collaborative pork study was conducted 

to update data on the composition of pork 

cuts. As fat, especially animal fat, in the 

diet became more important from a health 

perspective, the meat industry continued 

to decrease the fat of its products. There 

was an effort to establish mathematical 

relationships between the amount of 

external fat and nutrient content of retail 

cuts. This research often involved academic 

scientists, particularly at Texas A&M 

University and the University of Wisconsin, 

and usually resulted in the updating of food 

composition handbooks, i.e., Revised AH13 Beef Products and AH-10 Pork Products 

and related databases. Today, external 

fat is essentially zero on most retail cuts 

of meat, which is reflected in the nutrient
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 151

composition data of these products. The fat 

content of ground beef also has decreased 

dramatically. In the recent past, products 

with 17% total fat were considered “extra 

lean.” As of this writing, ground beef may 

be as low as 3% fat, with the most common 

levels in the 5-20% range. Recently, a 

“Ground Beef Calculator” was developed as 

part of SR software, again in collaboration 

with industry and academic scientists, 

which adjusts the nutrient content based on 

levels of fat ranging from 5% to 30% (194). 

Ground pork also is becoming popular, but 

the levels of fat/lean are less structured 

than those for ground beef. A similar 

calculator system may be needed for this 

product (195). 

Many food companies and other food 

industry organizations have been involved 

in collaborations to improve and update 

food composition information. These include 

such groups as the Egg Nutrition Institute, 

which brought attention to the lowered 

cholesterol levels of eggs in the late 1980s 

(49) and again in 2011. During the 1980s, 

the National Chicken (formerly Broiler) 

Council and the National Turkey Federation 

participated in several projects to update 

food composition data for their products. 

Several other collaborators included food 

companies (Mars, Inc., and Ocean Spray 

Cranberries, Inc., for example) whose 

products contain proanthocyanidins and 

whose sponsored research demonstrated 

health benefits from consumption of their

products containing these polyphenols. 

All of these collaborations have been very 

beneficial in the maintenance of data in the

USDA food composition handbooks and 

Databank.

Critical Evaluation of Food Composition 

Data. New data on the iron content of beef 

and pork from the large 1970s studies 

discussed above, and based on instrumental 

and validated methods, indicated that 

values were considerably lower than those 

reported in the revised USDA Agriculture 

Handbook No. 8 (table 2) (49). An historical 

investigation revealed that the existing 

iron values had been calculated from the 

protein content of muscle rather than the 

measurement of iron levels per se (75). A 

similar situation occurred in the calculation 

of iron content of corn syrup, which had 

been based on iron levels of blackstrap 

molasses and resulted in inflated values for

corn syrup (49). Based on these experiences, 

scientists involved with the generation 

and collation of food composition data at 

Beltsville and Hyattsville thought that the 

values should have a quality indicator 

associated with them. 

The research team identified three categories

of information that most impacted the 

quality of analytical data. These included 

(1) sample handling and appropriateness 

of analytical method, (2) documentation of 

analytical method, and (3) quality control. 

Later, these categories were expanded to 

five and included (1) number of samples,

(2) analytical method, (3) sample handling, 

(4) sampling plan, and (5) analytical quality 

control. An expert system prototype was 

developed to include specific questions or

criteria within each of the five categories.

Answers to these questions/criteria 

were given a numerical rating, and an 

overall quality value was calculated—a 

“confidence code.” The first data evaluation

system, employing three categories, was 

applied to the newly published data for 

the Iron Content of Food released in 1983 

(table 2). The system was subsequently 

modified and expanded for the evaluation

of selenium (196,197) and copper (198) 

contents of foods. The data evaluation 

system was further modified when it

was applied to the individual carotenoid 

content of foods, the first organic class of

nutrients to receive such scrutiny (92). 

Application of the system to data for new 

food components (isoflavones, flavonoids,

and proanthocyanidins) resulted in further 

modifications of the rating scale and proved

that it was a valuable tool for systematic 
152 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

evaluation of the quality of analytical data 

for foods (table 2). 

A major advancement was attained when 

the principles of the data evaluation system 

were applied to assess the quality of data in 

the National Nutrient Databank and to set 

priorities for new work. The quality of the 

existing data was summarized by food and 

the resulting information used to rank key 

foods according to their priority for future 

sampling and analyses. Principles of this 

automated data quality evaluation system 

were first used to design the approach for

the sampling and analysis of foods for the 

NFNAP project. For new analytical data to be 

entered into the NNDB, the documentation 

for datasets must be reviewed by NDL 

scientists and the above data evaluation 

criteria must be met before the data can be 

accepted (199). This system also generates 

a confidence code for each nutrient/food

combination, similar to that described 

above, which is an integral part of the “Key 

Foods” rating system. 

The application of this system represents 

one of the first efforts to standardize and

harmonize the evaluation of analytical 

data quality across the international 

food composition network. The European 

Food Information Resource (EuroFir), a 

consortium of governments and institutions 

in 26 countries of the European Union, has 

adapted the principles of the USDA system 

for the evaluation of published literature on 

contents of bioactive substances in foods 

(200). They also are developing a similar 

system for the assessment of nutrients in 

foods. Several other countries have adapted 

the data evaluation system and applied it to 

specific sets of published works (49). 

Analytical Paradigm Shift and Certified 

Reference Materials. During the latter 

quarter of the 20th century, there was a 

major paradigm shift in the assessment of 

the quality of analytical measurements. Wolf 

was a major contributor to this endeavor 

and remains active in this area (49). Until 

this time, measurements depended upon 

a procedure-based approach that relied on 

exactly following a carefully defined process

that had been validated to give a desired 

precision, such as an AOAC International 

Official Method of Analysis. The paradigm

shift added the component of accuracy 

by demonstrating acceptable results from 

a known standard material (Certified

Reference Material). Thus, analyses moved 

from a “procedure-based” to a “performancebased” analytical paradigm (49).

This paradigm shift for food’s analysis had 

its basis in the international metrology 

community, primarily in the coming 

together of the many countries into the 

European Union, and in the rich history of 

the development of standards for metals in 

alloys and steels by the National Bureau of 

Standards (NBS), later renamed the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST). The accuracy component of the 

analysis is based on results from Certified

Reference Materials (CRMs), which are 

stable, homogeneous materials of matrices 

similar to “real foods” and with carefully 

assigned analytical values for selected 

nutrients and components. The development 

of the first food CRMs was the result of

collaborations between scientists involved 

with the analysis of foods and NBS scientists 

who had experience in the execution 

of highly accurate analyses to produce 

reference materials. The first CRMs with

certified values for a few inorganic nutrients

and that had matrices with some relevance 

to foods were bovine liver (SRM 1577) and 

orchard leaves (SRM 1571). Soon, a “total 

mixed diet” representing food intakes based 

on the most recent food consumption survey 

was assembled with the help of personnel 

at the BHNRC diet study kitchen. This 

diet was certified for several inorganic and

organic nutrients (201). However, various 

foods present many different matrices, i.e., 

high carbohydrate, high fat, high protein, 

and innumerable combinations, for which 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 153

Wolf and Andrews developed an approach 

for the definition and identification of

appropriate CRMs (202). From these meager 

beginnings, the available CRMs include 

many that have matrices similar to foods 

and have certified as well as informational

values for nutrients and other healthrelated components (203). Also, many more 

CRMs are available from metrology units of 

other countries, particularly England and 

the European Union. In addition, several 

commodity organizations such as the 

American Association of Cereal Chemists 

have reference “check sample” programs 

with accuracy components imbedded in 

them. 

The second component of this paradigm 

shift has been a large educational program 

on the integration of CRMs with official

methods as well as routine analyses (49). 

A new international symposium series 

was initiated in 1983—the International 

Symposium on Biological and Environmental 

Reference Materials—in which Wolf was 

extensively involved. The goals of this 

ongoing symposium are the promotion of 

appropriate application of CRMs and the 

identification of needs for new certified

materials. A decade later and in response 

to new food labeling legislation (National 

Nutrient Labeling and Education Act, 1990 

[NLEA]), AOAC International published an 

extensive volume that identified suitable

analytical methods for NLEA and, for the 

first time, recommended appropriate CRMs

and procedures for each validated method 

(204). As a consequence of these events, a 

Technical Division on Reference Materials 

was established within AOAC International 

to provide continual guidance and education 

on the availability and application of 

CRMs with official methods. Wolf has been

significantly involved with activities of this

division. 

The value of incorporation of CRMs 

into analytical procedures has been 

demonstrated in the NFNAP program. This 

program generated over 7,000 food samples 

that required analyses of more than 100 

nutrients and dietary components by a host 

of government, university, and contract 

laboratories. Evaluation of the performance 

of laboratories based on analyses of CRMs 

indicated that most data were within 

acceptable limits (205). Those nutrients 

or food components that lacked molecular 

definition (dietary fiber) or required complex

separations for measurement (carotenoids, 

tocopherols, and fatty acids) provided the 

greatest challenge in terms of accurate 

quantification. Nonetheless, the data

generated as part of the NFNAP program are 

the most accurate and the highest quality 

data in the USDA Nutrient Databank. 

International Food Composition Activities. 

By the mid-20th century, the Food and 

Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United 

Nations and only a few countries, including 

the United States, had produced tables 

of the composition of foods (206). Moving 

forward, the development of tables for new 

areas of the world was often sponsored 

by the country itself, regional nutrition 

organizations, or FAO (207). Data often 

were borrowed from existing tables, such 

as Agricultural Handbook No. 8 or the 

British tables recognized as “McCance and 

Widdowson” (208). However, international 

coordination and collaboration was lacking, 

except that representatives of individual 

countries would often visit those who were 

active in the field, e.g., Elsie Widdowson’s

first meeting with USDA’s Charlotte

Chatfield in 1936 (3).

This changed in the early 1980s when 

Nevin Scrimshaw, Director of Development 

Studies at United Nations University 

(UNU), the educational component of the 

United Nations, and also Professor of 

Nutrition at Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology (MIT), assembled a small group 

of international experts on food composition 

in Bellagio, Italy (207). The purpose of 

this meeting was to assess the status and 
154 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

problems of food composition data and 

explore future possibilities and potential 

execution. The group recommended the 

formation of the International Network of 

Food Data Systems (INFOODS), and shortly 

thereafter, a secretariat was established at 

MIT, funded by several U.S. Government 

agencies, the food industry, and private 

foundations. Hepburn and Stewart 

represented the U.S. food composition 

activities at the Bellagio meeting. One of the 

first activities of INFOODS was sponsorship

of an international meeting at Utah State 

University (March 1985) of scientists 

involved with various aspects of food 

composition data to assess the needs of the 

user community (209). Several publications 

followed, sponsored by INFOODS, that 

addressed issues important to compilation 

of food composition data (207). At a 1994 

meeting in Tunis, Tunisia, FAO joined 

INFOODS and UNU to mobilize resources 

for improving the quality, quantity, and 

accessibility of food composition data in the 

developing world (210). Today, INFOODS 

also is part of the International Union of 

Nutritional Scientists (IUNS) and sponsors 

conferences, workshops, and training 

activities as well as supports the Journal of 

Food Composition and Analysis and other 

food-composition-related publications (211). 

Another of the many results of the Bellagio 

meeting was the publication of Food 

Composition Data: Production, Management, 

and Use by Heather Greenfield and David

Southgate in 1992 (212). This was an 

extensive update of an earlier publication 

by Southgate, but the first comprehensive

discussion of all aspects of the generation 

and compilation of food composition data. 

Simultaneously with the preparation of 

this book, Southgate joined Clive West of 

Wageningen University, the Netherlands, to 

design and present the first International

Graduate Course on Production and Use 

of Food Composition Data in Nutrition at 

Wageningen University (1992). The 10th 

session, a course that lasted 2 weeks, was 

held at the university in October 2011. The 

course also has been offered at several sites 

around the world (213). Holden has been a 

lecturer and an integral part of this course 

from its early history, and Beecher has 

presented lectures in the course at several 

of the international sites. Shortly after Food 

Composition Data: Production, Management 

and Use was published, Greenfield organized

the first International Food Data Conference

in Sydney, Australia, as a satellite meeting 

to the 15th International Congress of 

Nutrition (214). Recently having its 9th 

session convened in Norwich, United 

Kingdom (2011), this conference affords the 

opportunity for scientists from around the 

world to present and discuss new findings

on the general topic of food composition. 

From the vision of Nevin Scrimshaw, the 

spark of the Bellagio meeting only a quarter 

century ago, and with the help of electronic 

technology, food composition activities have 

become internationalized with free exchange 

of ideas, techniques, and often data. 

Another activity that was part of the United 

Nations Development Program (UNDP) 

in China included exchange of scientists 

and engineers to transfer technology. In 

the mid-1980s, Guangya Wang at the 

Institute of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, 

Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, 

Beijing, China, was on sabbatical at NCL. 

At that time, Wang was responsible for food 

composition information in all of China. 

While at NCL, she learned current analytical 

procedures for several nutrients of foods. 

Shortly after returning to China, she invited 

Beecher and Vanderslice to China to present 

a 4-week-long course on nutrient analysis 

of foods. Wang had invited about 50 food 

analysts from all provinces and autonomous 

regions of China. Graduate students 

simultaneously translated English-language 

lectures into Mandarin. Although this may 

seem somewhat awkward, it was easy to 

discern from facial expressions when the 

participants did not comprehend the lecture 

material, which prompted the lecturer 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 155

to rephrase and expand on a concept for 

greater clarity. This activity established a 

long-term interaction between Wang and 

scientists at NCL.

Evaluation of Economic Benefits From 

Public Research

Recently, scientists at USDA Economic 

Research Service (ERS) critically assessed 

the benefits of public research within

an economic framework (215). Their 

observations were based on three groups 

within ARS, and one of the groups evaluated 

was NDL. Although only actual products 

(SR and other food composition databases, 

publications, and presentations) generated 

by the scientists at NDL were evaluated 

by the ERS team, all of the experience and 

knowledge gained throughout the history 

of food composition activities at USDA, as 

outlined above, have greatly contributed 

to the quality, quantity, and stature of 

these products today. The ERS team 

outlined the uses and applications of food 

composition information, which are similar 

to those highlighted at the outset of this 

chapter. Relative to economic benefits of the

products of NDL, improved public health 

was cited as the primary benefit (215). 

However, quantifying metrics were difficult

to establish, because all of the information 

produced and published by NDL scientists 

is in the public domain. Many of the 

products likely have been incorporated into 

“secondary uses,” often without reference or 

credit for the original data, and sometimes 

into classified, confidential, or “politically

volatile” environments. Nonetheless, 

there are no economical alternatives for a 

nationally based, census-driven, qualityoriented food measurement system within 

the United States. The ERS report concluded 

that generation and assembly of food 

composition information into user-friendly 

products is a highly effective use of public 

funds, for which there is an observable 

economic benefit. (215). 
156 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Awards

The following is a partial listing of awards 

given to USDA scientists working on food 

composition by professional societies, USDA, 

and other government agencies.

1947 David Breese Jones, Superior 

Service Award, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture

1951 Vitamin A Research Unit, 

Distinguished Service Award, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

1952 Hazel Stiebeling, Distinguished 

Service Award, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture

1953 Food Composition Unit, Human 

Nutrition and Home Economics 

(HNHE), Superior Service Award, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

Millard Horn, Superior Service Award, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Bernice Watt, Superior Service Award, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture

1957 Callie Mae Coons, Distinguished 

Service Award, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture

1958 Georgian Adams, Superior Service 

Award, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture

Amino Acid Investigations, Superior 

Service Award, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture

1959 Hazel Stiebeling, Distinguished 

Federal Civilian Service Award

1965 C. Edith Weir, Superior Service Award, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture

1967 Georgian Adams, Fellow of American 

Institute of Nutrition

1969 Bernice Watt, Distinguished 

Achievement Award, Iowa State 

University

1972 Ruth Leverton, Distinguished 

Service Award, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture

Bernice Watt, Borden Award, 

American Home Economics 

Association

1973 Lela Booher, Fellow of American 

Institute of Nutrition, Charter Member

1974 Bernice Watt, Distinguished 

Service Award, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture

1975 Mildred Adams, Fellow of American 

Institute of Nutrition

1980 Bernice Watt, Conrad Elvehjem Award 

for Public Service, American Institute 

of Nutrition

1988 Robert Rizek, Superior Service Award, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture

2001 Gary Beecher, Superior Service Award, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture

2003 Nutrient Data Laboratory, Superior 

Service Award, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture

2003 Rena Cutrufelli, Vincent de Jesus, 

David Haytowitz, Joanne Holden, 

Linda Lemar, and Robin Thomas, 

Honor Award, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture

2003 Wayne Wolf, Fellow of Association 

of Official Analytical Chemists

International

2006 Gary Beecher, Fellow of American 

Society for Nutrition

2008 Joanne Holden, Larry Douglass, 

Dennis Buege, Karen Molyé, Jon 

Krainak, and Julie Howe, Regional 

Excellence in Technology Transfer, 

Federal Laboratory Consortium MidAtlantic Region

2009 Joanne Holden, Janet Roseland, 

Karen Andrews, Matthew Feinberg, 

Larry Douglass, Johanna Dwyer, and 

Florence Chang, Regional Excellence 

in Technology Transfer, Federal 

Laboratory Consortium Mid-Atlantic 

Region
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 157

Acknowledgments

I am extremely grateful to the many people 

who have helped in the assembly of this 

historical document. I especially want to 

acknowledge the efforts of J.C. Smith, Jr. for 

his forbearance in reviewing, editing, and 

commenting on the manuscript. Comments 

and additions by Robert Doherty, Jacob 

Exler, Sue Gebhardt, David Haytowitz, 

Joanne Holden, Betty Li, Betty Perlof, and 

Wayne Wolf are greatly appreciated. The 

impeccable library of “Directors’ Notes” 

from the directors and administrators of the 

Consumer and Food Economics Institute 

(CFEI) and the Human Nutrition Information 

Service (HNIS), maintained by Jacob Exler, 

provided a window into the past for the 

activities in these agencies. The unpublished 

notes by H.J. Souders entitled “Agricultural 

Research Service, USDA Highlights of 

Contributions of Food and Nutrition 

Research,” which detailed activity from the 

late 1800s to 1976, also were extremely 

helpful. 

Disclaimer

The publications cited here are not 

intended to be a complete list for 

scientists who worked/are working in food 

composition; rather, they are intended to be 

representative of the topics discussed in this 

chapter. Publication lists for each scientist 

are available at NIH’s National Library of 

Medicine (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) 

and USDA’s National Agricultural Library 

(www.nal.usda.gov). 

References

1. Vanderveen, JE, and JAT Pennington. 

1983. Use of food composition data by 

governments. Food Nutr Bull 5:40-5.

2. Atwater, WO, and CD Woods. 1892. 

Investigations Upon the Chemistry 

and Economy of Foods. Connecticut 

(Storrs) Agric Expt Sta Rpt for 1891. 

3. Widdowson, EM. 1987. Atwater: a 

personal tribute from the United 

Kingdom. Am J Clin Nutr 45:898-904.

4. Sherman, HC. 1911. Chemistry of 

Food and Nutrition. 1st edition. New 

York, NY: Macmillan Co. 355 p.

5. Elias, M. 2017. The Bureau of 

Home Economics. In J Dupont 

and GR Beecher, eds., History of 

Human Nutrition Research in the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service: People, 

Events, and Accomplishments. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service.

6. Winton, AL, and KB Winton. 1932. 

The Structure and Composition of 

Foods. Vol I, Cereals, Starch, Oil 

Seeds, Nuts, Oils, Forage Plants. New 

York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 701 p.

7. Winton, AL, and KB Winton. 1935. 

The Structure and Composition of 

Foods. Vol II, Vegetables, Legumes, 

Fruits. New York, NY: John Wiley & 

Sons. 904 p. 

8. Winton, AL, and KB Winton. 1937. 

The Structure and Composition of 

Foods. Vol III, Milk (Including Human), 

Butter, Cheese, Ice Cream, Eggs, 

Meat, Meat Extracts, Gelatin, Animal 

Fats, Poultry, Fish, Shellfish. New

York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 524 p.

9. Winton AL, and KB Winton. 1939. The 

Structure and Composition of Foods. 

Vol IV, Sugar, Sirup, Honey, Tea, 

Coffee, Cocoa, Spices, Extracts, Yeast, 

Baking Powder. New York, NY: John 

Wiley & Sons. 580 p.

10. Beecher, GR. 2017. Research at the 

Beltsville Human Nutrition Research 

Center, 1963-2010. In J Dupont 

and GR Beecher, eds., History of 

Human Nutrition Research in the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service: People, 

Events, and Accomplishments. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service.
158 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

11. Slover, HT, LM Shelley, and TL 

Burks. 1967. Identification and

estimation of tocopherols by gas-liquid 

chromatography. J Am Oil Chem Soc 

44:161-6.

12. Sweeney, JP, and AC Marsh. 1970. 

Separation of carotene stereoisomers 

in vegetables. J AOAC 53:927-40.

13. Clark, F, B Friend, and MC Burk. 

1947. Nutritive Value of the Per 

Capita Food Supply, 1909-45. USDA 

Miscellaneous Publication No. 616. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 36 p.

14. McCarthy, MA, ML Orr, and BK Watt. 

1968. Phenylalanine and tyrosine in 

vegetables and fruits. J Am Diet Assoc 

52:130-4.

15. Dupont, JL. 2003. Symposium: 

Historically Important Contributions 

of Women in the Nutrition Society: 

The American Society for Nutritional 

Sciences Diamond Jubilee 

Symposium. Introduction. J Nutr 

133:3684-5. 

16. Toepfer, EW, EM Hewston, FN 

Hepburn, and JH Tulloss. 1969. 

Nutrient composition of selected wheat 

and wheat products: I. Description of 

samples. Cereal Chem 46:560-7.

17. Inkpen, JA, and FW Quackenbush. 

1969. Nutrient composition of 

selected wheat and wheat products: 

II. Extractable and “bound” fatty acids 

in wheat and wheat products. Cereal 

Chem 46:580-7.

18. Slover, HT, J Lehmann, and RJ Valis. 

1969. Nutrient composition of selected 

wheat and wheat products: III. 

Tocopherols. Cereal Chem 46:635-41.

19. Polansky, MM, and EW Toepfer. 1969. 

Nutrient composition of selected wheat 

and wheat products: IV. Vitamin B6

components. Cereal Chem 46:664-74.

20. Eheart, JF, and BS Mason. 1970. 

Nutrient composition of selected 

wheat and wheat products: V. 

Carbohydrates. Cereal Chem 47:715-

9.

21. Zook, EG, FE Greene, and ER Morris. 

1970. Nutrient composition of selected 

wheat and wheat products: VI. 

Distribution of manganese, copper, 

nickel, zinc, magnesium, lead, tin, 

cadmium, chromium, and selenium 

as determined by atomic absorption 

spectroscopy and colorimetry. Cereal 

Chem 47:720-31.

22. Hepburn, FN, and JH Tulloss. 1971. 

Nutrient composition of selected wheat 

and wheat products: VII. Total and 

free niacin. Cereal Chem 48:369-72.

23. Toepfer, EW, MM Polansky, JF Eheart, 

et al. 1972. Nutrient composition of 

selected wheat and wheat products: 

XI. Summary. Cereal Chem 49:173-

86.

24. Matthews, RH, CC Fifield, TH

Hartsing, et al. 1970. Effects of 

fumigation on wheat in storage: I. 

Physical measurements of flour.

Cereal Chem 47:579-86.

25. Mathews, RH, CC Fifield, and TF

Hartsing. 1970. Effects of fumigation 

on wheat in storage: II. Physical and 

eating qualities of breads and rolls. 

Cereal Chem 47:587-91. 

26. Feeley, RM, PE Criner, and BK Watt. 

1972. Cholesterol content of foods. J 

Am Diet Assoc 61:134-51.

27. Feeley, RM, PE Criner, EW Murphy, 

and EW Toepfer. 1972. Major mineral 

elements in dairy products. J Am Diet 

Assoc 61:505-10.

28. Feeley, RM, PE Criner, and HT Slover. 

1975. Major fatty acids and proximate 

composition of dairy products. J Am 

Diet Assoc 66:140-6.

29. Morris, VC, and OA Levander. 1970. 

Selenium in foods. J Nutr 100:1383-8.

30. Higgs, DJ, VC Morris, and OA 

Levander. 1972. Effect of cooking on 

selenium content of foods. J Agric 

Food Chem 20:678-80.

31. Toepfer, EW, W Mertz, EE Roginski, 

and MM Polansky. 1973. Chromium 

in foods in relation to biological 

activity. J Agric Food Chem 21:69-71.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 159

32. Murphy, EW, BK Watt, and RL Rizek. 

1974. US Department of Agriculture 

nutrient data bank. J AOAC 57:1198-

204.

33. Pennington, JAT, and EL Gunderson. 

1987. A history of the Food and Drug 

Administration’s Total Diet Study, 

1961 to 1987. J AOAC 70:772-82.

34. Exler, J, JE Kinsella, and BK Watt. 

1975. Lipids and fatty acids of 

important finfish: new data for

nutrient tables. J Am Oil Chem Soc 

52:155-9.

35. Posati, LP, JE Kinsella, and BK Watt. 

1975. Comprehensive evaluation of 

fatty acids in foods. I. Dairy products. 

J Am Diet Assoc 66:482-8.

36. Weihrauch, JL, JE Kinsella, and BK 

Watt. 1976. Comprehensive evaluation 

of fatty acids in foods. VI. Cereal 

products. J Am Diet Assoc 68:335-40.

37. Murphy, EW, BW Willis, and BK Watt. 

1975. Provisional tables on the zinc 

content of foods. J Am Diet Assoc 

66:345-55.

38. Sweeney, JP, and JL Weihrauch. 

1976. Summary of available data for 

cholesterol in foods and methods for 

its determination. CRC Crit Rev Food 

Sci Nutr 8:131-59.

39. Butrum, RR, and SE Gebhardt. 

1976. Nutrient data bank: computer 

based management of nutrient 

values in foods. J Am Oil Chem Soc 

53:727A-30A.

40. Gray, BC. 1978. Food composition 

data sets available from USDA. In 

BP Perloff, ed., Proceedings of the 

Third National Nutrient Data Bank 

Conference, pp. 17-18. Hyattsville, 

MD: Consumer Nutrition Center. 

Also available from: http://www.

nutrientdataconf.org/PastConf/

NDBC03/NDBC03.pdf. 

41. Nutrient Data Bank Conference 

Steering Committee. 1976. 

Proceedings of the First National 

Nutrient Data Bank Conference. 

Springfield, VA: National Technical

Information Service. 27 p. Also 

available from: www.nutrientdataconf.

org.

42. Nutrient Data Bank Conference 

Steering Committee. 1977. 

Proceedings of the Second National 

Nutrient Data Bank Conference. 

Springfield, VA: National Technical

Information Service. 42 p. Also 

available from: www.nutrientdataconf.

org.

43. Perloff, B, ed. 1978. Proceedings of 

the Third National Nutrient Data 

Bank Conference. Hyattsville, MD: 

Consumer Nutrition Center. 63 p. 

Also available from: http://www.

nutrientdataconf.org/PastConf/

NDBC03/NDBC03.pdf. 

44. Haytowitz, DB, PR Pehrsson, and JM 

Holden. 2002. The identification of key

foods for food composition research. J 

Food Comp Anal 15:183-94.

45. Beecher, GR, GF Combs, Sr., and 

JC Smith, Jr. 2017. Coordination of 

Human Nutrition Research Activities 

in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

In J Dupont and GR Beecher, eds., 

History of Human Nutrition Research 

in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service: People, 

Events, and Accomplishments. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service.

46. Guenther, PM, and KS Tippett, eds. 

1993. Evaluation of Nonresponse 

in the National Food Consumption 

Survey 1987-88. NFCS Report No. 87-

M-2. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Human Nutrition 

Information Service. 76 p.

47. Moss, AJ, AS Levy, I Kim, and YK 

Park. 1989. Use of vitamin and 

mineral supplements in the United 

States: current users, types of 

products, and nutrients. Advance 

Data from Vital and Health Statistics. 

No. 174. Hyattsville, MD: National 
160 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Center for Health Statistics. 20 p.

48. Gahche, J, R Bailey, V Burt, et al. 

2011. Dietary supplement use among 

U.S. adults has increased since 

NHANES III (1988-1994) [Internet]. 

Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention; 2011 April 13 

[cited 2011 Jul 29]. Available from: 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/

databriefs/db61.htm. 

49. Beecher, GR, KK Stewart, JM Holden, 

et al. 2009. Legacy of Wilbur O. 

Atwater: human nutrition research 

expansion at the USDA—Interagency 

development of food composition 

research. J Nutr 139:178-84 

50. Carpenter, DL, and HT Slover. 

1973. Lipid composition of selected 

margarines. J Am Oil Chem Soc 

50:372-6.

51. Slover, HT, J Lehmann, and RJ 

Valis. 1969. Vitamin E in foods: 

determination of tocols and 

tocotrienols. Am Oil Chem Soc J 

46:417-29.

52. Slover, HT. 1971. Tocopherols in foods 

and fats. Lipids 6:291-6. 

53. Lehmann, J, and HT Slover. 1971. 

Determination of plasma tocopherols 

by gas liquid chromatography. Lipids 

6:35-9.

54. Carpenter, DL, J Lehmann, BS 

Mason, and HT Slover. 1976. Lipid 

composition of selected vegetable oils. 

J Am Oil Chem Soc 53:713-8.

55. Slover, HT, and BS Mason. 1976. 

Automated fatty acid analysis. J 

Chromatogr Sci 14:40-4.

56. Slover, HT, and E Lanza. 1979. 

Quantitative analysis of food 

fatty acids by capillary gas 

chromatography. J Am Oil Chem Soc 

56:933-43.

57. Lanza, E, J Zyren, and HT Slover. 

1980. Fatty acid analysis on short 

glass capillary columns. J Agric Food 

Chem 28:1182-6.

58. Slover, HT, RH Thompson, Jr., and 

GV Merola. 1983. Determination of 

tocopherols and sterols by capillary 

gas chromatography. J Am Oil Chem 

Soc 60:1524-8.

59. Lanza, E, and HT Slover. 1981. The 

use of SP2340 glass capillary columns 

for the estimation of the trans fatty 

acid content of foods. Lipids 146:260-

7.

60. Slover, HT. 1983. Gas 

chromatography–packed and capillary. 

In EG Perkins and WJ Visek, eds., 

Dietary Fats and Health, pp. 90-

109. Champaign, IL: American Oil 

Chemists Society.

61. Slover, HT, E Lanza, and RH 

Thompson, Jr. 1980. Lipids in fast 

foods. J Food Sci 45:1583-91.

62. Slover, HT, RH Thompson, Jr., CS 

Davis, and GV Merola. 1985. Lipids in 

margarines and margarine-like foods. 

J Am Oil Chem Soc 62:775-86.

63. Slover, HT, E Lanza, RH Thompson, 

Jr., et al. 1987. Lipids in raw and 

cooked beef. J Food Comp Anal 1:26-

37.

64. Slover, HT, RH Thompson, Jr., CS 

Dams, and GV Merola. 1987. The lipid 

composition of raw and cooked fresh 

pork. J Food Comp Anal 1:38-52.

65. Thompson, RH, and GV Merola. 

1993. A simplified alternative to

the AOAC method for cholesterol in 

multicomponent foods. J AOAC Int 

76:1057-68.

66. Wolf, WR. 1977. Coupled gas 

chromatography-atomic absorption 

spectrometry. J Chromatog 134:159-

65.

67. Wolf, WR, and DE LaCroix. 

1988. Determination of selenium 

in biological materials by gas 

chromatography-atomic absorption 

spectrometry. J Micronutr Anal 4:129-

43.

68. Wolf, WR, and H Zainal. 2002. 

Methylseleno-amino acid content 

of food materials by stable isotope 

dilution mass spectrometry. Food Nutr 

Bull 23(3 Supp):120-3.

69. Yang, L, RE Sturgeon, WR Wolf, 

et al. 2004. Determination of 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 161

selenomethionine in yeast using CNBr 

derivatization and species specific

isotope dilution GC ICP-MS and GCMS. J Anal Atomic Spectrometry 

19:1448-53.

70. Holden, JM, WR Wolf, and W Mertz. 

1979. Zinc and copper in self-selected 

diets. J Am Diet Assoc 75:23-8. 

71. Kumpalainen, JT, WR Wolf, C Veillon, 

and W Mertz. 1979. Determination of 

chromium in selected United States 

diets. J Agric Food Chem 27:490-4.

72. Cross, HR, MK Moss, K Ono, et al. 

1981. Sampling of fresh pork for 

nutrient analysis. J Food Sci 46:1007-

9.

73. Moss, M, JM Holden, K Ono, et al. 

1983. Nutrient composition of fresh 

retail pork. J Food Sci 48:1767-71.

74. Holden, JM, E Lanza, and WR Wolf. 

1986. Nutrient composition of retail 

ground beef. J Agric Food Chem 

34:302-8.

75. Wolf, WR. 1987. Inorganic nutrient 

composition of retail beef in the United 

States. J Food Comp Anal 1:11-17.

76. LaCroix, DE, WR Wolf, and JT 

Vanderslice. 1999. Determination 

of niacin in infant formula and 

wheat flour by anion-exchange

chromatography with solid phase 

extraction cleanup. J AOAC Int 

82:128-33.

77. LaCroix, DE, WR Wolf, and GW Chase, 

Jr. 2002. Determination of niacin 

in infant formula by solid-phase 

extraction/liquid chromatography: 

Peer-verified method performanceinterlaboratory validation. J AOAC Int 

85:654-64.

78. Goldschmidt, RJ, and WR Wolf. 

2007. Determination of niacin in food 

materials by liquid chromatography 

using isotope dilution mass 

spectrometry. J AOAC Int 90:1084-9.

79. Stewart, KK, GR Beecher, and PE 

Hare, inventors. 1977. The United 

States of America as represented 

by the Secretary of Agriculture, 

Washington, DC, assignee. Apparatus 

and method for rapid analyses of 

plurality of samples. United States 

patent US 4,013,413. 1977 Mar 22.

80. Vanderslice, JT, KK Stewart, AG 

Rosenfeld, and DJ Higgs. 1981. 

Laminar dispersion in flow-injection

analysis. Talanta 28:11-18.

81. Vanderslice, JT, AG Rosenfeld, and 

GR Beecher. 1986. Laminar flow bolus

shapes in flow injection analysis. Anal

Chim Acta 179:119-29.

82. Stewart, KK. 1981. Flow-injection 

analysis: a review of its early history. 

Talanta 28:789-97.

83. Stewart, KK. 1982. Problems in the 

measurement of organic nutrients 

in food products: an overview. In SA 

Margolis, ed., Reference Materials 

for Organic Nutrient Measurement, 

NBS Spec Publ 635, pp. 18-24. 

Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Department 

of Commerce, National Bureau of 

Standards.

84. Committee on Diet, Nutrition and 

Cancer. 1982. Diet, Nutrition and 

Cancer. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press. 496 p.

85. Khachik, F, and GR Beecher. 1986. 

Separation, identification and

quantification of the major carotenoids

and chorophyll constituents in 

extracts of several green vegetables by 

liquid chromatography. J Agric Food 

Chem 34:603-16.

86. Khachik, F, and GR Beecher. 1988. 

Separation and identification of

carotenoids and carotenol fatty acid 

esters in some squash products 

by liquid chromatography. 1. 

Quantification of carotenoids and

related esters by HPLC. J Agric Food 

Chem 36:929-37.

87. Khachik, F, GR Beecher, and 

WB Lusby. 1989. Separation, 

identification and quantification of

the major carotenoids in extracts of 

apricots, peaches, cantelope and pink 

grapefruit by liquid chromatography. J 

Agric Food Chem 37:1465-73.
162 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

88. Khachik, F, GR Beecher, MB Goli, 

and WR Lusby. 1992. Separation and 

quantification of carotenoids in foods.

Methods Enzymol 213:347-59.

89. Khachik, F, GR Beecher, and 

WB Lusby. 1988. Separation 

and identification of carotenoids

and carotenol fatty acid esters in 

some squash products by liquid 

chromatography. 2. Isolation and 

characterization of carotenoids and 

related esters. J Agric Food Chem 

36:938-46.

90. Khachik, F, MB Goli, GR Beecher, et 

al. 1992. Effect of food preparation 

on qualitative and quantitative 

distribution of major carotenoid 

constituents of tomatoes and several 

green vegetables. J Agric Food Chem 

40:390-8.

91. Tonucci, LH, JM Holden, GR Beecher, 

et al. 1995. Carotenoid content of 

thermally processed tomato-based 

food products. J Agric Food Chem 

43:579-86.

92. Chug-Ahuja, JK, JM Holden, MR 

Forman, et al. 1993. The development 

and application of a carotenoid 

database for fruits, vegetables and 

multicomponent foods containing 

fruits and vegetables. J Am Diet Assoc 

93:318-23.

93. Seddon, JM, UA Ajani, RD Sperduto, 

et al. for the Eye Disease Case-Control 

Group. 1994. Dietary carotenoids, 

vitamins A, C, and E, and advanced 

age-related macular degeneration. 

JAMA 272:1413-20.

94. Baker, D. 1980. Notes on the neutral 

detergent fiber method. In WPT James

and O Theander, eds., The Analysis of 

Dietary Fibre in Foods. EEC Working 

Party on Dietary Fibre, pp. 159-162. 

Cambridge, UK: Marcel Dekker.

95. Baker, D, and JM Holden. 1981. 

Fiber in breakfast cereals. J Food Sci 

46:396-8.

96. Baker, D, KH Norris, and BW Li. 

1979. Food fiber analysis: advances

in methodology. In GE Inglett and 

I Falkehag, eds., Dietary Fibers: 

Chemistry and Nutrition, pp. 67-78. 

New York, NY: Academic Press.

97. Lanza, E, and BW Li. 1984. 

Application for near infrared 

spectroscopy for predicting the sugar 

content of fruit juices. J Food Sci 

49:995-8.

98. Li, BW, PJ Schuhmann, and KK 

Stewart. 1982. Analysis of sugars 

and starch in foods: methods and 

their limitations. In S Reiser, ed., 

Metabolic Effects of Utilizable Dietary 

Carbohydrates, pp. 29-53. New York, 

NY: Marcel Dekker.

99. Li, BW, and PJ Schuhmann. 1980. 

Analysis of sugar content of readyto-eat cereals. Cereal Foods World 

25:150-3.

100. Li, BW, and PJ Schuhmann. 1981. 

Gas chromatographic analysis of 

sugars in granola cereals. J Food Sci 

46:425-7.

101. Li, BW, and PJ Schuhmann. 1983. 

Sugar analysis of fruit juices: content 

and method. J Food Sci 48:633-

40,655.

102. Li, BW, PJ Schuhmann, and JM 

Holden. 1983. Determination of 

sugars in yogurt by gas-liquid 

chromatography. J Agric Food Chem 

31:985-9.

103. Li, BW, JM Holden, SG Brownlee, 

and SG Korth. 1987. A nationwide 

sampling of fast-food chicken: starch 

and moisture content. J Am Diet 

Assoc 87:740-3.

104. Li, BW, and KW Andrews. 1988. 

Simplified method for determination

of total dietary fiber in foods. J AOAC

71:1063-4.

105. Li, BW, and MS Cardozo. 1990. 

Simplified method for the

determination of total dietary fiber and

its soluble and insoluble fractions in 

foods. Adv Exp Med Biol 270:283-93.

106. Li, BW, and MS Cardozo. 1993. 

Simplified enzymatic-gravimetric

method for total dietary fiber in
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 163

legumes compared with a modified

AOAC method. J Food Sci 58:929-32.

107. Li, BW, and MS Cardozo. 1994. 

Determination of total dietary fiber

in foods and products with little or 

no starch, nonenzymatic-gravimetric 

method: collaborative study. J AOAC 

Int 77:687-9.

108. Li, BW. 1998. Comparison of 

microwave oven and convection oven 

for acid hydrolysis of dietary fiber

polysaccharides. J AOAC Int 81:1277-

80.

109. Li, BW, Z Zhao, and JJ Jekot. 1997. 

Effect of lipid extraction methods 

on total dietary fiber and nonstarch

polysaccharide contents of selected 

nuts and seeds. J AOAC Int 80:98-

100.

110. Li, BW. 1995. Determination of 

total dietary fiber in foods and food

products by using a single-enzyme, 

enzymatic-gravimetric method: 

interlaboratory study. J AOAC Int 

78:1440-4.

111. Li, BW. 1996. Determination of 

sugars, starches, and total dietary 

fiber in selected high-consumption

foods. J AOAC Int 79:718-23.

112. Li, BW, KW Andrews, and PR 

Pehrsson. 2002. Individual sugars, 

soluble, and insoluble dietary fiber

contents of 70 high-consumption 

foods. J Food Comp Anal 15:715-23.

113. Vanderslice, JT, KK Stewart, 

and MM Yarmas. 1979. Liquid 

chromatographic separation and 

quantification of B6 vitamers and

their metabolite, pyridoxic acid. J 

Chromatogr 176:280-5.

114. Vanderslice, JT, SR Brownlee, 

and ME Cortissoz. 1984. Liquid 

chromatographic determination of 

vitamin B-6 in foods. J AOAC 67:999-

1007.

115. Vanderslice, JT, CE Maire, and JE 

Yakupkovic. 1981. Vitamin B6 in 

ready-to-eat cereals: analysis by high 

performance liquid chromatography. J 

Food Sci 46:943-6.

116. Olds, SJ, JT Vanderslice, and D 

Brochetti. 1993. Vitamin B6 in raw 

and fried chicken by HPLC. J Food Sci 

58:505-7.

117. Vanderslice, JT, SG Brownlee, CE 

Maire, et al. 1983. Forms of vitamin 

B6 in human milk. Am J Clin Nutr 

37:867-71.

118. Vanderslice, JT, CE Maire, and 

GR Beecher. 1980. Extraction and 

quantitation of B-6 vitamers from 

animal tissues and human plasma: 

a preliminary study. In JE Leklum 

and RD Reynolds, eds., Methods in 

Vitamin B-6 Nutrition: Analysis and 

Status Assessment, pp. 123-147. New 

York, NY: Plenum Press.

119. Vanderslice, JT, and MHA Huang. 

1986. Liquid chromatographic 

analysis of thiamin and its phosphates 

in food products using Amprolium as 

an internal standard. J Micronutrient 

Anal 2:189-99.

120. Vanderslice, JT, and DJ Higgs. 

1988. Chromatographic separation 

of ascorbic acid, isoascorbic 

acid, dehydroascorbic acid and 

dehydroisoascorbic acid and their 

quantification in food products. J

Micronutrient Anal 4:109-18.

121. Vanderslice, JT, and DJ Higgs. 1989. 

Automated analysis of total vitamin C 

in foods. J Micronutrient Anal 6:109-

17.

122. Vanderslice, JT, DJ Higgs, JM Hayes, 

and G Block. 1990. Ascorbic acid and 

dehydroascorbic acid content of foodsas-eaten. J Food Composition Anal 

3:105-18.

123. Vanderslice, JT, and DJ Higgs. 1991. 

Vitamin C content of foods: sample 

variability. Am J Clin Nutr 54:1323S7S.

124. Vanderslice, JT, DJ Higgs, GR 

Beecher, et al. 1992. On the presence 

of dehydroascorbic acid in human 

plasma. Int J Vitam Nutr Res 62:101-

2.

125. Russell, LF, and JT Vanderslice. 

1992. Comments on the standard 
164 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

flourometric determination of

riboflavin in foods and biological

tissues. Food Chem 43:79-82.

126. Russell, LF, and JT Vanderslice. 

1992. Non-degradative extraction 

and simultaneous quantitation of 

riboflavin, flavin mononucleotide, and

flavin adenine dinucleotide in foods by

HPLC. Food Chem 43:151-62.

127. Russell, LF, LW Douglass, and JT 

Vanderslice. 1992. Preparation of 

sampling plans for B2 vitamers in fast 

food hamburgers. J Food Composition 

Anal 5:224-35.

128. Goli, DM, and JT Vanderslice. 1992. 

Investigation of conjugase treatment 

procedure in the microbiological assay 

of folate. Food Chem 43:57-64. 

129. Harnly, JM, and TC O’Haver. 1981. 

Extension of analytical calibration 

curves in atomic absorption 

spectrometry. Anal Chem 53:1291-8.

130. Harnly, JM. 1982. Comparison 

of modulation wave forms for 

continuum source atomic absorption 

spectrometry. Anal Chem 54:876-9.

131. Miller-Ihli, NJ, TC O’Haver, and JM 

Harnly. 1982. Direct observation 

of flame atomic absorption spectral

interferences. Anal Chem 54:799-803.

132. Harnly, JM, and JA Holcombe. 1987. 

Mathematical correction of systematic 

temporal background correction errors 

for graphite absorption spectrometry. 

J Anal At Spectrom 2:105-14.

133. Moulton, GP, TC O’Haver, and JM 

Harnly. 1989. Continuum source 

atomic absorption spectrometry with a 

pulsed source and a photodiode array 

detector. J Anal At Spectrom 4:673-4.

134. Riby, PG, and JM Harnly. 1993. 

Characterization of a helium discharge 

for hollow anode-furnace atomization 

non-thermal excitation spectrometry. 

J Anal At Spectrom 8:945-54. 

135. Harnly, JM, CMM Smith, GP 

Moulton, and TC O’Haver. 1994. 

High current pulsing of a xenon arc 

lamp for graphite furnace atomic 

absorption spectrometry using a linear 

photodiode array. J Anal At Spectrom 

9:419-26. 

136. Smith, CMM, and JM Harnly. 1996. 

Characterization of a modified twostep furnace for atomic absorption 

spectrometry for selective volatilization 

of iron species in hemin. J Anal At 

Spectrom 11:1055-61.

137. Harnly, JM. 1999. The future of 

atomic absorption spectrometry: 

a continuum source with a charge 

coupled array detector. J Anal At 

Spectrom 14:137-46.

138. Rybak, ME, EM Calvey, and 

JM Harnly. 2005. Quantitative 

determination of allicin in garlic: 

supercritical fluid extraction and

standard addition of allin. J Agric 

Food Chem 52:682-7.

139. Lee, J, and JM Harnly. 2005. 

Free amino acids and cysteine 

sulfoxide composition of 11 garlic 

(allium sativum) cultivars by gas 

chromatography with flame ionization

and mass selective detection. J Agric 

Food Chem 53:9100-4.

140. Lee, J, JW Finley, and JM Harnly. 

2005. Effect of selenium fertilizer 

on free amino acid composition 

of broccoli (brassica oleracea 

cv. Majestic) determined by gas 

chromatography with flame ionization

and mass selective detection. J Agric 

Food Chem 53:9105-11.

141. Lin, L-Z, and JM Harnly. 2007. A 

screening method for the identification

of glycosylated flavonoids and

other phenolic compounds using a 

standard analytical approach for all 

plant materials. J Agric Food Chem 

55:1084-95.

142. Chen, P, M Ozcan, and JM Harnly. 

2007. Chromatographic fingerprint

analysis for evaluation of Ginkgo 

biloba products. Anal Bioanal Chem 

389:251-61.

143. Lutria, DL, S Mukhopadhyay, RJ 

Robbins, et al. 2008. UV spectral 

fingerprinting and analysis of

variance-principle component 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 165

analysis: a useful tool for 

characterizing sources of variance in 

plant materials. J Agric Food Chem 

56:5457-62.

144. Lutria, DL, LZ Lin, RJ Robbins, et 

al. 2008. Discriminating between 

cultivars and treatments of broccoli 

using mass spectral fingerprinting

and analysis of variance-principle 

component analysis. J Agric Food 

Chem 56:9819-27.

145. Beecher, GR. 1999. Phytonutrients’ 

role in metabolism: effects on 

resistance to degenerative processes. 

Nutr Rev 57:S3-S6.

146. Merken, H, and GR Beecher. 2000. 

Measurement of flood flavonoids by

HPLC: a review. J Agric Food Chem 

48:577-99.

147. Merken, H, and GR Beecher. 2000. 

Liquid chromatographic method for 

the separation and quantification

of prominent flavonoid aglycones. J

Chromatogr A 897:177-84.

148. Merken, H, and GR Beecher. 2001. 

Kinetic method for the quantitation of 

total anthocyanidins, flavonols, and

flavones in foods. J Agric Food Chem

49:2727-32.

149. Harnly, J, R Doherty, GR Beecher, et 

al. 2006. Flavonoid content of U.S. 

fruits, vegetables and nuts. J Agric 

Food Chem 54:9966-77.

150. Holden, JM, SA Bhagwat, D 

Haytowitz, et al. 2005. Development 

of a database of critically evaluated 

flavonoids data: application of USDA’s

data quality evaluation system. J Food 

Compos Anal 18:829-44.

151. Meagher, LP, GR Beecherm, VP 

Flanagan, and BW Li. 1999. Isolation 

and characterization of the lignans, 

isolariciresinol and pinoresinol in 

flaxseed meal. J Agric Food Chem

47:3173-80.

152. Meagher, LP, and GR Beecher. 2000. 

Assessment of data on the lignan 

content of foods. J Food Compos Anal 

13:935-47.

153. Murphy, PA, T Song, G Buseman, 

et al. 1999. Isoflavones in retail and

institutional soy foods. J Agric Food 

Chem 47:2697-704. 

154. Miller-Ihli, NJ, inventor; The United 

States of America as represented 

by the Secretary of Agriculture, 

Washington, DC, assignee. Ultrasonic 

Agitation for Slurry Mixing Prior to 

Analysis. United States patent US 

4,930,898. 1990 Jun 5.

155. Miller-Ihli, NJ. 1995. Slurry sampling 

graphite furnace atomic absorption 

spectrometry: a preliminary 

examination of results from an 

international collaborative study. 

Spectrochim Acta 50B:477-88.

156. Miller-Ihli, NJ. 2001. 

Microhomogeneity assessments using 

ultrasonic slurry sampling coupled 

with electrothermal vaporization 

isotope dilution inductively coupled 

plasma mass spectrometry. 

Spectrochim Acta 56B:1673-86.

157. Miller-Ihli, NJ. 1996. Trace element 

determinations in foods and biological 

samples using inductively coupled 

plasma atomic emission spectrometry 

and flame atomic absorption

spectrometry. J Agric Food Chem 

44:2675-9.

158. Miller-Ihli, NJ. 1996. Atomic 

absorption and atomic emission 

spectrometry for the determination of 

the trace element content of selected 

fruits consumed in the United States. 

J Food Compos Anal 9:301-11.

159. Baker, SA, DA Bradshaw, and NJ 

Miller-Ihli. 1999. Trace element 

determinations in food and biological 

samples using inductively coupled 

plasma mass spectrometry. Atomic 

Spectroscopy 20:167-73.

160. Miller-Ihli, NJ, and SA Baker. 

2001. Trace element composition of 

municipal waters in the United States: 

a comparison of ICP-AES and ICPMS methods. J Food Compos Anal 

14:619-29.
166 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

161. Miller-Ihli, NJ. 1994. Graphite furnace 

atomic absorption method for the 

determination of lead in sugars and 

syrups. J AOAC Int 77:1288:92.

162. Miller-Ihli, NJ. 1995. Evaluation 

of a graphite furnace atomic 

absorption method developed for the 

determination of lead in sugars. J 

Agric Food Chem 43:923-7.

163. Pawlosky, RJ, VP Flanagan, and JA 

Novotny. 2000. A sensitive method 

for the study of beta-carotene-d8 

metabolism in humans using high 

performance liquid chromatographymass spectrometry. J Lipid Res 

41:1027-31.

164. Kelm, MA, VP Flanagan, RJ 

Pawlosky, et al. 2001. Quantitative 

determination of 13C-labeled and 

endogenous beta-carotene, lutein, and 

vitamin A in human plasma. Lipids 

36:1277-82.

165. Novotny, JA, AC Kurlich, SJ Britz, 

and BA Clevidence. 2005. Plasma 

appearance of labeled beta-carotene, 

lutein, and retinol in humans after 

consumption of isotopically labeled 

kale. J Lipid Res 46:1896-903.

166. Pawlosky, RJ, VP Flanagan, and 

CM Pfeiffer. 2001. Determination of 

5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid in human 

serum by stable-isotope dilution highperformance liquid chromatographymass spectrometry. Anal Biochem 

298:299-305.

167. Pawlosky, RJ, and VP Flanagan. 2001. 

A quantitative stable isotope LC-MS 

method for the determination of folic 

acid in fortified foods. J Agric Food

Chem 49:1282-6.

168. Thomas, PM, VP Flanagan, and RJ 

Pawlosky. 2003. Determination of 5 

methyltetrahydrofolic acid and folic 

acid in citrus juices using stable 

isotope dilution-mass spectrometry. J 

Agric Food Chem 51:1293-6.

169. Doherty, RD, and GR Beecher. 2003. A 

method for the analysis of natural and 

synthetic folates in foods. J Agric Food 

Chem 51:354-61.

170. Pawlosky, RJ, VP Flanagan, and RF 

Doherty. 2003. A mass spectrometric 

validated high-performance liquid 

chromatography procedure for the 

determination of folates in foods. J 

Agric Food Chem 51:3726-30.

171. Robbins, RJ. 2003. Phenolic acids 

in foods: an overview of analytical 

methodology. J Agric Food Chem 

51:2866-87.

172. Robbins, RJ, and SR Bean. 2004. 

Development of a quantitative highperformance liquid chromatographicphotodiode array detection 

measurement system for phenolic 

acids. J Chromatogr A 1038:97-105.

173. Byrdwell, WC. 2009. Comparison of 

analysis of vitamin D3 in foods using 

ultraviolet and mass spectrometric 

detection. J Agric Food Chem 

57:2135-46.

174. Phillips, KM, WC Byrdwell, J Exler, 

et al. 2008. Development and 

validation of control materials for the 

measurment of vitamin D3 in selected 

U.S. foods. J Food Compos Anal 

21:527-34.

175. Food and Nutrition Board. 2010. 

Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium 

and Vitamin D [Internet]. Washington, 

DC: Institute of Medicine; 2010 Nov 

30 [cited 2011 Aug 1]. Available from: 

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2010/

Dietary-Reference-Intakes-forCalcium-and-Vitamin-D.aspx. 

176. Chen, P, M Ozcan, and JM Harnly. 

2007. Chromatographic fingerprint

analysis for evaluation of Gingko 

biloba products. Anal Bioanal Chem 

389:251-61.

177. Chen, P, and WR Wolf. 2007. LC/

UV/MS-MRM for the simultaneous 

determination of water soluble 

vitamins in multi-vitamin dietary 

supplements. Anal Bioanal Chem 

387:2441-8.

178. Chen, P, M Ozcan, and WR Wolf. 

2007. Contents of selected B vitamins 

in NIST SRM 3280 multivitamin/

multielement tablets by liquid 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 167

chromatography isotope dilution mass 

spectrometry. Anal Bioanal Chem 

389:343-7.

179. Lutria, DL, and S Mukhopadhyay. 

2006. Influence of sample preparation

on assay of phenolic acids from 

eggplant. J Agric Food Chem 54:41-7.

180. Lutria, DL. 2006. Significance of

sample preparation in developing 

analytical methodologies for accurate 

estimation of bioactive compounds 

in functional foods. J Sci Food Agric 

86:2266-72.

181. Lutria, DL, S Mukhopadhyay, and 

DT Krizek. 2006. Content of total 

phenolics and phenolic acids in 

tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum 

Mill.) fruits as influenced by cultivar

and solar UV radiation. J Food 

Compos Anal 19:771-7.

182. Lin, L-Z, JM Harnly, MS PastorCorrales, and DL Lutria. 2008. The 

polyphenolic profiles of common bean

(Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Food Chem 

107:399-410.

183. Pehrsson, PR, DB Haytowitz, JM 

Holden, et al. 2000. USDA’s National 

Food and Nutrition Analysis Program: 

food sampling. J Food Compos Anal 

13:379-89.

184. Trainer, D, PR Pehrsson, DB 

Haytowitz, et al. 2010. Development of 

sample handling procedures for foods 

under USDA’s National Food and 

Nutrient Analysis Program. J Food 

Compos Anal 23:843-51.

185. Phillips, KM, KY Patterson, AS Rasor, 

et al. 2006. Quality-control materials 

in the USDA National Food and 

Nutrient Analysis Program (NFNAP). 

Anal Bioanal Chem 384:1341-55.

186. Haytowitz, DB, PR Pehrsson, and JM 

Holden. 2008. The National Food and 

Nutrient Analysis Program: a decade 

of progress. J Food Compos Anal 

21:S94-S102.

187. Roseland, JM, JM Holden, KW 

Andrews, et al. 2008. Dietary 

supplement ingredient database 

(DSID); preliminary USDA studies 

on the composition of adult 

multivitamin/mineral supplements. J 

Food Compos Anal 21:S69-S77.

188. Dwyer, JT, MF Picciano, JM Betz, 

et al. 2008. Progress in developing 

analytical and label-based dietary 

supplement databases at the NIH 

Office of Dietary Supplements. J Food

Compos Anal 21:S83-S93.

189. Damon, M, NZ Zhang, DB Haytowitz, 

and SL Booth. 2005. Phylloquinone 

(vitamin K1) content of vegetables. J 

Food Compos Anal 18:751-8.

190. Elder, SJ, DB Haytowitz, J Howe, et 

al. 2006. Vitamin K contents of meat, 

dairy and fast foods in the US diets. J 

Agric Food Chem 54:463-7.

191. Ferreira, DW, DB Haytowitz, MA 

Tassinari, et al. 2006. Vitamin K 

contents of grains, cereals, fast-food 

breakfasts, and baked goods. J Food 

Sci 71:66-70.

192. Rizek, RL. 1981. Notes From 

the Center Director. No.13/14. 

Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Science and Education 

Administration, Human Nutrition, 

Consumer Nutrition Center. 1 p.

193. Chun, J, J Lee, L Ye, et al. 2006. 

Tocopherol and tocotrienol contents 

of raw and processed fruits and 

vegetables in the United States diet. J 

Food Compos Anal 19:196-204.

194. Ground Beef Calculator [Internet]. 

2009. Beltsville, MD: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service, Nutrient Data Laboratory; 

[cited 2009 Aug 21]. Available from: 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/

docs.htm?docid=13933.

195. William, J, K Patterson, J Howe, et al. 

2009. Nutrient Composition in Ground 

Pork Using Regression Techniques 

(Abstract). Anaheim, CA: Institute of 

Food Technologists Annual Meeting 

and Food Expo; 2009 June 6-9. 

Available from: http://www.ars.usda.

gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/

Articles/IFT09_GrdPork.pdf.
168 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

196. Bigwood, DW, SR Heller, WR Wolf, et 

al. 1987. SELEX: an expert system for 

evaluating published data on selenium 

in foods. Anal Chim Acta 200:411-9.

197. Schubert, A, JM Holden, and WR 

Wolf. 1987. Selenium content of a 

core group of foods based on a critical 

evaluation of published analytical 

data. J Am Diet Assoc 87:285-99.

198. Laurie, DG, JM Holden, A Schubert, 

et al. 1989. The copper content of 

foods based on a critical evaluation 

of published analytical data. J Food 

Compos Anal 2:298-316.

199. Holden, JM, SA Bhagwat, and KY 

Patterson. 2002. Development of a 

multi-nutrient data quality evaluation 

system. J Food Compos Anal 15:339-

48.

200. Gry, J, L Black, FD Eriksen, et al. 

2007. EuroFir-BASIS: a combined 

composition and biological activity 

database for bioactive compounds in 

plant-based foods. Trends Food Sci 

Technol 18:434-44.

201. Wolf, WR, GV Iyengar, and JT Tanner. 

1990. Mixed diet reference material for 

nutrient analysis of foods: preparation 

of SRM-1548 total diet. Fres J Anal 

Chem 338:473-5.

202. Wolf , WR, and KW Andrews. 1995. A 

system for defining reference materials

applicable to all food matrices. Fres J 

Anal Chem 352:73-6.

203. Phillips, KM, WR Wolf , KY Patterson, 

et al. 2007. Summary of reference 

materials for the determination of the 

nutrient composition of foods. Accred 

Qual Assur 12:126-33.

204. Wolf, WR. 1993. Reference materials. 

In D Sullivan and D Carpenter, eds., 

Methods of Analysis for Nutritional 

Labeling, pp. 114-120. Gaithersburg, 

MD: AOAC International.

205. Phillips, KM, WR Wolf, KY Patterson, 

et al. 2007. Reference materials to 

evaluate measurement systems for the 

nutrient composition of foods: results 

from USDA’s National Food and 

Nutrient Analysis Program (NFNAP). 

Anal Bioanal Chem 389:219-29.

206. Church, SM. 2006. The history of 

food composition databases. Nutr Bull 

31:15-20.

207. Scrimshaw, NS. 1997. INFOODS: the 

international network of food data 

systems. Am J Clin Nutr 65:1190S-3S.

208. McCance, RA, and EM Widdowson. 

1940. The Chemical Composition of 

Foods. 1st edition. Medical Research 

Council Special Report Series 

235. London, U.K.: Her Majesty’s 

Stationary Office.

209. Rand, WM, CT Windham, BW 

Wyse, and VR Young, eds. 1987. 

Food Composition Data: A User’s 

Perspective. Tokyo, Japan: United 

Nations University. 223 p.

210. Background to INFOODS [Internet]. 

2009. Rome, Italy: FAO; [cited 2009 

Sep 1]. Available from: http://www.

fao.org/infoods/index_en.stm.

211. Burlingame, B. 2009. IUNS/INFOODS 

Task Force Activity Report, 2006-2007 

[Internet]. Sevilla, Spain: IUNS [cited 

2009 Sep 1]. Available from: http://

www.iuns.org/features/Infoods%20

2006-07%20Activity%20Report.htm.

212. Greenfield, H, and DAT Southgate.

1992. Food Composition Data. 

Production, Management and Use. 

London, U.K.: Elsevier Applied 

Science. 241 p.

213. Past Food Composition Courses 

[Internet]. 2009. Rome, Italy: FAO 

[cited 2009 Sep 1]. Available from: 

http://www.fao.org/infoods/training_

past_en.stm and ...training_en.stm.

214. Greenfield, H, ed. 1995. Quality and

Accessibility of Food-Related Data. 

Arlington, VA: AOAC International. 

310 p.

215. Heisey, PW, JL King, KD Bubenstein, 

et al. 2010. Assessing the Benefits of

Public Research Within an Economic 

Framework. The Case of USDA’s 

Agricultural Research Service. 

Economic Research Report No. 95. 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 169

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service. 90 p.

216. Swan, PB. 2017. Laying the 

foundation, 1893-1923. In J Dupont 

and GR Beecher, eds., History of 

Human Nutrition Research in the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service: People, 

Events, and Accomplishments. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service.

217. Souders, HJ. Historical Outline of 

Food and Nutrition Research in the 

Department of Agriculture from W.O. 

Atwater to 1976. Folder: Stiebeling H–

Biographical Information. Beltsville, 

MD: National Agricultural Library.
170 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 171

Chapter 6

History of Food Consumption 

Surveys Conducted by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

Alanna J. Moshfegh 

Alanna J. Moshfegh, MS, RD, is Research 

Leader, Food Surveys Research Group, 

USDA-ARS Beltsville Human Nutrition 

Research Center, Beltsville, MD.

Introduction

One mission of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) is to encourage the production and availability of a sufficient, safe, 

and nutritionally adequate supply of food 

for Americans. In support of this mission, 

USDA has conducted surveys to monitor 

food use and food consumption patterns in 

the U.S. population since the latter part of 

the 19th century. Early studies on food and 

nutrition that were begun during the 1890s 

aimed to help people in the working class to 

achieve good diets at low cost. As time went 

on, recognition of the need for nationally 

representative food and nutrient intake data 

resulted in the research and development 

of larger and more complex methodologies 

and surveys. The purposes and populations 

for which food consumption information is 

sought, techniques to select participants, 

nature of the country’s food supplies, understanding of the nutritional composition 

of foods, what constituted a diet, biological 

research advancements, emerging computer 

technology, and statistical procedures are 

among the most recognized advancements of 

food consumption research and surveys at 

USDA (1). 

This chapter describes the dietary survey 

work conducted by USDA beginning with 

the work of W.O. Atwater and continuing 

through the current national food consumption survey, What We Eat in America, 

NHANES. This survey is conducted as a 

partnership between USDA’s Agricultural 

Research Service (ARS) and the National 

Center for Health Statistics in the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services 

(DHHS), which addresses the requirements 

of the National Nutrition Monitoring and 

Related Research Act of 1990 (2,3). 

Uses of the Data 

Numerous public policy activities and evaluations rely on national dietary data to ensure the public’s health, safety, and well-being. As shown in table 1, evaluations of diet 

quality and tracking changes in the diet over 

time have many Federal, State, and local 

applications, including policy formation and 

evaluation, program planning, and nutrition 

education. Users of the survey data include 

numerous USDA and DHHS agencies, as 

well as others such as the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Trade 

Commission, State agencies, county health 

departments, food and agricultural industries, and universities. The data are used to 

determine the food choices Americans make 

and to evaluate the content and adequacy 
172 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

of their diets. As such, the data are used to 

evaluate diets in relationship to the recommendations set forth in the 2010 Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans (4) and ChooseMyPlate (5); the nutrition objectives of Healthy 

People 2020 (6); and the nutrient requirements established by the National Academy 

of Sciences’ Dietary Reference Intakes (7). 

The data are also used to assess the nutritional impact of the USDA’s food assistance 

programs; to estimate exposure to pesticide 

residues, as required by the Food Quality 

and Protection Act of 1996 (8), food additives, and arid contaminants; to develop food 

fortification, enrichment, and food labeling 

policies; and to assess the demand for agricultural products and marketing facilities.

Major Survey Periods

Food consumption surveys conducted by 

USDA are summarized in table 2. The surveys may be divided into five periods: 

1. Early, small-scale studies conducted in 

the early 1900s. 

2. Nationwide, but nonrepresentative, 

surveys conducted in 1935-36, 1942, 

and 1948.

3. Nationwide surveys of household use of 

food conducted in 1955, 1965-66, 1977-

78, and 1987-88. 

4. Nationwide surveys of dietary intakes by 

individuals conducted solely by USDA 

in 1965-66, 1977-78, 1985-86, 1987-

88, 1989-91, 1994-96, and 1998. Additionally, intake surveys in 1989-91 and 

1994-96 were coupled with a telephone 

follow-up survey designed to measure 

attitudes and knowledge about diet and 

health among Americans.

5. USDA nationwide food intake surveys 

integrated with the U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services National Health and Nutrition Examination 

Survey (NHANES) to form What We Eat 

Table 1. Selected uses of data from 

nationwide food surveys in 

the United States

Assessment of dietary intakes

Provide detailed data on food and nutrient intakes 

and eating patterns of the population and population 

subgroups

Monitor the nutritional quality of diets and determine 

the size and nature of populations at risk of having 

diets too low or too high in certain nutrients

Identify factors and characteristics associated with 

diets

Correlate food and nutrient consumption and changes 

over time with biochemical indicators, health profile 

measures, and disease risk 

Food policies, programs, regulations, 

and guidance

Determine appropriate levels of enrichment or 

fortification

Determine serving sizes for food labels

Monitor food security and diet quality

Identify populations and requirements for 

food/health/nutrition programs

Develop food plans that reflect current food 

consumption practices and meet nutritional and 

cost criteria

Evaluate the dietary and health effectiveness of food 

assistance programs

Establish dietary guidance/nutrient requirements, 

nutrition objectives for a healthy population

Estimate the demand for agricultural products and 

marketing facilities

Understand the effects of information on consumer 

food behavior 

Food safety

Estimate exposure to pesticide residues, food 

additives, contaminants, and toxic substances in 

foods

Predict food items in which a food additive can safely 

be permitted in specified amounts
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 173

in America, the dietary intake component 

of NHANES (What We Eat In America, 

NHANES) conducted jointly by USDA and 

DHHS in 2001-2002, 2003-2004, 2005-

2006, 2007-2008, 2009-2010, and 2011-

2012, and continuing with yearly collection and 2-year data release. 

Early Small-Scale Studies

In 1894, Congress mandated that human 

nutrition investigations be conducted by the 

USDA Office of Experiment Stations. W.O. 

Atwater, the first director of the experiment 

stations, is credited with the first food consumption studies in the United States in the 

late 19th century. Atwater recognized the 

essential links between such studies and 

research on food composition, nutritional 

requirements, and dietary guidance: he pioneered studies in all of these areas. Atwater 

sought food consumption information that 

would help him develop recommendations 

on what a working man should eat and how 

families could spend their food money wisely 

(9-11). 

By 1898, USDA investigators had made 

studies of food consumption by more than 

300 families (1). In early studies, participants were simply whoever volunteered or, 

as the investigators put it, “willing families.” 

Researchers used a food inventory record to 

collect data by determining the weight and 

cost of food used by the family from inventories of food on hand at the start and end of 

the survey period and from records of foods 

brought into the home during the period 

(12). 

Because the complex food inventory procedure was found to be too intrusive, too time 

consuming, and too costly, it was replaced 

in the 1930s by the food list recall (or food 

list). The new technique required only an interview with the household respondent (usually the homemaker) who recalled, using the 

food list, the quantities of listed foods used 

by the household during the preceding week 

and the amounts paid for purchased items. 

Although the list recall procedure was introduced with little preliminary study, response 

rates for the list recall were later shown to 

be much higher than for the food inventory 

record method (13).

Nationwide Nonrepresentative Surveys

During the Depression years of the 1930s, 

concern about the quality of American diets was high. USDA began periodic nationwide surveys of households in the 1930s 

using the food list recall method along with 

statistical sampling techniques that permitted the collection of data from large numbers 

of households in relatively short periods. 

Because the surveys conducted in the 1930s 

and 1940s preceded the advent of probability sampling in surveys, they were less than 

fully representative of the U.S. population 

(14). However, as the best benchmark data 

available at the time, they were important 

for various Federal uses. The comprehensive picture of household food consumption 

and dietary levels obtained in the Consumer 

Purchases Study of 1935-36 indicated that 

a third of the Nation’s families had diets that 

were poor by nutritional standards in use 

at the time (15). On the basis of this finding, President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated 

that a third of the Nation was ill-fed (16). 

This reference is inscribed on the Franklin 

Delano Roosevelt Memorial adjacent to the 

Tidal Basin in Washington, DC.

The survey findings from the Consumer 

Purchases Study gave impetus to the 

enrichment of white flour and bread with 

iron and three B vitamins, establishment 

of the National School Lunch Program, 

and expansion of nutrition education and 

research. Also, USDA economists used 

results to project food consumption in the 

United States and develop food budgets to 

help families select good diets (17). USDA 

developed four nutritious food plans at 

different cost levels for families with varying 
174 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

1935-36 Consumer Purchases 

Study

Farm, village, and 

city households 

in five geographic 

regions

Husband and wife 

families, white 

and native born

Household food 

use

7-day list-recall; 

7-day food inventory record

List recall imposed less respondent burden 

than food inventory record; later 

shown to have 

better response 

rates as well (12).

1942 Family 

Spending and 

Saving in Wartime

Cities, rural nonfarm areas, and 

farms

Housekeeping 

families and single persons

Household food 

use

7-day list-recall Recommended 

Dietary Allowances (RDA) issued in 

1941 by the Food 

and Nutrition 

Board, National 

Academy of Sciences, provided 

basis for assessing calories and 

nutrient intakes 

in surveys.

1948 Food 

Consumption of 

Urban Families

Urban families nationwide in spring 

plus surveys in 4 

cities

Housekeeping 

families of 2 or 

more persons

Household food 

use

7-day list-recall Computers first 

used in data analysis (1).

1955 Food 

Consumption of 

Households

48 States plus a 

supplement of 

farm households

National, 

self-weighting 

probability sample of housekeeping households

Household food 

use

7-day list-recall Self-weighting 

probability sample provided first 

nationally representative food 

use estimates.

1965-66 Household Food Consumption Survey 48 States Two separate 

samples (basic 

and low income); 

selected household members 

were asked to 

provide intake 

information

Household food 

use

Individual intake

7-day list-recall 

24-hr dietary recall in spring only

First coverage of 

all 4 seasons.

First data on food 

intakes by individuals allowed 

comparison of 

intakes with sexand age-specific 

RDAs.

Table 2. Overview of USDA nationwide food surveys, 1936 to 2014

 Survey Population Sample Type of Dietary Selected

 dietary data method advances
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 175

 Survey Population Sample Type of Dietary Selected

 dietary data method advances

1977-78 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 

(NFCS)

48 States Two separate 

samples (basic 

and low income); 

all household 

members were 

asked to provide 

intake information

Household food 

use

Individual intake

7-day list-recall 

3 consecutive 

days: 24-hr 

dietary recall and 

2-day diet record

Dataset made 

widely available 

to public on magnetic data tape 

for first time.

First nationwide 

survey to collect 

multiple days of 

dietary intake 

data.

1985-86 Continuing Survey of 

Food Intakes by 

Individuals (CSFII)

48 States Two separate 

samples (basic 

and low income); 

women 19-50 yr. 

and their children 

1-5 yr. in both 

years and men 

19-50 yr. in 1985 

only 

Individual intake Women and children: 6 nonconsecutive 24-hr dietary recalls; day 

1 in person and 

remaining days by 

telephone.

Men: day 1 only

Surveys timed 

more closely 

together to provide early indications of dietary 

changes.

First use of telephone for second 

and subsequent 

days of data collection.

1987-88 NFCS 48 States Two separate 

samples (basic 

and low income); 

all household 

members were 

asked to provide 

intake information

Household food 

use

Individual intake

7-day list-recall

3 consecutive 

days: 24-hr 

dietary recall and 

2-day diet record

Facilitation of list 

recall with laptop 

computer.

Heavy respondent 

burden and poor 

response rate led 

to discontinuation of household 

component.

1989-91 CSFII 48 States Two separate 

samples (basic 

and low income); 

all household 

members were 

asked to provide 

intake information 

Individual intake 3 consecutive 

days: 24-hr 

dietary recall and 

2-day diet record

First linkage of 

intakes with 

knowledge and 

attitude information provided by 

Diet and Health 

Knowledge 

Survey. 

First 3-year 

survey.
176 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

1989-91 Diet and 

Health Knowledge Survey 

(DHKS)

48 States Main meal- planners/preparers 

with a completed 

day one intake in 

CSFII

Dietary knowledge, behavior, 

and attitudes

Telephone follow-up to CSFIIInitiated to 

improve understanding of 

factors related 

to food choices; 

data linkage with 

CSFII.

1994-96 CSFII 50 States Oversampling of 

the low-income 

population; only 

selected household members 

were asked to 

provide intake 

information

Individual intake 2 nonconsecutive 

24-hr dietary 

recalls;

3-step multiple 

pass paper and 

pencil method

First collection of 

nonconsecutive 

days of dietary 

data to improve 

representation of 

food intake.

Multiple-pass 

method for 24-hr 

recall launched.

Data released 

within a year of 

data collection 

and on CD-ROM 

for first time.

Technical survey 

databases documenting nutrient 

values for each 

survey food publicly released for 

first time.

1994-96 DHKS 50 States Adults 20 years 

and over with a 

completed day 

one intake in CSFII

Dietary knowledge, behavior, 

and attitudes

Telephone follow-up to CSFIISee 1989-1991 

DHKS.

1998 Supplemental Children’s 

Survey to CSFII 

1994-96, resulting 

in 1998 CSFII

50 States Children 0-9 years Individual intake 2 nonconsecutive 

24-hr dietary 

recalls 

3-step multiple 

pass paper and 

pencil method

Undertaken to 

provide increased 

sample size for 

estimation of 

exposure to 

pesticide residues 

when merged 

with CSFII 1994-

96.

Table 2. Overview of USDA nationwide food surveys, 1936 to 2014

—Continued

 Survey Population Sample Type of Dietary Selected

 dietary data method advances
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 177

 Survey Population Sample Type of Dietary Selected

 dietary data method advances

2001-2002 What 

We Eat in America (WWEIA), 

NHANES

50 States Over sampling 

of individuals 

12-19 years and 

60+ years, African 

Americans, Mexican Americans, 

low-income, and 

pregnant females

Individual intake One 24-hr recall 

in 2001, 2 nonconsecutive 24-hr 

dietary recalls in 

2002

5-step AMPM first 

used in 2002

Survey integration 

of USDA’s CSFII 

and HHS NHANES 

forming first 

joint USDA-DHHS 

nationwide 

dietary survey.

Launch of continuous yearly 

dietary data 

collection

Validated recall 

methodology (5-

step AMPM) first 

used in national 

dietary survey 

(63). 

Dietary Reference 

Intakes issued 

by the Food and 

Nutrition Board, 

National Academies in 1997, establishes a set of 

reference values 

for nutrients for 

use in assessing 

intakes of population groups 

and replacing the 

Recommended 

Dietary Allowances. 

2003-2004 

WWEIA, NHANES

50 States Over sampling of 

individuals 12-19 

years and 60+ 

years, African 

Americans, Mexican Americans, 

low-income, and 

pregnant females 

Individual intake 2 nonconsecutive 

24-hr dietary 

recalls

5-step AMPM 

See 2001-2002 

WWEIA, NHANES.
178 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Table 2. Overview of USDA nationwide food surveys, 1936 to 2014

—Continued

 Survey Population Sample Type of Dietary Selected

 dietary data method advances

2005-2006 

WWEIA, NHANES

50 States Over sampling 

of individuals 

12-19 years and 

60+ years, African 

Americans, Mexican Americans, 

and low-income 

persons

Individual intake 2 nonconsecutive 

24-hr dietary 

recalls

5-step AMPM

Water intake 

collected as part 

of 24-hr dietary 

recall in AMPM 

(75). 

2007-2008 

WWEIA, NHANES

50 States Over sampling of 

individuals 60+ 

years, African 

Americans, 

Hispanics, and 

low-income

Individual intake 2 nonconsecutive 

24-hr dietary 

recalls

5-step AMPM

Summarized data 

tables on total 

intakes from both 

food and dietary 

supplements released by USDA.

2009-2010 

WWEIA, NHANES

50 States Over sampling of 

individuals 60+ 

years, African 

Americans, and 

Hispanics

Individual intake 2 nonconsecutive 

24-hr dietary 

recalls

5-step AMPM

Discontinuation 

of the calculated 

variable providing for salt 

adjustment for 

home-prepared 

foods.

2011-2012 

WWEIA, NHANES

50 States Over sample of 

African Americans, Hispanics, 

Asian Pacific 

Islanders, and 

low-income 

Individual intake 2 nonconsecutive 

24-hr dietary 

recalls

5-step AMPM

Decade of joint 

survey integration 

between USDA 

and DHHS.

Significant update 

of AMPM questions for ~1/3 of 

foods.

2013-2014 

WWEIA, NHANES

50 States Over sample of 

African Americans, Hispanics, 

Asian Pacific 

Islanders, and 

low-income 

Individual intake 2 nonconsecutive 

24-hr dietary 

recalls

5-step AMPM

Second significant 

update of AMPM 

questions for 

beverages.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 179

incomes, with the two lower cost plans used 

in programs for low-income families affected 

by the Depression (18). The early food plans 

were revised periodically to reflect changes 

in food consumption as determined from 

USDA food surveys as well as dietary guidance and food costs, which continue to be 

developed by USDA (19). The least costly of 

these food plans, the Thrifty Food Plan, is 

still used in the Federal formulas for counting the Nation’s poor and for setting benefit 

levels in the Food Stamp Program (20-22).

The 1942 Spending and Saving in Wartime 

Survey measured the early effects of World 

War II on food consumption in urban, rural, 

and farm families at different income levels 

(23). As in earlier studies, the nutritive values computed for family diets were based on 

values of food as they were purchased, and 

authors cautioned that losses in nutrients 

caused by preparation and household waste 

should be considered in comparing the results with any yardstick. Before the date of 

the survey, a widespread nutrition program 

had been carried on throughout the Nation; 

people were being urged to increase their 

consumption of milk, fruits, vegetables, and 

whole-grain cereals. For many families, this 

was a matter of education in food selection; 

for others, it was a matter of having money 

to buy these foods. Nevertheless, the survey 

found marked improvement from the 1930s 

in diets overall, but many families’ intakes 

of several nutrients were low compared with 

the new standards, the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA) first issued in 1941. 

Greatest improvements were for low-income 

families (24). Types of information available 

included quantities of food used, nutritive 

value of diets, the effect of income on diets, 

food groups as sources of “dietary essentials,” and the money value of both purchased food and food from other sources 

such as home production.

A postwar survey, Food Consumption of 

Urban Families in 1948, included both a 

nationwide survey in the spring and surveys 

of four cities. As in earlier surveys, interviewers were selected locally and trained by 

USDA staff. The 1948 survey was the first in 

which computers were used for data analysis; a USDA staffer applied the new technology to food consumption data using computers at the Bureau of Mines (1). The findings 

provided basic data on food consumption 

patterns for use in educational, research, 

and marketing programs and in the use of 

agricultural products. Types of information 

available focused heavily on food consumption, including the kinds of foods used by 

different groups in a week, the share of 

income spent for food by different groups, 

the division of the family food dollar among 

different kinds of food, and the amount of 

food obtained without direct expenditure. 

Included in one survey publication was a 

discussion of methods of analyzing family 

food data, including the estimation of income elasticities (25).

Nationally Representative Surveys of 

Household Food Use and the Shift Toward 

Individual Intake Data Collection

From the 1930s to the mid-20th century, 

great strides were made in the distribution 

and storage of food products, most notably 

in home refrigeration. These changes affected the way people purchased and used food. 

Coupled with that change was the recognition of the need for nationally representative food consumption data that resulted in 

USDA developing larger surveys, as well as 

continued work in conducting smaller methodologic or special-purpose surveys of food 

consumption.

Some of these methodological studies explored techniques for collecting dietary data 

from individuals (26,27). Other studies addressed survey methodology issues such as 

the use of the food inventory record versus 

the food list recall, food discard measurement, questionnaire design and wording, 

and interviewer training (25, 28-31). The 

research on the food inventory record versus 
180 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

the food list recall confirmed the decision 

to adopt the list recall technique for use in 

future surveys. Still other surveys were conducted to provide information on levels of 

living for farm and nonfarm families (32).

USDA conducted four nationwide food surveys of household food use—the Household 

Food Consumption Survey (HFCS), 1955; 

Table 3. Nutrients estimated in USDA nationwide surveys 

Nutrients Years in

 surveys

Food energy (kcal) 1955 +

Protein (g) 1955 +

Carbohydrate (g) 1977-78 +

Fat, total (g) 1955 +

Alcohol (g) 1985-86 +

Sugars, total (g) 2001-02 +

Dietary fiber, total (g) 1985-86 +

Water/moisture (g) 1985-86 +

Saturated fatty acids, total (g) 1985-86 +

Monounsaturated fatty acids, total (g) 1985-86 +

Polyunsaturated fatty acids, total (g) 1985-86 +

Cholesterol (mg) 1985-86 +

Individual fatty acids:

 4:0 (g) 1994-98 +

 6:0 (g) 1994-98 +

 8:0 (g) 1994-98 +

10:0 (g) 1994-98 +

12:0 (g) 1994-98 +

14:0 (g) 1994-98 +

16:0 (g) 1994-98 +

18:0 (g) 1994-98 +

16:1 (g) 1994-98 +

18:1 (g) 1994-98 +

20:1 (g) 1994-98 +

22:1 (g) 1994-98 +

18:2 (g) 1994-98 +

18:3 (g) 1994-98 +

18:4 (g) 1994-98 +

20:4 (g) 1994-98 +

20:5 n-3 (g) 1994-98 +

22:5 n-3 (g) 1994-98 +

22:6 n-3 (g) 1994-98 +

Vitamin A:

as International units (IU) 1955 - 1998

as retinol equivalents 1985 - 1998

as retinol activity equivalents (μg) 2001-02 +

Nutrients Years in

 surveys

Retinol (μg) 2001-02 +

Carotenoids: 2001-02 +

Carotene, alpha (μg) 2001-02 +

Carotene, beta (μg) 2001-02 +

Cryptoxanthin, beta (μg) 2001-02 +

Lycopene (μg) 2001-02 +

Lutein + zeaxanthin (μg) 2001-02 +

Vitamin E: 1985 - 1998

as alpha-tocopherol equivalents (mgTE) 2001-02 +

as alpha-tocopherol (mg) 2003-04 +

Added vitamin E (mg) 2007-08 +

Vitamin D (D2 + D3) (μg) 2001-02 +

Vitamin K as phylloquinone (μg) 1955 +

Vitamin C (mg) 1955 +

Thiamin (mg) 1955 +

Riboflavin (mg) 1955 +

Niacin (mg) 1977-78 +

Vitamin B-6 (mg) 1985 +

Folate, total (μg) 2001-02 +

Folate (DFE) (μg) 2001-02 +

Folic acid (μg) 2001-02 +

Food folate (μg) 1977-78 +

Vitamin B-12 (μg) 2003-04 +

Added vitamin B-12 (μg) 2005-06 +

Choline, total (mg) 1955 +

Calcium (mg) 1955 +

Iron (mg) 1977-78 +

Magnesium (mg) 1977-78 +

Phosphorus (mg) 1985-86 +

Potassium (mg) 1985-86 +

Sodium (mg) 1985-86 +

Zinc (mg) 1985-86 +

Copper (mg) 1994-96 +

Selenium (μg) 1994-96 +

Caffeine (mg) 1994-96 +

Theobromine (mg) 1994-96 +

HFCS, 1965-66; Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS), 1977-78; and NFCS, 

1987-88. The latter three of these surveys 

also contained a component that measured 

food intake by household members.

Results from the 1955 Household Food 

Consumption Survey for household food 

use were provided for food energy and nine 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 181

about a fifth (20%) of U.S. households were 

rated “poor” by new standards based on the 

1963 RDAs, compared with a revised figure 

of 15% for 1955 (16). Decreased use of milk 

and some milk products and of vegetables 

and fruits was pinpointed as the principal 

cause for the increased proportion of households with poor diets. Both education and 

action programs were stepped up as a result 

of the survey findings.

In the spring quarter of 1965, information 

on dietary intakes by individuals in households was obtained for the first time (37). 

Results from individual intake for the spring 

1965 collection were provided for the same 

nutrients reported in 1955. Findings of the 

survey provided new information on diets 

of household members and were used in 

nutrition education programs and in estimating the effect that different levels of food 

fortification had on the diets of various age 

groups. Results showed that the groups 

needing the most attention were children, 

teenagers, and older people. The spring 1965 

individual intake data were so useful as 

baseline data that there were many requests 

for enlarging their scope to include more 

intake days per individual, all seasons, and 

more questions on dietary practices. The 

scope of the surveys was greatly expanded 

in 1977-78, and the name changed from the 

Household Food Consumption Survey to the 

Nationwide Food Consumption Survey.

Between the HFCS 1965-66 and the NFCS 

1977-78 surveys, the proliferation of new 

products was especially marked. Technological changes, such as freeze-dried coffee, 

and the increasing variety of commercially 

frozen foods reflected breakthroughs in food 

processing and packaging. Lifestyle changes 

such as increases in the proportion of women employed outside the home may have decreased the time spent in meal preparation 

and increased the demand for convenience 

foods and fast food restaurants.

The NFCS 1977-78 survey was the largest 

of all the USDA nationwide surveys, even 

nutrients including protein, fat, calcium, 

iron, vitamin A, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, 

and ascorbic acid as shown in table 3. The 

results showed an overall improvement in 

the adequacy of U.S. diets (33). Nevertheless, nutrient shortages were still found even 

among households in the upper third of the 

income scale, indicating continued need for 

dietary improvements. Results were used to 

develop new educational materials for both 

low- and high-income families (7,33). 

Widespread concern for disadvantaged and 

low-income families in the 1950s and early 1960s led to the use of survey results as 

baseline data for the Pilot Food Stamp Program that was initiated in 1961 in eight economically depressed areas. A before-and-after study of food-consumption and dietary 

levels in an urban and a rural area showed 

that the Food Stamp Program increased the 

purchase of more nutritious foods by needy 

families and also expanded the market for 

agricultural products. A government objective was to use farm surpluses (34). The 

Food Stamp Program became permanent 

with the Food Stamp Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-

525). The program was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 

in October 2008 as mandated by the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 

110-246).

Between the surveys of 1955 and 1965-66, 

the availability and consumer acceptance of 

many new, more convenient food products 

changed the cooking practices and patterns of food use in many American households. For example, the use of mixes for 

baked products, such as cakes and muffins, 

and the availability of ready-made baked 

products led to a decrease in baking “from 

scratch,” and household consumption of 

flour, sugar, and other basic baking ingredients decreased.

A major purpose of the Household Food 

Consumption Survey of 1965 was to compare current household food consumption 

with that in earlier surveys (35,36). Diets of 
182 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

including subsequent surveys. Food use 

information was obtained from approximately 14,000 households and dietary intakes 

from the approximately 36,000 individuals 

in those households (38,39). Reporting from 

the NFCS 1977-78 survey was extensive and 

included food use estimates by income, season, urbanization, and region, as well as estimates of the money value of food at home 

and away from home. As shown in table 3, 

results from the individual intake portion of 

the NFCS 1977-78 survey were provided for 

food energy and 14 nutrients—five more nutrients than were reported in the 1955 and 

1965-66 surveys, including carbohydrate, 

magnesium, phosphorus, vitamin B6, and 

vitamin B12.

The last USDA survey to include both a 

household food use component and an individual intake component was the NFCS 

1987-88 survey (40,41). Most of the procedures used to obtain food intake information were similar to those used in the 

NFCS 1977-78 survey. One innovation of the 

NFCS 1987-88 survey was the use of laptop 

computers for interviewing that were programmed to handle the burden of a growing 

food list. As food supplies had increased 

and become more varied over the years, the 

number of foods on the food list recall form 

had also increased rapidly from approximately 200 items in 1948 to nearly 3,000 

items by 1987 (12).

Results from the NFCS 1987-88 survey 

showed that more of the household food 

dollar was spent away from home, and fewer 

meals were consumed from household food 

supplies in 1987-88 than in 1977-78 (37). 

These changes may have resulted from a 

desire for increased convenience and variety. 

The food industry responded in a number 

of ways: more and varied restaurants; more 

microwaveable packaging; and more bakeries, delicatessens, and salad bars in supermarkets.

The collection of both household food use 

and individual intake information in the 

same survey created heavy respondent 

burden and, in the NFCS 1987-88 survey, 

low response rates. The need to decrease 

respondent burden was one of the reasons 

USDA did not include a household food use 

component in subsequent surveys. Another 

reason for the shift from household to individual intake data collection was that the 

then current emphasis on diet and health 

gave greater urgency to the need for assessing the nutrient adequacy of diets. Household data are less than ideal for analyses 

of diet quality relative to dietary or nutrient 

requirements such as the Dietary Reference 

Intakes (DRI) (42). To compare household intake levels with a standard or requirement, 

it was necessary to adjust for the consumption of food away from home, which was not 

surveyed in the household component, as 

well as to make various assumptions related 

to the apportionment of food among household members and their differing nutritional 

needs. Also, household food consumption 

data included discarded food and food fed 

to pets, which resulted in overestimates of 

nutritional quality. Individual intake data 

represent foods as eaten, excluding food 

discard and including both food eaten at 

home and away from home, an increasingly 

important component of individual intake; 

therefore, these data are more precise than 

household food use data for the assessment 

of diet quality.

The elimination of the household food use 

component resulted in loss of data on the 

monetary value of food used at home and 

expenditures for food away from home, 

nutrients per dollar’s worth of food, and the 

value and quantity of home-produced food. 

Also, because much food is purchased at the 

household level, the discontinuation of the 

household survey created a gap in tracking 

food from the farmer to the consumer and 

made it more difficult to develop food plans 

that meet nutritional and cost criteria as 

well as reflect food consumption practices of 

households.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 183

To fill this data void, USDA’s Economic 

Research Service and the Food and Nutrition Service launched the National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey 

(FoodAPS) in 2009. FoodAPS, a nationally 

representative survey of 3,500 low-income 

and 1,500 higher income households, is designed to provide comprehensive information 

about household food acquisition behaviors 

over a 7-day period and information about 

household characteristics that influence 

food acquisition behaviors. Data collection is 

scheduled for 2012 with results to be finalized in 2013 (43).

Individual Intake Surveys Without the 

Household Food Use Component

In 1985, the first national USDA survey of 

dietary intake by individuals independent 

of a household food use component began 

(44). The purpose of the 1985-86 Continuing 

Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) was to collect data more frequently than 

every 10 years, thus providing up-to-date 

information on the adequacy of the diets of 

selected population groups and early indications of dietary changes—important considerations for data that are used in planning 

food assistance and educational programs 

and in administering a variety of public 

programs affecting the supply, safety, and 

distribution of the Nation’s food. Food intake 

data were collected using a panel approach: 

collection from each individual took place 

on up to 6 nonconsecutive days at intervals 

of approximately 2 months over a 1-year 

period.

Between 1977 and 1985, when the CSFII 

was initiated, substantial changes occurred 

in food intakes—shifts to lower fat milk, 

less meat eaten separately (i.e., not as part 

of mixtures), and more grain products (44). 

These shifts, most prominent among higher income, more educated respondents, 

may have reflected concerns about diet and 

health issues. The first Dietary Guidelines 

for Americans were issued in 1980 (45). 

In 1989, the panel aspect of the CSFII 1985-

86 was dropped, and the CSFII 1989-91 was 

conducted using a l-day dietary recall and 

2-day food record, the same methodology 

as for the individual intake portion of the 

NFCS 1977-78 and NFCS 1987-88. Also in 

1989, the Diet and Health Knowledge Survey 

(DHKS) 1989-91 was initiated to improve 

understanding of factors that affect food 

choices and provide a link between an individual’s knowledge and attitudes and his or 

her dietary behavior. Individuals who were 

identified as the main meal planners/preparers in the CSFII were asked to answer a 

series of questions about their knowledge of 

and attitudes toward diet, health, and food 

safety. Data from the CSFII 1989-91 showed 

that eating habits followed national dietary 

guidelines more closely than in the past (46). 

However, the DHKS 1989-91 revealed that 

Americans’ perceptions about their diets did 

not always match reality (47).

USDA’s last individual dietary intake survey conducted before survey integration 

with DHHS was the CSFII/DHKS 1994-96 

(48,49). Popularly known as the “What We 

Eat in America” survey, it was USDA’s 10th 

nationwide survey, the sixth to include the 

collection of individual intake data. The 

development of the CSFII/DHKS 1994-96 

included substantial research and planning 

as well as extensive collaboration with other 

organizations within and outside the Federal sector, including the U.S. Bureau of the 

Census and USDA’s National Agricultural 

Statistics Service; the establishment of a 

Continuing Survey Users’ Group; and the 

University of Texas Houston School of Public 

Health (50). It addressed the requirements of 

the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act for continuous monitoring 

of the dietary and nutritional status of the 

U.S. population. The 1994-96 CSFII collected 2 nonconsecutive days of dietary intake 

using in-person 24-hour dietary recalls 

spaced 3-10 days apart. Results from the 

CSFII 1994-96 were provided for food energy 

and 48 nutrients and food components in-
184 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

cluding for the first time 19 individual fatty 

acids (see table 3). 

Along with improvements in data collection methods, such as the multiple-pass 

approach for the 24-hour dietary recall, an 

advance made during the 1990s involved the 

way information on food intake by individuals was reported to the public (50). Since the 

1965-66 HFCS, average quantities of foods 

consumed were reported in grams or as the 

percentages of individuals consuming food 

from selected food groups or subgroups. 

Such information has numerous uses, including comparing food consumption over 

time. However, food intakes given in grams 

are difficult for the public to interpret. This 

is especially true in light of recent dietary 

recommendations that are given as the 

number of servings per day from specified 

food groups, as in the Food Guide Pyramid 

(51). To make interpretation easier, USDA 

developed a method for converting CSFII 

data on grams of food eaten into servings 

of food from selected food groups based on 

food guidance (52).

USDA food consumption surveys have provided critical data to inform policy and 

health issues, and this use expanded in the 

1990s. A 1993 report of the National Academy of Sciences entitled Pesticides in the 

Diets of Infants and Children raised concern 

that current food consumption data did not 

provide sufficient sample sizes to estimate 

adequately exposure to pesticide residues 

in the diets of children (53). To permit better exposure estimates and, as a response 

to the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act of 

1996 (P.L. 104-170), a survey of food and 

nutrient intakes by children younger than 

10 years was conducted in 1998 as a supplement to the CSFII 1994-96.

The Supplemental Children’s Survey (SCS) 

provided the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) with information on food consumption patterns in a statistically valid 

sample of infants and children. The method 

of data collection for the SCS was identical 

to that used in the CSFII 1994-96; it included 2 days of dietary intake for approximately 

5,000 children from birth through 9 years of 

age. Data from the SCS were combined with 

those of the CSFII 1994-96 to form CSFII 

1994-96, 1998 (48). 

Food consumption data from the CSFII 

1994-96, 1998 were translated into commodity-level data specified to meet the requirements of the Food Quality Protection 

Act of 1996. The Food Commodity Intake 

Database was developed as a cooperative 

effort by USDA and EPA for use in assessing 

dietary exposure to pesticide residues (54). 

Foods reported in the survey were translated 

to approximately 500 commodities to assess 

intakes of combination foods as disaggregated to very basic-level commodities.

Research Efforts to Improve Individual 

Dietary Data Collection

Methodology research has been integral 

to planning the increasingly complex food 

consumption surveys at the USDA. In the 

late 1990s, USDA’s Food Surveys Research 

Group (part of ARS’s Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center) implemented an 

extensive dietary survey methods research 

program to improve dietary intake data and 

to develop more cost-effective methods of 

data collection for national surveys of food 

consumption.

The research program included 2 years of 

comprehensive methodological research, followed by a full-scale nationwide pilot study. 

This research was undertaken out of concern for underreporting in 24-hour dietary 

recalls, which has 

implications for the interpretation of dietary 

data (55,56). Further, limited funds available 

in the Government for nutrition monitoring 

purposes urged integration of USDA and 

DHHS dietary intake surveys from many 

data users, as well as part of the National 

Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research 

Act of 1990. 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 185

Plans for integration of the CSFII and the 

National Health and Nutrition Examination 

Survey conducted by DHHS had begun in 

the late 1990s and required research for 

assuring successful implementation of an 

integrated national dietary survey (57). The 

focus of the research was the refinement of 

the 3-step multiple-pass 24-hour dietary 

recall method used in the CSFII 1994-96, 

1998 to improve the completeness and accuracy of dietary intake data collection, the 

selection and testing of food measurement 

aids to improve portion size estimation, and 

utilizing the telephone for dietary data collection.

Development of the USDA Automated 

Multiple-Pass Method

The objective in revising the CSFII method 

was to develop new approaches to help keep 

respondents interested and engaged in the 

interview process, and to help them remember all the foods they had consumed. Testing 

different techniques, such as varying the 

order of questions with a panel of 46 individuals, showed that increasing the number of 

passes helped to improve the recall of foods 

and did not increase respondent frustration 

(58). The results were used to revise and 

expand the number and order of steps in 

the interview from three to five, add memory cues, and increase the opportunities for 

respondents to remember and report additional foods. Incorporation of the new 5-step 

recall into a computerized method was also 

done to minimize respondent burden and 

improve consistency across all interviews. 

The resulting method was the USDA Automated Multiple-Pass Method (AMPM), as 

detailed in figure 1. 

The AMPM provides a structured interview 

of standardized questions combined with 

unstructured opportunities for respondents 

to use their own individual strategies to remember and report foods. The AMPM navigates the interviewer posing standardized 

questions and provides possible response 

options for hundreds of different foods and 

beverages. Each option is programmed to 

proceed to the next appropriate question 

through a framework of the five standardized steps. 

The AMPM interview begins with the Quick 

List, where respondents are asked to report 

all the foods and beverages consumed from 

midnight to midnight the day before the interview. The Quick List is an unstructured, 

uninterrupted listing of foods that the 

respondent can report in any order. This 

allows respondents to use their own strategies to recall and report the foods consumed. A number of memory cues are included within the question suggesting that 

the respondents think about whom they 

were with and what they were doing such 

as working, eating out, or watching television. The question also includes references 

to foods eaten at home and away, and foods 

such as snacks, coffee, soft drinks, water, 

and alcoholic beverages. The next step is 

Forgotten Foods, in which the respondent 

is asked questions about nine categories of 

foods frequently forgotten including beverages, alcoholic beverages, sweets, savory 

snacks, fruits, vegetables, cheese, breads 

and rolls, and any other foods. The Time 

and Occasion step collects the time each 

food and beverage was eaten and the name 

Figure 1. The USDA Automated Multiple-Pass Method.

USDA Automated Multiple-Pass Method Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

Quick List

Forgotten Foods

Time & Occasion

Detail Cycle

Final Probe

Collects listing of all foods and beverages.

Probes for forgotten food items in 9 categories.

Collects for each food & beverage.

Sorts foods into chronological order and

 groups foods by eating occasion.

Collects: description of each food & amount eaten,

 additions, source, and whether eaten 

 at home.

Reviews: each occasion and intervals between 

 occasions.

Provides final opportunity to recall foods.
186 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

of the eating occasion (i.e., breakfast, lunch, 

dinner, snack, and beverage). The Detail and 

Review step collects a detailed description of 

each food and beverage reported (including 

additions to the food/beverage), amount eaten, its source (e.g., store or restaurant), and 

whether the food was eaten at home. During 

this step, a review of each eating occasion 

and the intervals between eating occasions 

are obtained to elicit additional recall. The 

Final Probe, the last step, provides a final 

opportunity for the respondent to recall 

foods. Memory cues about nonsalient situations when foods may be eaten and easily 

forgotten are given, and reporting of small 

amounts of foods is encouraged. 

Research to Test and Validate the AMPM

The new AMPM was tested in a nationwide 

pilot study of 800 individuals. The pilot 

study, tested on a national scale and in 

an integrated form, utilized the food measurement aids and a computer-assisted 

telephone interview incorporating the new 

24-hour recall methodology. Results showed 

that average calorie intakes and the number of foods reported were higher in the pilot 

study than in the 1996 CSFII (59). The success of the telephone interview in obtaining 

dietary recalls deemed as effective as those 

obtained in-person was also demonstrated 

in research conducted collaboratively with 

the Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center 

(60). However, the pilot study did demonstrate that using the telephone without a 

previous in-person interview resulted in 

unacceptably low response rates for national 

dietary surveys (57).

A major contribution of this research initiative was evaluating the accuracy of the 

AMPM. Information on the nature and 

magnitude of reporting error is critical to 

the interpretation of national survey data. 

From 2002 to 2004, the AMPM Validation 

Study was conducted at the Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center to evaluate 

the accuracy of the AMPM. Reported energy 

intake (EI) using the AMPM was compared 

with total energy expenditure (TEE) using 

the doubly labeled water (DLW) technique 

on 524 subjects aged 30-69 years (61). The 

DLW technique provides precise measures of 

energy expenditure in free-living individuals 

and may be used to validate the assessment 

of energy intake by other methods (62).

Each of the subjects was dosed with DLW 

on the first day of their 2-week study period; daily urine samples were collected 

for determination of isotopic enrichment; 

and three 24-hour recalls were collected 

using the AMPM during this same period. 

The first recall was conducted in person, 

and subsequent recalls were over the telephone. Dietary interviews were distributed 

fairly equally across the days of the week, 

and subjects were interviewed on at least 

1 weekend day and 1 weekday. Isotope kinetics was determined using a multipoint 

calculation technique. Among the findings 

were that EI compared with TEE was underreported by 11% overall and by less than 3% 

for normal-weight subjects with body mass 

index <25, as illustrated in figure 3 (63). 

The OPEN Study, a DLW study conducted by the National Cancer Institute, used 

the earlier paper-and-pencil version of the 

AMPM for a sample of 480 adults. Results 

were similar but somewhat less accurate as 

compared with the AMPM Validation Study 

(64).

USDA also conducted smaller studies on 

the validity of the AMPM to measure group 

EI. Blanton reported that EI was not significantly different from TEE for a sample of 20 

adult females (65). Rumpler and colleagues 

found that mean EIs were accurately reported for a sample of 12 adult males (66). Stote 

and colleagues reported on the number of 

days needed to collect usual energy and 

macronutrient intakes over a 6-month period for overweight subjects (67). Observational studies by Conway and colleagues also 

supported the effectiveness of the AMPM in 

collecting dietary intakes (68,69). 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 187

USDA and DHHS Dietary Survey Integration

The National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990 set goals and mechanisms to bring about greater coordination 

of nutrition monitoring across agencies in 

the Federal Government. In 1998, the leadership of USDA and DHHS identified a more 

comprehensive integration of USDA’s CSFII 

and DHHS’s NHANES as a major priority. Under this partnership, USDA has lead 

responsibility for dietary collection, coding 

methodology and associated instruments, 

development and maintenance of appropriate food and nutrient databases, assignment 

of nutrient values to reported food, data 

processing systems and data processing, dietary data review, and quality control. DHHS 

has responsibility for sample design, survey design and operations, and contractual 

aspects of NHANES. Release of dietary data 

as part of this collaborative venture is a joint 

responsibility of both departments.

Integration of the dietary data collection activities from the departments has improved 

the ability of NHANES to assess dietary 

intakes of the U.S. population and improved 

the overall efficiency of dietary intake data 

collection and reporting activities for the 

Federal Government. Linked with health 

indicators from other components of the 

NHANES, these data provide opportunities 

to study relationships between eating patterns and health conditions. The integrated 

survey addresses the requirements of the 

National Nutrition Monitoring and Related 

Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-445) for continuous monitoring of the dietary status of 

the American population, including low-income populations (3).

The new dietary intake survey, What We 

Eat in America (WWEIA), NHANES, was 

launched with the 2002 NHANES. Two days 

of dietary intake data are collected annually 

using the USDA AMPM on a nationally representative sample of 5,000 persons. Day-1 

dietary interviews are collected in person in 

the NHANES Mobile Examination Center, 

and day-2 interviews are conducted by telephone from a central location about 3-10 

days after the day-1 interview. Data are released jointly by USDA and DHHS at 2-year 

intervals on the Internet (70). Since 2002, 

continuous dietary data collection has been 

realized in WWEIA, NHANES with nearly 

100,000 dietary recalls collected and publicly made available as detailed in table 4.

Table 4. 24-hour dietary recalls1 available from What We Eat in America, 

NHANES

Collection years Release month/year Number of recalls

Day 1 Day 2 Total

2001-2002 October 2004 9,701 2 9,701

2003-2004 October 2006 8,894 8,220 17,114

2005-2006 July 2008 9,169 8,264 17,433

2007-2008 May 2010 9,118 7,715 16,833

2009-2010 June 2012 9,754 8,406 18,160

1

Number of recalls reflects reliable recalls as defined in the survey documentation released with each WWEIA, NHANES dietary 

dataset. 

2

Day 2 dietary recalls for What We Eat in America, NHANES 2001-2002 were only collected for the 2002 survey year. These recalls 

were not made publicly available due to NHANES’s confidentiality requirements. Access to these data is possible through the National 

Center for Health Statistics Data Users Center. 
188 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

USDA Dietary Intake Data System

In this role of dietary survey leadership, 

ARS’s Food Surveys and Research Group 

(FSRG), where the activity is currently located, has developed and maintains the USDA 

Dietary Intake Data System (DIDS). The 

components of the system collectively provide the technological capability for the collection and processing of WWEIA, NHANES. 

The components of the system are detailed 

in figure 2. In addition to the AMPM for the 

24-hour dietary recall, DIDS consists of two 

computer systems and the Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies (FNDDS). 

The Post-Interview Processing System is for 

reformatting data and automatically assigning food codes and amounts, and Survey Net 

is for final manual coding, quality review, 

and nutrient analysis (58,71). The FNDDS 

is the database of more than 7,000 foods, 

their nutrient values, and weights for typical 

food portions used to process and analyze 

data from WWEIA, NHANES (72). With each 

* * *

* * *

 BMI < 253 BMI 25 – 29.93 BMI ≥ 303

EI2 (mean ± 95% CI)

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

 Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females

 (n=94) (127) (114) (79) (54) (56)

kcal/d 1

TEE: total energy intake measured by using the doubly labeled water method.

2

EI: energy intake calculated from three dietary recalls collected by using the USDA Automated Multiple-Pass Method.

*Significant at p<0.05. 3

Weight categories by BMI (in kg/m2): normal weight (BMI < 25), overweight (BMI 25-29.9), and obese (BMI ≥ 30).

 From AJ Moshfegh et al., American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2008, 88:324-32.

Figure 3. Energy measurements in men and women by BMI category using doubly labeled water in comparison to 

estimate intake using the Automated Multiple Pass Method. 

USDA Dietary Intake Data System

24-hour

recalls

Automated

Multiple-Pass

Method

Post-Interview

Processing

System

Survey Net

Food and 

Nutrient Results

Specifications

Autocoding

Criteria

Food and Nutrient

Database for

Dietary Studies

Dietary Databases

Figure 2. The relationship of data flow in the USDA Dietary 

Intake Data System.

TEE1 (mean ± 95% CI)
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 189

Table 5. Selected characteristics of food and nutrient database for dietary 

studies

FNDDS WWEIA, NHANES USDA Standard Number of

version survey years Reference used Foods/beverages Nutrients 

2-year release of WWEIA, NHANES data, a 

new version of the FNDDS is also released 

to support nutrient estimates of the dietary 

intakes (see table 5). The underlying food 

composition data for FNDDS are from the 

current USDA National Nutrient Database 

for Standard Reference (73).

The need to provide additional details about 

foods and beverages for the FNDDS for 

studying dietary intakes has been met with 

development of value-added databases. Two 

such databases developed by FSRG are the 

Food Patterns Equivalents Database and the 

Food Intakes Converted to Retail Commodities Database. The Food Patterns Equivalents Database, which replaced the MyPyramid Equivalents Database, characterizes 

foods and beverages in FNDDS by 32 components that are used to assess how Americans are meeting the recommendations of 

the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 

The Food Intakes Converted to Retail Commodities Database provides data for foods 

and beverages in FNDDS at the retail commodity level, disaggregating foods where 

necessary and converting them to amounts 

of 65 retail-level commodities (74).

Addressing the Changing Food Supply and 

Sources for Food and Beverages

Increasingly, Americans are consuming a 

larger proportion of their total daily food 

intake in food away from home—27% of 

mean daily food energy in 1994-96 compared with 35% in 2007-2008. This shift, 

among other extensive food supply changes, 

has caused continual review and updates of 

the questions in the AMPM and the foods in 

the Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary 

Studies. Survey databases have continued 

to expand to incorporate these commercial 

foods.

Beverages in the American diet are playing 

an important role in dietary intakes. Today, 

beverages account for 22% of food energy 

and have been implicated as having a role 

with the obesity epidemic in the United 

States. Before WWEIA, NHANES 2005-2006, 

plain water intake data were collected after 

the 24-hour dietary recall via food-frequency type questions that asked about the total amounts of tap and bottled water consumed the previous day. Starting in WWEIA, 

NHANES 2005-2006, the collection of all 

types of water was begun during the 24-

hour dietary recall in the same manner as 

for all other beverages and foods. This methodology change has been the greatest to date 

since the launch of the AMPM in the 2002 

WWEIA, NHANES (75).

The applications developed by USDA for the 

collection and processing of dietary intake 

data are made available to the nutrition research community. Through collaborations, 

USDA’s AMPM and related components of 

1.0 2001-2002 16-1 6,974 61

2.0 2003-2004 18 6,940 63

3.0 2005-2006 20 6,921 64

4.1 2007-2008 22 7,174 65

5.0 2009-2010 24 7,253 65
190 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Table 6. Dietary intake research collaborations with Food Surveys Research 

Group1

Collaborators Project/study Year

Western Human Nutrition Research Center, USDA 

National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of 

Health

Statistics Canada 

University of Maryland School of Medicine and 

Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of 

Public Health

Food and Nutrition Service, USDA

Diet Health and Human Performance Lab, Beltsville 

Human Nutrition Research Center, USDA

Pennington Biomedical Research Center

National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of 

Health; and the Center for Nutrition Policy and 

Promotion, USDA

Research Triangle Institute International

National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health

University of Maryland School of Medicine 

University of Vermont

Economic Research Service, USDA

Environmental Protection Agency

Food and Nutrition Service, USDA

Food and Nutrition Service, USDA

Australian Bureau of Statistics

Food and Nutrition Policy Research Program, 

Research Triangle Institute International

Statistics Canada and Health Canada

Doubly labeled water study of non-obese women

Healthy Aging in Neighborhoods of Diversity 

Across the Life Span (HANDLS)—20-year duration

Canadian Community Health Survey

WIC mothers in Baltimore, MD 

School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-III 

(SNDA III)

Protein and Weight Loss Study

Preventing Obesity Using Novel Dietary Strategies 

(POUNDS LOST) intervention study

Automated Self-Administered 24-Hour Recall 

(ASA24)—adapted AMPM format and design 

for use of ASA24 on the Web

Healthy Eating and Active Living (HEALTH) in 

Households of Tri-care Participants—intervention 

study for the Department of Defense

5-A-Day

Toddlers Overweight Prevention Study (TOPS) 

conducted with WIC participants

Relationship between television viewing and eating

Behavioral Economics Influences on Food 

Consumption

Upper Columbia River Tribal Consumption and Use 

Survey

School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-IV 

(SNDA IV)

School Food Purchase Study-III

National Health Study of Australia

Selected smaller studies starting first with a study 

on local/regional WIC program

Canadian Community Health Study 

2002

 

2003+

2004

2004

2005

2005

2005

 

2005+

2006

2006

2007

2007

2008

2009

2010

2010

2011

 

2011+

2015

1

Collaborations established through December 2011
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 191

the DIDS have been shared with others in 

the United States and internationally. A list 

of recent collaborators and their respective 

studies in which the USDA AMPM, FNDDS, 

and other DIDS components have been used 

is included in table 6.

Two of the largest studies that used the 

AMPM and related programs and databases 

are USDA’s School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Studies III and IV, conducted in 2004-

2005 and 2010, respectively (76,77). These 

studies were designed to provide information 

on the school meal programs, the school environment that affects the programs, the nutrient content of school meals, and the contributions of school meals to students’ diets. 

Further, the AMPM is used as a basis for 

the Automated Self-Administered 24-hour 

Dietary Recall (ASA24) system developed by 

the National Cancer Institute. The ASA24, 

available on the Internet, is designed for use 

by researchers for epidemiologic, intervention, behavioral, or clinical research (78). 

Internationally, the 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey and the 2011-13 Australian Health Survey used the AMPM in their 

nutrition component (79, 80). A number of 

other countries have based their nutrition 

monitoring databases and methods on those 

developed by USDA (81-83).

For over a century, USDA’s surveys have 

provided benchmark data on food consumption in the United States and have set the 

standard for high-quality dietary assessment 

methodology. The current research on dietary intake survey methodology is expected 

to produce further improvements in estimates of food and nutrient intakes.

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the previous contribution of Katherine S. Tippett, 

MS, and Cecilia Wilkinson Enns, MS, RD, in 

the earlier papers on the historical overview 

of USDA food consumption surveys.

References

1. Peterkin, B. 1994. USDA food consumption research: parade of survey 

greats. J Nutr 124:1836-42.

2. What We Eat In America (WWEIA), 

NHANES: Overview [Internet]. Beltsville, MD: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Surveys Research Group; 

[version 2010 Sep 29; cited 2011 Jul 

5]. Available from: http://www.ars.

usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=13793.

3. U.S. Congress. National Nutrition 

Monitoring and Related Research 

Act, 1990. Public Law No 101-445. 

101st Congress [Internet]. Washington, DC: The Library of Congress; 

[cited 2008 Apr 25]. Available from: 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/query/z?c101:H.R.1608.ENR.

4. U.S. Department of Agriculture and 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. 2010. Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans 2010. 7th edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 112 p. Available from: www.

dietaryguidelines.gov. 

5. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. 

2011. ChooseMyPlate [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture; [2011 Jul 5]. Available from: 

http://www.choosemyplate.gov. 

6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2011. Healthy People 

2020 [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services; [cited 2011 Jul 5]. Available 

from: http://www.healthypeople.gov.
192 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

7. Panel on Enhancing the Data Infrastructure in Support of Food and 

Nutrition Programs, Research, and 

Decision Making, National Research 

Council. 2005. Improving Data to Analyze Food and Nutrition Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies 

Press. 148 p.

8. U.S. Congress. Food Quality and 

Protection Act of 1996. Public Law 

104-170. 104th Congress, H.R. 1627 

[Internet]. Washington, DC: The Library of Congress; [cited 2011 Jul 

5]. Available from: http://thomas.

loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c104:5:./

temp/~c1047ZowSC::.

9. Atwater, WO. 1894. Foods: Nutritive 

Value and Cost. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Farmers’ Bulletin No. 23. 

46 p. Also Internet [cited 2011 Jul 5]. 

Available from: http://www.ars.usda.

gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12355000/

pdf/hist/foodanddiet_agric_ybk_1894.

pdf.

10. Atwater, WO. 1895. Food and diet. In

Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture, 1894, pp. 359-

388 and pp. 547-558. Washington, 

DC: Government Printing Office. 

11. Atwater, WO. 1895. Methods and Results of Investigations of the Chemistry 

and Economy of Food. U.S. Department of Agriculture Extension Station 

Bulletin No. 21. 240 p.

12. Bryant, AP. 1899. Some results of dietary studies in the United States. In

Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture, 1898, pp. 439-

452. Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Office.

13. Pao, EM, KE Sykes, and YS Cypel. 

1989. USDA Metholological Research 

for Large-Scale Dietary Intake Surveys, 

1975-88. USDA Home Economics 

Research Report No. 49. Hyattsville, 

MD. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Human Nutrition Information Service. 

419 p.

14. Cochran, WG. 1953. Sampling Techniques. New York, NY: John Wiley & 

Sons. 330 p.

15. Steibling, H. 1941. Are We Well Fed? A 

Report on the Diets of Families in the 

United States. USDA Miscellaneous 

Publication No. 430. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Home Economics. 30 p. 

16. Clark, F. 1974. Recent food consumption surveys and their uses. Federation 

Proc 33:11.

17. Orshanski, M. 1969. How poverty is measured. Monthly Labor Rev 

92(2):37-41.

18. Cofer, E, E Grossman, and F Clark. 

1962. Family Food Plans and Food 

Costs. Home Economics Research Report No. 20. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 

Research Service, Consumer and Food 

Economics Research Division. 58 p.

19. Carlson, A, M Lino, and T Fungwe. 

2007. The Low-Cost, Moderate-Cost, 

and Liberal Food Plans, 2007 [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, CNPP-20; 

2007 Nov [cited 2011 Jul 5]. Available 

from: www.cnpp,usda.gov/publications/foodplans/miscpubs/foodplans2007adminreport.pdf.

20. Carlson, A, M Lino, W-Y Juan, et al. 

2007. Thrifty Food Plan, 2006 [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, CNPP-19; 

2007 Apr [cited 2011 Jul 5]. Available 

from: www.cnpp,usda.gov/publications/foodplans/miscpubs/tfp2006report.pdf.

21. Cost of Food at Home, U.S. Average 

at Four Cost Levels [Internet]. 2011. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy 

and Promotion; 2011 Jun [cited 2011 

Jul 5]. Available from: http://www.

cnpp.usda.gov/usdafoodcost-home.

htm.

22. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program, Cost of Living Adjustment 

(COLA) Information [Internet]. 2011. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 193

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service; 2011 [cited 2011 Jul 5]. Available 

from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/

government/cola.htm.

23. Family Food Consumption in the United States. 1944. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication No 550. 163 p. Also available 

from: www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/1235000/pdf/hist/bhnhe_1944_misc_pub_550.pdf. 

24. LeBovit, C, E Cofer, J Murray, and 

F Clark. 1961. Dietary Evaluation 

of Food Used in Households in the 

United States. Household Food Consumption Survey 1955, Report No. 16. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service, Household Economics Research Division. 60 p.Departmentof 

25. Clark, F, J Murray, GS Weiss, and E 

Grossman. 1954. Food Consumption 

or Urban Families in the United States 

. . . With an Appraisal of Methods of 

Analysis. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 132. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Home Economics 

Research Branch. 209 p.

26. Adelson, SF. 1960. Some problems in 

collecting dietary data from individuals. J Am Diet Assoc 36(5):453-61.

27. Adelson, SF, and A Keys. 1962. Diet 

and Some Health Characteristics of 

123 Business and Professional Men 

and Methods Used to Obtain Dietary 

Information. ARS 62-11. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service. 282 p.

28. Adelson, S, E Asp, and I Noble. 1961. 

Household records of food used and 

discarded. J Am Diet Assoc 39(6):578-

84.

29. Adelson, SF, and EC Blake. 1950. 

Diets of Families in the Open Country ... a Georgia and an Ohio County, 

Summer 1945. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication 

No. 704. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Human 

Nutrition and Home Economics. 94 p.

30. Clark, F, and L Fincher. 1954. Nutritive Content of Homemaker’s Meals; 

Four Cities, Winter 1948. Agriculture 

Information Bulletin No. 112. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 

Home Economics Research Branch. 72 

p.

31. Murray, J, E Black, D Dickens, and 

A Moser. 1952. Collection Methods in 

Dietary Surveys: a Comparison of the 

Food List and Record in Two Farming 

Areas of the South. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin 23. Clemson, SC: 

South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station. 65 p.

32. Reagan, BB, and E Grossman. 1951. 

Rural Levels of Living in Lee and Jones 

Counties, Mississippi, 1945, and a 

Comparison of Two Methods of Data 

Collection. Agriculture Information 

Bulletin No. 41. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture.

33. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1957. 

Dietary Levels of Households in the 

United States. USDA Household Food 

Consumption Survey 1955, Report No. 

6. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture. 70 p.

34. Reese, RB, and SF Adelson. 1962. 

Food Consumption and Dietary Levels 

Under the Pilot Food Stamp Program, 

Detroit, Michigan, and Fayette County, 

Pennsylvania. Agricultural Economic 

Report No. 9. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service and Agricultural Research Service. 17 p.

35. Consumer and Food Economics Research Division, Agricultural Research 

Service. 1969. Dietary Levels of Households in the United States, Spring 

1965. USDA Household Food Consumption Survey 1965-66, Report No 

6. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 121 p.
194 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

36. Consumer and Food Economics Research Division, Agricultural Research 

Service. 1968. Food Consumption 

of Households in the United States, 

Spring 1965. Houshold Food Consumption Survey 1965-66, Report No. 

1. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 215 p.

37. Consumer and Food Economics Research Division, Agricultural Research 

Service. 1972. Food and Nutrient 

Intakes of Individuals in the United 

States, Spring 1965. Household Food 

Consumption Survey 1965-66, Report 

No. 11. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 300 p.

38. Consumer Nutrition Division, Human 

Nutrition Information Service. 1983. 

Food Consumption: Households in the 

United States, Seasons and Year 1977-

78. Nationwide Food Consumption 

Survey 1977-78, NFCS Report No. H-6. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 313 p.

39. Consumer Nutrition Division, Human 

Nutrition Information Service. 1984. 

Nutrient Intakes: Individuals in 48 

States, Year 1977-78. NFCS Report No. 

I-2. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture. 460 p.

40. Consumer Nutrition Division, Human 

Nutrition Information Service. 1994. 

Food and Nutrient Intakes by Individuals in the United States, 1 day, 1987-

88. Nationwide Food Consumption 

Survey 1987-88, NFCS Report No. 87-

H-1. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture. 116 p.

41. Consumer Nutrition Division, Human 

Nutrition Information Service. 1993. 

Food and Nutrient Intakes by Individuals in the United States, 1 day, 1987-

88. Nationwide Food Consumption 

Survey 1987-88, NFCS Report No. 87-

I-1. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture. 250 p.

42. Subcommittee on Interpretation and 

Uses of Dietary Reference Intakes and 

the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference 

Intakes, Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine. 2000. Dietary Reference Intakes: Applications in Dietary 

Assessment. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press. 307 p. 

43. Diet Quality and Food Consumption: 

The National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey (FoodAPS) 

[Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service; [update 2011 Jan 

4; cited Jul 5]. Available from: http://

www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/DietQuality/food_aps.htm. 

44. Nutrition Monitoring Division, Human 

Nutrition Information Service. 1985. 

CSFII: Women 19-50 Years and Their 

Children 1-5 Years, 1 day. NFCS, CSFII Report No 85-1. Hyattsville, MD: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service, 

Nutrition Monitoring Division. 112 p.

45. U.S. Department of Agriculture and 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, 

and Welfare. 1980. Nutrition and Your 

Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Public Health Service, Stock No. 

017-001-00416-2. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 20 p. 

(Subsequent editions were released in 

1985—2nd edition, 1990—3rd edition, 

1995—4th edition, 2000—5th edition, 

2005—6th edition, and 2010—7th edition, see reference 7.)

46. Tippett, KS, SJ Mickle, JD Goldman, 

et al. 1995. Food and Nutrient Intakes 

by Individuals in the United States, 

1 day, 1989-91. NFS Report No. 91-

2. Riverdale, MD: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service. 263 p.

47. Cypel, YS, JA Tamaki, CW Enns, et 

al. 1996. Nutrition Attitudes and Dietary Status of Main Meal Planners/

Preparers, 1989-91. NFS Report No. 

91-1. Riverdale, MD: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service. 287 p.

48. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 2010. The 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 195

1994-96, 1998 Continuing Survey of 

Food Intakes by Individuals and the 

1994-96 Diet and Health Knowledge 

Survey [Internet]. Beltsville, MD: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville Human 

Nutrition Research Center, Food Surveys Research Group [updated 2010 

Sep 29; cited 2011 Jul 5]. Available 

from: http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=14531.

49. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 1998. Food 

and Nutrient Intakes by Individuals 

in the United Stated by Sex and Age, 

1994-96. NFS Report No. 96-2. Riverdale, MD: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 

197 p.

50. Tippett, KS, and YS Cypel, eds. 1997. 

Design and Operation: The Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals and the Diet and Health Knowledge Survey, 1994-96. NFS Report No. 

96-1. Riverdale, MD: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service. 197 p.

51. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1992. 

The Food Guide Pyramid. Home and 

Garden Bulletin No. 252. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. 17 p.

52. Cleveland, LE, DA Cook, SM KrebsSmith, and J Friday. 1997. A method 

for assessing food intakes in terms of 

servings based on food guidance. Am J 

Clin Nutr 65 Suppl:1254S-63S.

53. National Research Council. 1993. 

Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and 

Children. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press; 1993. 387 p.

54. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 1998. Food 

Commodity Intake Database, 1994-96 

[Internet]. Beltsville, MD: Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Food 

Surveys Research Group [updated 

2010 Sep 29; cited 2011 Jul 5]. Available from: http://www.ars.usda.gov/

Services/docs.htm?docid=8498. 

55. Hill, RJ, and PSW Davies. 2001. The 

validity of self-reported energy intake as determined using the doubly 

labeled water technique. Br J Nutr 

85:415-30.

56. Trabulsi, J, and DE Schoeller. 2001. 

Evalutaion of dietary assessment 

instruments against doubly labeled 

water, a biomarker of habitual energy 

intake. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 

281;E891-9.

57. Dwyer, J, K Ellwood, AJ Moshfegh, 

and CL Johnson. 2001. Integration of 

the Continuing Survey of Food Intakes 

by Individuals and the National Health 

and Nutrition Examination Survey. J 

Amer Diet Assoc 101:1142-3.

58. Raper, N, B Perloff, L Imgwersen, et al. 

2004. An overview of USDA’s dietary 

intake data system. J Food Compos 

Anal 17:545-55.

59. Moshfegh, AJ, J Goldman, R Lacomb, 

et al. 2001. Research results using the 

new USDA Automated Multiple-Pass 

Method. FASEB J 15(4):A278.

60. Casey, PH, SLP Goolsby, SL Lensing, 

et al. 1999. The use of telephone interview methodology to obtain 24-hour 

dietary recalls. J Amer Diet Assoc 

99:1406-11.

61. Scholler, DA. 1988. Measurement of 

energy expenditure in free-living humans by using doubly labeled water. J 

Nutr 118:1278-89.

62. Black, AE, AM Prentice, GR Goldberg, 

et al. 1993. Measurements of total energy expenditure provide insights into 

the validity of dietary measurements 

of energy intake. J Am Diet Assoc 

93:571-9.

63. Moshfegh, AJ, DG Rhodes, DJ Baer, 

et al. 2008. The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Automated Multiple-Pass 

Method reduces bias in the collection of energy intakes. Am J Clin Nutr 

88:324-32.

64. Subar, AF, V Knipis, RP Troiano, et al. 

2003. Using intake biomarkers to evaluate the extent of dietary misreporting 

in a large sample of adults: the OPEN 

study. Am J Epidemiol 158 (1):1-13.
196 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

65. Blanton, CA, AJ Moshfegh, DJ Baer, 

and MJ Kretsch. 2006. The USDA Automated Multiple-Pass Method accurately estimates group total energy and 

nutrient intake. J Nutr 136(10):2594-

9.

66. Rumpler, WV, M Kramer, DG Rhodes, 

et al. 2008. Identifying sources of 

reporting error using measured food 

intake. Eur J Clin Nutr 62:544-52.

67. Stote, KS, SV Radecki, AJ Moshfegh, 

et al. 2011. The number of 24-hour 

dietary recalls using the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Automated Multiple-Pass Method required to 

estimate nutrient intake in overweight 

and obese adults. Pub Health Nutr 

14(10):1736-42. Epub 2011 Mar 18.

68. Conway, JM, LA Ingwersen, and AJ 

Moshfegh. 2004. Accuracy of dietary 

recall using the USDA five-step multiple-pass method in men: an observational validation study. J Am Diet 

Assoc 104(4):595-603.

69. Conway, JM, LA Ingwersen, BT Vinyard, and AJ Moshfegh. 2003. Effectiveness of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 5-step multiple-pass method 

in assessing food intake in obese and 

nonobese women. J Am Diet Assoc 

77(5):1171-8.

70. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007-2008, Data 

Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies: Dietary Interview [Internet]. 

Hyattsville, MD: National Center for 

Health Statistics; 2010 Jul [revised 

2010 Aug; cited 2011 Jul 5]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/

nhanes/nhanes2007-2008/drxdoc_e.

htm. 

71. Anderson, E, and L Steinfeldt. 2004. 

Blaise instrument design for automated food coding. In 9th International 

Blaise Users Conference Proceedings, 

pp. 129-136. [Internet]. Beltsville, MD: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service [cited 2011 

Jul 5]. Available from: http://www.

ars.usda.gov/research/publications/

publications.htm?seq_no_115=168928. 

72. Bodner-Montville, J, JKC Ahuja, LA 

Ingwersen, et al. 2006. USDA Food 

and Nutrient Database for Dietary 

Studies: released on the web. J Food 

Compos Anal 19 Suppl:S100-7.

73. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service, Nutrient 

Data Laboratory. USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 23 [Internet]. Beltsville, 

MD: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service [released 

2011; cited 2011 Jul 5]. Available 

from: http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=8964.

74. Bowman, SA, CL Martin, JE Friday, 

et al. 2012. Retail food commodity 

intakes: mean amounts of retail commodities per individual, 2001-2001 

[Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 

Research Service and Economic Research Service [cited 2012 May 11]. 

Available from: http://www.ars.usda.

gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12355000/

pdf/ficrcd/FICRCD_Intake_Tables_2001-2002.pdf. 

75. Sebastian, RS, CW Enns, JD Goldman, and AJ Moshfegh. 2012. Change 

in methodology for collection of drinking water intake in What We Eat in 

America, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: implications 

for analysis. Pub Health Nutr 20:1-6. 

76. Gordon, A, and MK Fox. 2007. School 

Nutrition Dietary Assessment StudyIII: Summary of Findings [Internet]. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research, Nutrition, and 

Analysis [cited 2011 Jul 5]. Available 

from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/

menu/published/cnp/FILES/SNDAIII-SummaryofFindings.pdf.

77. School Nutrition Dietary Assessment 

Study-IV (SNDA IV) [Internet]. c2011. 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 197

Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy 

Research [cited 2011 Jul 5]. Available 

from: http://www.mathematica-mpr.

com/nutrition/snda_IV.asp.

78. National Cancer Institute, Division of 

Cancer Control and Population Sci-

ences. 2011. Automated Self-Adminis-

tered 24 Hour Dietary Recall (ASA24) 

Factsheet [Internet]. Bethesda, MD: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, National Institutes of Health 

[cited 2011 Jul 5]. Available from: 

http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/tools/in-

struments/asa24.pdf. 

79. Garriguet, D. 2004. Overview of Cana-

dians’ Eating Habits [Internet]. Otta-

wa, Canada: Statistics Canada [cited 

2011 Jul 5]. Available from: http://

www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-620-

m/82-620-m2006002-eng.pdf.

80. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2011. 

Australian Health Survey 2011-13 

[Internet]. Canberra: Australian Bu-

reau of Statistics [cited 2011 Jul 5]. 

Available from: http://www.abs.gov.

au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/Home/

Australian+Health+Survey.

81. Harrison, GG, OM Galal, N Ibrahim, et 

al. 2000. Underreporting of food intake 

by dietary recall is not universal: a 

comparison of data from Egyptian and 

American women. J Nutr 130(8):2049-

54. 

82. Shai, I, BA Rosner, DR Shahar, et al. 

2005. Dietary evaluation and attenua-

tion of relative risk: multiple compar-

isons between blood and urinary bio-

markers, food frequency, and 24-hour 

recall questionnaires: The DEARR 

study. J Nutr 135(3):573-9.

83. Day, RS, DL Douglass, and B Mazi-

ya-Dixon. 2008. Developing a Nigeri-

an-specific food and nutrient coding 

database. J Food Compos Anal 21 

Suppl 1:S109-14.
198 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 199

Chapter 7

History of Nutrition Education 

at the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 1902-2011

Susan Welsh 

Susan Welsh, Ph.D., RD, is formerly 

with USDA National Institute of Food 

and Agriculture, Washington, DC. 

She is now retired.

The Period 1891-1920s

The United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) was given authority for nutrition 

education and information dissemination by 

the Congress under President Abraham Lincoln in 1862 (1). The Act called for “the general design and duties of which shall be to 

acquire and diffuse among the people of the 

United States useful information on subjects 

connected to agriculture and rural development.” Subsequently, nutrition was specified 

as one such subject. A science-based approach to nutrition education began in this 

country at the USDA with the appointment 

of Wilbur Olin Atwater as a special agent 

in charge of nutrition programs for the Office of Experiment Stations, USDA, in 1891 

(figure 1). Atwater is considered by many to 

be the father of human nutrition research 

in this country in that he was a leader in 

research on nutritional requirements (the 

beginning of the Dietary Reference Intakes), 

food composition, food consumption by the 

population, and the effects of socioeconomic 

factors on food choice. He derived the “Atwater units” of 4, 9, and 4 calories per gram for 

calculating the metabolizable energy content 

of foods based on their protein, fat, and carbohydrate content, respectively. In 1894, he 

published the tables of food composition and 

dietary standards for the U.S. population (2). 

The first food tables provided data on protein, fat, carbohydrate, ash (mineral matter), 

and the energy value of some commonly 

available foods. Atwater’s dietary standards 

were intended to represent the average 

needs of man for protein and total calories. 

Fat and carbohydrate at unspecified levels 

were to provide the balance in calories. Specific minerals and vitamins had not yet been 

identified.

In addition to being credited with initiating 

major areas of nutrition research at USDA, 

Atwater was the first to connect them, thus 

laying the groundwork for dietary guidance. 

In a Farmers’ Bulletin published in 1902, he 

stated: “Unless care is exercised in selecting 

food, a diet may result which is one-sided or 

badly balanced—that is one in which either 

protein or fuel ingredients (carbohydrate 

and fat) are provided in excess.... The evils of 

overeating may not be felt at once, but sooner or later, they are sure to appear—perhaps 

in an excessive amount of fatty tissue, perhaps in general debility, perhaps in actual 

disease.” (3). These recommendations initiated the ongoing dietary guidance themes 

of variety, balance, and moderation. In this 

bulletin, he also set the stage for the development of food guides, which can be defined 

as a conceptual framework for selecting the 

kinds and amounts of foods of various types, 

Figure 1. Wilbur Olin 

Atwater, 1844-1907, was 

USDA’s first director of 

nutrition research. He is 

widely regarded as the 

father of modern nutrition 

research.

1891
200 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

which together provide a nutritionally satisfactory diet. He stated, “For the great majority of people in good health, the ordinary food 

materials... make a fitting diet, the main 

question is how to use them in the kinds 

and proportions fitted to the actual needs 

of the body.” For the rest of the century and 

continuing today, we have focused on answering this question.

Caroline Hunt, a nutrition specialist in USDA’s Bureau of Home Economics, was the 

first to directly address Atwater’s question 

of how to use ordinary foods in the kinds 

and proportions needed for a healthful diet. 

She is credited with having developed the 

first food guide. In 1916, “Food for Young 

Children” was released (4) (figure 2). This 

was followed in 1917 by dietary recommendations targeted to the general population 

in “How to Select Foods” written by Caroline 

Hunt and Helen Atwater, W. O. Atwater’s 

daughter (5). In 1921, a guide for the average family was released using the same food 

groups and suggesting the amounts of food 

to purchase each week (6). This publication 

was slightly modified in 1923 for use by 

teachers and extension workers in teaching 

housekeepers how to provide for the average 

size family of five (7) (figure 3). 

In Caroline Hunt’s food guides, foods were 

categorized into five groups—milk and meat, 

cereals, vegetables and fruits, fats and fatty foods, and sugar and sugary foods. The 

criteria for grouping foods were based on 

what was known then about nutritional 

needs, food composition, and usual patterns 

of food intake. By the 1920s, diets sufficient 

in calcium, phosphorus, iron, and iodine 

could be developed. Several foods containing vitamins A, B complex, and C had been 

identified, although the amounts the body 

needed were not yet known. The amounts 

of foods in Hunt’s food guides were listed in 

familiar household units—weight, volume, 

or count—and 100-calorie portions. Menus 

and recipes were also provided. It was assumed that most of the foods in a group 

were interchangeable in the diet. Individuals 

could choose the variety of foods that they 

liked and could afford in each food group. 

Food guides over more than a century have 

followed the same developmental logic in 

translating science into information that is 

meaningful and useful to the public. Table 

Figure 2. The first 

food guide aimed at 

U.S. consumers was 

written by Caroline 

Hunt for USDA. It was 

published in 1916.

19161923

Figure 3. Another USDA 

food guide by Caroline 

Hunt provided guidance to 

homemakers on feeding a 

family of five—the average 

American family size in 

1923.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 201

1 shows the major USDA food guides developed from 1916 to 2010 including the 

numbers of food groups and the quantities 

of foods recommended for each. Educational 

materials based on these food guides were 

developed for each of them (table 1). Figures 

4 and 5 show some of the early educational 

materials. From these beginnings, USDA has 

remained a major force in the development 

of dietary guidance to help Americans to 

choose a healthful diet.

One of the most important ways Caroline 

Hunt’s and Helen Atwater’s dietary guidance 

reached the public was through the Cooperative Extension System (8). The Morrill Act of 

1862 established land-grant universities, a 

new type of university that educated citizens 

in agriculture, home economics, mechanical arts, and other practical professions. 

The System was formalized in 1914 by the 

Smith-Lever Act to “extend” the resources 

of the land-grant universities and colleges 

to address public needs and bring practical 

information to people. This Act established 

the partnership between the land-grant 

universities and the USDA. At the heart of 

agricultural extension work, according to the 

Act, was developing practical applications 

of research knowledge. The Smith-Lever Act 

mandated that the Federal Government, 

through USDA, provide each State with 

funds based on a population-related formula. It also required that the States provide 

a 100% match from non-Federal resources. Today, the USDA’s National Institute 

of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) distributes 

these formula grants annually to land-grant 

universities across the country. The Cooperative Extension System is a unique network 

that allows dietary guidance produced at the 

Federal level to be adapted for use with local 

target audiences in States and territories 

across the country. 

The 1930s

In the 1930s, the needs of families changed. 

Due to the widespread economic constraints 

of the Depression and the severe droughts 

in the Midwest, which had decreased jobs 

and food availability, families needed advice on how to select foods economically. In 

1933, Hazel K. Stiebeling, a food economist 

in USDA’s Bureau of Food and Economics, 

developed the first food plans (9,10). Food 

plans differ from food guides in that they 

1920

Figure 4. In the 

1920s, educational materials from 

USDA reflected the 

nutritional knowledge of the times 

but emphasized 

eating a variety of 

foods.

Figure 5. Educational 

materials from USDA in 

the 1920s emphasized 

nutrient-dense foods 

instead of snacks. 
202 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Table 1. Major USDA Food Guides (1916-2010): food groups and

 amounts to eat

Food Number Protein-rich food Breads Vegetables Fruit Other 

Guide of food 

groups Milk Meat Fats Sugars

1916 Meats and other Cereals and Vegetables and fruit Fatty foods Sugars

Caroline protein-rich food other starchy (30% Cal) (20% Cal) (10% Cal) 

Hunt (4-7) 5 (10% Cal Milk, 10% Cal other) foods (20% Cal) 

buying

guides 1C milk + 2-3 svgs other/d 9 svg/d 5 svg/d 9 svg/d 10 svg/d 

(3 oz svg) (1 oz svg) (8 oz svg) (1 Tbsp svg) (1 Tbsp svg)

1933 Milk Lean Dry Eggs Flours, cereals Leafy Potatoes Other Tomatoes Butter Other Sugars

Stiebeling (9,10) meat, mature green sweet vegetables & citrus fats

buying 12 poultry, beans, yellow potatoes & fruit

guides	 fish	 peas,	

 & nuts

2 C/d 9-10 1 1 As desired 11-12 1 svg/d 3 svg/d 1 svg/d na na na

svg/wk svg/wk svg/d svg/wk

1943	 7	 Milk	and	 Meat,	poulry,	 Bread,	flour,	 Leafy	green	 Potatoes	&	 Citrus,	 Butter-	 Energy

Basic	 milk	 fish,	eggs,	 and	cereals	 yellow	 other	fruit	&	 tomato,	 fortified	 foods

Seven (23) products dried beans, vegetables cabbage, margarine Other fats,

foundation peas, nuts salad, sugars, &

diet greens sweets

2 C or more/d 1-2 svg/d Every day 1 or more 2 or more 1 or more Some daily

svg/d svg/d svg/d

1956 Milk group Meat group Bread, cereal Vegetable-fruit group

 Basic Four (25,26) 4

foundation 2 or more 2 or more 4 or more 4 or more svg/d na

diet svg/d svg/d svg/d Incl. dark green/yellow vegetables

(1 C svg) (2-3 oz svg) (1 slice, frequently and citrus daily 

1/2 C cooked) (1/2 C svg)

1979 Milk-cheese Meat, poultry Breads, Vegetable-fruit group Fats, sweets, alcohol group

 Hassle-Free (35) group	 fish,	and	 cereals,	rice,	

foundation 5 beans group pasta 

diet

2 svg/d 2 svg/d 4 svg/d 4 svg/d Use dependent on Cal needs 

(1 C svg) (2-3 oz svg) Include whole Incl. dark green/yellow vegetables

 grain enriched frequently and citrus daily

(1 slice,

1/2 C cooked)
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 203

Table 1. Major USDA Food Guides (1916-2010): food groups and

 amounts to eat—continued

Food Number Protein-rich food Breads Vegetables Fruit Other 

 Guide of food 

 groups Milk Meat Fats Sugars

 1985 Milk, yogurt, Meat, poultry Breads, Vegetable Fruit Fats, oils, sweets

	 Food	Guide	 	 cheese	 fish,	eggs,	dry	 cereals,	rice,	 3-5	svg/d	 2-4	svg/d

 Pyramid (65,71)	 6	 2-3	svg/d	 beans,	nuts	 pasta	 citrus	 Total	fat	not	to	exceed

	 total	diet	 	 	 2-3	svg/d	 6-11	svg/d	 Dark	green/deep	 Other	 30%	Cal,	sweets	vary

	 example	 	 (1	C	svg)	 (5-7	oz	 Whole	grain	 yellow;	starchy/	 	 according	to	Cal	needs

	 1,600	-	2,800		 	 	 total/day)	 enriched	 dry	beans	and	peas;	 (1/2	C	svg)

	 Cal	 	 	 	 (1	slice,	1/2	 other

		 	 	 	 C	cooked	svg)	 (1	C	raw,	1/2

	 C	cooked	svg)

	 2005	 	 Milk	 Meat	and	 Grains	 Vegetables	 Fruit	 Oils	 Discretionary

 MyPyramid (89,90)	 	 3	C/d	 beans	 7	oz/d	 3	C/d	 2	C/d	 6	tsp/d	 Cal

	 total	diet	 5	 	 6	oz/d	 	 	 290		Cal/d

	 example	 	 	 	 Whole	grain	 Dark	green	3	C/wk

	 2,200	Cal	 	 	 	 (31⁄2	oz)	 Orange	2	C/wk

		 	 	 	 Refined	 Dry	beans/peas	3	C/wk

	 (31⁄2	oz)	 Starchy	6	C/wk

	 Other	7	C/wk

	 2010	 	 Milk	&	 Protein	foods	 Grains	 Vegetables	 Fruit	 Oils	 Solid	fats	&

	 USDA	Food	 	 milk	products	 6	oz-eq/d	 7	oz-eq/d	 3	C/d	 2	C/d	 6	tsp/d	 added	sugar

	 Pattern	(95)	 5	 3	C/d	 Meat,	poultry

	 total	diet	 	 	 29	oz/wk	 Whole	grain	 Dark	green	2	C/wk	 	 	 Max	266	Cal/d

	 example	 	 	 Seafood	 31⁄2	oz-eq/d	 Beans	&	peas	2	C/wk

	 2,200	Cal	 	 	 9	oz/wk	 Enriched	 Red	&	orange	6	C/wk

	 	 	 	 Nuts,	seeds,	 31⁄2	oz-eq/d	 Starchy	6	C/wk

	 	 	 	 soy	products	 	 Other	5	C/wk

		 	 	 4	oz/wk
204 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

define the amounts of food to buy and use 

in a week. Hazel Stiebeling’s food plans were 

designed at four cost levels to meet the nutritional needs of men, women, and children 

of different ages. These plans were (1) the 

Restricted Food Plan for Emergency Use, (2) 

the Minimum-Cost Food Plan, (3) the Moderate-Cost Food Plan, and (4) the Liberal-Cost 

Food Plan. The two lower cost food plans 

were used in programs for low-income families affected by the Depression. 

These early food plans have been revised 

periodically to reflect changes in dietary 

guidance, food consumption, and food prices. In 1962, the Economy Food Plan was 

developed as a nutritionally adequate diet 

for short-term or emergency use (11). This 

plan, priced at less than the Low-Cost Plan, 

served as the basis for maximum food stamp 

allotments, as stipulated in the 1964 Food 

Stamp Program Act. In 1975, the Economy 

Food Plan was replaced by the Thrifty Food 

Plan, which represented a completely new 

set of market baskets but at the same minimal cost as the Economy Food Plan (12). As 

the new basis for the maximum food stamp 

allotments, the Thrifty Food Plan represented a minimal-cost diet based on up-to-date 

dietary recommendations, food composition data, food habits, and food price information. Another important difference was 

that the Thrifty Food Plan was designed for 

long-term use. The food plans have continued to be revised periodically to reflect new 

information (13-15). To help consumers 

use the Thrifty Food Plan, an educational 

publication, Recipes and Tips for Healthy, 

Thrifty Meals, was published in 2000 (16). It 

provided meal plans and recipes developed 

and evaluated by The Pennsylvania State 

University under contract with the USDA 

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. 

Four-person families with limited incomes 

prepared and evaluated the menus and recipes for taste and quality. Although it is now 

outdated, it is an important historical piece. 

The first family food plans developed by 

Hazel Steibeling were outlined in terms of 12 

major food groups (table 1). The food plans 

recognized that some groups of foods, such 

as cereal foods, potatoes, and dry beans, 

supply nutrients more cheaply than others, 

and that the nutritive values of different 

food groups could supplement one another. 

Stiebeling emphasized in her guidance the 

importance of having the proper balance between “protective” (nutrient-dense foods) and 

high-energy foods. Protective foods furnish 

essential nutrients, such as milk for calcium and vegetables and fruits for vitamins 

A and C. Fats and sweets are examples of 

high-energy foods that are generally low in 

essential nutrients. This may be the first use 

of nutrient density as a concept for selecting 

foods. Today, with obesity being the number 

one nutritional problem, considering nutrient density in food selection has become 

even more important. While food plans do an 

excellent job for the purpose that they are 

intended—determining how much food to 

buy and estimating how much it will cost—

most nutrition educators find food plans too 

complicated for the public to use in choosing 

diets unless the plans are translated into 

food as eaten.

The 1940s

In 1940, the Food and Nutrition Board, National Research Council, National Academy 

of Sciences accepted an assignment from 

the National Defense Advisory Commission 

called for by President Franklin Roosevelt to 

recommend a formulation of nutrient allowances for daily consumption, which would 

be adequate for maintenance of good nutrition in essentially the entire population of 

the United States (17). In May of 1941, the 

Committee on Food and Nutrition, National 

Research Council published a Yardstick for 

Good Nutrition —Recommended Dietary Allowances (18) (figure 6). It contained recommendations for calories and nine nutrients—

protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A, thiamin, 

riboflavin, niacin, ascorbic acid, and vitamin 

D—for men and women who are sedentary, 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 205

moderately active, or very active. It also 

included recommendations for children in 

various age groups and pregnant and lactating women. The recommendations were 

revised and reissued in 1943 (19). Consideration was given to three more nutrients not 

covered in the original recommendations—

iodine, copper, and vitamin K. The published 

booklet was only 6 pages long. Between then 

and 1989, 10 revisions of the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA) were published 

(20). The 10th edition was 285 pages long. 

In the early 1990s, the conceptual base and 

the development process for the RDA underwent serious deliberation and major revision 

(21). Between 1997 and 2005, the Institute 

of Medicine (IOM) published six volumes of 

Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) covering a 

total of 45 nutrients, energy, and other food 

components (20). The IOM also issued two 

reports describing ways to apply DRIs in 

planning and assessing diets. Each revision 

of the RDAs or the DRIs triggered a new 

assessment of the guidance given to meet 

the recommendations. It is intended that the 

DRIs will be revised when substantial new 

research data are available and when there 

is concern about intake by the population. 

The DRIs for calcium and vitamin D were 

the first to be revised in 2010. All the reports 

are freely accessible at http://fnic.nal.usda.

gov/DRIreports.

In the 1941 RDA report (18), a food guide, 

developed with USDA’s help, was presented 

to show how the nutrient recommendations 

could be met. The guide showed amounts to 

eat each day from nine food groups: milk, 

eggs, meat, vegetables, fruit, potatoes, butter or fortified margarine, cereal and bread, 

and sugars. As World War II dragged on, the 

rationing of some foods—meat, sugar, butter, and canned goods—became necessary in 

the United States. Because of rationing and 

evidence from national surveys that many 

Americans had poor diets, USDA issued the 

National Wartime Nutrition Guide (22) (figure 7). The early nine food groups became 

seven; eggs were put in the meat group, and 

sweets were omitted. Rather than numbers 

of servings or amounts of food groups to eat, 

this guide suggested alternate food groups 

to select when foods from a particular group 

were scarce. For example, it was suggested 

that if butter and fortified margarine were 

scarce, one should choose more foods from 

the green and yellow vegetables group or 

the milk group, which could be counted on 

Figure 6. The first 

formal yardstick for 

good nutrition was 

the Recommended 

Dietary Allowances 

from the National 

Academy of Sciences, 

National Research 

Council Committee on 

Food and Nutrition in 

1941.

1941

Figure 7. The 1943 

National Wartime 

Nutrition Guide from 

USDA appealed to a 

sense of patriotism in 

encouraging Americans 

to adopt a nutritious 

diet.

1943
206 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

to supply more vitamin A. A portion of the 

6-page bulletin was devoted to 12 hints on 

conservation, such as “use every scrap” and 

“don’t take more food on your plate than you 

will eat.” Posters of the era also emphasized 

the conservation message, but in some instances, they provided questionable dietary 

advice (figures 8 and 9).

Following the war, the National Wartime 

Nutrition Guide was revised and reissued 

in 1946 as the National Food Guide (23) 

(figure 10). Unlike the earlier guide, this 

food guide—better known as the “Basic 

Seven”—suggested the number of servings 

of each food group needed daily (table 1). 

Although waste was still discouraged, the 

emphasis on conservation now was gone. 

In addition to the seven main food groups, 

“energy foods” were mentioned. It was suggested that foods such as fats (other than 

butter and fortified margarine), sugars and 

sweets, and refined, unenriched grains provide chiefly energy, whereas the foods in the 

Basic Seven food groups also protect health. 

The graphic presentation of the food guide 

was a circle, which made a lasting impression in the minds of many people. The Basic 

Seven was used for about 12 years, but its 

complexity and lack of specificity regarding 

serving sizes led to the need for modification 

and simplification.

In 1946, President Harry Truman signed 

the National School Lunch Act (24). The 

program was intended to assist schools in 

providing nutritionally balanced, low-cost or 

free lunches to children. It was not intended to be a nutrition education program, but 

its power to influence by setting an example should not be underestimated. Today, 

school lunches must meet Federal nutrition 

requirements that are consistent with the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, but local school food authorities make decisions 

about what specific foods to serve and how 

they are prepared. In the 2010 9-month 

school year, 5,277.8 million lunches were 

served through the National School Lunch 

Program (http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/slsummar.htm).

The 1950s

In 1956, Louise Page and Esther Phipard, 

nutritionists with USDA’s Agricultural 

Research Service, introduced the rationale 

Figure 9. This 

poster promoted 

home canning and 

“victory gardens” to 

combat food shortages during 

World War II.

WWII

The BASIC 7 

1946

Figure 8. During 

both World Wars, 

USDA created advertisements 

to encourage the 

public to limit 

consumption of 

certain foods in 

order to free them 

up for shipment to 

troops in combat.

WWII
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 207

for a new food guide with four food groups 

in Essentials of an Adequate Diet (25) (table 

1). The publication was not intended for the 

general public, but rather for professionals 

involved in nutrition education, such as 

Cooperative Extension System educators. 

The report presented a food pattern—

numbers of servings to eat from each of four 

food groups—and it gave the details of how 

the nutrient profiles for the food groups were 

developed. The nutrient profiles were based 

on weighted consumption of foods within 

the food groups by the population. The 

report also indicated the intake of energy 

and eight nutrients—protein, calcium, iron, 

vitamin A value, thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, 

and ascorbic acid—that would be derived 

by following the food pattern. The scientific 

basis for this food guide and subsequent 

food guides and dietary guidance is 

dependent on food consumption and food 

composition data developed by USDA. The 

Page and Phipard food pattern was for 

a foundation diet; that is, by eating the 

minimum number of servings of nutrientdense foods in each food group, a major 

share—not all—of the energy and nutrient 

needs would be met. As calculated, the 

food guide provided 1,255 calories. For a 

foundation diet, it was expected that most 

individuals would eat more food than the 

guide called for to satisfy their calorie needs 

and bring nutrient levels closer to the 

RDAs. National surveys at the time showed 

that American diets fell short of the RDAs 

for vitamins A and C and calcium; thus, 

the guide stressed good sources of these 

nutrients from the vegetable, fruit, and milk 

groups. The meat group featured animal 

protein sources as well as dry beans and 

peas, important for their contribution of 

iron and the B vitamins. Fats, oils, sugars, 

and unenriched refined cereal foods were 

listed under that heading “Foods not 

emphasized in the daily plan,” although it 

was recognized that fats were important in 

the absorption of vitamins A and D and as a 

source of important fatty acids. 

After an extensive review of the document by 

Page and Phipard, a consumer publication, 

Food for Fitness—a Daily Food Guide, was 

released in 1958 (26) (figure 11). It 

became known as the “Basic Four.” In the 

6-page bulletin intended for the public, the 

composition of the food groups was briefly 

described, and quantities of food to count 

Figure 10. The 

National Nutrition 

Guide from 1946 

was commonly 

known as “the 

Basic 7.” 

 FOOD GROUPS Figure 11. In 1958, 

USDA replaced “the 

Basic 7” guide with 

“the Basic 4,” similar 

to current dietary 

recommendations 

in both types and 

amounts of foods to 

be eaten.

1958
208 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

as a serving were specified. Little guidance 

was given on the selection of fats and sugars 

or on appropriate calorie intakes. However, 

because of its emphasis on getting enough 

nutrients, the Basic Four remained a focal 

point of nutrition education for more than 2 

decades. It was presented graphically as a 

mobile, not a circle. Many people, however, 

seemed to confuse it with the graphic presentation of the Basic Seven and remember 

it as a circle. 

The Period 1960-1985

Beginning in the early 1960s, a series of 

publications from the American Heart Association began to link diet and heart disease 

(27). During the next 2 decades, an intense 

interest in the role of diet as a controllable 

risk factor in the etiology of several chronic diseases developed. Interpreting the research and coming to conclusions regarding 

appropriate dietary guidance was strongly 

debated in the scientific literature. The media covered the debate, and both public 

interest and confusion were high. USDA first 

formally addressed amounts of fatty acids as 

well as total fat in planning diets in its revision of the family food plans in 1962 (11). 

The 1974 bulletin, Fats in Food and Diet, 

gave consumers the information available 

on dietary fats and heart disease and on the 

amounts of fat, saturated fatty acids, and 

cholesterol in foods (28).

On September 21, 1959, Public Law (P.L.) 

86-341 authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to operate a food stamp system through 

January 31, 1962 (29). The Eisenhower 

Administration never used the authority. 

However, in fulfillment of a campaign promise made in West Virginia, President John 

F. Kennedy’s first Executive Order called for 

expanded food distribution. On February 2, 

1961, he announced that food stamp pilot 

programs would be initiated. In 1964, under 

the Johnson administration, the Food Stamp 

Act was passed. The official purposes of the 

Act included strengthening the agricultural 

economy and providing improved levels of 

nutrition among low-income households. 

The Act also brought the pilot programs under Congressional control. The Food Stamp 

Program has been amended many times 

and has grown dramatically. When President George W. Bush’s veto was overridden, 

the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 

2008—better known as the “Farm Bill”—was 

passed, and the Program was reauthorized 

and renamed the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP). In 2010, participation was over 40 million people at a cost 

of $68 billion. 

In 1966, under the Johnson Administration, 

Congress passed the Child Nutrition Act, 

which authorized the Special Supplemental 

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 

Children (WIC) (31). This is a Federal grant 

program administered by USDA’s Food and 

Nutrition Service (FNS). It provides nutrition 

education and nutritious food to aid low-income pregnant women, breastfeeding women, infants, and children up to 5 years of age 

who are at nutritional risk. In 1974, the first 

year the program was permanently authorized, 88,000 people participated. In 2004, 

average monthly participation was about 

7.9 million. Currently, 50 States, 34 Tribal 

Organizations, American Samoa, the District 

of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana 

Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands participate. In fiscal year 2010, participation was 9 million people, and the annual 

cost was $6.7 billion (http://www.fns.usda.

gov/pd/wisummary.htm). 

In 1969, again in response to the needs of 

the poor, Congress established the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program 

(EFNEP) (32). It operates through a partnership between USDA’s National Institute 

of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and the 

land-grant universities’ Cooperative Extension System. It is designed to reach limited-resource audiences, especially youth and 

families with young children. It provides 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 209

a comprehensive, integrated, experiential 

education program of about 10 to 12 lessons 

that address four areas—diet quality, physical activity, food safety, and food resource 

management. EFNEP has a rigorous evaluation system that has shown it to be effective. 

Currently, it operates in all 50 States and 

in American Samoa, Micronesia, the Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin 

Islands. Although matching funds from the 

States are not required, many States choose 

to add resources to the Federal allocation, 

because they recognize the value of this program. In 2010, the EFNEP Federal Appropriation was $67.5 million (http://www.nifa.

usda.gov/business/awards/formula/10_efnep_final.pdf). 

In 1977, Congress took action to quell the 

controversy and public confusion about 

the relationship between diet and chronic 

disease by releasing the landmark Dietary 

Goals for the United States (33). Senator 

George McGovern chaired the committee, 

and the report is often referred to as “the 

McGovern Report.” The committee set 

quantitative goals for intakes of protein (12% 

of calories), and, for the first time, intakes of 

carbohydrate (58% of calories), fat (30% of 

calories), saturated fatty acids (15% of calories), cholesterol (300 mg), sodium (5 g), and 

refined and processed sugars (10% of calories). These goals were the subject of great 

controversy among nutritionists, physicians, 

and the food industry—both on the basis of 

the strength of the scientific rationale and 

on the practical difficulty of meeting the 

recommendations with commonly consumed 

foods and usual diets. The goal for fat was 

particularly hard to meet. However, the goals 

marked a tipping point for dietary guidance.

In 1977, under the administration of Jimmy 

Carter, Congress passed the National Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching 

Policy Act (34). This Act established USDA 

as the lead agency of the Federal Government for research, extension, and teaching 

in the food and agricultural sciences, and 

directed that research into food and human 

nutrition be established as a separate and 

distinct mission of the Department. With 

this legislation, Congress supported USDA’s traditional emphasis on the nutritional 

needs of normal, healthy individuals, rather 

than the needs of individuals requiring clinical and therapeutic dietary treatment.

Figure 12. The Hassle-Free 

Guide to a Better Diet was 

published by USDA in 1979 

and included the fats, sweets, 

and alcohol group in addition 

to the Basic 4 food groups.

1979
210 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Partly in response to the “Dietary Goals” and 

the growing concern about overconsumption, USDA presented a new food guide, the 

“Hassle-Free Guide to a Better Diet” (figure 

12), in a colorful booklet entitled Food in 

1979 (35). This 64-page booklet was a decided break from the past both in what was 

presented and the way it was presented. The 

Hassle-Free Guide was similar to the Basic 

Four in that it described a foundation diet, 

with the same numbers of servings for the 

milk, meat, fruit and vegetable, and grain 

groups (table 1). However, for the first time, 

a very clear emphasis was placed on moderation. A fifth food group was identified as 

the Fats, Sweets, and Alcohol group. Specific examples of fats and sweets to minimize 

in diets were given. Even within each of the 

four food groups, foods that were low, medium, or high in nutrient density were listed. 

It also gave examples of menus that would 

provide three different levels of calories 

ranging from 1,200 to 2,400 calories. Guidance was given on how to decrease sodium 

and increase fiber intake. Equally dramatic 

was a change in presentation style. For the 

first time, a full-color, conversational, magazine style was used. Beautiful color pictures 

of foods were shown along with modern 

recipes that included the calories per serving. The Hassle-Free Guide was intended 

to replace the Basic Four. However, it went 

relatively unnoticed because of limited circulation due to its high cost and also to the 

controversy that ensued from the “Dietary 

Goals” and the release of the 1980 Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans. 

 Under the Carter Administration, USDA and 

the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) came together to issue authoritative, consistent dietary guidance for 

the public. In 1980, Secretary of Agriculture 

Robert Bergland and Surgeon General Julius 

Richmond released the 20-page first edition 

of Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans (figure 13) (36). The purpose was to give guidance to promote health 

and reduce the risk of chronic diet-related 

diseases. The guidelines addressed issues 

for which there was considerable consensus 

and which were thought to have the greatest potential effect on public health. The 

guidelines were based in part on the 1979 

Surgeon General’s Report (37). They were 

written for the public in simple terms and 

gave qualitative guidance, such as “avoid 

excess....” Specifically, the guidelines called 

Figure 13. The Dietary Guidelines 

for Americans were established 

by Congress to be released in 

1980 and are mandated to be 

reexamined every 5 years.

Dietary Guidelines for Americans

1980-2010

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 211

for a variety of foods to provide essential 

nutrients while maintaining recommended 

body weight and moderating dietary constituents of concern—fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium. Although the guidelines 

were directional rather than quantitative, 

the relationship between certain guidelines 

and health was questioned. The controversy continued, and numerous organizations 

developed new sets of dietary guidelines. 

Without understanding the sometimes-subtle differences in purpose and target audience, new guidelines were often viewed as 

a repudiation of past guidelines. While the 

scientific debate continued, diet books and 

products proliferated. Allegiance was divided among those who were generally pleased 

with the 1980 Dietary Guidelines, those who 

strongly supported the “Dietary Goals” and 

did not think the 1980 Guidelines had gone 

far enough in setting quantitative standards, 

and those who saw the Guidelines as going 

beyond the current science. In fact, there 

were file cabinets filled with angry letters to 

the Secretary of Agriculture. 

In the remaining days of the Carter Administration, USDA published a 30-page booklet 

that gave menus and recipes to help people 

to follow the 1980 Dietary Guidelines (38). 

Two new manuscripts—A Dieter’s Guide and 

Eating the Moderate Fat & Cholesterol Way, 

by essentially the same authors as Food

(35)—were ready for publication. Clearly, 

their focus was on the moderation message. 

With questions concerning the 1980 Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans remaining unanswered, the two new publications were too 

controversial for USDA to publish at the 

time. Subsequently, the American Dietetic 

Association published them in 1982 (39,40).

Almost immediately after the release of the 

1980 Dietary Guidelines, the Senate called 

for the establishment of the Federal Dietary 

Guidelines Advisory Committee to review 

the Dietary Guidelines (41). The Advisory 

Committee was composed of nine members appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture—three recommended by HHS, three 

recommended by USDA, and three recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. The Committee members were Bernard 

Schweigert (Chair), Henry Kamin, David 

Kritchevsky, Robert Olson, Lester Salans, 

Robert Levy, Sanford Miller, Judith Stern, 

and Fredrick Stare. The Executive Secretary 

was Isabel Wolf, Administrator of the USDA 

agency responsible for the Guidelines, Human Nutrition Information Service (HNIS). 

 In 1985, the Federal Dietary Guidelines 

Advisory Committee completed its work and 

turned in its report to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (42). In addition to reviewing 

the research basis for the Guidelines, they 

considered all public comments the Departments had received concerning the Guidelines. Their four meetings were open to the 

public. The changes recommended by the 

Committee were minor, mostly to improve 

clarity. For example, it was recommended that the guidelines not be numbered to 

avoid giving the impression of a hierarchy. 

They wanted to communicate that all the 

guidelines were intended to work together 

in the total diet. In addition, cautions were 

included against following unsafe weightloss diets, use of large-dose supplements, 

and consumption of alcoholic beverages by 

pregnant women. They noted that excess 

calories are a factor in increasing blood cholesterol, and they made it clear that “sugar,” as referred to in the Guidelines, is not 

only sucrose but also other kinds of caloric 

sweeteners. With these changes, Secretary 

of Agriculture John Block and Secretary of 

Health and Human Services Margaret Heckler jointly released the 24-page second edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 

(figure 13) (43). With the recommendations 

of a committee of experts in an open forum, 

the joint release of the Guidelines by USDA 

and HHS, and endorsements of the 1980 or 

1985 Dietary Guidelines by important nutrition professional associations (44,45,46), the 

controversy over the relationship between 
212 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

diet and health and the Dietary Guidelines 

died down.

The 1985 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee also made several recommendations 

to the Departments. One of the recommendations was that the Government use the 

Guidelines as the basis of nutrition programs. The Secretaries of Agriculture and 

Health and Human Services echoed this 

recommendation when the Guidelines were 

released. To ensure this and to respond to 

Congress’s request that the Federal Government “speak with one voice” on matters 

related to nutrition, USDA formed the Dietary Guidance Working Group on January 

2, 1986. Nine USDA agencies that played a 

role in nutrition research and/or education 

were represented in the working group along 

with a liaison from HHS. A similar committee was established at HHS. All Federal 

nutrition education materials directed to 

the public were, and still are, required to be 

reviewed and approved by these groups prior 

to publication to ensure that the information 

is consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans or is based on new medical or 

scientific knowledge determined to be valid 

by the Secretaries. In 1994, a Memorandum 

of Understanding was signed by USDA and 

HHS to formalize the review process. The 

review and approval process is still going on 

today, and it ensures that the dietary guidance message from the Federal Government 

is a consistent one.

The Period 1985-1990

In the late1980s, USDA developed and disseminated a number of publications and 

other materials designed to help the public 

use the Dietary Guidelines. These included 

Dietary Guidelines and your Diet (47), which 

was a series of seven publications, one on 

each of the seven Dietary Guidelines. Dietary 

Guidelines and Your Diet: Home Economics 

Teacher’s Guide (48) was specifically designed to help teachers communicate the 

Dietary Guidelines principles to students. 

Using the Dietary Guidelines was a series 

of four colorful, focus-group-tested bulletins designed to show how to put all the 

Guidelines into practice at the same time 

while carrying out daily activities—Preparing 

Foods and Planning Menus Using the Dietary 

Guidelines; Making Bag Lunches, Snacks 

and Desserts Using the Dietary Guidelines; 

Shopping for Food and Making Meals in Minutes Using the Dietary Guidelines; and Eating 

Better When Eating out Using the Dietary 

Guidelines (49-52). All materials included 

an explanation of the scientific rationale 

for the Guidelines written in consumer language. They also included tips, food sources 

of nutrients, menus, and recipes, as well as 

games and quizzes to engage the audience.

In 1988, Food Stamp Nutrition Education 

(FSNE) began with creative thinking in one 

State (53). Cooperative Extension faculty in 

Brown County, Wisconsin, and University of Wisconsin extension staff discovered 

that by committing State and local funding 

and contracting with the State food stamp 

agency, an equal amount of Federal dollars 

could be secured to expand the reach of 

nutrition education to low-income people in 

that area. Other universities soon followed. 

In 1992, seven States conducted FSNE 

using $661,000 in Federal funds. Growth 

of FSNE has occurred mainly through the 

Land-Grant University System’s Cooperative Extension System. The funding and 

administration of the program comes from 

USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). 

USDA’s NIFA provides leadership for FSNE 

programs carried out by the Cooperative 

Extension System. It promotes well-trained 

staff; effective program planning, management, and reporting; identification and use 

of effective and appropriate resources; and 

improved consistency and clarity of communication among FSNE’s many partners. 

FSNE is delivered directly through group 

and individual interactive learning opportunities and indirectly through the distribution of print and video materials. Social 

marketing campaigns are also used. Regard-
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 213

less of the delivery approach used, FSNE is 

a learner-centered and behavioral-focused 

program. With the change in the name of the 

Food Stamp Program to the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program, FSNE became 

SNAP-Ed. In 2010, Congress appropriated $379 million for the program (http://

www.nal.usda.gov/fsn/ApprovedFederalFundsSNAP-Ed01202010.pdf). Through 

2010, States were required to contribute an 

equal or greater share of funds to the program, so program cost would have been at 

least double. The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids 

Act of 2010, signed by President Barack 

Obama on December 13, 2010, eliminated 

the requirement for the State contribution.

On December 29, 1988, a new Dietary 

Guidelines Advisory Committee was established by USDA and HHS to determine if 

revision of the 1985 edition of the Dietary 

Guidelines was warranted and, if so, to 

make recommendations for revision. The 

Committee consisted of nine nutrition scientists and physicians—Malden Nesheim 

(Chair), Lewis Barness, Peggy Borum, Wayne 

Callaway, John LaRosa, Charles Lieber, 

John Milner, Rebecca Mullis, and Barbara 

Schneeman. The Executive Secretaries were 

Betty Peterkin (USDA) and Linda Meyers 

(HHS). Major resources for the review identified by the two 

Departments were the Food and Nutrition 

Board’s 1989 edition of the Recommended 

Dietary Allowances (54), Diet and Health: Implications for Chronic Disease Risk (55), and 

the Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition 

and Health (56). The Committee held three 

meetings that were announced in the Federal Register and open to the public. 

 

On May 14, 1990, they sent a 48-page report 

to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health 

and Human Services (57). It contained specific wording for a new edition of the consumer bulletin on the Dietary Guidelines, 

and it provided a rationale for recommended 

changes. It also included a summary of the 

comments that had been received from the 

public. The basic tenets of the earlier Dietary 

Guidelines were reaffirmed, which promoted 

healthful eating through variety and moderation instead of dietary restriction. For the 

first time, the Guidelines suggested numeric 

goals for total fat —30% or less of calories—

and saturated fat—less than 10% of calories. 

It was made clear that the recommendations 

were to be carried out over several days, 

rather than for one meal or one food. One of 

the biggest changes was to revise “Eat foods 

with adequate starch and fiber” from the 

1985 Guidelines to “Choose a diet with plenty of vegetables, fruits and grain products” 

in 1990. The shift was from food components to food groups. The Committee recognized that the existing Dietary Guidelines 

were well established as Federal nutrition 

policy, and they recognized the importance 

of stability in dietary guidance messages directed to the public. Based on the Committee’s report, Secretary of Agriculture Clayton 

Yeutter and Secretary of Health and Human 

Services Louis Sullivan released the 28-page 

third edition of the consumer bulletin, Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines 

for Americans in 1990 (58). The design and 

presentation of the 1990 bulletin was almost identical to the 1985 bulletin, with the 

exception that the background color of the 

cover was black (figure 13). For the future of 

USDA’s nutrition education work, the most 

significant addition to the 1990 Guidelines 

was the inclusion of USDA’s new Food Guide 

in tabular, not graphic, form.

A very important piece of legislation was 

passed in 1990—the National Nutrition 

Monitoring and Related Research Act (59). 

In addition to calling for a plan to integrate 

the two independent food and nutrition 

monitoring surveys conducted by the USDA 

and the HHS, it made long-lasting changes in nutrition education. The review of the 

scientific literature and the publication of 

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans that 

started in 1980 was made mandatory every 

5 years. In addition, these guidelines were 
214 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

to be “...promoted by each Federal agency in 

carrying out any Federal food, nutrition, or 

health program...” Therefore, by this Act, the 

Dietary Guidelines became the statement of 

Federal nutrition policy and the basis for all 

related programs such as nutrition education and promotion programs, food guides, 

and food plans such as the Thrifty Food 

Plan, which provides the cost basis for the 

SNAP, the National School Lunch Program, 

and WIC. It also gave a legislative basis for 

continuation of USDA’s Dietary Guidance 

Working Group that began in 1986 for the 

purpose of ensuring that all dietary guidance directed to the general public would 

be consistent with the Dietary Guidelines 

for Americans. The Monitoring Act of 1990 

expired in 2000, but the Departments have 

continued to function as though it were in 

place.

The Period 1990-1995

A process that came to fruition in the early 

1990s had actually begun 12 years earlier. 

With the release of the first edition of the 

Dietary Guidelines in 1980 (36), USDA began work on a new and very different kind 

of a food guide. Its purpose was to show 

consumers how to put the Guidelines into 

practice. There was a strong conviction that 

if the new food guide was to be accepted by 

consumers, it had to be evaluated and accepted by the professional community first. 

Therefore, an iterative process of development, presentation, feedback, and revision 

was carried out. It was considered essential 

that the development process be fully documented and open for peer review, and that 

the documentation include the purpose or 

the underlying goals of the food guide, the 

specific nutritional objectives, the food composition and food consumption databases 

used, and data to show that the goals and 

objectives specified could be achieved repeatedly. 

The underlying goals of USDA’s new food 

guide were based on a study of the evolution 

of food guides (60,61) as well as on a needs 

assessment of the professional community 

conducted through a cooperative agreement 

with Cornell University in 1983 (62). Approximately three-fourths of the nutritionists 

surveyed wanted the Basic Four replaced. 

The criticisms of the Basic Four were related 

to the failure to insure nutrient adequacy for 

the full array of nutrients for which RDAs 

had been established by 1980 (63), the failure to address nutritional concerns about 

excess intake of food components as expressed in the 1980 Dietary Guidelines (36), 

and the failure to communicate effectively. 

Two-thirds of the nutritionists surveyed indicated that they would prefer a food guide 

for the total diet rather than a foundation 

diet. Other studies indicated that the very 

familiarity of the Basic Four negatively influenced its ability to communicate (64). Consumers regarded the Basic Four as old-fashioned, something they already knew even 

if they did not have formal evidence. As a 

result of this review process, the underlying 

goals established for development of a new 

food guide were to achieve the following:

• Focus on overall health rather than on 

single diseases;

• Be based on current scientific research;

• Address the total diet, including 

concerns 

about both adequacy and moderation;

• Be realistic by meeting nutritional 

objectives with ordinary foods;

• Be flexible by allowing for maximum 

consumer choice;

• Be useful by reflecting the way 

consumers think about and use food;

• Be practical by accommodating feeding 

families or other groups; and

• Be evolutionary and anticipate the 

direction of future dietary recommendations.

The details of the development of what was 

called “A Pattern for Daily Food Choices” 

were published in the mid-1980s (65,66). 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 215

Concerns about both adequacy and moderation were addressed. Related to adequacy 

concerns, the objectives for protein, vitamins, and minerals were 100% or more of 

the RDAs for healthy people age two and 

older. The objectives for carbohydrate and 

fiber were to provide amounts greater than 

the usual intake through increased use of 

vegetables, fruits, and grains, especially 

whole-grain products. Related to moderation 

concerns, the limit for total fat was set at 

30% or less of energy; and for saturated fatty acids, the limit was set at less than 10% 

of energy. The limit for cholesterol was 300 

mg; and for sodium, it was 2,400 mg. The 

intent for added sugars was to provide the 

balance of energy needed without exceeding 

usual intakes. The objective for total energy was to cover the range recommended for 

moderately active individuals. 

Food groups were formed primarily on the 

basis of nutrient content, but the way foods 

were generally used in meals and the way 

foods were grouped in past food guides were 

also considered (table 1). Within some of 

the major food groups, subgroups of foods 

were identified to emphasize nutrients of 

concern. For example, vegetables were separated into five subgroups to focus on their 

specific contributions of vitamins, minerals, 

and fiber; and grain products were separated into enriched and whole-grain products 

to emphasize important nutrients and fiber. 

As in the Hassle-Free Food Guide, foods 

relatively high in fat or added sugars and 

relatively low in vitamins and minerals were 

classified into a separate group called fats, 

oils, and sweets. Serving sizes were used as 

they had been in the Basic Four. Determining the numbers of servings of the five nutrient-dense food groups and the allowances 

for fats and sugars in the total diet was a 

two-phase process. First, nutrient profiles 

were established that defined the quantities 

of nutrients that one could expect to obtain 

on average from a serving of a food group or 

subgroup. The typical pattern of food consumption in the United States was taken 

into account by developing average nutrient profiles for the groups and subgroups 

weighted on the basis of the consumption of 

foods within them. In keeping with the original goal of developing a highly flexible food 

guide, only lean or low-fat forms of foods 

without added fats or sugars were used to 

develop the food group nutrient profiles. For 

example, the nutrient profile for the meat 

group included lean cuts of meat trimmed 

of all the fat and poultry without skin. This 

approach allowed the determination of the 

numbers of servings of food groups needed 

to meet the objectives for nutritional adequacy while keeping low the levels of food 

components for which overconsumption was 

a concern. Ranges in the numbers of servings of food groups were established to cover 

the range of nutrient and energy intakes recommended for different sex and age groups. 

The energy provided by these food groups 

composed of low fat, lean choices without 

added fats or sugars ranged from about 

1,200 to about 2,000 kcal. In the second 

phase of the process, the differences between the energy calculated as coming from 

the nutrient-dense food groups in phase 1 

and the energy intakes recommended by the 

Food and Nutrition Board in 1980 (63) were 

used to determine the amounts of fats and 

sugars that could be added to the diet. The 

amount of discretionary fat—which included 

nondiscretionary fats from lean meats and 

poultry and fish and even the small amounts 

from grains, vegetables, and skim milk— 

that could be added was constrained to keep 

the total to below 30% of energy. In this way, 

it was thought that consumers would be free 

to choose the sources of fat they preferred, 

for example, higher fat meats or whole milk. 

The new food guide “A Pattern for Daily Food 

Choices” was first presented to consumers 

in 1984 as part of the nutrition course “Better Eating for Better Health,” jointly developed by USDA and the American National 

Red Cross (67). The course, which consisted of six 2-hour sessions, was extensively 

evaluated and found effective with its par-
216 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

ticipants, who were adults of various education and income levels. The food guide was 

shown graphically as a wheel (figure 14). 

As part of the Red Cross course, the Food 

Wheel was an effective tool for nutrition education. However, in a study conducted by 

The Pennsylvania State University in which 

focus groups of household food managers 

reviewed a selection of nutrition print materials, the food wheel graphic was rated as 

outdated and repetitive of the Basic Four information previously learned in school (68). 

Participants failed to notice that the familiar 

shape of the circle contained new guidance 

messages on the moderation of fat and added sugars. In an earlier study (69), household food managers were found to react negatively to nutrition materials that seem to 

focus only on food groups (variety message), 

because they perceived the information to 

be old and already known. However, adding 

information on the fat, sugars, and sodium 

content of foods to information on the importance of variety sparked their interest. In 

the Red Cross nutrition course, the graphic 

was seen in the context of the entire course 

in which considerable attention was given 

to implementation of all the Dietary Guidelines, including guidance on moderation. In 

The Pennsylvania State University study, 

participants dismissed the circle shape as 

old without really looking at it. Clearly, the 

circle graphic for the new food guide was not 

going to be effective using an unmediated 

delivery mechanism.

In July 1989, the USDA nutrition education 

staff kicked off a very new type of educational effort—a media-targeted campaign called 

“Eating Right... the Dietary Guidelines Way.” 

All materials and communications were 

branded with the “Eating Right...the Dietary 

Guidelines Way” logo (figure 15). A market 

research company, Porter Novelli, guided 

us in the campaign. In the past, USDA had 

developed print materials and made them 

available to consumers through the Government Printing Office and to nutrition educators in the Cooperative Extension System 

and American Dietetic Association, who often reprinted the materials for their clients. 

This meant that materials were usually used 

exactly as they had been developed and that 

the audience generally consisted of people 

already interested in the subject matter, 

which made the potential impact somewhat 

limited. The new campaign was different 

in that it was directed to information mulFigure 14. “A Pattern for Daily Food 

Choices” depicted 

the diet as a wheel. 

It was developed 

jointly by USDA 

and the American 

Red Cross in 1984.

Figure 15. Educational 

materials related to the 

Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans included 

the “Eating Right ... 

the Dietary Guidelines 

Way” campaign of 1989.

19841989
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 217

tipliers, providing them with materials they 

could use to produce their own articles and 

educational efforts, thereby greatly increasing the potential reach. 

Three phases of the campaign were conducted featuring three different themes. The 

first phase of the campaign featured the four 

colorful, magazine-style booklets published 

earlier in 1989 (49-52). The second phase 

of the campaign, which began in May 1990, 

featured 17 fact sheets on good sources of 

vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber, and a 

booklet on the calorie content of foods. The 

third phase of the campaign, which began in 

November 1990, featured the newly released 

third edition of the Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans and new USDA survey data on 

food and nutrient intake by the population. 

USDA’s new Food Guide in tabular form was 

included in all the campaign materials as 

well as in the 1990 Dietary Guidelines bulletin. A fourth phase of the campaign was 

scheduled to begin in April 1991 featuring 

the new food guide graphic that was in development. However, the campaign was canceled when the graphic was put on hold.

Major activities of the “Eating Right...” campaign included the release of press kits for 

each of the three phases of the campaign. 

The press kits included the featured items, 

stories on the topics covered in the featured 

items, story ideas, fact sheets, reproducible graphics and charts, information about 

the agency, as well as a list of contacts and 

their information. These were sent to over 

3,000 major newspapers and magazines. 

Over 3,500 smaller newspapers received a 

“repro-booklet” of camera-ready stories and 

graphics. The broadcast media outreach 

involved over 100 TV and radio interviews 

broadcast in eight major U.S. media markets. The professional outreach targeted 

nearly 1,000 nutritionists, home economists, 

and health professionals through direct 

mailings, as well as over 15,000 professionals through presentations and exhibits at 

15 professional meetings. A public-sector 

outreach targeted each member of Congress 

and the Agriculture Commissioner and 

Governor in each State. Through the media 

portion of the campaign alone, a potential 

audience of nearly 150 million was reached. 

Counting only the pickup of which we were 

aware, more than 250 articles were printed 

in newspapers, magazines, and professional 

publications. 

In recognition of the new proactive approach 

that USDA was taking in nutrition education, the American Dietetic Association 

awarded the agency its President’s Circle 

Award for nutrition education in October 

1991 at its 74th annual meeting. This award 

was created to recognize the development 

and dissemination of scientifically sound nutrition information that is unique in concept, 

creative in presentation, and free from specific commercial messages or endorsements. 

The nutrition education staff was very happy 

to win the first award for the Department 

from the American Dietetic Association.

However, a food company charged USDA 

with copyright infringement for using the 

term “Eating Right...” because it sounded 

similar to the name of one of their products. 

The campaign was ended. However, the 

American Dietetic Association soon adopted 

the concept and has continued to use the 

slogan “Eat Right America.”

One of the important things learned in the 

course of the “Eating Right...” campaign 

was that materials were needed that would 

convey as simply and concisely as possible 

what consumers needed to know in order 

to put the food guide into action. Work began in earnest in 1988 on what was hoped 

would be one of many publications on the 

food guide. The plan was for the first publication to contain an appealing graphic that 

would convey in a memorable way the key 

messages of the food guide—variety, proportionality, and moderation. This was a 

difficult task, because no food guide graphic 

had ever conveyed all three messages. Most 
218 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

had been successful only at conveying the 

variety message. It was thought that variety 

could be easily conveyed by presenting the 

six categories of food in the food guide. It 

was deemed desirable that the graphic convey proportionality by presenting the relative 

amounts of food in the various food groups 

to eat daily. It was recognized that the most 

difficult message to convey would be moderation of fat, saturated fatty acids, added 

sugars, cholesterol, and sodium in relation 

to the total diet. It was hoped that by itself, 

the graphic would convey the simplest interpretation of variety, proportionality, and 

moderation, but that it would also arouse 

curiosity to learn more. The graphic was 

intended as a springboard for more indepth 

guidance rather than as a stand-alone piece. 

Again, Porter Novelli was contracted to design a consumer bulletin devoted entirely to 

the new food guide and including an illustration of its key principles. Their first task 

was to evaluate comprehension and perceived usefulness of the new food guide with 

the target audience. The target audience 

for the food guide publication was to be the 

same as for the bulletin that presented the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, that is, 

adults with at least a high school education, 

who were not overly constrained by food 

cost concerns and who had eating patterns 

typical of the general U.S. population. Later 

developmental work and publications were 

to focus on other target audiences, such as 

low-income populations, young children, 

and groups with eating patterns distinctly 

different from the usual U.S. pattern.

In the first phase of Porter Novelli’s work, 

four focus groups consisting of men or women 21 to 55 years of age were used to assess 

general familiarity with the basic concepts 

of the food guide and to comment on five 

different graphic presentations of the food 

guide. A circle graphic was perceived as 

unimaginative, old-fashioned, or providing 

information already known. Participants 

thought two graphics that used blocks representing the minimum number of servings 

arranged in a circle or row did not convey 

enough information, because neither the 

ranges in the numbers of servings of the 

nutrient-dense food groups nor the fats, oils, 

and sweets group was shown. Clearly, the 

message of moderation was not conveyed 

by the block designs. An inverted pyramid 

design showing grains at the top and fats 

and added sugars at the bottom tip was 

disliked by many, because it was perceived 

as being precarious or off-balance. On the 

other hand, the pyramid design was well 

received. It was seen as new, interesting, 

and easy to remember. Therefore, the pyramid was selected for further development, 

because it was thought to best convey the 

key guidance principles of variety, balance, 

and moderation. The importance of the total 

diet was shown by the integrity of the geometric shape, in that if one of the food group 

blocks was removed, it would no longer be a 

geometric shape. Variety among food groups 

was shown by the individual names of the 

food groups and by their separate sections 

in the graphic. However, variety within food 

groups was shown by the pictures of several 

foods within each group. Proportionality or 

balance among the food groups was conveyed by the size of the food group sections 

in the graphic and the text indicating numbers of servings. Moderation of foods high 

in fat and added sugars was shown by the 

small size of the tip of the pyramid and the 

associated “use sparingly” text. Moderation related to food choices within the food 

groups was shown by the density of the 

fat and added sugars symbols in the food 

groups. The last message was very difficult 

to convey by the graphic alone. Because the 

graphic was already very complex, it was decided that the message about moderation in 

saturated fatty acids, cholesterol, and sodium would be conveyed in the text and not in 

the graphic.

In the second phase of Porter Novelli’s work, 

using USDA’s text, they designed a bulletin 

featuring the food guide pyramid. During the 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 219

fall of 1990, the brochure was reviewed to 

identify confusing or missing information in 

the text and to test several variations of the 

pyramid graphic. Focus groups consisting 

of men or women over 21 years of age were 

used—three groups 36 to 55 years of age 

and one group 56 years of age or older. The 

focus of the brochure on healthful eating 

was understood, and participants were positive about its purpose. However, concerns 

were raised about organization, length, and 

repetition of information. There was considerable controversy about the coverage 

of alcohol. As a result, the sections were 

reorganized and shortened, and discussion 

of alcohol was deemphasized. As had been 

shown in the first phase of the research, the 

pyramid shape appeared to easily convey the 

concept of variety, proportionality, and moderation. The participants clearly understood 

that guidance was being given on selecting 

foods from various food groups. Participants 

considered the pyramid illustration to clearly present the relative numbers of servings 

suggested for each food group. As one participant said, “One thing this pyramid idea 

gives you, as opposed to the Basic Four, is 

trying to remember how many servings of 

each—you look at it and you know you are 

supposed to eat more of the bread and cereal and less of the dairy. Plus the symbols 

show you where the fat is.” The message 

seemed to be clear.

Participants were most interested in the 

concept of moderation. During the development of the new food guide graphic, it was 

recognized that it would be difficult to communicate both the concept that fats and 

sugars are food components, chemical compounds that can be part of foods in several 

food groups, and the concept that fats, oils, 

and sweets are a separate food group high 

in fat and added sugars. The fat and added 

sugars symbols concentrated in the tip and 

sprinkled throughout the rest of the food 

groups were intended to show that foods in 

the fats, oils, and sweets group are concentrated sources of these chemical compounds 

and that foods in other food groups can also 

be sources. The intent was that consumers would see both ways of moderating fat 

and added sugars in the total diet, that is, 

by moderating foods in the fats, oils, and 

sweets group and by moderating foods high 

in fats and added sugars in the other five 

food groups. There was considerable debate over whether pictures of high-fat and 

high-sugar foods should be used in the tip of 

the pyramid versus symbols for fat and added sugars alone. Using both created a very 

cluttered design. After reading the brochure, 

most participants agreed that the omission 

of the fat and added sugars symbols did not 

convey the same message as their inclusion. 

As one participant noted, “The one thing it 

did, which I thought was interesting, was 

that I don’t think we are aware of the oil and 

the sugar and the fats that are already in 

the foods, so that we don’t have to add to 

it.... I think it’s important, because I don’t 

think people realize how much is already in 

their foods.” 

In the third phase of the work, further testing was done to ensure that the pyramid 

graphic would convey the key messages 

without accompanying text. Alternate designs for the cover of the brochure were also 

tested. Inclusion on the cover of a symbol indicating that fat should be limited to 30% of 

calories peaked interest. Sixty women, 30-75 

years of age, were interviewed using a series 

of open-ended and rating questions. The 

conclusion was that the graphic communicated most of the intended messages to the 

target audience, even without accompanying 

text. The results indicated that although the 

meaning of the fat and added sugars symbols was not likely to be clear to everyone 

without accompanying text, the symbols 

were not distracting.

The Pattern for Daily Food Choices, developed in the early 1980s (65,66), was revised 

based on the 1990 Dietary Guidelines (58) 

and the 10th edition of the RDAs (54). The 

changes required were very minor (table 1). 
220 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

During 1990 and 1991, the draft text of the 

bulletin and the pyramid sketches were sent 

for external peer review to over 30 nutrition educators. Although the food guide was 

presented only in tabular form in written 

materials accompanying the “Eating Right...

The Dietary Guidelines Way” campaign, the 

graphic was presented and explained at 

professional conferences and in discussions 

with newspaper, magazine, radio, and television reporters. The draft food guide bulletin was also reviewed for consistency with 

the 1990 edition of the Dietary Guidelines 

for Americans by USDA’s Dietary Guidance 

Working Group and HHS’s corresponding committee. Preprint copies of “USDA’s 

Food Guide Pyramid” were approved by 

the Administrator of USDA’s Human Nutrition Information Service and the Assistant 

Secretary over the agency. The goal was to 

have what was to be called “USDA’s Food 

Guide Pyramid” text and graphic fully vetted 

among the professional community before 

its release as part of the “Eating Right...” 

campaign. Because of the long lead-time 

needed for textbook publishing, agency staff 

met with at least 30 publishers to arrange 

the substitution of the Pyramid for older 

food guides. In February 1991, page boards 

were sent to the printer, and availability was 

advertised by the Government Printing 

Office. The development of the food guide 

and the graphic was detailed in two publications (70,71).

In an unfortunate turn of events, an article 

by Malcolm Gladwell that included an illustration of the Pyramid appeared on the front 

page of the Washington Post on Saturday, 

April 13, 1991 (72). It incorrectly implied 

that USDA would be telling people to eat less 

meat and dairy products. The National Cattlemen’s Association was in Washington, DC, 

for its annual meeting and had scheduled a 

meeting with the new Secretary of Agriculture, Edward Madigan, on Monday morning. 

Subsequently, in letters to the Secretary, the 

National Milk Producers Federation joined 

the Cattlemen’s Association in demanding 

that USDA withdraw the Pyramid because 

of the placement of their food groups in the 

graphic (73). They were concerned that they 

had not been informed or consulted about 

a new food guide to replace the Basic Four. 

Two weeks later, it was announced that the 

Pyramid would be withdrawn so that it could 

be tested with children and low-income 

groups. This testing had not been done, 

because these were not the target audiences 

for the publication. The news coverage was 

intense, most of it very negative for the Department. In fact, coverage continued over 

the next year through the first Gulf war. In 

early May, the House Committee on Government Operations requested that USDA provide all of its records concerning the Pyramid as a basis for holding hearings. In July, 

USDA’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Food and Consumer Services announced 

that a contract had been signed with a consulting firm to conduct further research to 

test graphic alternatives to the Pyramid. The 

staff that had produced the Pyramid was not 

involved in the research.

Initial focus group research with different 

graphic designs produced ambiguous results. USDA’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Food and Consumer Services, along 

with HHS, contracted for more research to 

be done. This research was conducted in 

two phases—qualitative and quantitative. In 

the qualitative phase of the work, a total of 

26 focus groups were conducted including 

84 children in grades 5, 8, and 11, and 67 

adults in two age groups on food assistance 

programs. Three racial/ethnic groups were 

included—Black, White, and Hispanic—and 

work was conducted in three cities across 

the country. Three special focus groups were 

also conducted—one with the elementary 

and secondary school teachers of science 

and home economics, one with food industry representatives associated with various 

commodity groups, and one with representatives of several professional associations and 

advocacy groups. One-on-one, structured interviews were also conducted—21 interviews 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 221

with children in grades 5, 8, and 11, and another 21 with adult participants in the Food 

Stamp Program. Several alternative graphics 

were tested, such as two variations on the 

pyramid, 10 variations on a bowl, and several pie charts and shopping carts. Initially, 

a right triangle and a quarter-circle were 

reviewed, but they were eliminated because 

it was impossible to make the milk group 

and the meat group the same size. Final 

testing was done on a bowl (figure 16) and a 

pyramid (figure 17). In summary, the focus 

groups evaluated the effectiveness of the 

graphics in conveying variety, proportionality, and moderation differently. The pyramid was rated highest by the focus groups 

of children, teachers, and the professional/

advocacy group. Although the food industry 

group did not think the bowl designs conveyed proportionality well, they liked the 

vertically divided bowl design, because it did 

not stack foods.

The quantitative phase of the research was 

designed to measure the relative ability of 

the pyramid and the bowl to communicate 

the key concepts of the food guide—variety, 

proportionality, and moderation. Over 3,000 

individuals were interviewed at five sites 

across the country. For analytical purposes, the sample population was grouped by 

education level, gender, and race/ethnicity; 

adults were grouped by household income; 

and children were grouped by whether 

or not they received free or reduced-price 

school lunches. The test instrument was a 

structured questionnaire consisting of 60 

questions. The initial data analysis that was 

reported to the Departments in January 

1992 indicated that the effects of the bowl 

and the pyramid were virtually indistinguishable, but that children, minorities, and 

low-income adults preferred the bowl design 

because they associated it with food.

At this point, the USDA’s Office of the Assistant Secretary in charge appointed an external expert committee composed of highly 

respected nutrition experts. This committee recommended that the original staff 

that produced the Food Guide Pyramid be 

brought in to review the research report. An 

internal committee was formed composed 

of nutritionists from several USDA agencies 

and from HHS. The committee recommended that the data be reanalyzed, correcting 

several serious mistakes and using a scoring system weighted to emphasize the conFigure 17. The Food Guide Pyramid released 

in 1992 garnered high recognition among the 

U.S. public and was widely adopted by the 

food industry. 1992

Figure 16. During development of the Food Guide 

Pyramid, one of the graphics tested in 1991 and 

rejected after consumer testing was this bowl. 1992
222 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

cepts of proportionality and moderation. The 

relatively simple variety concept had been 

tested by only one question that involved 

the respondents to read the names of the 

food groups. With this question, no difference was found between the bowl and the 

pyramid designs. However, for the concepts 

of proportionality and moderation, the pyramid was found superior, with the differences 

being large and highly significant. Earlier 

concerns that consumers would incorrectly see foods at the top of the pyramid as 

being superior to those at the bottom were 

not supported. In fact, the bowl design was 

found to convey more misinformation. The 

internal review committee sent a letter to the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary stating that the 

research would only support adoption of the 

pyramid graphic. 

Release of the Food Guide Pyramid graphic 

was jointly announced by the Secretaries 

of USDA and HHS on April 28, 1992 (figure 17). Secretary of Agriculture Edward 

Madigan explained that great care had been 

taken in research to ensure that the message sent to children and low-income people was understandable. He clearly defined 

the 33 changes that had been made in the 

original pyramid. For example, the scoop of 

elbow macaroni in the breads and cereals 

group was replaced by a plate of spaghetti, 

the purple cabbage was replaced by green 

cabbage, peanuts were added to the illustrations in the meat group, the wheat stalk 

was eliminated from the breads and cereal 

group, and whole grain products were added. Ironically, the negative publicity surrounding the cancellation of the original Pyramid in 1991 drew public attention to the 

1992 release. Release of the slightly modified 

Pyramid in 1992 was accompanied by a 

press conference and front-page newspaper 

and broadcast news coverage. The graphic 

was immediately picked up by the media 

and by educators including kindergarten 

teachers. The food industry used it on labels 

and in advertising. Many other countries 

used the graphic design to present their own 

food guides. There was even a dog nutrition 

pyramid. In October 1992, USDA released 

the bulletin presenting the Food Guide Pyramid (figure 18) (74).

In October 1993, the USDA staff who developed the Pyramid was again awarded 

the President’s Circle Award for nutrition 

education by the American Dietetic AssociaFigure 18. Additional consumer 

outreach materials were created 

for the Food Guide Pyramid. 

This 1992 brochure highlighted 

restriction of fat to no more than 

30 percent of daily calories.

19921999

Figure 19. The Food Guide Pyramid was 

adapted in 1999 for children aged 2-6 years.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 223

tion. On hand to accept the award with the 

author were Fran Cronin, Anne Shaw, and 

Sally Kott from USDA’s Information Office, 

and Dan Snyder from Porter Novelli. Carole Davis, who was part of the development 

team, was not able to attend. Writing in 

1998, Marion Nestle said, “In its six years of 

existence, the Pyramid has become the most 

widely distributed and best recognized nutrition education device ever produced in this 

country. It appears in nutrition education 

materials, posters and textbooks, in advertisements and package labels, and cookbooks, and on board games. It is recognized 

by an astonishing 67% or more of American 

adults. It is demonstratively iconographic as 

it has spawned numerous analogs illustrating specific dietary patterns. By any criterion of recognition or dissemination, the Pyramid has been highly influential.” (75).

In some ways, the Pyramid has been a victim of its own success. The graphic was so 

easy to understand and use as a teaching 

tool that it was often used without any recognition of the text that was supposed to 

accompany it. For example, in the bulletin, 

it was explained that the lower numbers of 

servings in the recommended ranges were 

for lower calorie diets (about 1,600 calories), 

and the higher number of servings were for 

higher calorie diets (about 2,800 calories). 

Further, the meaning of a serving was explained. In the bulletin, it was recommended 

that people choose several servings a day of 

foods made from whole grains. Advice was 

given on how to avoid too much saturated 

fat, cholesterol, and sodium. Throughout the 

bulletin, recommendations were given for 

choosing foods in each food group lower in 

total fat and added sugars, essentially promoting the nutrient density concept. These 

messages and others were lost when only 

the graphic was used. As had been originally intended, research was conducted on 

a graphic presentation of the food guide for 

young children, and in 1999, a graphic presenting the “Food Guide Pyramid for Young 

Children: A Daily Guide for 2-6 Year-Olds” 

(figure 19) was released by USDA’s Center 

for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (76).

In August 1994, USDA and HHS appointed 

an 11-member Dietary Guidelines Advisory 

Committee to review the 1990 edition of the 

Guidelines. This set of guidelines was the 

first to be developed after the process had 

been made mandatory by the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act 

of 1990. The Advisory Committee members 

were Doris Calloway (Chair), Richard Havel 

(Vice-Chair), Dennis Bier, William Dietz, 

Cutberto Garza, Shiriki Kumanyika, Marion 

Nestle, Irwin Rosenberg, Sachiko St. Jeor, 

Barbara Schneeman, and John Suttie. The 

HHS Executive Secretaries were Linda Meyers and Karil Bialostosky, the USDA Executive Secretaries Eileen Kennedy and Debra 

Reed. The Committee held three meetings 

that were announced in the Federal Register 

and open to the public. The Committee also 

received oral and written comments from the 

public. In June 1995, the Advisory Committee submitted its report to the Secretaries 

of USDA and HHS (77). Specific wording for 

the consumer bulletin was recommended, 

and the rationale for each of the changes 

suggested was given. USDA and HHS accepted the recommended revisions to the 

1990 Dietary Guidelines without substantive 

change. On January 2, 1996, Agriculture 

Secretary Dan Glickman and HHS Secretary 

Donna Shalala announced the release of the 

43-page fourth edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (figure 13) (78). Although 

the 1990 edition of the Guidelines included USDA’s food guide in tabular form, the 

1995 edition featured the pyramid graphic, 

as well as considerable text explaining what 

a serving is and how to use the food guide. 

The goal was to place emphasis on the total 

diet. For example, the guideline “Use sugars 

only in moderation” was changed to “Choose 

a diet moderate in sugars.” One of the most 

important changes was the emphasis, for 

the first time, on physical activity as well as 

diet. A specific recommendation was given 

to accumulate 30 minutes or more of mod-
224 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

erate physical activity on most, preferably 

all, days of the week, and examples of moderate physical activity were given. A healthy 

weight chart and information on food labels 

were included for the first time.

The Period 1995-2011

In 1998, the Secretaries of USDA and HHS 

appointed an 11-member Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee to review the 1995 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans and recommend what changes, if any, should be 

made. The Committee consisted of Cutberto 

Garza (Chair), Suzanne Murphy (Vice-Chair), 

Richard Deckelbaum, Johanna Dwyer, Scott 

Grundy, Rachel Johnson, Shiriki Kumanyika, Alice Lichtenstein, Meir Stampfer, 

Lesley Tinker, and Roland Weinsier. The 

Executive Secretaries from USDA were Carole Davis and Shanthy Bowman, and from 

HHS Kathryn McMurry and Joan Lyon. The 

Committee held four meetings that were 

announced in the Federal Register and open 

to the public. The Committee also received 

oral and written comments from the public. 

On June 20, 2000, the Advisory Committee 

submitted its 79-page report to the Secretaries of USDA and HHS (79). Specific wording 

for the consumer bulletin was recommended, and the rationale for each of the changes suggested was given. USDA and HHS 

accepted the recommended revisions to the 

1995 Dietary Guidelines without substantive 

change. On May 27, 2000, USDA Secretary 

Dan Glickman and HHS Secretary Donna 

Shalala released a 40-page booklet for professionals (figure 13) (80) and a 10-page 

brochure for consumers (81) in English and 

Spanish. This marked a highly significant 

change in the process for developing the 

guidelines. Instead of a two-step process, a 

three-step process was used. The step added 

was the development of a policy document in 

between the Advisory Committee report and 

the consumer brochure. The policy document was developed by USDA and HHS to 

interpret the Advisory Committee’s report for 

policymakers, especially those who set Federal food-related policies, health professionals, the food industry, and highly interested 

consumers. It was longer and contained 

more detailed and complex information than 

the consumer bulletin. On the other hand, 

the brochure designed for consumers was 

shortened and somewhat simplified. In addition, the consumer brochure was formatted 

in a way that could be easily reproduced. 

This, along with other support materials, 

was made available on the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion’s Web site at 

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DietaryGuidelines.htm. 

President Bill Clinton announced the new 

guidelines in his radio address. He specifically mentioned the importance of including whole-grain foods and a variety of fruits 

and vegetables every day and moderating 

saturated fat, cholesterol, sugars, salt, 

and alcohol in the diet. He also mentioned 

the most important change in the Dietary 

Guidelines—the inclusion of two new guidelines. One emphasized the importance of 

handling and storing food safely, and the 

other emphasized the enormous benefits 

of physical activity. A major change was 

also made in the way in which the Guidelines were organized and presented. They 

were clustered into three groups: Aim for 

fitness, Build a healthy base, and Choose 

sensibly—the ABCs of good health. The “Aim 

for fitness” cluster included a guideline on 

healthy weight and one on physical activity. 

As in the 1995 Guidelines, 30 minutes of 

moderate activity on most days of the week 

was recommended. An emphasis was placed 

on making physical activity part of the daily routine. In the “Build a healthy base” 

cluster, the “Eat a variety of foods” guideline that had been in the first four editions 

on the Dietary Guidelines was changed to 

“Let the Pyramid guide your food choices.” 

Extensive information was included on the 

Pyramid in both the booklet for professionals 

and the brochure for consumers. For example, charts showing the number of servings 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 225

recommended at three calorie levels and 

examples of what counts as a serving were 

included. As in the 1995 Guidelines, the 

Pyramid graphic was included, but this time, 

the Pyramid for children was also included. 

The guideline on choosing a diet with plenty 

of grain products, vegetables, and fruits was 

split into two guidelines to give further emphasis to whole-grain products. The guideline on food safety was included in this cluster. The “Choose sensibly” cluster included 

guidelines on saturated fat, cholesterol, and 

total fat, sugars, salt, and alcoholic beverages. The total number of guidelines increased, 

for the first time, from 7 to 10. 

On May 15, 2003, HHS and USDA announced in the Federal Register (82) the 

intent to establish the 2005 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee and to solicit nominations for membership. The 13-member 

committee consisted of Janet King (Chair), 

Lawrence Appel, Yvonne Bronner, Benjamin 

Caballero, Carlos Camargo, Fergus Clydesdale, Vay Liang Go, Penny Kris-Etherton, 

Joanne Lupton, Theresa Nicklas, Russell 

Pate, F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, and Connie Weaver. The Executive Secretaries from USDA 

were Carole Davis and Pamela Pehrsson, 

and from HHS Kathryn McMurry and Karyl 

Rattay. The Committee used a very different 

approach for establishing the new Dietary 

Guidelines. Rather than considering how 

the year 2000 Dietary Guidelines should be 

changed, the Committee posed a large number of questions. Questions were prioritized, 

and an extensive search of the scientific 

literature was done. The Committee worked 

closely with the USDA staff to see if nutrient 

recommendations could be met with the current or a revised Food Guide Pyramid. They 

also invited experts to make presentations 

on controversial issues. In a change from 

the past, they addressed some of the dietary 

issues related to the increase in the population of older and more overweight people 

who have chronic, diet-related diseases. 

They utilized the concept of “discretionary 

calories,” which meant, as in the Food Guide 

Pyramid dietary pattern, those calories remaining within a person’s caloric allowance 

after all nutrient recommendations are met. 

In a departure from previous editions of the 

Guidelines, a specific message concerning 

sugars was dropped. The rationale for limiting one’s intake of added sugars was reorganized to be included in guidance about 

choosing carbohydrates wisely, staying 

within energy needs and controlling calorie intake. The Committee held five public 

meetings that were announced in the Federal Register. They were open to the public, 

and written and oral public comment was 

sought. On August 19, 2004, the Committee 

submitted an extensive, well-documented 

report to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson 

and USDA Secretary Ann Veneman (83). 

Specific wording was recommended for the 

Dietary Guidelines, and 27 recommendations were made for future research. 

Based on the Advisory Committee report, 

USDA and HHS developed the 70-page 2005 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans (figure 13) 

(84). As in 2000, this document was directed 

to policymakers and professionals. It gave 

41 key recommendations—23 for the general 

public and 18 for groups with special needs. 

These were grouped under the following nine 

major messages: 

• Consume a variety of foods within 

 and among the basic food groups while 

 staying within energy needs.

• Control calorie intake to manage body 

 weight.

• Be physically active every day.

• Increase daily intake of fruits and 

 vegetables, whole grains, and nonfat 

 or low-fat milk and milk products.

• Choose fats wisely for good health.

• Choose carbohydrates wisely for good 

 health.

• Choose and prepare foods with little salt.

• If you drink alcoholic beverages, do so in 

 moderation.

• Keep food safe to eat.
226 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

At the same time as the release of the policy 

document, a 10-page consumer brochure 

was released (85). The many recommendations in the policy document were summarized in three key messages:

• Make smart choices from every food 

 group.

• Find your balance between food and 

 physical activity.

• Get the most nutrition out of your 

 calories.

Special cautions were also added about 

food safety and alcohol consumption. The 

rationale behind this three-step development process for the Dietary Guidelines was 

to give policymakers and professionals the 

basis on which they could make decisions 

or develop education and information programs.

While the consumer bulletin contained advice on choosing foods wisely, it did not 

suggest a food guide. But in the appendix 

to the 2005 Dietary Guidelines policy document, two diet plans were given: the DASH 

(Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) 

from HHS and a plan from USDA. The latter 

was a revision of the food plan used for the 

Pyramid (84). The original Food Guide Pyramid was meant to be evolutionary (71). It 

was recognized that the guide would need to 

be updated as nutrient recommendations, 

data on food consumption, and data on the 

nutrient content of food changed. In 2000, 

Shaw, Escobar, and Davis published an 

article that presented a six-step decisionmaking tree that would lead to a final decision as to whether or not USDA’s food guide 

should be revised (86). The first two steps 

in the decisionmaking tree identified the 

specific source and nature of new nutrition 

standards and considered data on the prevalence of inadequate intakes in the population. The goal here was to establish priorities 

for changing the food guide. For example, if 

a large change in a nutrient standard was 

recommended by a highly reputable source, 

and there was evidence of inadequate intake 

by the population, then consideration of a 

change in the food guide would be a high 

priority. The third step assessed the ability 

of current food guide recommendations to 

meet the proposed new nutrient standards. 

If the current food guide did not meet the 

proposed standards, then a fourth step was 

carried out in which changes in the food 

guide to meet the standards were systematically tested. The fifth step considered the 

consistency of any potential modifications 

with the objectives of practicality and usefulness. A final step recognized that some 

nutrient recommendations may have no feasible dietary solution and that supplements 

must be considered.

This decisionmaking process was used to 

begin revision of the food patterns used in 

the Food Guide Pyramid shortly after the 

release of the 2000 Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans. As in the development of earlier 

food guides, the most current dietary recommendations, food consumption, and food 

composition data were used in the development process. The process was even more 

open and transparent than it had been in 

the past. For example, nutritional goals for 

each age/gender group were published in 

the Federal Register for comment by professionals and the public in September 2003 

(87). When the Dietary Guidelines Advisory 

Committee for development of the 2005 Dietary Guidelines was formed in 2003, collaboration between USDA and the Committee 

also began on development of a food guide 

pattern (88). The technical research that was 

undertaken and that resulted in the revision 

of the original Pyramid food intake patterns 

has been well documented (89,90). Recommendations were made for food group intake 

for 10-calorie levels ranging from 1,000 to 

3,200. For ease of comparison with the Food 

Guide Pyramid, table 1 shows the pattern 

for a 2,200-calorie diet.

The Food Guide Pyramid graphic itself was 

also a concern. It was questioned whether 

the original Food Guide Pyramid graphic 

could convey some new concepts, such as 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 227

the increased emphasis on physical activity, 

types of fatty acids, and whole grains. There 

was also concern about consumer misinterpretation of serving sizes and vegetable 

subgroups. Consumer research on the ability of the original graphic to convey these 

messages has been detailed by Britten et al. 

(91). Rather than increasing complexity of 

the graphic, a decision was made to create a 

new graphic that would be used to “brand” 

food guidance messages and materials to 

remind consumers to make healthy food 

choices. Instead of having the graphic itself 

be used as a teaching tool, a series of educational tools were developed. The widespread 

use of the Internet and the ability to personalize educational messages and to keep the 

information current all made the Internet 

the best choice for the development of educational tools. An overall communications 

plan for the consumer interface of the new 

food guidance system was outlined in a July 

2004 Federal Register notice (92).

Work on the development of a new graphic began in October 2004 under contract 

to Porter Novelli, the communications firm 

that had developed the original pyramid 

graphic (93). More than 10 graphic presentations and 7 slogans were tested using 

focus groups and an innovative Internet 

interview technique. Participants ranged in 

age from 21 to 60. They represented a mix of 

education level, marital status, and household income. Low-income groups were not 

targeted, and children were not included. 

The consumers that were tested expressed a 

desire for continuity, as represented by the 

pyramid shape, as well as a desire for updated information. In this author’s view, the 

widespread use and familiarity of the original Food Guide Pyramid released in 1992 

seems to have made people think of it as 

old. (There were instances where people in 

their 50s commented that they remembered 

learning about the Pyramid in grade school!) 

Consumer testing also revealed that images 

that were personal, active, and motivational 

were well received. The graphic chosen was 

a pyramid shape with vertical color bands to 

represent food groups and a figure of a person walking up the steps to indicate physical activity (figure 20). The slogan chosen 

was “Steps to a Healthier You.”

The seminal feature of the MyPyramid Guidance System that sets it apart from earlier 

food guides is its ability to utilize the Internet to personalize dietary guidance. Numerous educational tools are now available and 

continue to be added to the Web site http://

www.choosemyplate.gov/tools.html. Some 

examples include “The Daily Food Plan,” 

which allows consumers to enter their age, 

gender, height, weight, and activity level to 

get a personalized food plan. “MyPyramid 

Tracker” allows consumers to get an assessment of their current eating and physical 

activity patterns. Food patterns specific for 

pregnant and lactating women have been 

developed. Special materials have also been 

developed for children, including a graphic, classroom materials, and an interactive 

computer game. On June 10, 2008, a “corporate challenge” was announced with the 

purpose of forming partnerships with industry to encourage their use of MyPyramid 

messages in promoting healthy food and lifeFigure 20. The Food Guide Pyramid transitioned 

to MyPyramid in 2005 and incorporated physical 

activity as a theme to combat increasing obesity. 2005
228 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

style choices. These interactive tools are still 

available, but the graphic has been changed 

to MyPlate.

For the 2010 edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, USDA and HHS appointed an Advisory Committee of 13 nationally recognized experts in nutrition and 

health to review the 2005 edition of the 

Guidelines to determine if and what revisions were needed. Committee members 

were Linda Van Horn (Chair), Naomi K. 

Fukagawa (Vice-Chair), Cheryl Achterberg, 

Lawrence Appel, Roger Clemens, Miriam 

Nelson, Sharon Nickols-Richardson, Thomas Pearson, Rafael Pérez-Escamilla, Xavier 

Pi-Sunyer, Eric Rimm, Joanne Slavin, and 

Christine Williams. Between October 2008 

and May 2010, the Advisory Committee 

held six public meetings. The final report 

was submitted to the Secretaries of USDA 

and HHS in June 2010 (94). The process 

for development of the 2010 Advisory Committee Report differed from the past in two 

important ways. First, the transparency of 

the process was greatly increased by the use 

of webinars to broadcast meetings and the 

availability of all materials presented at the 

meeting and transcripts of all discussion via 

the Internet (http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietaryguidelines.htm). Consequently, awareness by the scientific community and the 

public was increased. A second important 

difference was the implementation of USDA’s 

Nutrition Evidence Library, which uses a 

rigorous, systematic process to review literature to answer specific questions related to 

guidance issues. The scientific community 

across the country was involved in the process through a review of scientific articles 

using the evidence-based systematic process. All of this information is available to 

the public on the USDA Web site www.NEL.

gov so that the process and the rationale for 

the conclusions drawn by the Advisory Committee can be transparent. While the recommendations made in the report were consistent with those in past reports, they differed 

in two important ways. First, great emphasis 

was placed on obesity; and second, the role 

of the environment in influencing food choices and physical activity was recognized. 

An opportunity for public comment on the 

Advisory Committee Report was provided 

by a request for comment published in the 

Federal Register and a public meeting with 

opportunity to provide oral testimony. 

Comment was also solicited from USDA 

and HHS agencies on potential policy implications of the Report. Based on all of this, 

USDA and HHS nutritionists began the 

process of translating the Advisory Committee Report into a Federal policy document 

intended for use by professionals in the 

development of policy and consumer materials and strategies. The final draft was 

reviewed by an external group of academicians to ensure the accuracy and clarity of 

the translation and was cleared by the two 

Departments. USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack 

and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius jointly 

released the 112-page 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans on January 31, 2011 

(95).

The Policy Document includes 23 key recommendations for the general population 

and 6 for subpopulation groups. There are 

two overarching concepts. The first is maintaining calorie balance over time to achieve 

and sustain a healthy weight, which can 

be accomplished by controlling calorie intake through monitoring food and beverage 

intake, physical activity, and body weight; 

by reducing portion sizes; by making better 

choices when eating out; by limiting screen 

time; and by increasing physical activity and 

avoiding inactivity. The second is focusing 

on consuming nutrient-dense foods and 

beverages, which can be accomplished by 

increasing intake of vegetables and fruits, 

whole grains, fat-free and low-fat dairy products, and seafood; and by reducing intake 

of foods and beverages high in solid fats, 

added sugars, and sodium and by replacing 

these foods with nutrient-dense foods and 

beverages while staying within calorie needs. 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 229

The Policy Document also provides USDA’s 

suggested food patterns for achieving the 

recommendations using the USDA food patterns at various calorie levels with alternate 

vegetarian patterns and HHS’s DASH diet 

(Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension).

 

As part of the communication strategy to 

increase awareness of the Dietary Guidelines 

for Americans, USDA’s Center for Nutrition 

Policy and Promotion (CNPP) has posted 

several consumer pieces on its Web site 

including a brochure, menus, recipes, and 

tips (http://www.choosemyplate.gov/ipsresources/printmaterials.html). Also available 

on this Web site are graphics of USDA’s new 

icon, MyPlate (figure 21).It is not intended 

to be a teaching tool as the first Food Guide 

Pyramid had been, but rather a “memory 

jog” to remind consumers to have a healthy 

diet. The message to make half your plate 

fruits and vegetables is especially clear. It is 

expected that the consumer research done 

to develop the icon will be published soon.

As in the past, one of the most important 

resources in getting nutrition education 

messages to consumers is the Cooperative 

Extension System established in 1914. Over 

the years, information needs have become 

more specialized, and the Internet has become an increasingly important method 

of communication. Recently, the Cooperative Extension System, in partnership with 

USDA, has established interactive, virtual 

centers of excellence, called “Communities 

of Practice,” on topics of greatest interest to 

consumers. One Community of Practice on 

nutrition, called “Families, Food and Fitness,” focuses on obesity prevention (http://

www.extension.org/families_food_fitness). 

More than 300 Extension professionals 

provide answers to questions, short articles, 

recipes, videos, and interactive tools. The 

information is organized around six topics 

known to be related to obesity prevention—

fruits and vegetables, physical activity, preparing and eating more meals at home, beverages, portion size, and sedentary behavior. 

All information is peer reviewed before it is 

released.

Future

Current interest in obesity as a major health 

risk is high and likely to continue well into 

the future. This influences the content of 

nutrition education messages. Approximately 17% (or 12.5 million) of children and 

adolescents aged 2-19 years are obese 

(http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/

data.html). The problem is worse among 

African-American and Hispanic children. 

The Obama Administration has taken a 

great interest in childhood obesity. On 

February 9, 2010, First Lady Michelle 

Obama initiated the Let’s Move! Campaign 

(http://www.letsmove.gov/about). The goal 

is to solve the challenge of childhood obesity 

within a generation. It will focus on giving 

parents helpful information, fostering environments that support healthy choices, 

providing healthier foods in schools, ensuring that families have access to healthy, affordable food, and helping kids become more 

physically active. Also on February 9, 2010, 

President Obama signed a memorandum 

Figure 21. MyPlate replaced MyPyramid 

in 2010 providing a more intuitive visual 

representation of the approximate servings 

of recommended food groups. 

2010
230 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

establishing a new interagency Task Force 

on Childhood Obesity, which delivered a report to the President 90 days later. The 

report detailed an interagency plan including key benchmarks and an action plan. 

A progress report was delivered to the 

President in February 2011 (http://www.

letsmove.gov/sites/letsmove.gov/files/

TaskForce_on_Childhood_Obesity_May2010_

FullReport.pdf). 

New research on the factors that influence 

obesity and new research on the best strategies for preventing obesity can also influence the nutrition education message. The 

National Collaborative on Childhood Obesity 

Research (NCCOR), which began in 2009, is 

an ongoing collaboration among the USDA, 

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, 

and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 

(http://www.nccor.org/index.html). Its mission is to maximize outcomes from research, 

build capacity for research and surveillance, 

create and support the mechanisms and infrastructure needed for research translation 

and dissemination and support evaluations. 

Two very useful products were released in 

2011. The Measures Registry is a searchable 

database of diet and physical activity measures relevant to childhood obesity research. 

The Catalogue of Surveillance Systems provides pertinent information about existing 

surveillance systems that contain data relevant to childhood obesity research. Users 

can identify and compare surveillance systems to meet their research needs, and they 

can get information about how to obtain the 

data.

New research that leads to the establishment of new nutrient and dietary recommendations can influence the nutrition 

education message. A Federal interagency 

Dietary Reference Intakes Steering Committee is considering the factors in deciding 

when to initiate the process to revise the 

Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) for a specific 

nutrient. Primary factors are the availability 

of new, high-quality research data and concern about consumption by the public.

New research that leads to the establishment of new dietary patterns that are the 

basis of USDA food guides can influence 

the nutrition education message. CNPP has 

initiated a systematic, evidence-based review of the process for developing the dietary 

patterns for its Nutrition Evidence Library 

(http://www.nel.gov/). Interagency groups 

of technical experts and stakeholders have 

been established to guide the review 

process. 

Commentary 

In 1996, in a chapter on the different ways 

in which nutrient standards, dietary guidelines, and food guides define a healthful 

diet (96), I expressed the hope that the very 

distinct and separate processes used to develop the RDAs, the Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans, and USDA’s food guides would 

come together. It is my belief that they have. 

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) devoted 

two volumes to guidance on the appropriate use of the Dietary Reference Intakes in 

planning and evaluating diets of individuals 

and groups (21). The 2005, 2010 Dietary 

Guidelines Advisory Committees used new 

nutrient standards published by the IOM, 

and the Committees worked with the USDA 

staff using mathematical modeling techniques to develop food intake patterns that 

would meet the nutrient standards (88). 

The development process for USDA’s food 

guide patterns takes into account both the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the 

IOM’s nutrient standards and their guidance 

on how to use these standards. The coming together of these very important distinct 

but interrelated activities creates a synergy, 

which I hope will continue. I speculated in 

1996 that recommendations for a healthful 

diet would become more personalized. I was 

thinking then of nutrient standards and 

dietary guidelines. To a small extent, this 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 231

is also beginning to happen, with guidance 

being given for some segments of the population. I did not imagine then how personalized food guides would become. The use of 

the Internet with MyPyramid and MyPlate 

has enabled food guides to be personalized 

by age, sex, height, weight, and activity level, and individuals to track their progress in 

relation to guidance. Millions of people are 

being reached in a way that was not possible 

before. The research base for all these activities gets better and stronger, but the primary challenge remains, as it did when Atwater 

initiated the scientific basis for dietary guidance, to put into practice what we already 

know. 

References

1. Department of Agriculture Organic 

Act. 1862, 7 U.S.C 2201.

2. Atwater, WO. 1894. Foods: Nutritive 

Value and Cost. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Farmers’ Bulletin No. 23. 

46 p.

3. Atwater, WO. 1902. Principles of Nutrition and Nutritive Value of Food. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Farmers’ Bulletin No. 142. 48 p. 

4. Hunt, CL. 1916. Food for Young Children. U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Farmers’ Bulletin No. 717. 21 p. 

5. Hunt, CL, and HW Atwater. 1917. How 

to Select Foods. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Farmers’ Bulletin No. 808. 

14 p. 

6. Hunt, CL. 1921. A Week’s Food for 

an Average Family. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Farmers’ Bulletin No. 

1228. 25 p. 

7. Hunt, CL. 1923. Good Proportions in 

the Diet. U.S. Department of Agriculture Farmers’ Bulletin No. 1313. 18 p. 

8. Cooperative Extension System [Internet]. 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education and 

Extension Service; [cited 2008 Jul 8]. 

Available from: http://www.csrees.

usda.gov/qlinks/extension.html. 

9. Stiebeling, HK. 1933. Food Budgets 

for Nutrition and Production Programs. U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Miscellaneous Publication No 183. 25 

p. 

10. Stiebeling, HK, and M Ward. 1933. Diets at Four Levels of Nutrition Content 

and Cost. U.S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication No. 

296. 59 p. 

11. Cofer, E, E Grossman, and F Clark. 

1962. Family Food Plans and Food 

Costs. U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Home Economics Research Report No 

20. 58 p.

12. Peterkin, BB, J Chassy, and R Kerr. 

1975. The Thrifty Food Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture Administrative 

Report No. 326. Hyattsville, MD: Consumer and Food Economics Institute, 

Agriculture Research Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. 26 p.

13. Cleveland, LE, and RL Kerr. 1989. Development and uses of the USDA food 

plans. J Nutr Educ 20:232-38.

14. Carlson, A, M Lino, WY Juan, et al. 

2007. Thrifty Food Plan, 2006. CNPP19. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition 

Policy and Promotion. 63 p.

15. Carlson, A, M Lino, and T Fungwe. 

2007. The Low-Cost, Moderate-Cost, 

and Liberal Food Plans, 2007. CNPP20. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition 

Policy and Promotion. 78 p.

16. Recipes and Tips for Healthy, Thrifty 

Meals [Internet]. 2000. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. CNPP-11; [cited 2011 Jul 21]. 

Available from: http://www.cnpp.

usda.gov/Publications/FoodPlans/

MiscPubs/FoodPlansRecipeBook.pdf. 

17. United States Federal Security Agency, 

United States Office of Defense Health 

and Welfare Services. 1942. Proceed-
232 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

ings of the National Nutrition Conference for Defense; May 26, 27, and 28, 

1941, Called by President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 254 p. 

18. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Committee on 

Food and Nutrition. 1941. A Yardstick 

for Good Nutrition—Recommended 

Dietary Allowances. Washington, DC: 

Nutrition Division, Federal Security 

Agency. 5 p.

19. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Food and Nutrition Board. 1943. Recommended Dietary Allowances. Reprint and Circular 

Series 115. Washington, DC: National 

Academy of Sciences. 6 p. 

20. Food and Nutrition Board (FNB), Institute of Medicine (IOM). 2006. Dietary 

Reference Intakes Research Synthesis: 

Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: 

The National Academies Press. 310 p.

21. Food and Nutrition Board, Institute 

of Medicine. 1994. How Should the 

Recommended Dietary Allowances Be 

Revised? Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 46 p.

22. U.S. Department of Agriculture, War 

Food Administration. 1943. National 

Wartime Nutrition Guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture Leaflet No. NFC-4.

23. US. Bureau of Human Nutrition and 

Home Economics. 1946. National Food 

Guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Leaflet No. 288. 7 p.

24. National School Lunch Program [Internet]. 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service; [cited 2011 Jul 21]. 

Available from: http://www.fns.usda.

gov/cnd/Lunch/.

25. Page, L, and EF Phipard. 1956. Essentials of an Adequate Diet: Facts for 

Nutrition Programs. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service, Information Bulletin No. 160. 

20 p. 

26. Institute of Home Economics, Agriculture Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1958. Food 

for Fitness. A Daily Food Guide. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Leaflet No. 

424. 2 p. 

27. American Heart Association. 1961. 

Dietary fat and its relation to heart attacks and strokes. Circulation 23:133-

5.

28. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1974. 

Fats in Food and Diet. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 361. 10 p.

29. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food 

and Nutrition Service. Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program: A Short 

History of SNAP [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture; [last modified 2011 Jun 7; cited 

2011 Jul 21]. Available from: http://

www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/about.htm.

30. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food 

and Nutrition Service. SNAP Annual 

Summary [Internet]. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture; [cited 

2011 Jul 21]. Available from: http://

www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.

htm. 

31. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food 

and Nutrition Service. 2011. Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants, and Children [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture; [cited 2011 Jul 

21]. Available from: http://www.fns.

usda.gov/wic/aboutwic/ 

32. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 2010. Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) 

[Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture; [updated 2010 Sep 15; cited 2011 Jul 21]. 

Available from: http://www.csrees.

usda.gov/nea/food/efnep/efnep.html. 

33. U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 233

1977. Dietary Goals for the United 

States. 2nd edition. Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office. 83 p. 

34. National Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching Policy Act. 1977; 7 

U.S.C. 3101 et seq.

35. Davis, CA, LH Fulton, L Light, et al. 

1979. Food. U.S. Department of Agriculture Home and Garden Bulletin No. 

228. 64 p. 

36. U.S. Department of Agriculture and 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1980. Nutrition and 

Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans. 1st edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture Home and Garden 

Bulletin No. 232. 11 p. Also Internet 

[cited 2011 Jul 21]. Available from: 

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAsPreviousGuidelines.htm. 

37. U.S. Public Health Service. Office of 

the Surgeon General and Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Health. 1979. 

Healthy People: The Surgeon General’s 

Report on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. DHEW (PHS) Publication No. 79-55071. 262 p.

38. U.S. Science and Education Administration. 1981. Human Nutrition. Ideas 

for Better Eating: Menus and Recipes 

to Make Use of the Dietary Guidelines. 

Washington, DC: Government Printing 

Office. 30 p.

39. Davis, CA, LH Fulton, L Light, et al. 

1982. Food 2: A Dieter’s Guide. [Developed by U.S. Department of Agriculture]. Chicago, IL: American Dietetic 

Association. 50 p.

40. Davis, CA, LH Fulton, L Light, et al. 

1982. Food 3: Eating the Moderate 

Fat and Cholesterol Way. [Developed 

by U.S. Department of Agriculture]. 

Chicago, IL: American Dietetic Association. 16 p. 

41. U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations [1980]. 1981. Agriculture, Rural 

Development, and Related Agencies 

Appropriation Bill. Calendar No 1162, 

Senate Report No. 96-1030, 96th Congress. Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Office. 

42. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. 1985. Report of the Dietary 

Guidelines Advisory Committee on 

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 

Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service. 28 p. 

43. U.S. Department of Agriculture and 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1985. Nutrition and 

Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans. 2nd edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture Home and Garden 

Bulletin No. 232. 24 p. Also Internet 

[cited 2008 Jul 8]. Available from: 

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAsPreviousGuidelines.htm 

44. Society for Nutrition Education. 1980. 

Endorsement of USDA/HHS “Dietary 

Guidelines.” Resolution Results SNE 

Communicator 1(4):6. Also Internet 

[cited 2011 Jul 11]. Available from 

http://www.sne.org/documents/

Res70-92.pdf. 

45. American Public Health Association. 

1981. Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Policy Statement No. 8127. 

Washington, DC: American Public 

Health Association. 2 p.

46. American Dietetic Association. 1986. 

Statement on Nutrition and Your 

Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans. J Am Diet Assoc 86(1):107-8.

47. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service. 

1986. Dietary Guidelines and Your 

Diet. U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Home and Garden Bulletin No 232-1 

through 232-7. 

48. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service. 

1988. Dietary Guidelines and Your 

Diet: Home Economics Teacher’s 

Guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Miscellaneous Publication No.1457. 

44 p. 
234 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

49. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service. 

1989. Preparing Foods and Planning 

Menus Using the Dietary Guidelines. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Home 

and Garden Bulletin No. 232-8. 31 p.

50. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service. 

1989. Making Bag Lunches, Snacks 

and Desserts: Using the Dietary 

Guidelines. U.S. Department of Agriculture Home and Garden Bulletin No. 

232-9. 31 p.

51. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service. 

1989. Shopping for Food and Making 

Meals in Minutes: Using the Dietary 

Guidelines. U.S. Department of Agriculture Home and Garden Bulletin No. 

232-10. 36 p.

52. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service. 

1989. Eating Better When Eating Out: 

Using the Dietary Guidelines. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Home and 

Garden Bulletin No. 232-11. 20 p. 

53. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 2009. SNAP- Ed [Internet]. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture; [updated 2009 Mar 18; 

cited 2011 Jul 21]. Available from: 

http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/

food/fsne/fsne.html.

54. National Research Council. 1989. Recommended Dietary Allowances.10th 

edition. Report of the Subcommittee 

on the Tenth Edition of the RDAs, 

Food and Nutrition Board, Commission on Life Sciences. Washington, 

DC: National Academy Press. 284 p.

55. National Research Council. 1989. Diet 

and Health: Implications for Reducing 

Chronic Disease Risk. Report of the 

Committee on Diet and Health, Food 

and Nutrition Board, Commission on 

Life Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 749 p.

56. U.S. Public Health Service, Office of 

the Surgeon General, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Nutrition Policy Board. 1988. The 

Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition 

and Health. DHHS (PHS) Publication 

No. 88-50210. 750 p. 

57. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. 1990. Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 1990, 

to the Secretary of Agriculture and 

the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition 

Information Service. 52 p. 

58. U.S. Department of Agriculture and 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1990. Nutrition and 

Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans. 3rd edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture Home and Garden 

Bulletin No. 232. 27 p. Also Internet 

[cited 2008 Jul 8]. Available from: 

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAsPreviousGuidelines.htm.

59. U.S. Congress. 1990. National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research 

Act, 1990. Public Law No. 101-445. 

101st Congress. Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office. 

60. Light, L, and F Cronin. 1984. Food 

guidance revisited. J Nutr Educ 

13(2):58-62.

61. Wolf, ID, and BB Peterkin. 1984. Dietary guidelines: the USDA perspective. Food Technol 38(7):80-6.

62. Gillespie, AH. 1987. A survey of nutritionists’ opinions on the objectives of a 

dietary guidance system. J Nutr Educ 

19:220-4.

63. National Research Council. 1980. 

Recommended Dietary Allowances. 

9th edition. Report of the Committee on Dietary Allowances, Food and 

Nutrition Board, Division of Biological 

Sciences, Assembly of Life Sciences. 

Washington, DC: National Academy 

Press. 186 p.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 235

64. Shepherd, SK, LS Sims, FJ Cronin, 

et al. 1989. Use of focus groups to 

explore consumers’ preferences for 

content and graphic design of nutrition publications. J Am Diet Assoc 

89:1612-4.

65. Cronin, FJ, AM Shaw, SM KrebsSmith, et al. 1985. Developing the 

Food Guidance System for “Better 

Eating for Better Health”, a Nutrition 

Course for Adults. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Administrative Report 

No 377. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition 

Information Service. 

66. Cronin, FJ, AM Shaw, SM KrebsSmith, et al. 1987. Developing a 

food guidance system to implement 

the dietary guidelines. J Nutr Educ 

19(6):281-302.

67. American National Red Cross and 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service. 

1984. Better Eating for Better Health: 

Instructor’s Guide and Participants 

Packet. Washington, DC: American 

National Red Cross. 188 p.

68. Sims, LS, and S Shepherd. 1985. 

Further Exploration of Formatting, 

Structuring and Sequencing of Nutrition Information for Household Food 

Managers. Final Report Submitted in 

Partial Fulfillment of FNS Contract 

53-3198-4-66. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. 97 p.

69. Breitrose, H, and K Malin. 1983. The 

Development and Assessment of Nutrition Information Materials. Report 

Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information 

Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

70. Welsh, S, C Davis, and A Shaw. 1992. 

A brief history of food guides in the 

United States. Nutrition Today 27:6-

11. 

71. Welsh, S, C Davis, and A Shaw. 1992. 

Development of the Food Guide Pyramid. Nutrition Today 27:12-23. 

72. Gladwell, M. 1991. US rethinks, redraws the food groups. The Washington Post. 1991 Apr 13: Sect. A:1.

73. Combs, GF, Sr. 1991. What’s happening at USDA. AIN [American Institute 

of Nutrition] Nutrition Notes 27(3):6.

74. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service. 

1992. The Food Guide Pyramid 1992. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Home 

and Garden Bulletin No. 252. 29 p.

75. Nestle, M. 1998. In defense of the 

USDA food guide pyramid. Nutrition 

Today 33(5):189-97.

76. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. 

1999. Food Guide Pyramid for Young 

Children: A Daily Guide for 2-6 YearOlds. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. 1 p.

77. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. 1995. Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 1995, 

to the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services and the Secretary of Agriculture [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Center for 

Nutrition Policy and Promotion; [cited 

2008 Jul 8]. Available from: http://

www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAsPreviousGuidelines.htm. 

78. U.S. Department of Agriculture and 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1995. Nutrition and 

Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans. 4th edition. [Internet]. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion; [cited 2008 Jul 

8]. Available from: http://www.cnpp.

usda.gov/DGAsPreviousGuidelines.

htm. Also available as U.S. Department of Agriculture Home and Garden 

Bulletin No. 232. 43 p. 

79. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2000. Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on the Di-
236 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

etary Guidelines for Americans, 2000, 

to the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services and the Secretary of Agriculture [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Center for 

Nutrition Policy and Promotion; [cited 

2008 Jul 8]. Available from: http://

www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAsPreviousGuidelines.htm. 

80. U.S. Department of Agriculture and 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2000. Nutrition and 

Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans. 5th edition. [Internet]. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion; [cited 2008 Jul 

8]. Available from: http://www.cnpp.

usda.gov/DGAsPreviousGuidelines.

htm. Also available as U.S. Department of Agriculture Home and Garden 

Bulletin No. 232. 44 p. 

81. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. Using the Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans 2000. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Program Aid 1676. Washington (DC): U.S. Government Printing 

Office; 2000. 2 p. 

82. U.S. Department Health and Human Services and U.S. Department 

of Agriculture. 2003. Announcement 

of Establishment of the 2005 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee and Solicitation of Nominations 

for Membership. Federal Register. 

68(94):26280.

83. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2005. Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans, 2005 [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 

[cited 2011 Aug 1]. Available from: 

http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/. 

84. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department 

of Agriculture. 2005. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005. 6th edition 

[Internet]. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; [cited 2011 Aug 

1]. Available from: http://www.cnpp.

usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2005/2005DGPolicyDocument.

pdf. Also available as U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Home and Garden Bulletin No. 232. 80 p.

85. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department 

of Agriculture. 2005. Finding Your 

Way to a Healthy You: Based on the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans 

[Internet]. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; [cited 2011 Aug 

1]. Available from: http://www.cnpp.

usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2005/2005DGConsumerBrochure.pdf. Also available as U.S. 

Health and Human Services Publication No. HHS-ODPHP-2005-01-DGA-B 

and U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Home and Garden Bulletin No. 232-

CP. 

86. Shaw, AM, AJ Escobar, and CA Davis. 

2000. Reassessing the Food Guide 

Pyramid: decision-making framework. 

J Nutr Educ 32:111-8. 

87. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. 

2003. Notice of Availability of Proposed Food Guide Pyramid Daily Food 

Intake Patterns and Technical Support Data and Announcement of Public Comment Period. Federal Register. 

2003 Sep 11;68:53536-9.

88. Britten, P, J Lyon, CM Weaver, et al. 

2006. MyPyramid food intake pattern 

modeling for the dietary guidelines advisory committee. J Nutr Educ Behav 

38:S143-S152.

89. Britten, P, K Marcoe, S Yamini, and C 

Davis. 2006. Development food intake patterns for the MyPyramid food 

guidance system. J Nutr Educ Behav 

38:S78-S93.

90. Marcoe, K, W Juan, S Yamini, et al. 

2006. Development of food group com-
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 237

posites and nutrient profiles for the 

MyPyramid food guidance system. J 

Nutr Educ Behav 38:S93-S107.

91. Britten, P, J Haven, and C Davis. 

2006. Consumer research for develop-

ment of educational messages for the 

MyPyramid food guidance system. J 

Nutr Educ Behav 38:S108-S123.

92. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Center for Nutrition Policy and Pro-

motion. 2004. Notice of Proposal for 

Food Guide Graphic Presentation and 

Consumer Education Materials; Op-

portunity for Public Comment. Federal 

Register. 2004 Jul 13;69:42030-3.

93. Haven, J, A Burns, P Britten, and 

C Davis. 2006. Developing the con-

sumer interface for the MyPyramid 

guidance system. J Nutr Educ Behav 

38:S124-S135.

94. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Com-

mittee. 2010. Report of the Dietary 

Guidelines Advisory Committee on 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 

2010 [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Center for 

Nutrition Policy and Promotion; [up-

dated 2011 Feb 15; cited 2011 Aug 

1]. Available from: http://www.cnpp.

usda.gov/DGAs2010-DGACReport.

htm. 

95. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cen-

ter for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. 

2011. Dietary Guidelines for Amer-

icans, 2010. 7th edition. [Internet] 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Pol-

icy and Promotion; [modified 2011 

Jun 9; cited 2011 Aug 1]. Available 

from: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/

DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm.

96. Welsh, S. 1996. Nutrient standards, 

dietary guidelines, and food guides. In 

E Ziegler and L Filer, Jr., eds., Present 

Knowledge in Nutrition, 7th edition, 

pp. 630-646. Washington, DC: Inter-

national Life Sciences Institute. 
238 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 239

Abbreviations

AMS Agricultural Marketing Service

ARS Agricultural Research Service

CDC Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention

CFEI Consumer and Food Economics 

Institute 

CFSAN Center for Food Safety and Applied 

Nutrition 

CNPP Center for Nutrition Policy and 

Promotion 

CSFII Continuing Survey of Food Intakes 

by Individuals

CSFP Commodity Supplemental Food 

Program 

CSREES Cooperative State Research, 

Education, and Extension Service 

CSRS Cooperative State Research Service 

Delta NIRI Lower Mississippi Delta Nutrition 

Intervention Research Initiative 

DHHS Department of Health and Human 

Services 

ERS Economic Research Service 

ES Extension Service 

FDA Food and Drug Administration 

FNB Food and Nutrition Board 

GFHNRC Grand Forks Human Nutrition 

Research Center 

HEW Health, Education and Welfare 

HNIS Human Nutrition Information 

Service 

HNRD Human Nutrition Research 

Division 

HNRIM Human Nutrition Research 

Information and Management 

HSRS Human Subjects Research 

Subcommittee 

ICHNR Interagency Committee on Human 

Nutrition Research 

IPA Intergovernmental Personnel Act 

JMNEC Joint Nutrition Monitoring 

Evaluation Committee 

JSHNR Joint Subcommittee on Human 

Nutrition Research 

NAL National Agricultural Library 

NAREEEAB National Agricultural Research, 

Extension, Education, and 

Economics Advisory Board 

NCHS National Center for Health 

Statistics 

NHANES National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey 

NIDDK National Institute of Diabetes and 

Digestive and Kidney Diseases 

NIFA National Institute of Food and 

Agriculture 

NIH National Institutes of Health 

NLEA National Labeling and Education 

Act 

NPL National Program Leader 

OSTP	 Office of Science and Technology

Policy 

RDAs Recommended Dietary Allowances 

SACHRP Department of Health and Human 

Services Secretaries Advisory 

Committee on Human Research 

Protection 

SEA Science and Education 

Administration 

UC-Davis University of California-Davis 

Campus 

USAID U.S. Agency for International 

Development 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

WIC Special Supplemental Nutrition 

Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children 

Chapter 8

Coordination of Human Nutrition 

Research Activities at the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Gary R. Beecher, Gerald F. Combs, Sr., 

and J. Cecil Smith, Jr. 

Gary R. Beecher, Ph.D., is formerly 

Research Chemist and Research Leader, 

USDA-ARS Beltsville Human Nutrition 

Research Center, Beltsville, MD. He is 

now retired.

Gerald F. Combs, Sr., Ph.D., is formerly 

Assistant Deputy Administrator for Human 

Nutrition, USDA Agricultural Research 

Service, Beltsville, MD. He is now retired.

J. Cecil Smith, Jr., Ph.D., is formerly 

Research Chemist and Research Leader, 

USDA-ARS Beltsville Human Nutrition 

Research Center, Beltsville, MD. He is 

now retired.
240 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Introduction

Funding for human nutrition research 

and other activities is secured through 

Congressional action and usually authorized 

in a Farm Bill that is negotiated and passed 

approximately every 5 years. Background 

information for Congressional action was 

frequently obtained through Congressional 

Committee hearings, such as the Senate 

Select Committee on Nutrition and Related 

Human Needs. Highlights of some of 

these negotiations are presented in some 

of the earlier chapters. Human nutrition 

research and related activities, by their 

nature, are multidisciplinary endeavors 

and require coordination from the outset. 

With the involvement of only a few Federal 

agencies and a relatively small budget, 

early coordination activities were easily 

incorporated with “line management” 

(program, budget, etc). However, as human 

nutrition research became increasingly 

complex and expansive, as ARS moved 

to decentralized “line management,” and 

as USDA was given the responsibility for 

coordination of human nutrition research 

within the Federal Government, these 

coordinating and program direction activities 

were vested in ARS’s National Program 

Staff. It is within this staff that the National 

Program Leaders (NPL) for Human Nutrition 

functioned. This chapter outlines the 

committees and working groups that have 

been developed to successfully coordinate 

the many human nutrition programs 

sponsored by the Federal system and the 

National Program Leaders responsible for 

this activity. A summary of USDA budgets 

for human nutrition activities also is 

presented by quinquennial increments 

starting with FY1978.

 

Congressional Action in Support of USDA 

Human Nutrition Research—Selected 

Examples

During a difficult domestic economic period,

Congress appropriated $10,000 in 1885 to 

initiate human nutrition research programs 

in the United States. This action was 

brought about by a recommendation from 

Secretary of Agriculture J. Sterling Morton, 

encouragement of businessman Edward T. 

Atkinson, and vision for specific programs

by W.O. Atwater (1). A decade later, Atwater 

successfully requested that his collaborators 

at the States’ Experiment Stations and 

many of his colleagues support the 

recommendation of USDA for a 50-percent 

increase in appropriations. By 1901, similar 

activity increased the budget to $20,000 

(1). Later in the 20th century, consumer 

demand for information on preservation 

of foods and information leading to 

development of “complete” diets for soldiers 

during World War I provided political 

pressure to further increase appropriations 

and firmly launch the Human Nutrition

Program within USDA.

An important landmark event for human 

nutrition in the United States was the 

National Nutrition Conference for Defense 

convened by President Franklin D Roosevelt 

in 1941. This conference had its origin when 

approximately 40% of the men physically 

examined under the Selected Service Act 

were found unfit for military service (2). As

many as one-third of those rejected were 

thought to be suffering from disabilities 

directly or indirectly connected to poor 

nutrition. This meeting of nutrition and 

health experts hastened publication of the 

first Recommended Dietary Allowances

(RDAs) by a committee of the National 

Research Council, of which several members 

were USDA scientists (3).

The decades of the 1960s and 1970s 

saw much scientific and political activity

that had far-reaching impact on social 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 241

programs and nutrition policy in America. 

As early as 1963, Senator Milton Young’s 

(R-ND) proposal was adopted that called 

for substantial increases in funding for the 

food and nutrition programs of USDA (4). 

Part of his proposal included establishment 

of regional human nutrition research 

laboratories within the United States, which 

served as the stimulus for the development 

of human nutrition research centers at 

Grand Forks, ND, Houston, TX, and Boston, 

MA. 

In 1967, Congressional hearings on the 

possible occurrence of widespread hunger 

and malnutrition in the United States led 

to the establishment of the Senate Select 

Committee on Nutrition and Related Human 

Needs. An outcome of these hearings was 

the Ten-State Nutrition Survey (1968-

1970) conducted by the Nutrition Program 

of the Department of Health, Education 

and Welfare (HEW), which was located in 

the National Institutes of Health (NIH). 

Preliminary findings from the Survey for

Texas and Louisiana reported to Congress 

by Arnold Schaefer in January 1969 

indicated that malnutrition occurred in a 

large proportion of the population studied. 

Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) reported 

to the Senate that widespread hunger and 

malnutrition also existed in his State, and a 

trip by Robert Kennedy through Appalachia 

and parts of the South confirmed

considerable malnutrition in those areas 

of the country. About the same time, 

Jean Mayer, then Professor of Nutrition at 

Harvard’s School of Public Health, used 

his association with the National Coalition 

Against Hunger, a group representing 66 

million citizens, to persuade President 

Richard Nixon to host the White House 

Conference on Nutrition in 1969. From this 

conference came many recommendations, 

among them such programs as Food 

Stamps, expansion of the Women, Infants, 

and Children Nutrition Program (WIC), and 

nutrition labeling of foods with emphasis 

on the relationship between nutrition and 

chronic diseases. 

The Senate Select Committee on Nutrition 

and National Needs (1968-1977), chaired 

by Senator George McGovern (D-SD) with 

minority co-chair Senator Robert Dole (RKS), served as a vehicle for the translation 

of recommendations from the White House 

Conference on Nutrition (5). The committee 

held several hearings. The most definitive

was testimony by numerous nutritionists 

and other scientists, during “The Killer 

Diseases” hearings in the summer of 1976, 

that unanimously established a connection 

between diet and major chronic diseases 

(5). Early the next year, the first Dietary

Goals for the United States emerged from 

this committee with much controversy, 

but based primarily on the testimony 

and consultation of D. Mark Hegsted, 

Professor of Nutrition at Harvard’s School 

of Public Health—eat less food (calories); 

less meat; less fat, particularly saturated 

fat; less cholesterol; less sugar; and more 

unsaturated fats, fruits, vegetables, and 

cereal products (6). Of course, the egg, meat, 

and milk producers were the most vocal 

in their opposition to the Dietary Goals. 

Nonetheless, the Second Edition of the 

Dietary Goals for Americans appeared in 

late 1977 with only minor changes: “Eat less 

meat” was removed from the original Goals 

(5). Dietary Goals and subsequently Dietary 

Guidelines, a seminal accomplishment and a 

landmark in nutrition in the United States, 

have since been part of our society (7).

At the time, Senator McGovern also chaired 

the Agriculture Committee of the Senate, the 

committee responsible for the Farm Bill. In 

1976, T.W. Edminster, ARS Administrator, 

proposed to Senator McGovern and to the 

committees he chaired a greatly expanded 

program for human nutrition research in 

ARS, complete with budget and promotion 

of regional centers (8). During hearings for 

the Dietary Goals, Donald Fredrickson, 

Director of the National Institutes of Health, 
242 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

testified that his agency should not take

a position on the Dietary Goals for fear of 

compromising the objectiveness of that 

research organization (5). All of these 

testimonies contributed to the legislation 

in the 1977 Farm Bill that specified that

nutrition should be a major program in 

USDA. At the same time, USDA was given a 

Congressional mandate—The Organic Act of 

1862, as amended in 1977, Section 1405—

which states: 

“The Department of Agriculture is 

designated as lead agency of the Federal 

Government for agriculture research (except 

with respect to the biomedical aspects of 

human nutrition concerned with diagnosis 

or treatment of disease), and the Secretary, 

in carrying out the Secretary’s responsibility, 

shall ... establish jointly with the Secretary 

of Health, Education and Welfare procedures 

for coordination with respect to nutrition 

research in areas of mutual interest.”

Numerous individuals associated with 

nutrition in America have (mis)interpreted 

the language of this Act to mandate that 

USDA “take lead responsibility for human 

nutrition research.” In fact, human 

nutrition research was one of the areas 

included in the definition of “food and

agricultural sciences” of the Bill (Section 

1404), and Congress clearly delineated 

responsibilities of HEW: “It is the intent 

of this Congress in enacting this title to 

augment, coordinate, and supplement 

the planning, initiation, and conduct of 

agricultural research programs existing prior 

to the enactment of this title, except that it 

is not the intent of Congress in enacting this 

title to limit the authority of the Secretary 

of Health, Education, and Welfare under 

any Act which the Secretary of Health, 

Education, and Welfare administers” (9). 

However, “... coordination with respect to 

nutrition research ...” was taken seriously, 

as discussed later in this chapter. 

Congressional action also was required 

to fund the startup, construction, and 

ongoing operations for each of the human 

nutrition research centers. Chapters in 

this volume describe these activities for 

each center (10-14). Actually, most of the 

expansion of the human nutrition research 

program resulted from efforts of scientists 

at institutions and local politicians at the 

locations of the human nutrition centers, 

rather than from USDA budget requests. 

Even after these centers became operational, 

most of the annual budget increases 

resulted from Congressional mandates in 

response to requests from politicians in the 

centers’ respective States. This resulted 

1894

W.O. Atwater, the first 

senior investigator, 

coordinated extensive programs to 

engage the expertise 

of investigators at the 

States’ Experiment 

Stations as well as at 

several universities 

and colleges.

1906

Charles Ford Langworthy, 

Atwater’s assistant and 

successor, managed 

the Human Nutrition 

Investigations as 

he focused on home 

economics-type research 

and activities.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 243

in research expansion at centers receiving 

mandated funds regardless of needs at 

other locations. It is interesting to note that 

Congressional funding for the Jean Mayer 

USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on 

Aging in Boston, MA, resulted from the first

“Congressional earmarks” initiated by the 

then new president of Tufts University, Jean 

Mayer. (15). 

Early Coordination Activities

Early nutrition research programs in USDA 

were coordinated by the leaders of these 

investigations. Thus, W.O. Atwater, the 

first senior investigator, coordinated the

extensive programs for which he had the 

vision to initiate (1894-1906). He saw 

the opportunity to engage the expertise 

of investigators at the States’ Experiment 

Stations as well as at several universities 

and colleges (1). Similarly, Charles Ford 

Langworthy (1906-1923), Atwater’s assistant 

and successor, managed the Human 

Nutrition Investigations as he focused on 

home economics-type research and activities 

(1). Louise Stanley (1923-1940), the first

chief of the new Bureau of Home Economics, 

and her successors, Lelia Booher (1940-

1942), Henry Sherman (1943), and Hazel 

Stiebeling (1944-1963), also managed and 

coordinated a more extensive bureau of 

programs and accompanying scientists (16). 

As early as 1943, an Interagency Committee 

on Nutrition Education was formed and 

was responsible for “coordinating nutrition 

services made available by Federal, State, 

and other agencies” (17). USDA provided the 

Secretariat for this group while its members 

represented education, extension, research, 

public health, and related programs. 

With the reorganization of the Agricultural 

Research Service (ARS) in 1963, nutrition 

and consumer use research was 

administratively merged with utilization 

research activity at four large regional 

laboratories located in Albany, CA, New 

Orleans, LA, Peoria, IL, and Philadelphia, 

PA. Ruth Leverton was appointed ARS 

Assistant Deputy Administrator under 

Deputy Administrator Fred Senti and was 

given the responsibility of coordinating all 

human nutrition-related activities (18). 

Her program benefitted from the increased

funding of the food and nutrition program 

of USDA initiated by Senator Milton R. 

Young (R-ND) (4). Specifically, several new

scientists were hired at Beltsville, MD, 

including Willis Gortner as director, and a 

new “field laboratory” was started at Grand

Forks, ND. in 1970 (18). Also, Harold H. 

Sandstead was hired as the first director of

1923

Louise Stanley 

was the first 

chief of the 

new Bureau 

of Home 

Economics.

1940

Lelia Booher 

succeeded 

Louise 

Stanley. 

Photo 

courtesy of 

the General 

Mills 

Archives.

1943

Henry 

Sherman 

succeeded 

Lelia Booher 

as the chief 

of the Bureau 

of Home 

Economics.
244 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

the Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research 

Laboratory, and Robert Rizek was appointed 

director of Consumer and Food Economics 

Research Division replacing Faith Clark, 

who had retired earlier. From the outset of 

human nutrition programs sponsored by the 

U.S. Congress, due largely to the efforts of 

W.O. Atwater, coordination had been part of 

“line management”—the offices responsible

for budget, programs, etc. This would soon 

change. 

Regionalization of ARS Management

In addition to the administrative and 

research activities in the Washington, DC, 

area, ARS had over 100 research sites 

spread across the United States and in 

several foreign countries. The agricultural 

problems of the United States in the 1960s 

required multidisciplinary research teams 

to solve and, to add to the administrative 

complexity, these issues were generally 

located in specific regions of the country.

As a result, under President Richard Nixon, 

Secretary of Agriculture Clifford Hardin, 

Director of USDA Science and Education 

Ned Bayley, and ARS Administrator T.W. 

Edminster, management of ARS was 

geographically regionalized in 1972. Initially, 

four areas were identified. ARS research

currently is managed in five geographical

areas of the country. A National Program 

Staff was established to enhance 

development and coordination of National 

Research Programs of the agency. Today, 

this matrix-style organization has matured 

to where it “... assesses the full spectrum 

of scientific needs of the Agency ...” (19). 

Human nutrition is currently one of 22 

national/international research programs of 

ARS (20). 

Relative to human nutrition programs, this 

reorganization separated the Grand Forks 

Human Nutrition Research Laboratory 

from the Human Nutrition Research 

Division (HNRD) at Beltsville and created 

the first field center of the program, Grand

Forks Human Nutrition Research Center 

(GFHNRC) (10). All remaining Human 

Nutrition Research Programs (HNRD and 

Consumer and Food Economics Institute 

[CFEI]) were in the Washington, DC, area.

Willis A. Gortner was appointed the 

first National Program Staff Scientist for

Nutrition and Family Living (table 1). Prior 

to this new assignment, he was Director 

of HNRD, where he had reorganized and 

redirected programs to expand research on 

human requirements and nutritive value of 

foods (18). Gortner oversaw the appointment 

Ruth Leverton was 

appointed ARS 

Assistant Deputy 

Administrator 

under Deputy 

Administrator Fred 

Senti and was given 

the responsibility 

of coordinating all 

human nutritionrelated activities.

Hazel Stiebeling 

became chief of 

the Bureau of 

Home Economics.

19441963
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 245

of Walter Mertz as his replacement at HNRD, 

and a request went to Congress for a new 

Children’s Nutrition Research Center at 

Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, 

TX (11). Also, the North Dakota legislative 

contingent was successful in markedly 

increasing funding for GFHNRC during this 

period (10). Gortner retired in 1976, and 

he and his wife Susan subsequently moved 

to the San Francisco, CA, area, where he 

became interested in the anthropology of 

ancient Indian tribes of California. He died 

in 1993.

James (Jack) Iacono was appointed the 

second National Program Leader for Human 

Nutrition (NPL) activities after Gortner’s 

retirement (table 1). Previously, he had been 

Research Leader of the Lipids Nutrition 

Laboratory, HNRD at Beltsville, where he 

initiated and conducted lipid studies related 

to diet and cardiovascular health of humans 

(18). These early experiments established 

the focus of many additional studies at that 

laboratory. One of Iacono’s far-reaching 

activities during his tenure as NPL was the 

organization of a site visit at Baylor College 

of Medicine in early 1977, requested by the 

House Agriculture and Related Agencies 

Subcommittee of the Appropriations 

Committee, in support of a USDA center to 

study nutritional requirements of children, 

Willis A. Gortner 

was appointed 

the first National 

Program Staff 

Scientist for 

Nutrition and 

Family Living.

Table 1. ARS National Program 

Staff scientists for human nutrition*

Scientist Tenure

Willis A. Gortner 1972-1976

James (Jack) Iacono 1977-1978

Human Nutrition Center 1978-1981**

James (Jack) Iacono 1981-1982

Gerald F. Combs, Sr. 1983-1991

Jacqueline Dupont 1991-1996

Frankie Schwenk 1994-1996

Margaret Bogle (Acting) 1996-1997

Joseph Spence (Acting) 1996-1997 

Carla Fjeld 1998-1999

Joseph Spence (Acting) 2002

Kathleen (Kathy) Ellwood 1999-2002 

Barbara Schneeman 1999-2000***

Johanna Dwyer 2001-2002***

Mary (Molly) Kretsch 2004-2009

David Klurfeld 2004-present

John Finley 2009-present

* Many Human Nutrition scientists served in an 

“acting” capacity between terms of permanent 

appointees and/or in 

conjunction with National Program Leaders.

** Coordination of programs was conducted by staff 

of the Human Nutrition Center office.

*** Assistant Administrator for Human Nutrition 

with specific program and outreach coordination

responsibilities. 

See chapter for details. 1972

1978

D. Mark Hegsted 

was appointed as 

leader of the Human 

Nutrition Center 

formed within the 

Science and Education 

Administration.
246 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

adolescents, and mothers during pregnancy 

and lactation (11). From among more 

than 40 competing requests that Iacono 

reviewed, the establishment of the USDA/

ARS Children’s Nutrition Research Center at 

Baylor College of Medicine was announced 

in Congress in late 1978. With another 

reorganization of USDA and formation of the 

Human Nutrition Center, responsibilities 

for coordination of programs moved to that 

Center, and the National Program Leader 

for Human Nutrition was no longer needed. 

Iacono was appointed Associate Director of 

the Human Nutrition Center in 1978. 

USDA Human Nutrition Center

Jimmy Carter, elected President in 1976, 

designated Bob Bergland as Secretary of 

Agriculture, who in turn appointed M. 

Rupert Cutler to serve as Assistant Secretary 

for Conservation, Research and Education. 

With assistance from Ned Bayley, Cutler 

created a new agency, the Science and 

Education Administration (SEA), in January 

1978 by merging Agricultural Research 

Service (ARS), Cooperative States Research 

Service (CSRS), Extension Service (ES), 

and National Agricultural Library (NAL). 

This reorganization was a further effort 

to increase cooperation and coordination 

in conducting research and education 

activities and to provide a single focus to the 

fragmented activities of the Department. 

As a result, the Human Nutrition Center 

was formed within SEA, separated from ARS 

also within SEA, under which all human 

nutrition activities were administratively 

placed and coordinated. Hegsted, an 

outstanding nutritionist, was appointed 

as leader of this new Center in 1978 (5). 

A Competitive Grants Office also was

established under Joe L. Key, Director. The 

establishment of a USDA Human Nutrition 

Center seemed most appropriate in view 

of USDA’s Congressional mandate in the 

1977 legislation directing the USDA to 

coordinate human nutrition research in 

areas of mutual interest between USDA and 

the Department of Health, Education, and 

Welfare. 

Hegsted and Iacono focused on establishing 

and coordinating the programs at each 

of the new centers (Houston, TX, and 

Boston, MA) during their “startups,” which 

were managed as cooperative agreements 

with ARS. In addition, research programs 

continued at Beltsville and Grand Forks that 

required coordination/cooperation with the 

“new” centers. Also, the Consumer Nutrition 

Center, directed by Rizek, had a section that 

provided dietary guidance for the country 

(7). The Dietary Goals and newly released 

Dietary Guidelines continued to spark much 

controversy within the medical/clinical 

interests, the agricultural community, and 

the Food and Nutrition Board of the National 

Academy of Sciences (FNB). Rizek had 

entered the fray by requesting a contract 

with FNB to make recommendations on the 

consumption of specific food components

highlighted in the Dietary Goals. Iacono, 

realizing that Phil Handler, President of the 

National Academy of Sciences, and members 

of FNB were at odds with the statements 

of the Dietary Goals, convinced Rizek to 

withdraw his request and support for an 

FNB review (5). Nonetheless, members of the 

1981

James (Jack) Iacono 

was appointed the 

second National Program 

Leader for Human 

Nutrition activities after 

Gortner’s retirement.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 247

Consumer Nutrition Center produced several 

pamphlets outlining practical approaches to 

meet the new Dietary Guidelines (7).

The Human Nutrition Center probably could 

have developed an effective program had it 

been allocated sufficient funds. However,

SEA itself struggled with the coordination, 

and in some cases reversal, of the many 

decisions that previously had been made 

within its agencies. With the change of 

political party of the Executive Branch in 

1980 (with Ronald Reagan as President) and 

appointments of John Block as Secretary 

of Agriculture, Richard Lyng as Deputy 

Secretary of Agriculture, and Terry Kinney, 

Jr., as Assistant Secretary for Science and 

Education, Block directed Kinney to disband 

SEA and re-establish ARS, CSRS, ES, and 

NAL as independent agencies and entities. 

At the same time, the Human Nutrition 

Center also was abolished, and all human 

nutrition research activities (Centers) 

were administratively returned to the 

geographical administrative system (Areas) 

of ARS. 

The Consumer Nutrition Center, also part 

of the Human Nutrition Center, formed the 

basis of a new agency, Human Nutrition 

Information Service (HNIS), which had its 

own administrator (Isabel Wolf was the first).

The Administrator of HNIS reported to the 

Assistant Secretary for Food and Nutrition 

Service, thereby separating HNIS even more 

from human nutrition research activities 

and requiring coordination (21). Hegsted 

was reassigned as Senior Scientist and 

soon took the position of Associate Director 

for Research at the New England Regional 

Primate Center, from which he retired (5). He 

died in 2009. Iacono returned to the position 

of National Program Leader for Human 

Nutrition, where he coordinated the orderly 

transfer of the Western Human Nutrition 

Research Center from the Department of 

Defense and integration into ARS (13). 

Shortly thereafter (1982), he was appointed 

Director of that Center, when the position 

became vacant when Howerde Sauberlich 

moved to the University of Alabama at 

Birmingham (13). Iacono retired in 1994 and 

died in 2006.

Coordination of Human Nutrition Research 

Activities 

It was the good fortune of one of the 

authors of this chapter (GFC) to serve as 

ARS’s Assistant Deputy Administrator 

for Human Nutrition from 1983 to 1991 

(table 1). The coordination and oversight 

of research conducted at the five USDA

Human Nutrition Research Centers and 

human nutrition-related research at other 

ARS laboratories was the responsibility of 

the National Program Leader for Human 

Nutrition. In addition, the National Program 

Leader was expected to coordinate all of the 

human nutrition research activities of other 

agencies within USDA, as well as serve as 

the primary liaison with other Government 

agencies engaged in human nutrition 

research. This required coordination 

mechanisms within USDA and with other 

Federal agencies involved in human 

nutrition research. 

1983

Gerald Combs, Sr., 

served as ARS’s 

Assistant Deputy 

Administrator for 

Human Nutrition 

from 1983 to 1991.
248 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Table 2. Scientific coordination activities of Human Nutrition National 

Program Leaders (NPL)

Coordination level and committee title Dates*

Coordination at level of Federal Government

Joint Subcommittee on Human Nutrition Research (JSHNR) 1978-1983

Interagency Committee on Human Nutrition Research (ICHNR) 1983-present 

Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee 1983-present

National Advisory Council on Child Nutrition 1970-1989

National Advisory Council on Maternal, Infant, and Fetal Nutrition 1966-present

USDA/DHHS Nutrition Education Committee for Maternal and 

Child Nutrition Publications 1980-1999

Joint Nutrition Monitoring Evaluation Committee (JMNEC) 1983-1988

Interagency Committee on Nutrition Monitoring 1988-1991

Interagency Board for Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research 1991-2002

Label Harmonization Task Force 1983-1990

Coordination within USDA

Subcommittee for Human Nutrition 

(Human Nutrition Coordinating Committee) 1983-present

 Dietary Guidance Working Group 1983-present

 Diet Appraisal Research Working Group 1992-present

 Nutrition Education Working Group 1992-present

Human Nutrition Board of Scientific Counselors	 1984-1996

Nutrition, Education and Research Coordinating Council 1994-1996

National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics

Advisory Board (NAREEEAB) 1996-present

Coordination within ARS

Human Nutrition Center Director’s meetings 1983-present

NPL representation on other committees

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Nutrition Coordinating Committee 1975-present

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Committee on Science,

Human Subjects Research Subcommittee (HSRS) 1991-present

Department of Health and Human Services Secretaries Advisory 

Committee on Human Research Protection (SACHRP) 2002-present

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)

Advisory Council 1993-present

__________________________________________________________________________________________

*Dates are approximate and best estimates in reconstruction of activities.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 249

Coordination Within USDA

The Subcommittee for Human Nutrition

was established in 1983 under the USDA 

Research and Education Committee of 

the Secretary’s Policy and Coordination 

Council (table 2). Still active today, this 

Subcommittee was later renamed “USDA 

Human Nutrition Coordinating Committee.” 

The committee holds quarterly meetings 

with the primary purpose of ensuring 

communication among Departmental 

agencies involved in human nutrition 

activities. Participating USDA agencies 

include ARS, National Institute of Food and 

Agriculture (NIFA)—formerly Cooperative 

State Research, Education, and Extension 

Service (CSREES)—Agriculture Marketing 

Service (AMS), Center for Nutrition Policy 

and Promotion (CNPP), Economic Research 

Service (ERS), Food and Nutrition Service 

(FNS), Food Safety and Inspection Service 

(FSIS), and National Agricultural Library 

(NAL). In addition, members include liaison 

representatives of DHHS’s Office of Disease

Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and 

the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The 

Subcommittee is chaired by ARS’s National 

Program Leader(s) for Human Nutrition.

The Committee serves as USDA’s 

mechanism to explore and recommend 

positions on human nutrition-related policy 

issues. It developed a food and nutrition 

policy statement, a directory of USDA 

activities related to human nutrition, a 

statement of the role of USDA in human 

nutrition, and a 5-year plan. In addition, 

the Subcommittee established a Dietary 

Guidance Working Group to ensure that 

USDA speak with one voice and conform to 

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Later, 

the Committee added the Dietary Appraisal 

Research Working Group, an informationsharing group for Federal researchers who 

collect and analyze dietary survey data, and 

the Nutrition Education Working Group, 

who coordinates these activities across 

many agencies of the Department (table 2). 

The Committee members also provided 

information needed for the preparation 

of annual reports to Congress on the 

human nutrition research activities of the 

Department, as required by Section 1452(b) 

of the National Agricultural Research, 

Extension, and Teaching Policy Act 

Amendments of 1985 (7 U.S.C.3173 note).

The Human Nutrition Board of Scientific 

Counselors was established in 1984 by the 

Secretary of Agriculture as an outside group 

of well-established scientists in human 

nutrition and related fields to advise the

Secretary regarding program direction, 

priorities, and quality of the Department’s 

human nutrition research and education 

activities (table 2). At the first meeting,

three task groups were formed: Solutions 

to Human Nutrition Problems Through 

Changes in the Agricultural/Food System; 

Food Composition; and Implications of the 

RDAs and Dietary Guidelines. A fourth task 

group, Nutrition Education, was formed in 

1986 to determine the initiatives required 

to formulate and integrate a broad-based 

nutrition education program with efficient

use of present resources. The Board 

functioned through specific task group

and workshop meetings as needed, with 

meetings of the entire Board scheduled 

annually.

USDA’s Assistant Secretary for Research 

and Education or USDA’s Assistant 

Secretary of Food and Consumer Services 

chaired each session of the entire Board. 

The Board generated a number of policy 

recommendations, which were submitted 

to the Secretary and included in the 

annual report to Congress. This Board was 

superseded by the National Agricultural 

Research, Extension, Education, and 

Economics Advisory Board (NAREEEAB) 

established as part of legislation in the 1996 

Farm Bill (table 2).
250 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

USDA Human Nutrition Center Directors’ 

meetings were arranged by the National 

Program Leader for Human Nutrition 

at roughly quarterly intervals (table 2). 

Meetings were usually held at one of the 

USDA Human Nutrition Research Centers or 

at the Plant, Soil and Nutrition Laboratory 

on the Cornell University campus to 

allow the Center Directors and others in 

attendance to see the facilities and become 

acquainted with studies in progress and 

opportunities for future collaborative 

research. Recently, meetings have been 

conducted via teleconference on a monthly 

basis with only one or two onsite meetings 

per year.

USDA’s mission in human nutrition 

research was (~1985) “to plan and conduct 

research to define nutritional requirements

and dietary practices to meet the nutritional 

requirements necessary for maximal 

performance and optimal human health 

and well-being to the American people at 

all stages of life” (22). Four approaches to 

achieve this objective were—

1.	Define nutritive requirements at all

stages of life,

2. Determine the nutritive content of 

agricultural commodities and processed 

foods as eaten and establish the bioavailability of nutrients in these foods,

3. Improve human status by making 

available techniques to assess the 

effectiveness of nutrition programs, and

4. Integrate knowledge of human 

nutritional needs and the agricultural/

food system.

The mission was recently modified as

follows: “to define the role of food and its

components in optimizing health throughout 

the life cycle for all Americans by conducting 

high national priority research” (23). The 

four priorities to achieve this mission 

currently are—

1. Nutrition monitoring and the food 

supply,

2.	Scientific basis for dietary guidance

for health promotion and disease 

prevention,

3. Prevention of obesity and related 

diseases, and

4. Life stage nutrition and metabolism.

Coordination at the Federal Level

The Joint Subcommittee on Human Nutrition 

Research (JSHNR) was chartered under the 

aegis of the Office of Science and Technology

Policy’s (OSTP) Federal Coordinating 

Committee for Science, Engineering and 

Technology in September 1978 (table 

2). Under the auspices of the OSTP, the 

JSHNR accomplished most of its objectives, 

and the decision was made that issues 

related to human nutrition research could 

be adequately addressed through the 

establishment of a collaborative mechanism 

by the Federal agencies that support human 

nutrition research. To realize this goal, 

DHHS and USDA created the Interagency 

Committee on Human Nutrition Research 

(ICHNR) in July 1983, subsequent to the 

termination of the JSHNR in June 1983. 

The Interagency Committee on Human 

Nutrition Research (ICHNR), formed in 

1983 to coordinate nutrition research 

at the Federal level, is co-chaired by the 

USDA Assistant Secretary for Science 

and Education and the DHHS Assistant 

Secretary for Health (table 2). The ICHNR 

included representatives from the U.S. 

Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, 

Defense, and Health and Human 

Services; U.S. Agency for International 

Development; National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration; National Science 

Foundation; and the Office of Science

and Technology Policy. The ICHNR meets 

quarterly to exchange relevant information 

concerning human nutrition activities. 

Example of joint activities sponsored by 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 251

ICHNR included— 

1. Establishment of the Human 

Nutrition Information Management 

(HNRIM) system, a computerized 

database of ongoing Federal food 

and nutrition research, to facilitate 

rapid exchange of information. This 

research included biomedical and 

behavioral areas; food science; nutrition 

monitoring and surveillance; nutrition 

education methodology; and effects 

of socioeconomic factors, intervention 

programs, and policies on food 

consumption and nutritive status. 

2. Preparation of a comprehensive 

Federal 5-year plan for human 

nutrition research. Areas of research 

proposed for special Federal attention 

were normal human requirements of 

nutrients, energy requirements, role 

of nutrients in health promotion, food 

composition, bioavailability of nutrients, 

nutrition monitoring, nutrition 

education, and effect of Federal policy 

and socioeconomic factors on food 

consumption.

3. Sponsored biennial conferences among 

scientists from Federally supported 

Human Nutrition Research Units and 

Centers for coordination and exchange 

of findings in specific research areas.

Reports given at these conferences were 

published. In the mid-1990s, these 

meetings were suspended in favor of 

scientists reporting research results at 

their respective professional meetings, 

such as at the annual Experimental 

Biology meeting.

In addition, joint USDA-DHHS committees 

were formed as needed to insure 

collaboration with respect to specific issues.

The following are some examples:

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee 

(DGAC) was established in 1983 by the 

Secretary of Agriculture to review the 

“Dietary Guidelines for Americans” first

published jointly by USDA and DHHS 

in 1980 (table 2). Nine members were 

appointed to the Committee—three selected 

by USDA and three by DHHS—and three 

were selected from a list recommended 

by the National Academy of Sciences. The 

“Dietary Guidelines for Americans” have 

been revised by subsequent Committees and 

published jointly by USDA and DHHS at 

approximately 5-year intervals.

The most recent Committee (2008-2010) 

consisted of Linda Van Horn (Chair), Naomi 

Fukagawa (Vice-Chair), Cheryl Achterberg, 

Lawrence Appel, Roger Clemens, Miriam 

Nelson, Shelly Nickols-Richardson, Thomas 

Pearson, Rafael Pérez-Escamilla, Xavier 

Pi-Sunyer, Eric Rimm, Joanne Slavin, and 

Christine Williams (24). The size of the 

Committee was increased from 9 to 11 in 

1998 and to 13 in 2008. 

The National Advisory Council on Child 

Nutrition and the National Advisory Council 

on Maternal, Infant, and Fetal Nutrition

studied the operation of the Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and 

related programs such as the Commodity 

Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which 

is part of Food and Nutrition Service’s 

Special Nutrition Programs. Both Councils 

reported their recommendations to the 

President and Congress. The National 

Advisory Council on Child Nutrition was 

abolished as part of PL 101-147 (101st 

Congress, January 1989-October 1990), 

which reauthorized Special Supplemental 

Food Program for Women, Infants, and 

Children (WIC), Commodity Distribution, 

School Breakfast, and Nutrition Education 

and Training Programs through fiscal

year 1994. However. the National Advisory 

Council on Maternal, Infant, and Fetal 

Nutrition remains active and meets at least 

once a year. 
252 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

The USDA/DHHS Nutrition Education 

Committee for Maternal and Child Nutrition 

Publications was established in 1980 by 

the DHHS Assistant Secretary for Health 

and the USDA Assistant Secretary for 

Food and Consumer Services to provide 

a systematic mechanism for USDA and 

DHHS agencies to report plans and progress 

related to maternal and child nutrition 

education to avoid duplication and to 

facilitate coordination and enhance effective 

use of resources. Although a meritorious 

committee, it held very few meetings and 

was discontinued in 1999. 

The Joint Nutrition Monitoring Evaluation 

Committee (JNMEC) was established by 

USDA and DHHS in October 1983 to review, 

interpret, and report information from the 

National Nutrition Monitoring System on the 

nutritional status of the population (table 2). 

It produced a report, “Nutrition Monitoring 

in the United States: A Progress Report from 

the Joint Nutrition Monitoring Evaluation 

Committee, 1986.” This committee was 

superseded by the Interagency Committee 

on Nutrition Monitoring. 

The Interagency Committee on Nutrition 

Monitoring was established in 1988 

to increase overall effectiveness and 

productivity of nutrition monitoring efforts 

(table 2). Member agencies included 

the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. 

Department of Veterans Affairs, U.S. Agency 

of International Development, the Census 

Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

and other agencies within USDA and DHHS 

that conduct nutrition monitoring activities. 

This Committee sponsored a report (25). 

The Committee was superseded by the 

Interagency Board for Nutrition Monitoring 

and Related Research.

The Interagency Board for Nutrition 

Monitoring and Related Research was formed 

in response to legislation in The National 

Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research 

Act of 1990 (table 2). One of the provisions 

of this Act was to establish a coordinated 

Federal effort with a central focus for 

national nutrition monitoring of the U.S. 

population. The Interagency Board included 

representatives of 22 Federal agencies that 

either conduct nutrition monitoring surveys 

and related research or are major users 

of nutrition monitoring data (26). Many 

of these representatives were the same as 

those on the Interagency Committee on 

Nutrition Monitoring. Three reports were 

sponsored by this Board that provided 

information about the dietary, nutritional, 

and nutrition-related health status of 

Americans (27,28).

The Label Harmonization Task Force was 

formed by USDA and DHHS in 1983 

to recommend a uniform and effective 

standard for displaying nutrition-related 

information on food labels in the United 

States and to provide consumers with 

nutrition information that will allow them 

to make informed dietary decisions (table 

2). The functions of this task force were 

integrated into activities of the Food and 

Drug Administration when the Nutrition 

Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) was 

passed in 1990, thereby making food 

labeling mandatory in the United States.

Gerald F. Combs, Sr., was intimately 

involved in the establishment and startup 

of many Human Nutrition Research 

Coordinating Committees and working 

groups that were formed in response to 

Congressional mandates. Many of these 

groups or their successors are still active 

today and provide oversight and guidance 

as was originally intended. Combs retired 

in 1991 and shortly thereafter moved to 

Hattiesburg, MS, where he is Adjunct 

Professor of Food and Nutrition at the 

University of Southern Mississippi. He 

continues to write on the history of nutrition 

and nutrition research at USDA and other 

agencies he served during his very active 

and productive career (22,29,30).
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 253

Highlights of Coordination Activities 

1991 to Present

Jacqueline (Jackie) Dupont was appointed 

ARS’s Nutrition National Program Leader 

(NPL) in 1991 (table 1). She had been 

a scientist at the Human Nutrition 

Research Division in Beltsville, MD, during 

the 1950s-1960s, progressed through 

the academic ranks at Colorado State 

University, and later served as Chair of the 

Department of Food and Nutrition at Iowa 

State University. Dupont was a recognized 

leader in research on essential fatty acids 

and continued to serve on international 

committees on lipid requirements 

throughout her NPL tenure. Besides 

remaining active on all of the coordination 

committees and working groups while a 

National Program Leader, she lent her input 

to several events that required her expertise, 

including the following:

Ten-Year Comprehensive Plan for the 

National Nutrition Monitoring and Related 

Research Program. This plan, as mandated 

by the National Nutrition Monitoring and 

Related Research Act of 1990, provided 

direction for nutrition monitoring and 

reporting of results for the 10-year period 

1992-2002 (31). 

Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center. A 

site visit committee, formed at the request 

of Congress, reviewed the Arkansas 

Children’s Hospital’s request to become 

the sixth USDA Human Nutrition Research 

Center in January 1994 (14). From among 

several other requests, the Arkansas site 

was selected, and Congress appropriated 

$1.2 million later in 1994 for the start of 

the Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center. 

The specific mission of this Center is to

investigate dietary factors that will maximize 

the health of children from conception 

through adolescence with special emphasis 

on unique nutrition and health issues of 

Arkansas and the Lower Mississippi Delta 

region. This Center is also operated under a 

cooperative agreement with ARS.

USDA Human Nutrition Information Service 

(HNIS). HNIS was closed in 1994, and all 

activities were transferred to ARS (7,21). 

Food composition data activities and 

nutrition survey functions were incorporated 

into the Beltsville Human Nutrition 

Research Center’s Nutrient Data Laboratory 

and Food Surveys Research Group, 

respectively. Nutrition education activities 

(and Dietary Guidelines) and the Family 

Economics Research Group were further 

transferred to the USDA Food and Nutrition 

Service’s Center for Nutrition Policy and 

Promotion (CNPP). The National Agriculture 

Library was administratively returned to 

ARS, but it soon became a separate entity 

within USDA. At the same time, a USDA 

Departmental Regulation was issued that 

established a Nutrition Education and 

Research Coordinating Council (table 2) 

with the specific purpose of coordinating all

activities addressing research and education 

relating to human nutrition, including 

scientific and economic research as well as

public education and information programs 

within the Department (32). 

National Agricultural Research, Extension, 

Education, and Economics Advisory Board 

(NAREEEAB). This board was created as 

1991

Jacqueline (Jackie) 

Dupont was appointed 

ARS’s Nutrition National 

Program Leader.
254 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

part of the Federal Agricultural Improvement 

and Reform Act of 1996 (1996 Farm Bill) to 

provide advice to the Secretary of Agriculture 

and land-grant colleges and universities on 

national priorities and policies related to 

agricultural research, education, extension, 

and economics (table 2). The original 

Farm Bill (1966) called for a board of 31 

members, but recent legislation (2008) 

reduced the number to 25. A few of the 

pertinent areas called out in the legislation 

were national human health associations, 

national nutrition science societies, national 

food organizations, and food retailing and 

marketing interests. The establishment 

of this board superseded the Human 

Nutrition Board of Scientific Counselors

and the Nutrition Education and Research 

Coordinating Council (table 2). 

PL-480 Foods Reformulation. Current U.S. 

international food assistance programs 

began after World War II. One of these 

programs outlined in Title II of Public Law 

480 of 1954 (Food for Peace Program) 

and administered by the U.S. Agency 

for International Development (USAID) 

continually reviews nutrient adequacy of 

foods provided for this program. One such 

review conducted in early 1996 concluded 

that new and improved products were 

needed for this program. As part of this 

initiative, a task force of six ARS scientists, 

whom Dupont had considerable influence in

recommending, was assembled to formulate 

a revised set of nutrient specifications that

would allow flexibility in meeting nutritional

needs with least cost blends of available 

commodities. A summary of the discussions 

and recommendations was prepared for 

USAID—“Report of USDA ARS Task Group 

on Nutrient Standards for Grain Blends—

February 7, 1997.”

Dupont retired in 1996 and returned to her 

native Florida, where she became Adjunct 

Professor of Nutrition, Food and Exercise 

Sciences at her alma mater, Florida State 

University. 

Frankie Schwenk was appointed National 

Nutrition Program Leader in 1994 (table 1). 

Previously, she had been Research Leader 

of the Family Economics Research Group at 

HNIS. When that agency closed, she moved 

to ARS. Besides assisting Dupont with NPL 

activities, Schwenk’s primary responsibility 

was shepherding the Lower Mississippi Delta 

Nutrition Intervention Research Initiative 

(Delta NIRI) (33). This unique initiative, 

born from earlier Congressional action, is 

a research effort to design, execute, and 

evaluate nutrition interventions directed 

at improving the health and well-being of 

the people residing in the lower Mississippi 

Delta region of Arkansas, Louisiana, and 

Mississippi. It is executed by a partnership 

of ARS/USDA with six institutions of higher 

education and research in the three States 

(33). Schwenk moved to the Maryland 

Cooperative Extension Service in 1996, from 

which she retired in 2001.

Margaret Bogle was appointed Acting 

National Program Leader for Human 

Nutrition in late 1996 as an IPA 

(Intergovernmental Personnel Act) with 

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences 

(table 1). In addition to all of the duties of 

an NPL, Bogle was successful in moving the 

headquarters of the Delta NIRI program from 

1994

Frankie Schwenk was 

appointed National 

Nutrition Program 

Leader.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 255

the Washington, DC, area to Little Rock, AR. 

In mid-1997, she was appointed Executive 

Director of this nutrition intervention 

program and relocated to Little Rock, AR, as 

a Federal employee.

Carla R. Fjeld was appointed National 

Program Leader for Human Nutrition in 

1998 (table 1). She had previously been 

a Senior Scientist with the International 

Atomic Energy Agency and had considerable 

experience in human nutrition issues 

worldwide. Her unique contribution during 

her tenure as NPL was conception and 

organization of the conference “Foods, 

Phytonutrients, and Health,” in collaboration 

with Roger Lawson, National Program Leader 

for Horticulture and Sugar. This conference 

was the first of its kind at ARS, and it

brought together scientists from agriculture, 

nutrition, health, and agribusiness to 

discuss how advances in biotechnology, 

genetics, and related sciences could be 

used to increase concentrations of natural, 

health-enhancing compounds in plants, 

called “phytonutritients.” The conference 

was a scientific success (34). Fjeld left ARS

in 1999 and has since developed Ola Verde, 

a health food business in Nicaragua.

Kathleen (Kathy) Ellwood was appointed 

National Program Leader for Human 

Nutrition in 1999 (table 1). She earned 

her Ph.D. at the University of Maryland at 

College Park while working with Sheldon 

(Shelly) Reiser at the Carbohydrate Nutrition 

Laboratory of BHNRC. Subsequently and 

prior to her appointment as NPL, she was 

a scientist at the Center for Food Safety 

and Applied Nutrition at the FDA (CFSAN) 

and Director of the Human Nutrition and 

Food Safety Programs at USDA/CSREES. 

In addition to the coordination and budget 

activities of the NPL position (table 2), 

Elwood initiated, planned, and coordinated 

several workshops to bring together 

scientists from various disciplines, such 

as plant, animal, and food sciences as well 

as genetics, which complimented nutrition 

science in an attempt to increase interaction 

and forge new research areas. Workshop 

topics included energy metabolism/body 

composition, nutrition and genomics, 

nutrition and immunology, and nutritional 

enhancement of plant and animal foods 

through genetics. She was involved in the 

formation of the Human Nutrition Research 

Centers Outreach Committee, which greatly 

enhanced the visibility of the program. 

Ellwood also was highly involved in the 

integration of the dietary intake surveys 

conducted independently by USDA and the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC). As part of the 10-year plan for 

National Nutrition Monitoring and Related 

Research, integration was proposed of 

the dietary portion of NHANES (National 

Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) 

conducted by the National Center for 

Health Statistics (NCHS) of CDC and of 

CSFII (Continuing Survey of Food Intakes 

by Individuals), which was the nutrition 

monitoring activity sponsored by USDA/

ARS. A memorandum of understanding was 

signed in 1998 by representatives of ARS 

and NCHS to formalize this integration (35). 

Several workshops were conducted, which 

sought input from many of the stakeholders 

of food consumption data, and outlined 

research areas needed to improve the quality 

of these data (36).

1999

Kathleen (Kathy) 

Ellwood was 

appointed National 

Program Leader for 

Human Nutrition.
256 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Ellwood moved back to CFSAN in 2002 

as Director of the Division of Nutrition 

Programs at FDA and as Lead Scientist 

for Nutrition. She retired in 2010 and now 

serves as a consultant and scientific advisor

on various nutrition-based initiatives. 

Barbara Schneeman, Assistant 

Administrator for Human Nutrition (1999-

2000) (table 1). ARS Administrator Floyd 

Horn (1998-2001) promoted human 

nutrition activities in the agency, and 

REE Under Secretary Joseph Jen (2001-

2006) had a vision of “food as a product of 

American agriculture.” Following discussions 

among the directors of the ARS Human 

Nutrition Research Centers and Horn, 

the position of Assistant Administrator 

for Human Nutrition was created to “give 

human nutrition more visibility in USDA.” 

Schneeman was the first to serve in this

position. She was Professor of Nutrition 

and Dean of the College of Agricultural 

and Environmental Sciences at University 

of California-Davis (UC Davis) and was 

well known in the nutrition community 

for her research on gastrointestinal 

metabolism of carbohydrates and fiber.

While at USDA, she improved liaison 

between appropriate Congressional staff 

and critical administrators at both USDA 

and NIH relative to the importance of 

nutrition and health outcomes, especially 

obesity. Schneeman later returned to 

an administrative position at UC Davis 

and subsequently became Director of the 

Office of Nutrition, Labeling and Dietary

Supplements at FDA.

Johanna Dwyer, Assistant Administrator 

for Human Nutrition (2001-2002) (table 1). 

Dwyer was Director of the Frances Stern 

Nutrition Center at Tufts-New England 

Medical Center. She also held positions 

at the Friedman School of Nutrition and 

Policy, the Tufts University School of 

Medicine, and the Jean Mayer USDA Human 

Nutrition Research Center on Aging. With 

the integration of CSFII and the dietary 

portion of NHANES nearly complete, Dwyer 

organized a scientific workshop. The goals

were to determine how to meet current and 

anticipated Federal needs for dietary data 

on foods, nutrients, other food components 

and dietary supplements that are presently 

collected in the integrated dietary survey. 

Another goal was how to address major 

needs and problems associated with the 

provision and use of the desired data output 

for policy and research purposes and 

implications of improvements. Discussions 

and outcomes at this workshop held in 

June 2002 were reported in the Journal of 

Nutrition Supplement (37). With the change 

in Administrator at ARS in 2001 (Edward 

B. Knipling) and the outbreaks of foodborne 

microbial contamination, less emphasis was 

placed on the visibility of human nutrition 

activities in the agency, and the position of 

Assistant Administrator for Human Nutrition 

was abandoned. However, funds were 

redirected to a second position of National 

Program Leader for Human Nutrition, which 

became effective in 2004. Dwyer returned 

to Tufts for a short period but then took a 

position (“on-loan from Tufts”) as Senior 

Nutrition Scientist at NIH’s Office of Dietary

Supplements. 

Joseph Spence was appointed Acting 

National Program Leader for Human 

Johanna Dwyer 

1999-2000

Barbara Schneeman

2001-2002

Assistant Administrator 

for Human Nutrition 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 257

Nutrition in 2002 (table 1). He had been 

Director of BHNRC for nearly 10 years, 

during which he oversaw operation of 

the Center, integration of food surveys 

and food composition data groups into 

the Beltsville Human Nutrition Research 

Center after HNIS was closed, and initiation 

of construction of two new buildings for 

human nutrition research.

During Spence’s tenure, the integration of 

CSFII and of the dietary portion of NHANES 

was completed and renamed “What We Eat 

in America-NHANES.” Data collection by the 

new survey began in early 2002. Despite a 

series of conferences and workshops that 

highlighted the need and importance of data 

from “What We Eat in America-NHANES,” 

Congress did not reauthorize continuation 

of the National Nutrition Monitoring and 

Related Research Program until the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 

U.S. Farm Bill) was passed, but without 

authorization of funding (38). Nonetheless, 

the integrated survey continued with data 

from the first survey released in 2004

and data from subsequent surveys made 

available in 2006 and in 2010 (39).

Spence was appointed ARS Deputy 

Administrator for Nutrition, Food Safety, and 

Quality in 2004. This was a new position 

created by ARS to provide increased visibility 

and support for human nutrition and foodrelated research. This new position in part 

superseded that of Assistant Administrator 

for Human Nutrition previously held by 

Schneeman and Dwyer. Subsequently 

(2008), Spence was appointed Director of 

the Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural 

Research Center (BARC), which includes 

BHNRC (21).

Mary (Molly) Kretsch was appointed National 

Program Leader for Human Nutrition in 

2004 (table 1). Kretsch had been a scientist 

with the Western Human Nutrition Research 

Center, where she made substantial 

advances in understanding the influence

of mild deficiencies (iron, vitamin B6) on

cognitive function (13). She was one of the 

“original scientists” who transferred when 

that Center was moved from the Department 

of Defense to USDA in 1980. Kretsch 

was appointed Deputy Administrator for 

Nutrition, Food Safety, and Quality in 2009, 

subsequent to Spence’s appointment as 

Director of BARC.

David Klurfeld was appointed National 

Program Leader for Human Nutrition in 

2004 (table 1). He and Kretsch were the first

of the dual National Program Leaders for 

Human Nutrition. Klurfeld was Professor 

National Program Leaders for Human Nutrition

Acting 1996-1997, 

1998 & 2002-2004

Joseph Spence Mary (Molly) Kretsch

2004-2009

David Klurfeld

2004-Present

John Finley

2009-Present
258 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

and Chair of the Department of Nutrition 

and Food Science at Wayne State University, 

where he directed research on the effect of 

diet on markers of cancer risk. He served as 

chair of the ARS Strategic Planning Team 

who shepherded the development of the 

Agricultural Research Service Strategic Plan 

for FY 2006-2011 (40). 

John Finley was appointed National Program 

Leader for Human Nutrition in 2009 

subsequent to Kretsch being appointed 

Deputy Administrator (table 1). Finley was 

a scientist at the Grand Forks Human 

Nutrition Research Center, where he 

investigated the metabolism of selenium in 

plants (primarily broccoli) and its influence

on seleno-containing and other secondary 

plant compounds—compounds important 

in the potential reduction of cancer risk in 

humans.

Both Klurfeld and Finley currently 

provide coordination of the USDA Human 

Nutrition Program through chairing 

current committees and workshops (table 

2), preparing budgets, and serving as 

spokespersons for the program. In addition. 

they serve as ex-officio members of several

“Other Committees” that are concerned with 

NIH Human Nutrition Programs and Human 

Subjects Protection (table 2). 

The National Program Leader program of 

ARS is nearly 4 decades old and, relative 

to human nutrition activities within the 

Agency and the Federal Government, serves 

as an effective and efficient coordination

and promotion mechanism. Considering 

the distinct missions of the six ARS Human 

Nutrition Research Centers as well as all of 

the other human nutrition-related activities 

ongoing within USDA and other Federal 

agencies, the National Program Leaders for 

Human Nutrition provide a current source of 

relevant information for these programs. 

Human Nutrition Research and Monitoring 

Budgets

Figure 1 shows the budgets for human 

nutrition and monitoring from 1978 to 2010. 

Dollars for Nutrition Education and Family 

Economics Research have been removed 

as this program was transferred to CNPP 

when HNIS was closed in 1994. Currentyear dollars are shown, as well as budgets 

Figure 1. Fiscal year 1978-2010 human nutrition research and monitoring funding. Shaded bars represent yearly 

funding in millions of dollars. Open bars are yearly funding values adjusted to 1978 dollars based on Bureau of 

Labor Statistics CPI inflation calculator (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl).

FY 1978-2010 Human Nutrition Research & Monitoring Funding

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Year

Millions $

Current Yr $

1978 $

1978 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 259

adjusted to 1978 dollars. The display of 

these data was begun in 1978 as that was 

the first year specific human nutrition

research monies could be identified. Prior to

that time, research funds were co-mingled 

with food safety and food research monies. 

Relative to data shown in figure 1, yearly

budgets consistently increased. However, 

when these values were adjusted to 1978 

dollars, only the period 1978-1980 showed 

a substantial increase. This is the period 

when several of the ARS Human Nutrition 

Research Centers (Houston, Boston, and 

California) were established and began 

active research programs. In contrast, since 

1980, budgets for human nutrition research 

and monitoring at USDA have remained 

constant when adjusted to 1978-equivalent 

dollars. As highlighted earlier in this 

chapter, the majority of the budget increases 

resulted from Congressional mandates in 

response to requests from politicians in 

those States where research Centers reside 

rather than from USDA budget proposals 

based on carefully characterized/justified

nutrition-health-linked research priorities. 

This has resulted in research expansion 

at Centers receiving mandated funds 

regardless of needs at other locations.

It is interesting to realize that the first

Congressional appropriation for human 

nutrition research was $10,000 in 1885. In 

2010 dollars, this would approach one-half 

million. Yet this is not a very large sum, even 

in terms of 2010 dollars, considering all that 

W.O. Atwater initiated and accomplished. 

Perhaps it is an indication of the enormous 

network of collaborators and cooperators 

he established and the large dividends it 

has paid in terms of establishing a human 

nutrition research base that has greatly 

advanced our knowledge, not only in 

America but worldwide.

Acknowledgments

The critical review of this manuscript 

by David Klurfeld and his assistance in 

verifying coordination committees and their 

dates of activity are greatly appreciated. 

Critical reviews by Kathleen Ellwood and Joe 

Spence also are gratefully acknowledged. 

The efforts of Peggy del Collo and Jill 

Stetka in researching and validating budget 

numbers are acknowledged with thanks.

References

1. Swan, P. 2017. Laying the 

foundation, 1893-1923. In J Dupont 

and GR Beecher, eds., History of 

Human Nutrition Research in the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service: People, 

Events, and Accomplishments. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service.

2. Roberts, J. 1941. National Nutrition 

Conference for Defense. JAMA 

116:2598-9.

3. Harper, A. 2003. Contributions of 

women scientists in the U.S. to the 

development of Recommended Dietary 

Allowances. J Nutr 133:3698-3702.

4. Young, M. 1963. Proposed Program 

for Expanded Research in Food and 

Nutrition, pp. 1028-31. Washington, 

DC: Government Printing Office.

5. Hegsted, DM. 1990. Washington—

Dietary Guidelines [Internet; cited 

2010 Mar 23]. Available from: http://

www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/

uploads/Hegsted.pdf.

6. Staff of the Select Committee on 

Nutrition and Human Needs, United 

States Senate. 1977. Dietary Goals 

for the United States [Internet]. 

Washington, DC: Government Printing 

Office. 10 p; [cited 2010 Apr 1].

Available from: http://zerodisease.
260 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

com/archive/Dietary_Goals_For_The_

United_States.pdf.

7. Welsh, S. 2017. History of nutrition 

education at the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 1902-2011. In J Dupont 

and GR Beecher, eds., History of 

Human Nutrition Research in the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service: People, 

Events, and Accomplishments. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service.

8. Klassen, W. 1990. Comments on the 

History of ARS. Unpublished.

9. OTA Food Program Staff, OTA Food 

Advisory Committee, OTA Steering 

Panel on Human Nutrition Research 

Nutrition Research Alternatives. 

1978. Report of the Office of

Technology Assessment. NTIS #PB289825 [Internet]. Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office. 77p;

[cited 2010 Nov 6]. Available from: 

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/

Ota_5/DATA/1978/7812.pdf .

10. Sandstead, HH, and FH Nielsen. 2009. 

The origin and evolution of the Grand 

Forks Human Nutrition Research 

Center, 1970-90. J Nutr 139:173-7.

11. Nichols, B. 2009. Establishment of 

the USDA/ARS Children’s Nutrition 

Research Center at Baylor College 

of Medicine and Texas Children’s 

Hospital in 1978. J Nutr 139:188-91.

12. Rosenberg, I. 2009. History of the 

USDA Human Nutrition Research 

Center on Aging at Tufts University. J 

Nutr 139:192-3.

13. Jacob, R. 2017. History of the Western 

Human Nutrition Research Center. 

In J Dupont and GR Beecher, eds., 

History of Human Nutrition Research 

in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service: People, 

Events, and Accomplishments. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service.

14. Badger, T, A Stokes, and M Perry. 

2017. Inception and history of the 

Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center. 

In J Dupont and GR Beecher, eds., 

History of Human Nutrition Research 

in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service: People, 

Events, and Accomplishments. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service.

15. Kaiser, RG. 2007. How Lobbying 

Became Washington’s Biggest 

Business, Chapter 4 [Internet]. The 

Washington Post, March 7, 2007; 

[cited 2010 Oct 8]. Available from: 

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/

citizen-k-street/chapters/chapter4/.

16. Elias, M. 2017. The Bureau of 

Home Economics. In J Dupont 

and GR Beecher, eds., History of 

Human Nutrition Research in the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service: People, 

Events, and Accomplishments. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service.

17. Leverton, RM. 1966. Nutrition 

programs in the United States 

Department of Agriculture. Am J 

Public Health 56:812-7.

18. Beecher, GR. 2017. Research at the 

Beltsville Human Nutrition Research 

Center, 1963-2010. In J Dupont 

and GR Beecher, eds., History of 

Human Nutrition Research in the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service: People, 

Events, and Accomplishments. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service.

19. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service. c2010. 

ARS National Programs [Internet; cited 

2010 Mar 19]. Available from: http://

www.ars.usda.gov/pandp/locations/

locations.htm.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 261

20. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service. c2009. 

ARS National Programs [Internet; 

cited 2010 Mar 19]. Available from: 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/

programs.htm?pf=1.

21. Beecher, GR. 2017. History of food 

composition activities at the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. In J 

Dupont and GR Beecher, eds., History 

of Human Nutrition Research in 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service: People, 

Events, and Accomplishments. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service.

22. Combs, GF. 2009. USDA Human 

Nutrition Center, 1978-1982, and 

Coordination of Human Nutrition 

Research Agencies. J Nutr 139:185-7.

23. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service. c2009. 

National Program 107: Human 

Nutrition. Strategic Vision [Internet; 

cited 2010 Nov 18]. Available from: 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/

programs/programs.htm?NP_

CODE=107&pf=1.

24. Dietary Guidelines Advisory 

Committee. 2010. Appendix E-4: 

History of the Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans. In Report of the Dietary 

Guidelines Advisory Committee on 

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 

[Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture; [cited 

2010 Nov 4]. Available from: http://

www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-

DGACReport.htm. 

25.	 Life Sciences Research Office,

Federation of American Societies 

for Experimental Biology. 1989. 

Nutrition Monitoring in the United 

States: An Update Report on Nutrition 

Monitoring. Prepared for U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. DHHS (PHS) publication 

89-1255. 

26. Moshfegh, AJ. 1994. The National 

Nutrition Monitoring and Related 

Research Program: progress and 

activities. J Nutr 124,1843S-5S.

27. Interagency Board for Nutrition 

Monitoring and Related Research. 

1993. Chartbook I: Selected Findings 

from the National Nutrition Monitoring 

and Related Research Program. In 

B Ervin and D Reed, eds., Nutrition 

Monitoring in the United States. 

Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Public 

Health Service.

28.	 Life Sciences Research Office,

Federation of American Societies for 

Experimental Biology. 1995. Third 

Report on Nutrition Monitoring 

in the United States: Executive 

Summary. Prepared for Interagency 

Board for Nutrition Monitoring and 

Related Research. Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office. 51p.

29. Combs, GF. 1991. Fifty years of 

progress in the nutrition field.

In Annual Agricultural Outlook 

Conference, Outlook ’91, Washington, 

DC, pp. 23-34. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service. 

30. Combs, GF. 1992. From international 

surveys and vitamin B12 to national 

food and nutrition policy. Nutrition 

Today March/April:31-5.

31. Briefel, RR. 2006. Nutrition 

monitoring in the United States. In 

BA Bowman and RM Russell, eds., 

Present Knowledge in Nutrition, 

pp. 838-58. 9th edition. Vol. 2. 

Washington, DC: International Life 

Sciences Institute.

32. Coordination of USDA Activities 

Relating to Human Nutrition Research 

and Education. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Regulation No. 1044-

7 [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture; c1994 
262 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

[cited 2010 Apr 4]. Available from: 

http://www.ocio.usda.gov/directives/

doc/DR1044-007.htm.

33. Schwenk, FN. 1997. History and 

overview of the Lower Mississippi 

Delta Nutrition Intervention Research 

Consortium. In G Harrison, ed., 

Lower Mississippi Delta Nutrition 

Intervention Research Consortium. 

Nutrition and Health Status in the 

Lower Mississippi Delta of Arkansas, 

Louisiana, and Mississippi, pp. 1-3. 

Rockville, MD: Westat.

34. Fjeld, CR, and RH Lawson. 1999. 

Forum and Workshop on Food, 

Phytonutrients, and Health. Nutrition 

Reviews 57(9, Part II):S1-S52.

35. Pennington, JAT. 2008. Nutrition 

monitoring in the United States. In 

DC Berdanier, JT Dywer, and EB 

Feldman, eds., Handbook of Nutrition 

and Food, pp. 451-69. 2nd edition. 

Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 

36. Dwyer, JT, K Ellwood, AJ Moshfegh, 

and CL Johnson. 2001. Integration of 

the Continuing Survey of Food Intake 

by Individuals and the National Health 

and Nutrition Examination Survey. J 

Am Diet Assoc 101,1142-3.

37. Dwyer, J, MF Picciano, and DJ 

Raiten. 2003. Future directions for 

the integrated CSFII-NHANES: What 

We Eat in America-NHANES. J Nutr 

133,576S-81S.

38. University of California at Davis. 

c2008. Farm Bill 2008: Title IV—

Nutrition Programs [Internet; cited 

2011 Mar 16]. Available from: http://

fsnep.ucdavis.edu/Enrolled%20

Bill%20Report%20(5-16-08).doc.

39. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service. 2010. 

What We Eat in America, NHANES 

[Internet; cited 2010 Sep 30]. 

Available from: http://www.ars.usda.

gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=13793.

40. ARS Strategic Planning Team. 2007. 

Agricultural Strategic Plan for 2006-

2001 [Internet]. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service; [2007 

Feb; cited 2011 Nov 1]. Available 

from: http://www.ars.usda.gov/

sp2userfiles/place/0000000/

arsstrategicplan2006-2011.pdf.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 263

Expansion of the USDA-ARS Human Nutrition 

Research Program

The idea for a national system of human 

nutrition research centers was conceived 

by William E. Cornatzer, M.D., Ph.D., 

Professor and Head of the Department of 

Biochemistry at the University of North 

Dakota School of Medicine. After visiting 

the USDA-Agricultural Research Service’s 

(ARS) nutrition research laboratories in 

Beltsville, MD, in 1962 as a member of the 

USDA Human Nutrition and Consumer Use 

Research Advisory Committee, Dr. Cornatzer 

voiced his concerns about a need for an 

enhanced program of human nutrition 

research within USDA. In his view, such a 

program would include the establishment 

of a decentralized system of USDA national 

laboratories, one of which he envisioned 

on the campus of the University of North 

Dakota.

Dr. Cornatzer’s efforts proved key to 

establishing a USDA nutrition laboratory in 

Grand Forks. This is indicated by a letter 

to him from U.S. Senator Milton R. Young 

(R-ND) (1), “If it had not been for your 

initiative, this laboratory never would have 

been a reality.” Acknowledging that USDA 

had never expanded its modest program in 

nutrition research at Beltsville, MD, Senator 

Young observed: “There is more need for 

emphasis on nutrition and nutritional 

research now than when they were carrying 

on their campaign for adequate laboratory 

facilities.” In his 1962 written testimony to 

the Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural 

Appropriations, Dr. Cornatzer stated that 

“there is a great need for an expanded 

program of research in Nutrition,” and 

reminded the Subcommittee of USDA’s 

responsibility “for the nutritional wellbeing of our people.” He concluded: “I 

visited the nutritional facilities at Beltsville 

in the summer of 1962 and found them 

in need of additional space, equipment 

and staff . . . . There is a need for a new 

nutritional laboratory.” Dr. Cornatzer 

observed that such a laboratory should be 

located on a university campus, preferably 

one with a medical school. He noted: “The 

medical school staff will have biochemists, 

nutritionists, and physiologists, which 

Chapter 9

History of the Grand Forks 

Human Nutrition Research Center

Forrest H. Nielsen, Harold H. Sandstead, 

and Gerald F. Combs, Jr. 

Forrest H. Nielsen, Ph.D., Research 

Nutritionist, is a Collaborator and former 

Director of USDA-ARS Grand Forks 

Human Nutrition Research Center, 

Grand Forks, ND.

Gerald F. Combs, Jr., Ph.D., is Director of 

USDA-ARS Grand Forks Human Nutrition 

Research Center, Grand Forks, ND.

Harold H. Sandstead, M.D., is Professor 

Emeritus, Division of Human Nutrition, 

Department of Preventive Medicine and 

Community Health, The University of Texas 

Medical Branch, Galveston, TX.
264 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

can aid in the supervision of research and 

contribute to the stimulation of ideas that 

spark creativity.” In his oral testimony, 

Dr. Cornatzer addressed the limitations in 

knowledge concerning human nutrition and 

emphasized the need for a USDA human 

nutrition research laboratory (2).

On September 12, 1963, Senator Young 

presented to the Senate a “Proposed 

Program for Expanded Research in Food 

and Nutrition,” prepared by ARS at his 

request (3). While the ARS authors were 

not identified, the proposal most likely 

was prepared by Edith Weir and/or Callie 

Mae Coons. The proposal was consistent 

with Dr. Cornatzer’s vision. It stated that 

the program would “help meet national 

requirements for food and nutrition research 

during the next three years.” It called for 

$8.92 million for new research facilities, 

including three regional laboratories ($1.9 

million), each with a professional staff of 

15-20 scientists, and a plan to increase the 

total effort, ultimately, to 148 scientists 

and a budget of $9.2 million (including $4 

million for extramural contracts and grants). 

The proposal cited legislative authority 

for such a program as deriving from the 

charge of the Congress in establishing 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture—“to 

acquire and to diffuse among the people 

of the United States useful information 

on subjects connected with agriculture 

in the most general and comprehensive 

sense of that word . . . .” It also cited the 

Research and Marketing Act of 1946, which 

authorized “research into the problems of 

human nutrition and the nutritive value of 

agricultural commodities, with particular 

reference to their content of vitamins, 

minerals, amino and fatty acids, and all 

other constituents that may be found 

necessary for the health of the consumer 

and to gains or losses in nutritive values 

that may take place at any stage in their 

production, distribution, processing, and 

preparation for use by the consumer.”

Origin of the Grand Forks Human Nutrition 

Research Center

William Cornatzer’s vision of a national 

system of USDA human nutrition 

laboratories included one on the campus 

of the University of North Dakota in Grand 

Forks, ND (UND). In fact, the laboratory in 

Grand Forks was the first of these units 

to be established. Its mission arose out of 

several statements in the ARS proposal (3): 

“The role of the so-called minor minerals in 

nutrition requires greater study . . . . This 

research includes investigations relating to—

nutrient requirements of persons at different 

stages and different conditions of life; the 

effects of nutrient balance, environmental 

conditions, and other factors on metabolic 

processes . . . . Special attention will be 

given to nutrients for which data are sparse 

or nonexistent and that recent research 

has demonstrated are important to man. 

Among these nutrients are mineral elements 

important in biological enzyme systems and 

in blood formation.”

While the proposed program was approved 

in 1964, the Congress did not make funds 

available until 1966, when it appropriated 

$50,000 for planning a laboratory at 

Grand Forks. Funds were not available for 

construction until 1968, when $490,000 

was appropriated to ARS for this purpose. 

As this amount was some $92,000 less than 

the low bid for the Grand Forks facility, 

USDA provided the necessary additional 

funds at Senator Young’s behest.

Land for the laboratory was donated to the 

Federal Government by the State of North 

Dakota. The selected parcel was immediately 

adjacent to the campus of the University 

of North Dakota and close to its School of 

Medicine. Planning and construction of the 

original 18,000-square-foot building cost 

about $633,000.

The opening of the new laboratory was 

celebrated in September 1970 with a 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 265

symposium on “Newer Trace Elements in 

Nutrition” (4). This was hosted jointly by the 

ARS Human Nutrition Division and the UND 

School of Medicine. Some 180 scientists 

participated, including such internationally 

recognized trace element researchers as 

Eric Underwood (University of Western 

Australia), Bert Vallee (Harvard University), 

Boyd O’Dell (University of Missouri), Howard 

Ganther (University of Wisconsin), Helen 

Cannon (U.S. Geological Survey), James 

A. Halsted (U.S. Veterans Administration), 

Mattie R. Spivey-Fox (U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration), Klaus Schwarz (National 

Institutes of Health), Walter Mertz (ARS), 

Milton Scott (Cornell University), Mark 

Hegsted (Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology), Paul Weswig (Oregon State 

University), Richard Luecke (Michigan 

State University), Richard Doisy (St. Louis 

University), and Nobel Laureate Edward 

Doisy (St. Louis University).

 

Nutrition Research at Grand Forks: the Early 

Years, 1970-1984

Establishing the laboratory. The new 

laboratory was named the Grand Forks 

Human Nutrition Laboratory and organized 

as a field station of the ARS Human 

Nutrition Research Division in Beltsville, 

MD, which was then directed by Willis A. 

Gortner. The two-floor facility comprised 

seven wet laboratories, a small conference 

room, administrative offices, storage 

and mechanical rooms, with a small 

(7,200 sq ft) clinical research facility located 

on the second floor. The latter consisted 

of eight bedrooms, a communal toilet and 

shower, a treatment room, a nurse’s station, 

a commons/dining area, a kitchen, a 

clinical laboratory, and a number of offices. 

The facility opened with a staff of three: 

Scientist Forrest H. Nielsen, Ph.D., Building 

Maintenance Technician Ben Bailey, and 

Secretary Marguerite Lynch. The unit 

operated with an appropriated budget of 

$290,000. 

Leadership. In 1971, Harold H. Sandstead, 

M.D., a clinical investigator, was named 

Laboratory Director. He would become 

Center Director the next year.

Organizational changes in USDA. In 

1972, the Laboratory was transferred to 

the Dakotas Area, then directed by Claude 

H. Schmidt, Ph.D., as a unit of the North 

Central Region of ARS, which was then 

led by Earl Glover. With the establishment 

of the USDA National Human Nutrition 

Center, directed by D. Mark Hegsted, Ph.D., 

the laboratory was renamed the Grand 

Forks Human Nutrition Research Center 

(GFHNRC). When the USDA National Human 

Nutrition Center was terminated during the 

Reagan Administration, the GFHNRC once 

again became a unit of ARS in what was 

then its Northern States Area. With a later 

reorganization, the GFHNRC became part of 

the agency’s Northern Plains Area. 

Facilities development. During the early 

1970s, the Center’s facilities were improved 

by construction of a human whole-body 

radiometer for in vivo measurement of 

gamma-emitting isotopes (1973), addition 

of an exercise physiology laboratory, and 

enlargements of the clinical research space 

(1975). 

1971

Harold H. Sandstead, 

M.D., was appointed 

Director of the Grand 

Forks Human Nutrition 

Research Center.
266 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Major additions were made to the GFHNRC 

in the late 1970s and 1980s. In the late 

1970s, Senator Mark Andrews (R-ND) 

sponsored legislation that authorized $3.5 

million for construction of a new wing to the 

building. Construction of the addition began 

in 1980, increasing the floor space to about 

77,000 sq ft at a cost of $6.835 million. This 

addition, which was completed in 1983, 

provided two floors of vivarium space (with 

clean/dirty corridor design), conference 

rooms/library, administrative offices, a 

new clinical laboratory, a state-of-the-art 

metabolic kitchen, an enhanced exercise 

physiology laboratory, and a 14-bedroom 

metabolic research unit.

Staffing development. In 1971, a clinical 

investigator, Harold H. Sandstead, M.D., a 

biochemist, Gary W. Evans, Ph.D., and a 

clinical chemist, Kim P. Vo-Khactu, Ph.D., 

were hired. The staff grew with subsequent 

hires: an experimental nutritionist, Leslie 

M. Klevay, M.D., S.D., and a biochemist, 

Gary J. Fosmire, Ph.D., in 1972; an 

immunologist, Robert S. Pekarek, Ph.D., 

a half-time psychologist, Edward Halas, 

Ph.D., and a chemist, Robert A Jacob, Ph.D. 

(replacing Vo-Khactu) in 1974; a chemist, 

Carol J. Hahn, Ph.D., in 1975; a clinical 

investigator, Juan M. Munoz, M.D., in 1976; 

a nutritional biochemist, David B. Milne, 

Ph.D. (replacing Jacob), one fifth-time 

research physicist, Glen I. Lykken, Ph.D., 

and a half-time neuropsychologist, Donald 

M. Tucker, Ph.D., in 1977; a chemist Phyllis 

E. Johnson, Ph.D., a clinical investigator, 

Wesley K. Canfield, M.D., (replacing Munoz), 

and an immunologist, Tim R. Kramer, 

Ph.D., in 1979; and a biochemist, James C. 

Wallwork, Ph.D. (replacing Fosmire) in 1979. 

Staff departures during this period were VoKhactu (1974), Hahn (1976), Jacob (1976), 

Munoz (1977), Pekarek (1977), Fosmire 

(1979), and Evans (1982).

Relationship with University of North 

Dakota. In 1972, the GFHNRC executed 

a Broad Form Cooperative Agreement with 

UND. This agreement enabled UND graduate 

students to perform their research at the 

GFHNRC and UND statistician George 

Logan, M.S., (later LuAnn Johnson, M.S.) 

to provide statistical analytical support to 

GFHNRC scientists. 

Research program. By 1975, the GFHNRC 

research program included six basic science 

units1 and one clinical research unit. The 

basic science units were led as follows: 

Nickel and Other Ultra-Trace Elements—

Nielsen; Copper, Cholesterol and Heart 

Disease—Klevay; Facilitators of Zinc and 

Copper Intestinal Absorption—Evans; Zinc, 

Immunity and Inflammation—Pekarek; 

Zinc and Development and Function 

of the Brain—Sandstead and Fosmire; 

and Cadmium Toxicity—Sandstead and 

Klevay. The clinical research unit was led 

by Sandstead and Klevay. Initially, the 

research focused on the effect of sources 

of dietary fibers and phytate, including 

hard red spring wheat bran, soft white 

wheat bran, durum bran, wheat germ, corn 

bran, soybean hulls, and carrot powder on 

the intestinal absorption of zinc, copper, 

iron, calcium, and magnesium; the dietary 

requirements for zinc, copper, iron, calcium, 

and magnesium; and concentrations of 

serum cholesterol, insulin, and glucose. 

Also measured were the metabolic effects 

of subclinical zinc and copper deficiencies, 

interactions between zinc and copper, 

and the effect of folic acid on intestinal 

absorption of zinc.

Research accomplishments. The GFHNRC 

produced the following significant research 

findings during this era:

• Showed that a modest daily intake (26 

g) of hard red spring wheat (Waldron 

variety) bran decreased serum totaland LDL-cholesterol concentrations and 

increased the rate of glucose clearance 

from the blood of healthy men (5,6)2.

• Showed that zinc deprivation in rats 

during pregnancy and/or lactation 

impairs brain growth and development, 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 267

and results in variety of abnormal 

behaviors in nutritionally rehabilitated 

adult offspring (7-10). This finding 

was background for later studies with 

children showing that zinc is essential 

for cognitive and psychomotor functions 

(11,12).

• Discovered that low iron nutriture 

impairs brain electrophysiology in 

humans (13). 

• Demonstrated that uncomplicated zinc 

deficiency in a human suppressed cellmediated immunity (14), and that zinc 

deficiency is common among patients 

with intestinal malabsorption syndromes 

(15,16).

• Found that zinc treatment of pregnant, 

low-income teenagers nearly eliminated 

the need for respiratory assistance in 

their newborn infants (17).

• Observed that some U.S. diets do not 

provide adequate amounts of copper 

(18,19); this and other research at the 

GFHNRC renewed interest in copper as 

a nutrient of concern for cardiovascular 

health (20-22).

• Discovered that boron in nutritional 

amounts is beneficial for bone formation 

in chicks, suggesting that this element is 

possibly essential for higher animals (23). 

• Showed that low intakes of nickel (24) are 

beneficial for bone formation and lipid 

metabolism in animal models, suggesting 

that this element is possibly essential for 

higher animals.

The GFHNRC developed the following useful 

innovative research tools:

• GRAND (Grand Forks Research 

Analysis of Nutrient Data)—a system for 

evaluating and planning of diets. This 

included the trace element contents of 

more than 3,000 foods, which facilitated 

the development of rotating menus for 

long-term experiments on the GFHNRC 

metabolic unit. 

• A method for determining whole-body 

surface losses of trace elements (25,26). 

This facilitated the determination of 

normal surface losses of copper, zinc, 

and magnesium. 

• A method for the synthesis of chromium 

picolinate (27), which was thought 

to be beneficial in glucose-intolerant 

individuals (28,29). This substance 

became a best-selling nutritional 

supplement.

 

Nutrition Research at Grand Forks: the Middle 

Years, 1984-2001

Funding. Between 1984 and 1990, Senator 

Quentin Burdick (D-ND) was instrumental 

in the GFHNRC budget growing from 

$5.5 million to $8.2 million (figure 1) and 

remaining at nearly that level during the 

1990s. By 2000, the GFHNRC appropriation 

had increased to $8.4 million.

Leadership. In 1984, Leslie Klevay was 

named Acting Center Director, replacing 

Dr. Harold Sandstead, who moved to the 

Human Nutrition Center for Aging at Tufts 

University. In June 1985, the duties of the 

Center Director were transferred from Dr. 

Klevay to Forrest Nielsen, Ph.D. In December 

1986, Dr. Nielsen was appointed Center 

Director. 1986

Forrest Nielsen, Ph.D., 

was appointed Director 

of the Grand Forks 

Human Nutrition 

Research Center.
268 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Facilities. In 1984, an empty west-end shell 

was constructed for future development. 

In 1987, this was incorporated into the 

remodeling of first-floor laboratories. During 

this time, two shared research cores were 

created: a cell culture facility and a mineral 

analysis laboratory. Also in 1984, the 

second floor of the original building was 

remodeled to provide a nurses station and 

kitchen area for community-based studies, 

and a psychological testing suite. In 1986, 

a mainframe computer was acquired. 

By 2000, this system had been rendered 

obsolete by the migration to personal 

computers. In 1995, three parcels of land 

adjacent to the Center were purchased. 

The houses on two of the parcels of land 

were removed to build a parking lot for 

volunteers, handicapped employees, and 

Center vehicles. The remaining house has 

been retained for low-priority storage. 

In April 1997, a devastating flood inundated 

Grand Forks, ND, covering 85 percent of 

the city, forcing an evacuation of the city 

and severely damaging the facility. Flood 

waters destroyed the ground floor and 

basement, most of the scientists’ offices 

and laboratories, and the vivarium. ARS 

considered not rebuilding the facility; 

however, the North Dakota Congressional 

delegation—Representative Earl Pomeroy 

(D-ND), Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), and 

Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND)—strongly 

opposed this action, and funds were 

obtained to repair the damage. The repairs 

took 2 years and involved removing and 

rebuilding the entire basement (including 

Figure 1. History of Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center appropriated funding.

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

net-to-location dollars

inflation-adjusted, 1970 dollars

$ millions

History of Appropriated Funding 

Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center History of Appropriated Funding for GFHNRC
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 269

vivarium) structure, repairing the entire 

first floor, and replacing the HVAC system 

and much of the electrical system. While 

this was being done, most employees were 

dealing with the same kinds of damage to 

their own homes. 

The Center continued to function while the 

facility was being restored. Administrative 

people worked first out of motel rooms and 

then from their homes. People doubled up 

in second-floor laboratories, and mobile 

housing units were leased to serve as animal 

quarters. Finally, after 2 years and at a cost 

of some $6.5 million, the restoration was 

complete. A rededication of the facility was 

held in June 1999. 

In 2000, the Center purchased a custombuilt mobile research laboratory at a cost of 

some $400,000 provided by the Congress 

for that purpose. This unit, the only one of 

its kind, would facilitate nutrition research 

beyond the walls of the Center. 

Staffing development. By 1984, the only 

full-time Federal scientists at the GFHNRC 

were Canfield, P. Johnson, Klevay, Kramer, 

Milne, Nielsen, and Henry C. Lukaski, 

Ph.D. (hired in January). In 1985, two 

University of North Dakota employees 

were hired into Federal scientist positions: 

Psychologist James G. Penland, Ph.D., and 

Biochemist Eric O. Uthus, Ph.D. The Center 

recruited additional scientists: Biochemist 

W. Thomas Johnson, Ph.D., Nutritionist 

Janet (Mahalko) Hunt, Anatomist Curtiss 

D. Hunt, Ph.D., Physiologist Jack T. Saari, 

Ph.D., and Nutritional Biochemist Philip G. 

Reeves, Ph.D., in 1987; Nutritionist John 

W. Finley, Ph.D. (replacing P. Johnson) in 

1992; Nutritionist Cindy Davis, Ph.D., in 

1998; and Molecular Biologist Huawei Zeng, 

Ph.D., and Nutritionist Fariba Roughead, 

Ph.D., in 2001. Departures from the Federal 

senior scientist staff during this period were 

Wallwork (1984), Tucker (1984), Canfield 

(1986), Lykken (1988), Halas (1988), Kramer 

(1989), P. Johnson (1991), and Milne (retired 

1999). In1990, when appropriated funds 

peaked based on inflation, the GFHNRC 

had 42 Federal employees consisting of 12 

scientists, 5 post-doctorates, 14 laboratory 

technicians, 2 nurses, and an administrative 

staff of 9. A Research Support Agreement 

staff of 138 provided nurses, dietary 

technicians, clinical chemists, recruitment 

personnel, and psychologists for metabolic 

unit studies; service personnel for the 

vivarium, data processing, custodial duties, 

and building maintenance; and students 

(25 part-time) serving as chaperones for 

metabolic unit studies and/or helping in 

research laboratories. 

Relationship with the University of North 

Dakota. In 1985, the Center was directed 

to replace the Broad Form Cooperative 

Agreement (BFCA) with the University of 

North Dakota with a contract for personnel 

services by using A-76 contracting 

guidelines. This contract was not completed 

before the Center was directed to replace the 

BFCA with a newly authorized instrument, 

a Research Support Agreement (RSA). This 

affected some 130 full-time employees and 

30 part-time students then employed by 

UND in support positions (nurses, dietary 

technicians, chaperones, clinical chemists, 

recruitment personnel, psychologists, 

animal care, data processing, custodial 

work, and building maintenance). The 

transition was made in such a way that 

most UND employees continued in their 

positions at the GFHNRC. However, 17 

positions were deemed unsuitable for the 

RSA, and those employees were given 

Federal positions. The following year, the 

Center executed a second agreement with 

the UND School of Medicine to provide 

medical services for human studies. 

Research program. By 1985, the Center’s 

work units had expanded to 30, although 

they were implemented by only 7 scientists. 

Thus, with the help of ARS Human Nutrition 

National Program Leader Gerald F. Combs, 

Sr., Ph.D., these were collapsed into 11 
270 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

projects arrayed in 2 management units. 

Dr. Klevay was appointed Research Leader 

of the Human Subjects Research Unit, and 

Dr. P. Johnson was appointed Research 

Leader of the Animal Models Research Unit. 

The names of these management units were 

later changed to “Clinical Nutrition” and 

then “Mineral Nutrient Requirements” and 

“Nutrition, Biochemistry and Metabolism” 

and then “Mineral Nutrient Functions,” 

respectively.

With this reorganization, a formal mission 

statement was adopted: “To plan, develop, 

and implement research that is designed 

to produce new knowledge about human 

nutrient requirements with emphasis on 

minerals.” In 2000, the mission statement 

was changed: “To serve the public through 

research to determine nutrient needs 

for humans and to provide information 

concerning healthy food choices and a 

healthful food supply, with emphasis on 

determining mineral requirements that 

prevent disease and promote health and 

optimal function throughout life.” 

The availability of the new metabolic 

research unit in 1985 enlarged and 

improved the facilities to conduct tightly 

controlled human feeding studies, including 

metabolic balance trials for trace elements. 

The new community studies kitchen and 

dining area advanced tightly controlled 

feeding studies with participants not 

residing in the metabolic unit. 

Between 1985 and 2001, unique human 

studies that followed long-term, controlled 

feeding/metabolic balance designs were 

conducted at the GFHNRC. Participants 

typically spent 6 months under carefully 

controlled conditions in the metabolic 

research unit where they remained under 

close supervision and were chaperoned 

when outside the unit. They were trained 

to consume only those foods and beverages 

provided by dietary staff, who could 

assess compliance by performing weighbacks. Experimental diets were based on 

common, Western-type foods and were 

usually presented in a 3-day rotating 

menu cycle to provide some variety while 

being relatively consistent in nutrient 

composition. Participants’ body weights 

were maintained within ±2% of their 

respective starting weight through the use 

of individualized dietary formulations and 

exercise prescriptions that were adjusted as 

necessary. 

Research accomplishments. Research 

accomplished at the GFHNRC during 1984-

2001 was among the primary data used 

by the Food and Nutrition Board of the 

Institute of Medicine to establish the Dietary 

Reference Intakes (DRIs). The sections 

on trace elements cited more than 50 

GFHNRC publications (30). In addition, the 

Center’s metabolic balance studies (31) were 

instrumental in the setting of Recommended 

Dietary Allowances (RDA) for calcium in 

2010 (32), and suggesting a new RDA for 

magnesium (33). GFHNRC studies of human 

trace element absorption/retention were key 

to establishing DRIs for zinc (34-37), iron 

(38,39), and manganese (40-42).

Other significant research findings 

included—

• That boron may be beneficial for 

humans. Supplementation of a lowboron diet with an amount of boron 

commonly found in diets high in fruits 

and vegetables induced changes in 

postmenopausal women consistent with 

improved bone health and cognitive 

function (43-48). Boron supplementation 

modified concentrations of calcium 

metabolism hormones calcitonin and 

25-OH-vitamin D3 in serum, and 

enhanced the response to estrogen 

therapy in postmenopausal women. 

Boron supplementation improved 

mental alertness, improved motor speed 

and dexterity, and improved cognitive 

processes of attention and short-term 

memory in older men and women 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 271

(47,48). These findings were cited by the 

World Health Organization in setting a 

suggested safe and adequate intake for 

boron (49). 

• That magnesium deprivation of 

postmenopausal women can produce 

electroencephalographic changes 

indicative of central nervous system 

hyper-excitability (47), heart rhythm 

abnormalities (50), energy inefficiency 

(51), and increased calcium retention 

(52). 

• That a high intake of zinc (53 mg/d) can 

depress magnesium balance, apparently 

inducing undesirable changes in bone 

turnover markers in postmenopausal 

women (53). 

• That combined marginal intakes 

of zinc and copper induced heart 

rhythm abnormalities, increased 

serum cholesterol, and induced 

changes in oxidative stress markers 

indicating increased oxidative stress in 

postmenopausal women (54,55). These 

findings suggested that low zinc intake 

may increase the dietary need for copper, 

as has been shown for high-zinc intakes. 

• That the supplement chromium 

picolinate is ineffective in promoting 

weight loss and increasing strength 

(56,57).

• That cadmium is very poorly bioavailable 

from sunflower seeds. Consumption 

of sunflower seeds relatively high in 

cadmium at a rate of 3-4 times normal 

for 48 weeks showed no measurable 

signs of toxicity and no significant 

uptake of the element as evidenced by 

cadmium levels of urine, erythrocytes, 

or hair (58-61). These findings informed 

a pending decision potentially affecting 

the importation of U.S. confectionary 

sunflowers into the European Union, 

allaying health concerns and, in effect, 

keeping that market open for U.S. 

producers. It was said that this research 

saved the sunflower industry in the 

Northern Plains.

• That deprivation of nickel can affect the 

utilization of vitamin B12 (62), reduced 

sperm quantity and movement (63), 

exacerbated the response to a high salt 

intake (64), and impaired bone strength 

(65) in rats.

• That deprivation of arsenic can 

affect single-carbon metabolism (66) 

in rats and chicks and cause DNA 

hypomethylation (67,68), which is 

associated with an increased risk of 

cancer in rats. 

• That exposure to diets modestly 

low in silicon can be beneficial for 

collagen formation and trabecular bone 

composition in the rat (69,70). These 

findings contributed to stimulating 

others to correlate increased silicon 

intakes with preventing bone loss in 

humans that could result in osteoporosis 

(71). Other findings suggested that 

silicon can enhance wound healing (72) 

and may be anti-inflammatory (73,74). 

• That boron can promote bone growth, 

strength, and maintenance (75-78), 

and the inflammatory response (79); 

that these effects may involve affects 

on S-adenosylmethionine utilization/

formation (80,81). 

• That selenium is an effective anticarcinogen agent. Selenium was 

found effective in the prevention of 

chemically induced aberrant colonic 

crypt (preneoplastic) foci (82,83), in 

the prevention of chemically induced 

cancers of the colon (84) and mammary 

gland (85), and in the prevention of 

spontaneous intestinal cancer in a highrisk, genetic mouse model (86). Highselenium broccoli and processed highselenium wheat products were notably 

effective in protecting against colon 

cancer (87). These protective effects 

were associated with selenium inhibition 

of carcinogen-induced DNA-adducts 

formation (87).

• That suboptimal dietary copper, 

manganese, or iron can increase 

susceptibility to chemically induced 
272 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

colon cancer (89,90), and that copper 

deprivation can increase colonic 

tumorigenesis in a high-risk mouse 

genetic model (91). 

• That copper-deficient animals are 

vulnerable to oxidative stress (92,93), 

and that rodents fed a high-sucrose diet 

marginally restricted in copper exhibit 

cardiomyopathy (94) reversible by copper 

supplementation (95).

Innovative research tools developed 

included—

• Computer-based systems for assessing 

a large number of cognitive processes 

and psychomotor skills in adults and 

children. These tests were instrumental 

in showing that zinc supplementation 

could improve cognitive function in 

children consuming low-zinc diets 

(11,12,96). 

• A sensitive and accurate method for 

the determination of boron and other 

trace elements in low concentrations 

in biological samples (97). This method 

has been used to determine the boron 

content of a large number of foods (98); 

these determinations are a major source 

of data for the boron contents of foods. 

• Bioelectrical impedance established for 

the determination of body composition 

(99-106). 

• AIN-93 Rodent Diet—the standard diet 

used in virtually all nutritional studies 

with rodents today (107-109).

• Techniques developed for the state-ofthe-art human whole-body radiometer 

were used to determine the metabolism 

of several minerals, including zinc and 

iron (34,37,39).

 

Nutrition Research at Grand Forks: the 

Recent Years, 2001-2012

Budget. By 2001, the GFHNRC appropriated 

budget was $8.4 million. Through the 

efforts of the North Dakota Congressional 

delegation, the budget increased 

incrementally to $8.8 million in 2005, to 

$9.0 million in 2006, and to $9.2 million in 

2007. 

Leadership. In 2001, Dr. Nielsen stepped 

down as Center Director. For 2 years, he 

was replaced with a series of ARS scientists 

each detailed to serve on an “acting” basis: 

Dr. Robert Jacob, Dr. Wayne Wolf, and 

Dr. Henry Lukaski. In January 2002, that 

position was filled by Gerald F. Combs, 

Jr., Ph.D., a professor in the Division of 

Nutritional Sciences at Cornell University 

who served through an Interagency 

Personnel Agreement between ARS and 

Cornell University. In December 2004, Dr. 

Combs became the first appointment to 

the new Senior Scientific Research Service, 

which had been authorized by the Farm 

Bill of that year. He has continued to serve 

in that capacity as Center Director through 

the time of this writing. In 2004, Dr. Henry 

Lukaski was designated as Assistant Center 

Director, serving in that capacity until his 

retirement in 2009.

Facilities. During 2003-2004, 6,000 sq ft 

of space on the second floor was remodeled 

at a cost of some $700,000 to add a multiuser laboratory and offices for scientists. In 

the same year, the Center’s outside-access 2002

Gerald Combs, Jr., was 

appointed Director of 

the Grand Forks Human 

Nutrition Research 

Center. In December 

2004, he became the 

first appointment to the 

new Senior Scientific 

Research Service.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 273

smoking room was closed, later to be offered 

for employee daytime bicycle storage. In 

2006, a Human Performance Core was 

created by remodeling existing space and 

consolidating body composition and other 

human performance instrumentation. In 

2008, a new rear entrance was added to 

facilitate volunteer access to the lobby from 

the rear parking lot. Major improvements 

in the Center’s HVAC, windows, lighting, 

and roofing were made 2009-2011. In 2011, 

the Cell Culture Core was expanded, a dark 

room was remodeled to serve as a centrifuge 

room, and the former psychology testing 

area (second floor) was remodeled into a 

Behavioral Laboratory Suite consisting 

of three monitored eating laboratories, 

two monitored multi-purpose activity 

laboratories, and two control rooms. 

Major instrumentation purchased during 

this period included nuclear magnetic 

resonance imager for the live assessment 

of body composition of small rodents; 

inductively coupled plasma emission mass 

spectrometer in tandem with a liquid 

chromatograph (LC-ICP-MS); isotope ratio 

mass spectrometer (IRMS); ion-trap, time-offlight mass spectrometer in tandem with a 

liquid chromatograph (LC-IT-ToF); low-angle 

X-ray fluorescence spectrometer; automated 

nucleic acid processor; automated clinical 

chemistry analyzer; dual-energy X-ray 

whole-body scanner; plethysmograph; echo 

sonograph; Endopat vascular flow monitor; 

flow cytometer; Seahorse extracellular flux 

analyzer; micro-computed of tomography 

(μCT) scanner for analysis of rodent bone 

microarchitecture; multi-sizer adipocytescounting flow cytometer; microarray reader; 

cavity ring-down spectrophotometer; Raman 

effect laser scanner; infrared imaging 

system; and pyrosequencer. 

Staffing. In 2004, Jack Saari, Ph.D., 

and Janet Hunt, Ph.D., were appointed 

Research Leaders of the Center’s research 

management units (MUs), which had been 

renamed “Nutritional Determinants of 

Health” and “Micronutrient Absorption and 

Metabolism,” respectively. Scientists hired 

during this period included Community 

Nutritionist Sarah E. Colby, Ph.D., and 

Clinical Investigator Wesley K. Canfield3, 

M.D., in 2005; Molecular Biologist Jay 

J. Cao, Ph.D. (replacing Davis) in 2006; 

Nutritional Biochemist Lin Yan, Ph.D., in 

2007; Epidemiologist Lisa A. Jahns, R.D., 

Ph.D. (replacing Colby), Biochemist Matthew 

J. Picklo, Ph.D. (replacing Klevay) in 2008; 

Exercise Physiologist Pedro Del Corral, 

M.D., Ph.D. (replacing Finley), Clinical 

Nutritionist Susan K. Raatz, R.D., Ph.D. 

(replacing Penland), and Nutritionist Leah 

D. Whigham, Ph.D. (replacing Lukaski) 

in 2009; Nutritional Immunologist Kate 

J. Claycombe, Ph.D. (replacing Reeves) in 

2010; and Exercise Physiologist James 

N. Roemmich, Ph.D. (replacing J. Hunt) 

in 2011. Departures from the senior 

scientist staff during this era were Davis 

(2002), Klevay (retired 2004), Finley (2005), 

Roughead (2005), Saari (retired 2006), 

Colby (2007), Reeves (retired 2007), Penland 

(retired 2007), J. Hunt (retired 2008), C. 

Hunt (retired 2008), Lukaski (retired 2008), 

Canfield (2009), Del Corral (2010), W.T. 

Johnson (retired 2010), and Nielsen (retired 

2011). By early 2012, the GFHNRC had a 

total of 95 full-time employees, including 

11 senior scientists, 2 retired scientists 

active through cooperative agreements (W.T. 

Johnson and Nielsen), and 4 open scientist 

positions. 

Research Program. In 2002, the Center 

reorganized its research work units based on 

scientist teams. This resulted in collapsing 

the 11 units into 5 based on 3 programmatic 

pillars: obesity prevention, nutrients and 

other bioactive factors in foods, and mineral 

nutrition and metabolism. This plan was 

followed when Center scientists wrote their 

first Research Proposals for the newly 

implemented process of external review 

through the ARS Office of Scientific Quality 

Review (OSQR). 
274 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

In 2006, the Center held a retreat of the 

senior scientists to discuss how to enhance 

the quality and relevance of the Center’s 

research program. An outcome from those 

discussions was the adoption of “Food 

Factors and Health” as an organizational 

theme, with the mission statement “A 

leading nutrition research center providing 

trustworthy information about healthy 

choices of diet and physical activity.” 

In 2009, ARS directed the GFHNRC to 

pursue a program comprised of research 

addressing the prevention of obesity 

prevention and related disorders. The Center 

responded by developing a new array of 

five projects in two management units: 

the Healthy Body Weight Research Unit 

(projects—“Dietary Guideline Adherence 

and Maintenance of Healthy Body Weight,” 

and “Biology of Obesity”) ultimately led 

by Dr. Roemmich, Research Leader, and 

the Dietary Prevention of Obesity-Related 

Disease Research Unit (projects—“Roles of 

Food Factors in Preventing Obesity-Related 

Disease,” “Dietary Prevention of Cancer,” 

and “Obesity and Bone Health”) led by Dr. 

Picklo, Research Leader. These projects 

received the highest OSQR evaluations the 

Center has received to date. 

Proposed closure. In February 2008, the 

Bush Administration proposed the closure 

of the GFHNRC. That proposal called for 

moving about half of GFHNRC employees to 

the ARS Western Human Nutrition Research 

Center on the campus of the University 

of California, Davis, and half to the ARS 

Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, 

Beltsville, MD. Then-Secretary of Agriculture 

Ed Schafer testified before the Senate 

Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee 

that these moves would cost taxpayers 

only $500,000. However, the UND School 

of Business and Public Administration 

determined that the cost of closure and 

proposed relocation of employees would 

exceed $40 million. This latter cost analysis 

contributed to the efforts of North Dakota 

Senator Byron Dorgan and Representative 

Earl Pomeroy and Connecticut 

Representative Rosa Delauro (D-CT) that 

ensured the continuation of the GFHNRC in 

Grand Forks. The continuation was specified 

in legislation passed into law in fall of 2008, 

which also provided a $1 million increase in 

base funding for the Center.

The nearly year-long period of uncertainty, 

followed by the marked change in mission, 

led to remarkably few resignations or 

retirements of Center staff. Still, this period 

saw the retirements of Drs. Lukaski, J. 

Hunt, and C. Hunt in 2008, and W.T. 

Johnson in 2010. 

Relationship with UND. In 2002, the 

Center was directed to reduce the scope 

of the Research Support Agreement (RSA), 

which by then was supporting some 65 

UND support employees at the GFHNRC. 

Accordingly, a Specific Cooperative 

Agreement (SCA) was executed between ARS 

and UND in 2004; this agreement supported 

some 40 UND employees who provided 

support for the Center’s human studies. 

At the same time, the RSA was reduced to 

support only those UND employees who 

provided animal care and facilities support. 

In 2009, the SCA was replaced with an 

Assistance-Type Cooperative Agreement, 

which did not require UND to provide 

partial matching funds, and a smaller SCA 

was executed between ARS and the UND 

School of Medicine and Health Sciences to 

collaborate in conducting clinical research 

and provide medical oversight for GFHNRC 

human studies.

Community relationships. In 2005, 

the Center led ARS into establishing a 

summer internship program for Native 

American students through collaborative 

agreements with United Tribes Technical 

College, Bismarck, ND, and the University 

of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. During 2005-2010, 

that program provided valuable learning 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 275

experience for 38 bright students at 5 

ARS locations, half of which were at the 

GFHNRC.

In 2008, the Center executed a Specific 

Cooperative Agreement with the Grand 

Forks Park District to facilitate collaborative, 

community-based studies related to healthy 

body weight. This included establishing 

a GFHNRC presence in a 167,000-sqft community health and fitness center 

scheduled to open in September 2012. 

This is the first Federal-local partnership 

dedicated to community-based human 

experimentation.

Research accomplishments. Significant 

accomplishments during this era included 

the following findings:

• That high-meat-protein diets do not 

promote calcium losses in women at 

risk to osteoporosis (110). High-meat 

diets were found to enhance calcium net 

utilization particularly from low-calcium 

diets. These findings refuted the popular 

understanding that high-protein intakes 

might contribute to osteoporosis by 

increasing calcium loss.

• That high-protein diets support the upregulation of protein synthesis to mitigate 

the otherwise inevitable loss of lean body 

mass during periods of energy deficit 

in exercising humans (111). This came 

from a study done in collaboration with 

the U.S. Army Institute for Research in 

Environmental Medicine. 

• That subclinical magnesium status, 

which appears to be prevalent, has proinflammatory effects (112). 

• That current copper recommendations for 

humans are insufficient to accommodate 

losses of that nutrient associated with 

moderate exercise (113,114).

• That humans can compensate for 

low intakes of zinc by increasing the 

fractional absorption of that nutrient 

(115,116), and that this compensation 

can be blocked by dietary phytate (117). 

• That zinc supplementation may 

be beneficial to bone health in 

postmenopausal women consuming less 

than the RDA for that nutrient (118). This 

study also suggested that relatively low 

intakes of magnesium may compromise 

indicators of bone health.

• That prolonged physical exertion does 

not produce physiologically significant 

losses of zinc, iron, calcium, magnesium, 

or phosphorus via sweat because loss of 

these elements in sweat declines as the 

exertion progresses (113,114). 

• That supplementation of cancerpreventive doses of selenium to nondeficient adults produces increases 

only in non-specific fraction of plasma 

selenium, and that glutathione 

peroxidase (intracellular) genotype is 

a useful predictor of plasma selenium 

concentration and selenium balance 

(119).

• That the selenium metabolite, 

methyselenol, inhibits secondary 

carcinogenesis, as assessed in an animal 

model by the migration and invasion of 

transplanted tumor cells (120).

• That increased adiposity induced by a 

high-fat diet can reduce bone volume 

(121,122). This finding indicates that 

increased weight in obesity resulting in 

an increase load on bones (stimulates 

bone formation) may not prevent bone 

loss leading to osteoporosis. An obese 

mouse model also was used for the 

discovery that adipose protein redox 

status is altered in obesity (123).

• That perinatal copper deprivation can 

increase the expression of fibulin-5 

and reduce the expression of a specific, 

nuclear encoded subunit of cytochrome 

c oxidase in the fetus, which results in 

impaired cardiac function in offspring 

(124). Evidence for cardiac impaired 

function and increased oxidative stress 

was shown by adult offspring of copperdeficient dams; they exhibited decreased 

cytochrome c oxidase activity, increased 

mitochondrial hydrogen peroxide 

generation, and enhanced formation 
276 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

of intracellular residual bodies in their 

hearts (125). Maternal copper deprivation 

also impaired vascular function in 

offspring (126).

• That a low-protein diet for dams can 

change the expression of genes in pups, 

such that they develop more and larger 

fat cells and become obese (127).

• That impaired methylation, which 

occurs in obesity-related conditions, 

reduces expression of the major selenium 

transporter, selenoprotein P (128). 

• That copper deficiency reduces iron 

absorption and retention (129).

• That elemental iron powders are 50-

85% as bioavailable as ferrous sulfate 

(130,131). 

• That the anemia produced by the 

deprivation of copper reduces expression 

of the iron metabolism regulatory 

molecule hephaestin in the rat (132,133). 

Innovative research tools were developed, 

including— 

• A method to sample transcellular/

interstitial fluids and regional sweat 

(114,134).

• Robust animal models of secondary 

carcinogenesis. These models involve 

the implantation of cultured malignant 

melanoma cells, which ultimately 

metastasize to the lung (120).

Summary

The human nutrition program that 

became the GFHNRC was envisioned in 

the early 1960s by University of North 

Dakota biochemist William Cornatzer. Dr. 

Cornatzer’s vision was picked up by U.S. 

Senator Milton R. Young, whose efforts 

led to a self-study by ARS of human 

nutrition research needs and, ultimately, 

to the founding of the Grand Forks Human 

Nutrition Laboratory in 1970. The facility, 

renamed the “Grand Forks Human Nutrition 

Research Center” in 1972, became the 

prototype for the subsequent founding of five 

additional USDA Human Nutrition Centers 

comprising what became a robust national 

program of human nutrition research.

Over its 42 years of operation, GFHNRC 

has contributed significantly to scientific 

knowledge in human nutrition. Since 

1971, over 1,700 scientific articles have 

been published by Center scientists. The 

Center became an international leader 

in conducting metabolic studies of trace 

elements in healthy volunteers; those 

studies produced key information that 

was used in establishing Dietary Reference 

Intakes (DRIs). The Center also pioneered in 

researching the nutritional roles of bioactive 

trace elements and so-called “ultra-trace 

elements,” for which nutritional essentiality 

was not clear. 

The redirection of the GFHRNC program 

to research addressing the prevention of 

obesity and related disorders represents 

a huge frame shift in the deployment of 

facilities and expertise. It presents the 

GFHNRC with the challenge to develop 

preeminence in this area comparable to 

that which it enjoyed in researching trace 

elements.

Acknowledgments 

We thank Gerald F. Combs, Sr., Patricia 

Swan, and Donna Porter for sharing copies 

of relevant documents.

Author Contributions

Forrest Nielsen edited the Introduction and 

wrote Sections II-IV; Harold Sandstead wrote 

the Introduction and contributed material 

to Section II; Gerald Combs, Jr., edited the 

entire chapter and contributed material to 

Section IV.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 277

Notes

1. In ARS parlance, these were Current 

Research Information System (CRIS) 

work units. 

2. This finding appears to have prompted 

Mary Andrews, the wife of U.S. Senator 

Mark Andrews, to include Waldron 

hard red spring wheat bran in her 

homemade muffins. When her serum 

cholesterol level was found to have 

dropped, the Senator is said to have 

shared the wheat bran with several 

of his colleagues whose similarly 

favorable responses are said to have 

been instrumental in convincing the 

North Dakota Congressional delegation 

to promote human nutrition research 

in North Dakota.

3. Dr. Canfield had served on the 

GFHNRC scientific staff in 1979-1981.
278 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

References

1. Young, M. 1970. Letter to Cornatzer. 

Washington, DC: United States 

Senate. 1 p.

2. Cornatzer, W. 1962. Agricultural 

Appropriations for 1963: Laboratory 

for Nutrition Research. Subcommittee 

of the Committee on Appropriations. 

2nd edition, pp. 1028-1030. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office.

3. Young, M. 1963. Proposed Program 

for Expanded Research in Food and 

Nutrition, pp. 1028-1031. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

4. Mertz, W, and WE Cornatzer, eds. 

1971. Newer Trace Elements in 

Nutrition. New York: NY: Marcel 

Dekker. 438 p.

5. Munoz, JM, HH Sandstead, RA Jacob, 

et al. 1979. Effects of some cereal 

brans and textured vegetable protein 

on plasma lipids. Am J Clin Nutr 

32:580-92.

6. Munoz, JM, HH Sandstead, and RA 

Jacob. 1979. Effects of dietary fiber 

on glucose tolerance of normal men. 

Diabetes 28:496-502.

7. Halas, ES, and HH Sandstead. 

1975. Some effects of prenatal zinc 

deficiency on behavior of the adult rat. 

Pediatr Res 9: 94-7.

8. Sandstead, HH, GJ Fosmire, JM 

McKenzie, and ES Halas. 1975. Zinc 

deficiency and brain development in 

the rat. Fed Proc 34:86-8.

9. Sandstead, HH, GJ Fosmire, ES 

Halas, et al. 1977. Zinc deficiency: 

effects on brain and behavior of rats 

and rhesus monkeys. Teratology 

16:229-34.

10. Sandstead, HH, DA Strobel, GM 

Logan, Jr., et al. 1978. Zinc deficiency 

in pregnant rhesus monkeys: effects 

on behavior of infants. Am J Clin Nutr 

31:844-9.

11. Penland, JG, HH Sandstead, NW 

Alcock, et al. 1997. A preliminary 

report: effects of zinc and 

micronutrient repletion on growth and 

neurophsychological function of urban 

Chinese children. J Am Coll Nutr 

16:268-72.

12. Sandstead, HH, JG Penland, NW 

Alcock, et al. 1998. Effects of repletion 

with zinc and other micronutrients on 

neuropsychologic performance and 

growth of Chinese children. Am J Clin 

Nutr 68:470S-5S.

13. Tucker, DM, HH Sandstead, JG 

Penland, et al. 1982. Iron status 

and brain function: serum ferritin 

levels associated with asymmetries 

of cortical electrophysiology and 

cognitive performance. Am J Clin Nutr 

39:105-13.

14. Pekarek, RS, HH Sandstead, RA 

Jacob, and DF Barcome. 1979. 

Abnormal cellular immune responses 

during acquired zinc deficiency. Am J 

Clin Nutr. 32:1466-71.

15. Solomons, NW, IH Rosenberg, and HH 

Sandstead. 1976. Zinc nutrition in 

celiac sprue. Am J Clin Nutr 29:371-

75.

16. Solomons, NW, IH Rosenberg, HH 

Sandstead, and KP Vo-Khactu. 1977. 

Zinc deficiency in Crohn’s disease. 

Digestion 16:87-95.

17. Cherry, FF, HH Sandstead, P Rojas, 

et al. 1989. Adolescent pregnancy: 

associations among body weight, zinc 

nutriture, and pregnancy outcomes. 

Am J Clin Nutr 50:945-54.

18. Klevay, LM. 1974. An association 

between the amount of fat and the 

ratio of zinc to copper in 71 foods: 

inferences about the epidemiology 

of coronary heart disease. Nutr Rep 

Internat 9:393-9.

19. Klevay, LM. 1979. Diets deficient in 

copper and zinc? Med Hypotheses. 

5:1323-6.

20. Allen, KGD, and LM Klevay. 1978. 

Cholesterolemia and cardiovascular 

abnormalities in rats caused by 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 279

copper deficiency. Atherosclerosis 29: 

81-93.

21. Klevay, LM. 1980. The influence of 

copper and zinc on the occurrence 

of ischemic heart disease. J Environ 

Pathol Toxicol 4:281-7.

22. Klevay, LM, L Inman, LK Johnson, 

et al. 1984. Increased cholesterol 

in plasma in a young man during 

experimental copper depletion. 

Metabolism 33:1112-8.

23. Hunt, CD, and FH Nielsen. 1981. 

Interaction between boron and 

cholecalciferol in the chick. In J 

McHowell, JM Gawthorne, and 

CL White, eds., Trace Element 

Metabolism in Man and Animals-IV, 

pp. 593-596. Canberra, Australia: 

Australian Academy of Science. 

24. Nielsen FH, and DA Ollerich. 1974. 

Nickel: a new essential element. Fed 

Proc 33:1767-72.

25. Jacob, RA, HH Sandstead, JM Munoz, 

et al. 1981. Whole body surface loss 

of trace metals in normal males. Am J 

Clin Nutr 34:1379-83.

26. Milne, DB, WK Canfield, JR Mahalko, 

and HH Sandstead. 1983. Effect of 

dietary zinc on whole body surface 

loss of zinc: impact on estimation of 

zinc retention by balance method. Am 

J Clin Nutr 38:181-6.

27 Evans, GW, inventor. The United 

States of America as represented by 

the Secretary of Agriculture, assignee. 

Dietary supplementation with 

essential metal picolinates. United 

States patent US 4,315,927. 1982 Feb 

16. 

28. Anderson, RA, N Cheng, NA Bryden, 

et al. 1997. Elevated intakes of 

supplemental chromium improve 

glucose and insulin variables in 

individuals with type 2 diabetes. 

Diabetes 46:1786-91.

29. Cefalu, WT, J Rood, P Pinsonat, et 

al. 2010. Characterization of the 

metabolic and physiologic response 

to chromium supplementation in 

subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus. 

Metab Clin Exp 59:755-62.

30. Food and Nutrition Board, Institute 

of Medicine. 2001. Dietary Reference 

Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin 

K, Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, 

Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, 

Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, 

Vanadium, and Zinc. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 773 p.

31. Hunt, CD, and LK Johnson. 

2007. Calcium requirements: new 

estimations for men and women by 

cross-sectional statistical analyses of 

calcium balance data from metabolic 

studies. Am J Clin Nutr 86:1054-63. 

32. Ross, AC, CL Taylor, AL Yaktine, and 

HB Del Valle, eds. 2011. Institute 

of Medicine. Dietary Reference 

Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D. 

Washington, DC: National Academies 

Press. 1132 p.

33. Hunt, CD, and LK Johnson. 2006. 

Magnesium requirements: new 

estimations for men and women by 

cross-sectional statistical analyses of 

metabolic magnesium balance data. 

Am J Clin Nutr 84:843-52. 

34. Hunt, JR, LK Mullen, and GI 

Lykken. 1992. Zinc retention from 

an experimental diet based on the 

US FDA Total Diet Study. Nutr Res 

12:1335-44.

35. Johnson, PE, CD Hunt, DB Milne, and 

LK Mullen. 1993. Homeostatic control 

of zinc metabolism in men: zinc 

excretion and balance in men fed diets 

low in zinc. Am J Clin Nutr 57:557-65.

36. Hunt, JR, SK Gallagher, LK Johnson, 

and GI Lykken. 1995. High- versus 

low-meat diets. Effects on zinc 

absorption, iron status, and calcium 

copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, 

nitrogen, phosphorus, and zinc 

balance in postmenopausal women. 

Am J Clin Nutr 62:621-32.

37. Hunt, JR, LA Matthys, and LK 

Johnson. 1998. Zinc absorption, 

mineral balance, and blood lipids 
280 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

in women consuming controlled 

lactoovovegetarian and omnivorous 

diets for 8 weeks. Am J Clin Nutr 

67:421-30.

38. Hunt, JR, LM Mullen, GI Lykken, 

et al. 1990. Ascorbic acid: effect on 

ongoing iron absorption and status 

in iron-depleted young women. Am J 

Clin Nutr 51:649-55.

39. Hunt, JR, and ZK Roughead. 1999. 

Nonheme-iron absorption, fecal 

ferritin excretion, and blood indexes 

of iron status in women consuming 

controlled lactoovovegetarian diets for 

8 weeks. Am J Clin Nutr 69:944-52.

40. Johnson, PE, and GI Lykken. 1991. 

Manganese and calcium absorption 

and balance in young women fed diets 

with varying amounts of manganese 

and calcium. J Trace Elem Exp Med 

4:19-35.

41. Finley, JW, PE Johnson, and 

LK Johnson. 1994. Sex affects 

manganese absorption and retention 

by humans from a diet adequate in 

manganese. Am J Clin Nutr 60:949-

55.

42. Finley, JW. 1999. Manganese 

absorption and retention by young 

women is associated with serum 

ferritin concentration. Am J Clin Nutr 

70:37-43.

43. Nielsen, FH, CD Hunt, LM Mullen, and 

JR Hunt. 1987. Effect of dietary boron 

on mineral, estrogen, and testosterone 

metabolism in postmenopausal 

women. FASEB J 1:394-7.

44. Nielsen, FH, LM Mullen, and SK 

Gallagher. 1990. Effect of boron 

depletion and repletion on blood 

indicators of calcium status in 

humans fed a magnesium-low diet. J 

Trace Elem Exp Med 3:45-54. 

45. Nielsen, FH, SK Gallagher, LK 

Johnson, and EJ Nielsen. 1992. Boron 

enhances and mimics some effects of 

estrogen therapy in postmenopausal 

women. J Trace Elem Exp Med 5:237-

46.

46. Nielsen, FH. 1994. Biochemical and 

physiologic consequences of boron 

deprivation in humans. Environ 

Health Perspect 102 Suppl 7:59-63.

47. Penland, JG. 1995. Quantitative 

analysis of EEG effects following 

experimental marginal magnesium 

and boron deprivation. Magnes Res 

8:341-58.

48. Penland, JG. 1998. The importance 

of boron nutrition for brain and 

psychological function. Biol Trace 

Elem Res 66:299-317.

49. World Health Organization. 1996. 

Boron. In Trace Elements in Human 

Nutrition and Health, pp. 175-179. 

Geneva, Switzerland: World Health 

Organization.

50. Nielsen, FH, DB Milne, LM Klevay, 

et al. 2007. Dietary magnesium 

deficiency induces heart rhythm 

changes, impairs glucose tolerance, 

and decreases serum cholesterol in 

post menopausal women. J Am Coll 

Nutr 26:121-32.

51. Lukaski, HC, and FH Nielsen. 

2002. Dietary magnesium depletion 

affects metabolic responses 

during submaximal exercise in 

postmenopausal women. J Nutr 

132:930-5.

52. Nielsen, FH. 2004. The alteration of 

magnesium, calcium and phosphorus 

metabolism by dietary magnesium 

deprivation in postmenopausal women 

is not affected by dietary boron. 

Magnes Res 17:197-210.

53. Nielsen, FH, and DB Milne. 2004. 

A moderately high intake compared 

to a low intake of zinc depresses 

magnesium balance and alters indices 

of bone turnover in postmenopausal 

women. Eur J Clin Nutr 58:703-10.

54. Davis, CD, DB Milne, and FH Nielsen. 

2000. Changes in dietary zinc and 

copper affect zinc-status indicators 

of postmenopausal women, notably, 

extracellular superoxide dismutase 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 281

and amyloid precursor proteins. Am J 

Clin Nutr 71:781-8.

55. Milne, DB, CD Davis, and FH Nielsen. 

2001. Low dietary zinc alters indices 

of copper function and status in 

postmenopausal women. Nutrition 

7:701-8.

56. Lukaski, HC, WW Bolonchuk, 

WA Siders, and DB Milne. 1996. 

Chromium supplementation and 

resistance training: effects on body 

composition, strength, and trace 

element status of men. Am J Clin Nutr 

63:954-65.

57. Lukaski, HC, WA Siders, and JG 

Penland. 2007. Chromium picolinate 

supplementation in women: effects 

on body weight, composition, and iron 

status. Nutrition 23:187-95.

58. Reeves, PG, and RA Vanderpool. 1997. 

Cadmium burden of men and women 

who report regular consumption 

of confectionary sunflower kernels 

containing a natural abundance of 

cadmium. Environ Health Perspect 

105:1098-104.

59. Reeves, PG, and RA Vanderpool. 

2001. Cadmium absorption in women 

fed processed edible sunflower 

kernels labeled with a stable isotope 

of cadmium, (113)Cd. Environ Res 

87:69-80.

60. Reeves, PG, EJ Nielsen, C O’BrienNimens, and RA Vanderpool. 2001. 

Cadmium bioavailability from edible 

sunflower kernels: a long-term study 

with men and women volunteers. 

Environ Res 87:81-91.

61. Reeves, PG, and RL Chaney. 2008. 

Bioavailability as an issue in risk 

assessment and management of food 

cadmium: a review. Sci Total Environ 

398:13-9.

62. Nielsen, FH, TJ Zimmerman, TR 

Shuler, et al. 1989. Evidence for a 

cooperative metabolic relationship 

between nickel and vitamin B12 in 

rats. J Trace Elem Exp Med 2:21-9.

63. Yokoi, K, EO Uthus, and FH Nielsen. 

2003. Nickel deficiency diminishes 

sperm quantity and movement in rats. 

Biol Trace Elem Res 93:141-53.

64. Nielsen, FH, K Yokoi, and EO Uthus. 

2002. The essential role of nickel 

affects physiological functions 

regulated by the cyclic-GMP 

signal transduction system. In L 

Khassanova, PH Collery, I Maymard, 

et al., eds., Metal Ions in Biology and 

Medicine, vol. 7, pp. 29-33. Paris, 

France: John Libbey Eurotext.

65. Nielsen, FH. 2006. A mild magnesium 

deprivation affects calcium excretion 

but not bone strength and shape, 

including changes induced by nickel 

deprivation, in the rat. Biol Trace 

Elem Res 110:133-49.

66. Uthus, EO, and FH Nielsen. 1993. 

Determination of the possible 

requirement and reference dose levels 

for arsenic in humans. Scand J Work 

Environ Health 19 Suppl 1:137-38.

67. Davis, CD, EO Uthus, and JW Finley. 

2000. Dietary selenium and arsenic 

affect DNA methylation in vitro in 

Caco-2 cells and in vivo in rat liver 

and colon. J Nutr 130:2903-9.

68. Uthus, EO, and CD Davis. 

2005. Dietary arsenic affects 

dimethylhydrazine-induced aberrant 

crypt formation and hepatic 

global DNA methylation and DNA 

methyltransferase activity in rats. Biol 

Trace Elem Res 103:133-45.

69. Seaborn, CD, and FH Nielsen. 2002. 

Silicon deprivation and arginine and 

cystine supplementation affect bone 

collagen and bone and plasma trace 

mineral concentrations in rats. J 

Trace Elem Exp Med 15:113-22.

70. Nielsen, FH, and R. Poellot. 2004. 

Dietary silicon affects bone turnover 

differently in ovariectomized and 

sham-operated growing rats. J Trace 

Elem Exp Med 17:137-47.
282 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

71. Jugdaohsingh, R. 2007. Silicon and 

bone health. J Nutr Health Aging 

11:99-110.

72. Seaborn, CD, and FH Nielsen. 2002. 

Silicon deprivation decreases collagen 

formation in wounds and bone, and 

ornithine transaminase enzyme 

activity in liver. Biol Trace Elem Res 

89:251-61.

73. Seaborn, CD, M Briske-Anderson, 

and FH Nielsen. 2002. An interaction 

between dietary silicon and arginine 

affects immune function indicated 

by Con-A-induced DNA synthesis of 

rat splenic T-lymphocytes. Biol Trace 

Elem Res 87:133-42.

74. Nielsen, FH. 2008. A novel silicon 

complex is as effective as sodium 

metasilicate in enhancing the 

collagen-induced inflammatory 

response of silicon-deprived rats. J 

Trace Elem Med Biol 22:39-49.

75. Hunt, CD, JL Herbel, and JP Idso. 

1994. Dietary boron modifies the 

effects of vitamin D3 nutriture on 

indices of energy substrate utilization 

and mineral metabolism in the chick. 

J Bone Miner Res 9:171-81.

76. Nielsen, FH, and BJ Stoecker. 2009. 

Boron and fish oil have different 

beneficial effects on strength and 

trabecular microarchitecture of bone. 

J Trace Elem Med Biol 23:195-203.

77. Gorustovich, AA, T Steimetz, FH 

Nielsen, and MB Guglielmotti. 2008. 

Histomorphometric study of alveolar 

bone healing in rats fed a borondeficient diet. Anat Rec (Hoboken) 

291:441-7.

78. Gorustovich, AA, T Steimetz, FH 

Nielsen, and MB Guglielmotti. 2008. 

A histomorphometric study of alveolar 

bone modeling and remodeling in mice 

fed a boron-deficient diet. Arch Oral 

Biol 53:677-82.

79. Hunt, CD, and JP Idso. 1999. Dietary 

boron as a physiological regulator of 

the normal inflammatory response; a 

review and current research progress. 

J Trace Elem Exp Med 12:221-33.

80. Ralston, NVC, and CD Hunt. 2001. 

Diadenosine phosphates and 

S-adenosylmethionine: novel boron 

binding biomolecules detected by 

capillary electrophroesis. Biochim 

Biophys Acta 1527:20-30.

81. Nielsen, FH. 2009. Boron deprivation 

decreases liver S-adenosylmethionine 

and spermidine and increases plasma 

homocysteine in rats. J Trace Elem 

Med Biol 23:204-13.

82. Feng, Y, JW Finley, CD Davis, et 

al. 1999. Dietary selenium reduces 

the formation of aberrant crypts in 

rats administered 3,2’-dimethyl4-aminobiphenyl. Toxicol Appl 

Pharmacol 157:36-42.

83. Davis, CD, and EO Uthus. 2003. 

Dietary folate and selenium 

affect dimethylhydrazine-induced 

aberrant crypt formation, global 

DNA methylation and one-carbon 

metabolism in rats. J Nutr 133:2907-

14.

84. Finley, JW, CD Davis, and Y Feng. 

2000. Selenium from high selenium 

broccoli protects rats from colon 

cancer. J Nutr 130:2384-9.

85. Finley, JW, C Ip, DJ Lisk, et al. 2001. 

Cancer-protective properties of highselenium broccoli. J Agric Food Chem 

49:2679-83.

86. Davis, CD, H Zeng, and JW Finley. 

2002. Selenium-enriched broccoli 

decreases intestinal tumorigenesis in 

multiple intestinal neoplasia mice. J 

Nutr 132:307-9.

87. Finley, JW, and CD Davis. 

2001. Selenium (Se) from highselenium broccoli is utilized 

differently than selenite, selenate 

and selenomethionine, but is 

more effective in inhibiting colon 

carcinogenesis. BioFactors 14:191-6.

88. Davis, CD, Y Feng, DW Hein, and JW 

Finley. 1999. The chemical form of 

selenium influences 3,2’dimethyl-4-
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 283

aminobiphenyl-DNA adduct formation 

in rat colon. J Nutr 129:63-9.

89. Davis, CD, and Y Feng. 1999. Dietary 

copper, manganese, and iron affect the 

formation of aberrant crypts in colon 

of rats administered 3,2’-dimethyl-4-

aminobiphenyl. J Nutr 129:1060-7.

90 Davis, CD, and WT Johnson. 2002. 

Dietary copper affects azoxymethaneinduced intestinal tumor formation 

and protein kinase C isozyme protein 

and mRNA expression in colon of rats. 

J Nutr 132:1018-25.

91. Davis, CD, and S Newman. 2000. 

Inadequate dietary copper increases 

tumorigenesis in the Min mouse. 

Cancer Lett 159:57-62.

92. Saari, JT, and DA Schuschke. 1999. 

Cardiovascular effects of dietary 

copper deficiency. BioFactors 10:359-

75.

93. Saari, JT. 2000. Copper deficiency 

and cardiovascular disease: role of 

peroxidation, glycation, and nitration. 

Can J Physiol Pharmacol 78:848-55.

94. Li, Y, L Wang, DA Schuschke, et 

al. 2005. Marginal dietary copper 

restriction induces cardiomyopathy in 

rats. J Nutr 135:2130-36.

95. Elsherif, L, L Wang, JT Saari, and 

YJ Kang. 2004. Regression of 

dietary copper restriction-induced 

cardiomyopathy by copper repletion in 

mice. J Nutr 134:855-60.

96. Penland, JG. 2000. Behavioral data 

and methodology issues in studies 

of zinc nutrition in humans. J Nutr 

130:361S-4S.

97. Hunt, CD, and TR Shuler. 1990. 

Open-vessel, wet-ash, lowtemperature digestion of biological 

materials for inductively coupled 

argon plasma spectroscopy (ICAP) 

analysis of boron and other elements. 

J Micronutr Anal 6:161-74.

98. Hunt, CD, and SL Meacham. 2001. 

Aluminum, boron, calcium, copper, 

iron, magnesium, manganese, 

molybdenum, phosphorus, potassium, 

sodium, and zinc: concentrations in 

common Western foods and estimated 

daily intakes by infants; toddlers; and 

male and female adolescents, adults, 

and seniors in the United States. J Am 

Diet Assoc 101:1058-60.

99. Mendez J, HC Lukaski, and ER 

Buskirk. 1984. Fat-free mass as 

a function of maximal oxygen 

consumption and 24 hr urinary 

creatinine and 3-methylhistidine 

excretion. Am J Clin Nutr 39:710-5.

100. Lukaski, HC, PE Johnson, WW 

Bolonchuk, and GI Lykken. 1985. 

Assessment of fat-free mass using 

bioelectrical impedance measurements 

of the human body. Am J Clin Nutr 

41:810-7.

101. Lukaski, HC, and PE Johnson. 1985. 

A simple, inexpensive method of 

determining total body water using 

a tracer dose of deuterium oxide and 

infra-red absorption of biological 

fluids. Am J Clin Nutr 41:363-70.

102. Lukaski, HC, WW Bolonchuk, CB 

Hall, and WA Siders. 1986. Validation 

of the bioelectrical impedance method 

to assess human body composition. J 

Appl Physiol 60:1327-32.

103. Lukaski, HC. 1987. Methods for 

the assessment of human body 

composition: traditional and new. Am 

J Clin Nutr 46:537-56.

104. Lukaski, HC. 1993. Soft tissue 

composition and bone mineral status: 

evaluation by dual-energy x-ray 

absorptiometry. J Nutr 123:438-43.

105. Ellis, KJ, SJ Bell, GM Chertow, et 

al. 1999. Bioelectrical impedance 

methods in clinical research: a followup to the NIH Technology Assessment 

Conference. Nutrition 15:874-80.

106. Sun, SS, WC Chumlea, SB 

Heymsfield, et al. 2003. Development 

of bioelectrical impedence prediction 

equations for body compostion with 

the use of a multi-component model 

for use in epidemiologic surveys. Am J 

Clin Nutr 77:331-40.
284 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

107. Reeves, PG, KL Rossow, and J 

Lindlauf. 1993. Development and 

testing of the AIN-93 purified diets 

for rodents: results on growth, kidney 

calcification and bone mineralization 

in rats and mice. J Nutr 123:1923-31.

108. Reeves, PG, FH Nielsen, and GC 

Fahey, Jr. 1993. AIN-93 purified diets 

for laboratory rodents: final report of 

the American Institute of Nutrition 

ad hoc writing committee on the 

reformulation of the AIN-76 diet. J 

Nutr 123:1939-51.

109. Reeves, PG. 1997. Components of the 

AIN-93 diets as improvements in the 

AIN-76A diet. J Nutr 127:838S-41S.

110. Cao, JJ, LK Johnson, and JR Hunt. 

2011. A diet high in meat protein and 

potential renal acid load increases 

fractional Ca absorption and urinary 

Ca excretion, without affecting 

markers of bone resorption or 

formation in postmenopausal women. 

J Nutr 141:391-97.

111. Margolis, LM, JJ Cao, ER Sauter, et al. 

2012. A high protein diet upregulates 

whole-body turnover during energy 

deficit. FASEB J 26:(abstract).

112. Nielsen, FH, LK Johnson, and H Zeng. 

2010. Magnesium supplementation 

improves indicators of low magnesium 

status and inflammatory stress in 

adults older than 51 years with poor 

quality sleep. Magnes Res 23:158-68.

113. Montain, SJ, SN Cheuvront, and HC 

Lukaski. 2007. Sweat mineral-element 

responses during 7 h of exercise-heat 

stress. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 

17:574-82.

114. Chinevere, TD, RW Kenefick, SN 

Cheuvront, et al. 2008. Effect of heat 

acclimation on sweat minerals. Med 

Sci Sports Exerc 40:886-91.

115. Hunt, JR, JM Beiseigel, and LK 

Johnson. 2008. Adaptation in human 

zinc absorption as influenced by 

dietary zinc and bioavailability. Am J 

Clin Nutr 87:1336-45.

116. Beisiegel, JM, LM Klevay, LK Johnson, 

and JR Hunt. 2009. Zinc absorption 

adapts to zinc supplementation in 

postmenopausal women. J Am Coll 

Nutr 28:177-83.

117. Hunt, JR, and JM Beiseigel. 2009. 

Dietary calcium does not exacerbate 

phytate inhibition of zinc absorption 

by women from conventional diets. Am 

J Clin Nutr 89:1357-65.

118. Nielsen, FH, HC Lukaski, LK Johnson, 

and ZK Roughead. 2011. Reported 

zinc, but not copper, intakes influence 

whole-body bone density, mineral 

content and T score responses to 

zinc and copper supplementation in 

healthy postmenopausal women. Br J 

Nutr 106:1872-79.

119. Combs, GF, MI Jackson, JC Watts, 

et al. 2011. Differential responses to 

selenomethionine supplementation by 

sex and genotype in healthy adults. Br 

J Nutr 22:1-12.

120. Zeng, H, MJ Briske-Anderson, JP Idso, 

and CD Hunt. 2006. The selenium 

metabolite methylselenol inhibits the 

migration and invasion potential of 

HT1080 tumor cells. J Nutr 136:1528-

32.

121. Cao, JJ, BR Gregoire, and H Gao. 

2009. High-fat diet decreases 

cancellous bone mass but has no 

effect on cortical bone mass in tibia in 

mice. Bone 44:1097-104.

122. Cao, JJ, L Sun, and H Gao. 2010. 

Diet-induced obesity alters bone 

remodeling leading to decreased 

femoral trabecular bone mass in mice. 

Ann. NY Acad Sci 1192:292-7.

123. Uthus, EO, MJ Picklo, Sr. 2011. 

Methionine reduces methionine 

sulphoxide reductase activity in 

visceral adipose tissue. Free Radic Res 

45:1052-60.

124. Zeng, H, JT Saari, and GM Dahlen. 

2005. Copper deficiency increases 

fibulin-5 (dance/evec) but decreases 

cytochrome c oxidase vib expression 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 285

in rat heart. Inorg Biochem 100:186-

91.

125. Johnson, WT, and SM Newman, 

Jr. 2007. Hearts in adult offspring 

of copper-deficient dams exhibit 

decreased cytochrome c oxidase 

activity, increased mitochondrial 

hydrogen peroxide generation and 

enhanced formation of intracellular 

residual bodies. J Nutr Biochem 

18:97-104.

126. Anderson, CM, and WT Johnson. 

2010. Maternal copper deficiency 

perpetuates altered vascular function 

in Sprague-Dawley rat offspring. J 

Develop Orig Health Dis 1:131-40.

127. Uthus, EO, KJ Claycombe, and WT 

Johnson. 2012. Effects of pre-and 

postnatal diets on body compositions 

of diet-induced obesity prone SpragueDawley rats. FASEB J 26:(abstract)

128. Jackson, MI, J Cao, H Zeng, et al. 

2012 Hepatocellular methylation 

status regulates expression of 

seleprotein P and gluconeogenesis 

enzymes. J Biol Chem. In press.

129. Reeves, PG, and LC Demars. 2004. 

Copper deficiency reduces iron 

absorption and biological half-life in 

male rats. J Nutr 134:1953-7.

130. Swain, JH, SM Newman, Jr., and 

JR Hunt. 2003. Bioavailability of 

elemental iron powders to rats is less 

than bakery-grade ferrous sulfate and 

predicted iron solubility and particle 

surface area. J Nutr 133:3546-52.

131. Swain, JH, LK Johnson, and JR Hunt. 

2007. Electrolytic iron or ferrous 

sulfate increase body iron in women 

with moderate to low iron stores. J 

Nutr 137:620-27.

132. Reeves, PG, LCS DeMars, WT 

Johnson, and HC Lukaski. 2005. 

Dietary copper deficiency reduces iron 

absorption and duodenal enterocyte 

hephaestin protein in male and female 

rats. J Nutr 135:92-8.

133. Reeves, PG, and LCS DeMars. 

2005. Repletion of copper-deficient 

rats with dietary copper restores 

duodenal hephaestin protein and iron 

absorption. Exp Biol Med 230:320-5.

134. Lukaski, HC. 2008. Mineral losses 

during extreme environmental 

conditions. Cell Biol Toxicol 24:466-

70.
286 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Appendix 1. ARS scientists at the Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center

Scientist Years of Scientist Years of 

 service service

Wesley K. Canfield, M.D. 1979-1986, Henry C. Lukaski, Ph.D. 1984-2008

 2005-2009

Jay J. Cao, Ph.D. 2006-current David B. Milne, Ph.D. 1977-1999

Kate J. Claycombe, Ph.D. 2010-current Juan M. Munoz, M.D. 1976-1977

Sarah E. Colby, Ph.D. 2005-2007 Forrest H. Nielsen, Ph.D. 1970-2011

Gerald F. Combs, Jr., Ph.D. 2002-current Robert S. Pekarek, Ph.D. 1974-1977

Cindy D. Davis, Ph.D. 1998-2002 James G. Penland, Ph.D. 1985-2007

Pedro Del Corral, M.D., Ph.D. 2009-2010 Matthew J. Picklo, Ph.D. 2008-current

Gary W. Evans, Ph.D. 1971-1982 Susan K. Raatz, Ph.D., R.D. 2009-current

John W. Finley, Ph.D. 1992-2005 Philip G. Reeves, Ph.D. 1987-2007

Gary J. Fosmire, Ph.D. 1972-1979 James N. Roemmich, Ph.D. 2011-current

Carol H. Hahn, Ph.D. 1975-1976 Fariba (Z.K.) Roughead, Ph.D. 2001-2005

Edward S. Halas, Ph.D. (50%) 1974-1988 Jack T. Saari, Ph.D. 1987-2006

Janet R. (Mahalko) Hunt, Ph.D. 1987-2008 Harold H. Sandstead, M.D. 1971-1984

Curtiss D. Hunt, Ph.D. 1987-2008 Donald M. Tucker, Ph.D. 1977-1984

Robert A. Jacob, Ph.D. 1974-1976 Eric O. Uthus, Ph.D. 1985-current

Lisa A. Jahns, Ph.D. 2008-current Kim Vo-Khactu, Ph.D. 1971-1974

Phyllis E. Johnson, Ph.D. 1979-1991 James C. Wallwork, Ph.D. 1979-1984

W. Thomas Johnson, Ph.D. 1987-2010 Leah D. Whigham, Ph.D. 2009-current

Leslie M. Klevay, M.D., S.D. 1972-2004 Lin Yan, Ph.D. 2007-current

Tim R. Kramer, Ph.D. 1979-1989 Huawei Zeng, Ph.D. 2001-current

Glen I. Lykken, Ph.D. (20%) 1977-1988 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 287

Appendix 2. Post-doctorates and their mentors at the Grand Forks Human Nutrition 

Research Center

Name Mentor Year Started

Yacoub Y. Al-Ubaidi Sandstead 1972

Carol J. Hahn Evans 1973

John J. Doyle Sandstead 1973

Robert A. Jacob Klevay 1974

Duane R. Myron Nielsen 1974

Phyllis E. Johnson Evans 1975

Kenneth G.D. Allen Klevay 1976

W. Thomas Johnson Evans 1978

Henry Lukaski Klevay 1979

Curtiss D. Hunt Nielsen 1979

Brad W.C. Lau Klevay 1980

Mary Davis Kramer 1981

Eric O. Uthus Nielsen 1982

Thomas L. Starks Johnson, P. 1984

Mary A. Stuart Johnson, P. 1984

Doh-Yeel Lee Johnson, P. 1985

Robert J. Moore Klevay 1986

Richard A. Vanderpool Johnson, P. 1988

Dennis J. Bobilya Reeves 1988

Sean M. Lynch Klevay 1989

Carol D. Seaborn Nielsen 1990

Scott M. Smith Lukaski 1990

John W. Finley Johnson, P. 1991

Corrie B. Allen Saari 1991

Lori J. Pellet Milne 1992

Susan Sergeant Johnson, W.T. 1992

Elizabeth E. Droke Lukaski 1993

Yisheng Bai Hunt, C. 1994

Cindy D. Davis Nielsen 1996 

Boris G. Zaslavsky Uthus 1998

Nicholas V.C. Ralston Hunt, C. 1998

Z.K. (Fariba) Roughead Hunt, J. 1998

Katsuhiko Yokoi Nielsen 1999

James H. Swain Hunt, J. 2001

Jacque Gray Penland 2001

Kevin B. Hadley Hunt, J. 2003

Jeanmarie Beisiegel Hunt, J. 2004

Jennifer C. Watts Combs 2005

Kimberly Schafer Lukaski 2005

Matthew I. Jackson Combs 2007

Jennifer Follet Combs 2007

Emile Dekrey Picklo 2010
288 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Appendix 3. Graduate students of the University of North Dakota (UND) and North Dakota 

State University (NDSU) whose advanced-degree research was partially or fully performed 

at the Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center

Graduate student University GFHNRC research mentor

Sharon Greeley, Ph.D. UND Fosmire/Sandstead

Steven J. Buell, M.S. UND Fosmire 

Christopher L. Dvergsten, Ph.D. UND Sandstead

Michael L. Jones, Ph.D. UND Sandstead

A. Suwarnasarn, Ph.D. UND Lykken/Wallwork

Peter C. Peterson, M.A. UND Halas/Sandstead

Paige M. Lokken, M.A. UND Halas/Sandstead

Mark J. Hanlon, M.A. UND Halas/Sandstead

Michael C. Rowe, M.A. UND Halas/Sandstead

Gail M. Reynolds, Ph.D. UND Halas/Sandstead

Marie Heinrich, M.A. UND Halas/Sandstead

Patricia A. Burger, M.A. UND Halas/Sandstead

J.C. Kwamamoto, Ph.D. UND Halas/Sandstead

R.A. Swenson, M.A. UND Tucker/Sandstead

James G. Penland, Ph.D. UND Tucker/Sandstead

James W. Penland, Ph.D. UND Tucker/Sandstead

Curtiss D. Hunt, Ph.D. UND Nielsen

Eric O. Uthus, Ph.D. UND Nielsen

Gro Thorne-Tjomsland, Ph.D. UND Sandstead/Nielsen

Naomi Bakken, M.S. UND Hunt, C.

Jeannine Matz, Ph.D. UND Saari

Yan Chan, Ph.D. UND Saari

Zhou Zhengi, M.S. NDSU Finley

Anne Thomas, M.S. UND Johnson, W.T.

Yan Chan, Ph.D. UND Saari

Patricia Moulton UND Penland

Laurie (Sumner) Raymond, Ph.D. UND Johnson, W.T.

Qiang Rong Liang, Ph.D. UND Saari

Kory J. Hintze, Ph.D. NDSU Finley

Kevin Miller, Ph.D. NDSU Finley

K Wald, Ph.D. NDSU Finley

Peter Leary, M.S. UND Finley
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 289

Chapter 10

Establishment of the Children’s 

Nutrition Research Center at 

Baylor College of Medicine and 

Texas Children’s Hospital in 1978

Buford L. Nichols 

Buford L. Nichols, M.D., is Emeritus 

Director and Professor of Pediatrics, Baylor 

College of Medicine, Houston, TX.

Introduction

The Children’s Nutrition Research Center 

(CNRC) is a unique cooperative venture 

between Baylor College of Medicine, 

Texas Children’s Hospital, and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 

Research Service (USDA-ARS). The CNRC 

is dedicated to defining the nutrient needs 

of children, from conception through 

adolescence, and the needs of pregnant 

women and nursing mothers. Scientific 

data from the Center enables healthcare 

providers and policy advisors to make 

dietary recommendations that improve 

the health of today’s children and that of 

generations to come. CNRC research has 

already impacted feeding guidelines for 

normal U.S. children and all children of the 

world.

Prologue

After completing my pediatric residency 

at Yale University, I was recruited to 

join the Pediatrics Department at Baylor 

College of Medicine (BCM) in 1964 with the 

understanding that as Associate Director 

of the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) 

General Clinical Research Center, I could do 

research in nutrition and gastroenterology 

and direct the house staff at Texas 

Children’s Hospital (TCH). I participated, 

with Dr. Harold Sandstead, as a clinical 

examiner in the Texas Nutrition Survey 

in 1967. My primary BCM research was 

with malnourished infants with persistent 

diarrhea and clinical carbohydrate 

intolerance. The development of total 

parenteral nutrition (TPN) in 1968 proved 

to be life saving for these infants suffering 

from secondary malnutrition due to severe 

mucosal damage and persistent diarrhea. 

This clinical success with TPN led to the 

establishment of the Section of Pediatric 

	 “By mutual confidence and mutual aid, Great

	 deeds are done, and great discoveries made;

	 The wise new prudence from the wise acquire,

	 And one brave hero fans another’s fire.”

The Iliad of Homer, Book X,

	 translated by Alexander Pope, 1715-1720
290 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

were envisioned that included body 

composition, calorimetry, and stable isotope 

measurements. This initial application was 

unsuccessful. 

We began another cycle of application, 

sponsored by Rep. Bob Gammage (D-TX), in 

1976, which was administratively supported 

by Dean Joseph Merrill at BCM and Board 

Member George Bellows at TCH. This time, 

the House Agriculture and Related Agencies 

Subcommittee of the Appropriations 

Committee, chaired by Jamie Whitten 

(D-MS), requested a feasibility study. Dr. 

Jack Iacono, from the USDA-ARS National 

Program Staff, organized a site visit by ARS 

and external nutritional scientists, including 

Dr. Harold Sandstead, which was held on 

January 27, 1977. The site visit report was 

submitted to the House Agriculture and 

Related Agencies Subcommittee.

On March 16, 1977, I received a telephone 

call from Dr. Jean Mayer, President of 

Tufts University, informing me that 

Tufts was seeking to establish a Human 

Nutrition Laboratory on Aging and that 

appropriate enabling language had been 

added to the 1977 Farm Bill. In 1977, the 

House marked up appropriations for both 

BCM and Tufts Centers, but the Senate 

Agriculture Subcommittee only included 

Tufts. This turn of events led to a rallying 

of support by the full Texas Congressional 

Delegation in House and Senate in 1978. In 

the House, leadership was from Rep. Jack 

Hightower (D-TX) and Rep. Bill Archer (RTX). Leadership was from Senator Lloyd 

Bentsen (D-TX) in the Senate. On February 

21, 1978, I appeared before the McGovern 

Senate Select Committee on Nutrition, 

where I reported on the legal authorizations 

for our request and our proposed program 

objectives. I was introduced by Rep. Bob 

Gammage. 

In 1978, the House Agriculture 

Subcommittee again marked up funds 

for the Tufts and BCM laboratories, but 

Gastroenterology and Nutrition on January 

1, 1970. 

Between 1968 and 1971, NIH grant funding 

was secured for clinical research on altered 

energy metabolism and body potassium in 

infants with primary malnutrition living 

in Jamaica, Mexico, and Guatemala. 

These international investigations allowed 

collaboration with some of the leading 

human-nutrition scientists of the day: 

John Waterlow, Sylvestre Frenk, and 

Fernando Viteri. I also had an NIH training 

grant for Clinical Fellows in Pediatric 

Gastroenterology and Nutrition. In 1971, 

these NIH resources became unavailable, 

and I began to examine alternative concepts 

for nutrition research and training support.

Founding of the Children’s Nutrition 

Research Center

The legal authorization for establishing 

the Children’s Nutrition Research Center 

(CNRC) was Senate Report 35, which was 

published on September 12, 1963. This 

report prepared by USDA-ARS was entitled 

“Proposed Plan for Expanded Research 

in Food and Nutrition.” It reviewed the 

previous 70 years of human nutrition 

research in the USDA and recommended 

expansion of human nutrition research by 

construction and funding of three regional 

laboratories. Senate Report 35 was brought 

to my attention by Dr. Harold Sandstead in 

1973, and as a consequence, a proposal was 

prepared and submitted to the Agriculture 

Rural Development and Related Agencies 

Subcommittee of the House Appropriations 

Committee in 1974. The application, 

sponsored by Rep. Bob Casey (D-TX), was 

based on the proposition that the scientific 

support for nutritional recommendations 

for infants and children needed to be 

strengthened and expanded. The focus 

was on normal children from conception to 

adolescence and mothers during pregnancy 

and lactation. Non-invasive approaches 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 291

the Senate did not. I was present on 

September 15, 1978, when the House/

Senate Agriculture Appropriations 

Conference Committee met and accepted 

the House recommendations. The Dean of 

the Texas Delegation, Chairman of House 

Appropriations George Mahon (D-TX), 

walked over to the gallery and reported: 

“Well Doc, you got your center.” 

The conferees directed that the centers 

maintain close cooperation with NIH. 

Creation of the USDA-ARS CNRC at BCM 

and TCH was announced on November 2, 

1978, by Senator Lloyd Bentsen. Dr. Iacono 

from ARS attended and reported that the 

House Agriculture Subcommittee had 

referred more than 40 competing requests 

to establish human nutrition centers at 

other institutions for his ARS review. 

The CNRC programs began in temporary 

facilities. Increased 1979 appropriations 

allowed establishment of a Stable Isotope 

Laboratory.

On July 27, 1984, in response to leadership 

by Rep. Jack Hightower and Speaker Jim 

Wright (D-TX), the House Agriculture 

Rural Development and Related Agencies 

Subcommittee marked up funds for the 

construction of a facility for the CNRC. 

The facility was to be used for research on 

the nutrient needs and nutritional status 

of mothers, infants, and children. The 

Committee justified this appropriation 

“based upon proximity to Baylor College of 

Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital,” 

noting that “these institutions had 

conducted nutrition research for the past 

20 years and will provide ready access 

to newborn and maternity care and to 

pregnant and lactating women and their 

unborn and newly born children.”

The Agriculture Appropriations Conference 

Committee approved this recommendation 

in Public Law 98-396 on August 22, 1984. 

On April 13, 1985, groundbreaking occurred 

on a 1-acre site adjacent to TCH. Orville 

G. Bentley, USDA Assistant Secretary of 

Science and Education, announced the 

$49 million appropriation for constructing 

and equipping of the CNRC building. 

He reported that the CNRC “is already 

employing some of the most advanced 

research methods of their kind in the world, 

with emphasis on determining protein 

and energy requirements of women for 

pregnancy and lactation and of infants and 

children for growth and development. Safe, 

non-radioactive isotopes are being used as 

tracers of individual nutrients to determine 

their absorption and utilization.”

The completed facility for the CNRC was 

dedicated October 7, 1988. Chairman of the 

House Agriculture Committee, Eligio “Kika” 

de la Garza (D-TX), was the keynote speaker. 

He envisioned “the impact of the important 

research contributions of the CNRC to USDA 

programs for child nutrition” and expanded 

his view of the Center’s remit to “all children 

of the world.” 

A cooperative agreement between BCM and 

ARS that formalized the CNRC management 

system was signed on October 1, 1985. 

This stated that the mission of the CNRC 

is “to conduct research that will lead to a 

definition of the nutritional requirements 

needed to assure health in children from 

conception through adolescence, and 

in pregnant and lactating women.” The 

agreement 58-7MN1-6-100 has been 

renewed every 5 years, maintaining the 

same mission statement.

Integration of CNRC with ARS National 

Nutrition Research Program 

In contrast to the investigator-initiated 

research management system of NIH and 

the National Science Foundation (NSF), 

ARS research is oriented toward solution of 

problems of importance to U.S. agriculture, 

nutrition, and health policies. Goals for 

nutrition are described below along with key 

CNRC performance measures (1).
292 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

in U.S. history and are an important 

underlying cause of many related disorders, 

including cardiovascular disease, Type 2 

diabetes and several cancers, as well as 

escalating health care costs. ARS research 

will explore dietary, biological, behavioral 

and environmental factors influencing the 

development and consequences of obesity 

and related disorders across the lifespan. 

ARS research is needed on food choices and 

physical activity behaviors, what influences 

them, as well as development and evaluation 

of innovative measurement and intervention 

strategies that will promote healthy weights 

at the individual, family and community 

levels.”

ARS Goal 3. Life Stage Nutrition and 

Metabolism

“The metabolism, nutrient requirements 

and health effects of food components vary 

across stages of the life span. Early dietary 

intake including before, as well as, at 

conception, during pregnancy, lactation and 

infancy, has major effects on development, 

child health, and disease prevention later 

in life. The increased prevalence of chronic 

disease and disability among older people 

may be modified by improved nutrition. 

Mammalian development is intimately 

reliant upon nutrients and other food 

components, which serve as building 

blocks, signaling molecules, and enzyme 

cofactors. “Nutritional programming” occurs 

during critical periods of development when 

nutrition affects developmental processes to 

result in permanent or long-term changes 

in structure, function, gene expression, 

and consequently, disease susceptibility. 

ARS research to improve metabolic and 

physiologic function and health is needed 

at each stage of the life span. Increased 

knowledge is required of relevant basic 

and fundamental processes of development 

and aging, how they are influenced by 

diet and nutrition in order to identify 

nutrient requirements, appropriate dietary 

composition and patterns, and other lifestyle 

ARS Goal 1. Scientific Basis for Dietary 

Guidance for Health Promotion and 

Disease Prevention

“Dietary guidance focuses on identification 

of dietary (foods, nutrients, and bioactive 

components) and physical activity practices 

linked to maintaining health and preventing 

specific diseases. Such guidance is used 

as the basis for Federal food and nutrition 

policy which, in turn, has significant 

economic and societal impacts. To be of 

greatest use, dietary guidance should be 

based on appropriate scientific evidence. 

This includes not only identifying potential 

factors of interest, their molecular and 

cellular mechanisms of action, but also 

substantiating such effects in controlled 

intervention trials. ARS research will 

elucidate the roles of food components in 

minimizing the risk of diseases such as 

cardiovascular disease and cancer, as well 

as maintaining physiological functions 

necessary for optimal health and wellbeing, including sensory systems (such as 

vision), immune competence, brain function, 

reproductive systems, gastrointestinal 

health, bone health, and muscular function. 

ARS research will focus on increasing the 

certainty and specificity of information 

about the health impacts of foods, nutrients, 

and bioactive food components, as well as 

physical activity, to allow the development 

of dietary guidelines based on a firmer 

scientific base. This will enhance the 

usefulness of such guidance in programs 

that rely upon them.”

ARS Goal 2. Prevention of Obesity and 

Related Diseases

“The prevalence of obesity and overweight 

continue to increase and currently an 

estimated 66% of adult Americans fit 

those categories. Among children and 

adolescents aged 2-19 years, the prevalence 

of overweight increased from 13.9% to 

17.1% just during the short period 1999-

2004. These trends are unprecedented 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 293

strategies. ARS research in nutritional 

programming will lead to nutritional 

recommendations during critical periods 

of development in order to optimize longterm as well as short-term health. This will 

be achieved through in vitro, animal, and 

human studies.”

Performance Measures for the ARS Strategic 

Plan

To visualize progress toward the above ARS 

Goals, performance measures have been 

established as follows (1).

Performance Measure 5.2.1

“Monitor food consumption/intake patterns 

of Americans, including those of different 

ages, ethnicity, regions, and income levels, 

and measure nutrients and other beneficial 

components in the food supply. Provide the 

information in databases to enable ARS 

customers to evaluate the healthfulness of 

the American food supply and the nutrient 

content of the American diet. CNRC 

scientists have focused upon the dietary 

intakes of infants, children, and mothers 

as highlighted above and as is described 

below.”

Performance Measure 5.2.2

“Define the role of nutrients, foods, and 

dietary patterns in growth, maintenance of 

health, and prevention of obesity and other 

chronic diseases. Assess bioavailability 

and health benefits of food components. 

Conduct research that forms the basis for 

and evaluates nutrition standards and 

Federal dietary recommendations. CNRC 

scientists have focused upon the role of food 

intakes of infants, children, and mothers on 

growth and health as highlighted above and 

as is described below.”

Specific Contributions of CNRC to ARS 

Performance Measures

The following specific performance measures have

made a profound impact on U.S. and international

nutrition policies and recommendations for food

intake of children. Parallel accomplishments in

increased understanding of food needs of pregnant

and lactating mothers have been omitted because of

space.

Normal Child Bone Growth and Food 

Calcium Needs

The CNRC has established the norms 

for bone growth in healthy children. An 

example of this for girls is shown in figure 1. 

Bone dimension and density are measured 

with a minimally invasive procedure. In 

addition, CNRC scientists, using stable 

isotope technology, have determined the 

bioavailability and retention of calcium from 

foods during childhood (2-15). These studies 

have been incorporated into the Institute of 

Medicine (IOM) Dietary Reference Intakes 

(DRI) for Children (16). 

Figure 1. Children’s Nutrition Research Center reference 

bone mineral content as function of age. Reference values 

by height, weight, gender, and ethnicity are available on 

the Web site. This graph shows cross-sectional reference 

values from 2,100 healthy girls. Reference values for boys 

are also available. The individual values were determined 

by non-invasive DEXA measurements.
294 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

(mmol potassium/g nitrogen) x 6.25). The 

40K analyses that formed the basis for the 

computed protein depositions shown in 

figure 2 are given in the figure.

It is clear that the CNRC has contributed 

to the estimation of protein requirements 

for U.S. children by determining the rates 

of potassium and hence protein deposition 

in normal children. These CNRC studies 

were the basis for increasing the protein 

allowance for children by about 25% in the 

2002 IOM DRI (22) and have been adopted 

as international standards by the Food and 

Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the 

World Health Organization (WHO) (24).

Normal Child Lean-Body Growth and Food 

Protein Needs

CNRC scientists have established the 

reference values for growth of lean (non-fat) 

tissues in the normal child (17-21). This was 

accomplished by measuring the total body 

potassium, located mostly in lean tissues, 

with a non-invasive technique. Estimates 

of rates of potassium deposition for infants 

from 9 months through 3 years of age (19) 

and total body potassium content from 4 

through 18 years of age (21) were utilized 

to estimate rates of lean-body growth and 

protein deposition (protein deposition = total 

potassium accumulated (mmol/d) ÷ 2.15 

Figure 2. Children’s Nutrition Research Center reference lean body mass in normal children by non-invasive 

measurements of total body potassium in a whole-body 40K counter. A total of 862 boys and 1,017 girls were 

studied in a cross-sectional design. Because of the constant relationship between potassium and nitrogen in 

lean body mass, the growth of total body nitrogen can be computed.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 295

Normal Child Energy Expenditures and Food 

Energy Needs

CNRC scientists have undertaken the 

direct measurement of total energy 

expenditure (TEE) by the doubly labeled 

water (DLW) method perfected in the Stable 

Isotope Laboratory (25-28). The method 

represented a distinct advantage over 

previous TEE evaluations that had to rely 

on a factorial approach and/or on food 

intake data, both of which have limited 

reliability. CNRC investigators submitted 

almost all of the individual infant and 

child TEE and ancillary data (figure 3) 

including age, gender, height, weight, 

basal energy expenditure, and descriptors 

for each individual in the data set. The 

measurements were obtained from infants 

and children whose ages, body weight, 

height, and physical activities varied over 

wide ranges, so that they could provide 

an appropriate base to estimate energy 

expenditures and requirements at different 

life stages in relation to gender, body 

weight, height, age, and for different activity 

estimations. This data was used to estimate 

the current energy recommendations and 

also has been used to refine WHO childhood 

energy intake recommendations. The 

consequences of this normative CNRC data 

are shown in figure 3, where child energy 

intake is reduced by about 20% in the 

2002 IOM RDI (22) and has been adopted 

internationally by FAO/WHO/ UN University 

(UNU) Committees (24). It is anticipated 

that this reduction of recommended energy 

intake can play a role in the prevention of 

childhood obesity.

Figure 3. Energy requirements of boys 0-12 months of age based on total energy expenditure (TEE) measurements. 

The estimated requirements of male infants as recommended by the 1985 international FAO/WHO/UNU groups 

are compared with 2002 IOM and 2004 FAO/WHO/UNU recommendations. The 20% reduction of the current 

recommendations from those by the 1985 FAO/WHO/UNU Committees is shown in the upper right corner (28).
296 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Contributions of the CNRC to Understanding 

of Food Needs of Children and Mothers

ARS Performance Measure 5.2.3 reads: 

“Publish research findings not encompassed 

under the other performance measures 

for this objective likely to significantly 

advance the knowledge of human nutrition, 

extensively influence other researchers in 

the same or related field, or yield important 

new directions for research citation rates.”

CNRC scientists published 2,775 peerreviewed papers and invited reviews 

from 1978 through 2005. Led by Dr. 

Dennis Bier since July 1, 1993, there are 

currently 42 CNRC scientists in 8 research 

clusters: 5 groups on normal development 

or prevention of obesity; 1 on mineral 

absorption; 1 on nutrient-gene interactions; 

and 1 on phytonutrient biochemistry. Under 

Dr. Bier’s leadership, CNRC scientists 

have successfully implemented the 1978 

Congressional Mandate to integrate with NIH 

by matching the ARS research budget with 

NIH-funded nutrition research programs. 

Figure 4 is a photograph of the current 

CNRC scientific staff. 

Working to provide better scientific 

information about body growth and food 

needs, CNRC scientists have made progress 

in fulfilling the vision of Chairman of House 

Agriculture Committee Kika de la Garza on 

October 2, 1988, when he predicted “the 

impact of the research contributions of the 

CNRC on food guidelines for USDA programs 

for child nutrition” and “all children of the 

world.”

Figure 4. Children’s Nutrition Research Center (CNRC) scientific staff as of 2006 in the lobby of 

the facility. Dr. Dennis Bier, CNRC Director, is in the center of the first standing row. The Emeritus 

Director (and present author) is standing to his right.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 297

assessment of bone mineral content in 

pediatric diseases. J Bone Miner Res 

16:1658-64.

10. Ellis, KJ, RJ Shypailo, WW Wong, and 

SA Abrams. 2000. Prediction models 

for bone mineral content in schoolaged children. Ann N Y Acad Sci 

904:428-32.

11. Treuth, MS, NF Butte, KJ Ellis, et al. 

2001. Familial resemblance of body 

composition in prepubertal girls and 

their biological parents. Am J Clin 

Nutr 74:529-33.

12. Treuth, MS, NF Butte, WW Wong, 

and KJ Ellis. 2001. Body composition 

in prepubertal girls: comparison of 

six methods. Int J Obes Relat Metab 

Disord 25:1352-9.

13. Abrams, SA, KC Copeland, SK Gunn, 

et al. 2000. Calcium absorption, 

bone mass accumulation, and 

kinetics increase during early 

pubertal development in girls. J Clin 

Endocrinol Metab 85:1805-9.

14. Abrams, SA, MA Grusak, J Stuff, 

and KO O’Brien. 1997. Calcium and 

magnesium balance in 9- to 14-yearold children. Am J Clin Nutr 66:1172-

7.

15. Ellis, KJ, RJ Shypailo, A Hergenroeder, 

et al. 1996. Total body calcium and 

bone mineral content: Comparison 

of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry 

(DXA) with neutron activation analysis 

(NAA). J Bone Miner Res 11:843-8.

16. Standing Committee on the Scientific 

Evaluation of Dietary Reference 

Intakes, Food and Nutrition Board, 

Institute of Medicine. 1997. DRI 

Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, 

Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin 

D, and Fluoride. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 448 p.

17. Ellis, KJ, RJ Shypailo, SA Abrams, 

and WW Wong. 2000. The reference 

child and adolescent models of 

body composition. A contemporary 

comparison. Ann N Y Acad Sci 

904:374-82.

References

1. ARS Strategic Planning Team. 

2007 Agricultural Research Service 

Strategic Plan for 2006-2011: 

Objective 5.2: Promote Healthier 

Eating Habits and Lifestyles [Internet]. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service; [2007 Feb; cited 2009 May 1]. 

Available from: http://www.ars.usda.

gov/sp2userfiles/place/0000000/

arsstrategicplan2006-2011.pdf

2. Abrams, SA, and JE Stuff. 1994. 

Calcium metabolism in girls: current 

dietary intakes lead to low rates of 

calcium absorption and retention 

during puberty. Am J Clin Nutr 

60:739-43.

3. Abrams, SA, JB Sidbury, J 

Muenzer, et al. 1991. Stable isotopic 

measurement of endogenous fecal 

calcium excretion in children. J 

Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 12:469-73.

4. Abrams, SA, NV Esteban, NE Vieira, 

et al. 1992. Developmental changes in 

calcium kinetics in children assessed 

using stable isotopes. J Bone Miner 

Res 7:287-93.

5. Abrams SA, TJ Silber, NV Esteban, et 

al. 1993. Mineral balance and bone 

turnover in adolescents with anorexia 

nervosa. J Pediatr 123:326-31.

6. Abrams, SA, KO O’Brien, and JE 

Stuff. 1996. Changes in calcium 

kinetics associated with menarche. J 

Clin Endocrin Metab 81:2017-20.

7. Abrams, SA, KO O’Brien, J Wen, et 

al. 1996. Absorption by 1-year- old 

children of an iron supplement given 

with cow’s milk or juice. Pediatr Res 

39:171-5.

8. Abrams, SA, J Wen, and JE Stuff. 

1997. Absorption of calcium, zinc 

and iron from breast milk by 5- to 

7-month-old infants. Pediatr Res 

41:384-90.

9. Ellis, KJ, RJ Shypailo, DS Hardin, et 

al. 2001. Z scoreprediction model for 
298 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

18. Ellis, KJ. 2000. Human body 

composition: in vivo methods. Physiol 

Rev 80:649-80.

19. Butte, NF, JM Hopkinson, WW Wong, 

et al. 2000. Body composition during 

the first 2 years of life: an updated 

reference. Pediatr Res 47:578-85.

20. Ellis, KJ, SA Abrams, and WW Wong. 

1997. Body composition of a young, 

multiethnic female population. Am J 

Clin Nutr 65:724-31.

21. Ellis, KJ, RJ Shypailo, SA Abrams, 

and WW Wong. 2000. The reference 

child and adolescent models of 

body composition. A contemporary 

comparison. Ann NY Acad Sci 

904:374-82.

22. Panel on Macronutrients, Panel 

on the Definition of Dietary Fiber, 

Subcommittee on Interpretation and 

Uses of Dietary Reference Intakes, 

and the Standing Committee on 

the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary 

Reference Intakes, Food and Nutrition 

Board, Institute of Medicine of the 

National Academies. 2005. Dietary 

Reference Intakes for Energy, 

Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, 

Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids 

(Macronutrients). Washington, DC: 

National Academies Press. 1,358 p.

23. Garlick, PJ. Protein requirements 

of infants and children. 2006. In J 

Rigo and EE Ziegler, eds., Protein and 

Energy Requirements in Infancy and 

Childhood, 58th Nestle Nutr Workshop 

Ser Pediatr Program, 58:39-47, 

discussion 47-50. Basel, Switzerland: 

Vevey/S Karger AG. 

24. Butte, NF, WW Wong, and C Garza. 

1989. Energy cost of growth during 

infancy. Proc Nutr Soc 48:303-12.

25. Butte, NF, WW Wong, L Ferlic, et 

al. 1990. Energy expenditure and 

deposition of breast-fed and formulafed infants during early infancy. 

Pediatr Res 28:631-40.

26. Butte, NF, WW Wong, JM Hopkinson, 

et al. 2000. Energy requirements 

derived from total energy expenditure 

and energy deposition during the first 

2y of life. Am J Clin Nutr 72:1558-69.

27. Butte, NF. 2006. Energy requirements 

of infants and children. In J Rigo 

and EE Ziegler, eds., Protein and 

Energy Requirements in Infancy and 

Childhood, 58th Nestle Nutr Workshop 

Ser Pediatr Program, 58:19-32, 

discussion 33-7. Basel, Switzerland: 

Vevey/S Karger AG.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 299

Chapter 11

History of the Jean Mayer 

Human Nutrition Research Center 

on Aging at Tufts University

Irwin Rosenberg 

Irwin Rosenberg, M.D., is Senior Scientist 

and Former Director, Jean Mayer USDA 

Human Nutrition Research Center on 

Aging at Tufts University, Jean Mayer 

University Professor of Nutrition at Tufts 

University, and Professor of Physiology at 

Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School 

of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts 

University, Boston, MA.

The Jean Mayer U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Human Nutrition 

Research Center on Aging at Tufts 

University (HNRCA), while quite a mouthful, 

is aptly named, because it has contributed 

substantially to the legacy of Jean Mayer, 

to the scientific stature of the USDA and, in 

Atwater’s tradition, to USDA’s contributions 

to human nutrition, to the embedding of 

concepts of aging in the human nutrition 

and health agenda, and certainly to the 

stature of Tufts University, which has a 

signature program in nutrition and health 

science. 

The events leading to the establishment 

of HNRCA—with its 15 stories of research 

space on the health sciences campus of 

Tufts University in Boston, MA, and with 

its scientific staff of 300 and more than 

7,000 alumni, thus making HNRCA the 

largest center for nutrition and aging in the 

world—have a history that is embedded 

in both domestic and international 

developments, especially in the 1960s and 

the 1970s. Those were rich decades in the 

history of nutrition and nutrition science 

in this country, and in many ways the 

establishment of the HNRCA in 1978 was a 

culmination of some of those events.

To tell the HNRCA story, let me start with a 

narrative about hunger in America, recorded 

also by Donna Porter. In the tumultuous 

decade of the 1960s, one of the most 

active and productive elements of the U.S. 

Government in nutrition was the work of the 

Interdepartmental Committee on Nutrition 

for National Defense (ICNND), whose 

history has been well recorded in a previous 

symposium in the Experimental Biology 

meetings and published in the Journal of 

Nutrition (1). For our purposes, it is worth 

noting that the ICNND was a prominent 

nutrition survey and research program 

that evolved during the Ten-State Survey 

in this country. That survey demonstrated 

emphatically that poverty and hunger 

existed in unacceptable dimensions in this 

country (2), not just in developing countries 

in the third world. 

The report of the Ten-State Survey on 

hunger in America forged an important 

relationship between Jean Mayer and the 

Kennedy brothers Robert and Edward. 
300 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Mayer, then a professor in the department 

of nutrition in Harvard’s School of Public 

Health, utilized his participation in a 

National Coalition Against Hunger, which 

involved 66 million citizens, including labor 

unions, welfare rights organizations, etc., to 

persuade President Richard Nixon, who had 

marginally defeated Hubert Humphrey in 

the 1968 election, to improve his credentials 

with domestic liberal and social causes by 

hosting the first—and to this day only—

White House Conference on Nutrition 

in 1969. Mayer was seconded to the 

government to chair and plan that 

conference, which arguably has had a 

greater impact on the nutritional policy 

history of this country than any other 

single event. Out of that conference came 

social programs like Food Stamps, a sharp 

enlargement of the Special Supplemental 

Program for Women, Infants, and Children, 

nutrition labeling with a sharply increased 

attention to the relationship between 

nutrition and chronic disease, such as heart 

disease, and an increased realization that 

nutrition research could play a major role 

in health sciences and disease prevention, 

as well as in the fight against poverty and 

hunger.

A major vehicle for the translation of some 

of the 800 recommendations of the 1969 

White House Conference on Nutrition was 

the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition 

and National Needs, which was chaired 

by Senator McGovern, with a minority cochair, Senator Robert Dole—both of whom 

would later run for president of the United 

States (3). This effort was another means 

of enlarging the nutrition science and 

research capability of the U.S. Government. 

At that time, nutrition research in the 

U.S. Government was represented by the 

Beltsville Human Nutrition Laboratory 

within the USDA, a small intramural 

program in human nutrition research at 

the NIH (mostly in the National Institute 

of Arthritis and Metabolic Diseases), and 

small laboratories in the U.S. Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA) Food Division. 

The USDA had responded to mandates 

from Congress to establish a second human 

nutrition research center in the wheatgrowing heartland, and that became the 

laboratory in Grand Forks, ND. Harold 

Sandstead, the center’s first director, can 

also take credit for later advising Jean Mayer 

on some of the pathways and mechanisms 

that could lead to enlargement of the USDA 

nutrition centers program. 

As the interest in human nutrition science 

and its potential benefits to human health 

was still very strong, especially in the Senate 

Select Committee, the Committee produced 

a report on national nutrition goals (4), 

which roiled the food and nutrition policy 

landscape (a history worthy of its own 

symposium). The report has been succeeded 

by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and 

the Food Guide Pyramid.

Let me return to some personalities in 

addition to Senators McGovern, Dole, and 

Kennedy who would play important roles 

in the evolution and reorganization of the 

concept of a human nutrition research 

center on aging. The two enthusiastic and 

idealistic staff members of the Senate Select 

Committee were Jerry Cassidy, a young 

lawyer, and Ken Schlossberg, a young 

political activist. Schlossberg was from 

Massachusetts, and both he and Cassidy 

had become familiar with Jean Mayer and 

his efforts with the White House Conference 

and his insistent advice to the Senate Select 

Committee. The increasingly powerful 

Speaker of the House at the time, also from 

Massachusetts, was Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill, 

who is widely quoted as having coined the 

phrase “all politics is local.” 

The stars were in alignment during the 

Carter Administration when Claude 

Pepper, then the most senior senator from 

Florida, with Senator Hubert Humphrey, 

championed the concerns of the elderly, 

including research on aging. This alignment 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 301

included McGovern, who was advised by 

D. Mark Hegstead, another Massachusetts 

nutrition scientist seconded to the USDA 

Science and Education Administration. 

Jean Mayer would become President of 

Tufts University in 1976 and the first client 

of the legislative advisory firm formed by 

Schlossberg and Cassidy after they left the 

government. This alignment would persuade 

Speaker O’Neill and the sympathetic 

senators that another center for human 

nutrition research should be established, 

that it should be mandated to be built in 

Boston, MA, and that it should have a focus 

in nutrition and aging (and by implication, 

chronic disease). This was translated into 

legislative language in the 1977 Farm Bill 

(5).

In the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, 

Congress directed the Secretary of 

Agriculture to establish a comprehensive 

human nutrition research program and 

to study the potential cost and value of 

regional research centers for nutrition. The 

act stated in part: “Congress hereby finds 

that there is evidence of a relationship 

between nutrition and many of the leading 

causes of death in the U.S.; that improved 

nutrition is an integral component of 

preventive health care; that there is a 

serious need for research on the effects of 

diet and degenerative diseases and related 

disorders.”

The Agriculture Appropriations Bill, passed 

later in 1977 (6), instructed the USDA 

to establish an “adult human nutrition 

research facility at Tufts University in 

Massachusetts,” and provided planning 

funds for that facility. Facility and 

programmatic planning had been initiated 

by representatives of the USDA and Tufts 

University.

Stanley Gershoff, who had come from 

Harvard University with Mayer to be head 

of a Tufts Institute of Nutrition, led a team 

to write the proposal. In 1978, Congress 

committed funds for construction and 

placed the center under the direction of 

the newly created Science and Education 

Administration of USDA. The conferees 

stipulated in their agreement that the 

center’s programs should complement those 

of the NIH and should be conducted in close 

collaboration with NIH’s National Institute 

on Aging. On August 1, 1979, a cooperative 

agreement between Tufts University and 

the USDA was signed; and on October 23 

that same year, the National Institute on 

Aging and the USDA signed a memorandum 

of understanding detailing their mutual 

interest in the Human Nutrition Research 

Center on Aging at Tufts University. Tufts 

University donated land from its Boston 

campus for the new center.

Prior to the passage of the act, Agriculture 

Secretary Robert Bergland and Joseph 

A. Califano, Jr., Secretary of the U.S. 

Department of Health, Education, 

and Welfare, had signed an agreement 

for sharing their nutrition research 

responsibilities. It was expected that the 

management of the HNRCA would be an 

executive committee consisting of the two 

Secretaries and the president of Tufts (or the 

president’s designees), and that the director 

of the HNRCA would report to the executive 

committee. In reality, the relationship would 

be between Tufts and the USDA.

There would be many things that were 

unique about this new center. It would be 

run by a cooperative agreement with Tufts, 

much along the lines of the Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory at the California Institute of 

Technology. At some point, there had 

been some possibility that this laboratory 

would be affiliated with Boston University, 

Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology (MIT), and Tufts; but in the 

end, the decision was made to accept the 

donation of land on the Health Sciences 

campus of Tufts University in downtown 

Boston to build the $30 million, 15-story 

building. 
302 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Groundbreaking was celebrated on 

December 14, 1979. Therein lies another 

unique feature of the Human Nutrition 

Research Center on Aging: its establishment 

on a health sciences campus, thus declaring 

unequivocally that the orientation would 

be toward human nutrition and the human 

health sciences. Much of the previous 

research in nutrition had taken place 

on agriculture campuses of colleges and 

universities with Hatch Act funding. 

The other unique feature of this new center 

is that it would have a human lifespan 

theme: that of nutrition and aging and 

the nutritional needs of a growing aging 

population. The Grand Forks Human 

Nutrition Research Center in Grand Forks, 

ND, was established with the theme of trace 

mineral research. Shortly thereafter, the 

Children’s Nutrition Research Center in 

Houston, TX, also would be chartered with 

an earlier lifecycle theme. 

Stanley Gershoff was the principal 

investigator of this center grant through 

USDA. The scientific stature of this new 

center was sealed with the appointment of 

the eminent scientist in protein metabolism, 

Hamish Munro, who moved from MIT to be 

the first director of the HNRCA. Scientific 

programs began in rental space in 1979-

1980, the first scientists were recruited 

at that time, and the building opened to 

considerable fanfare and pride in 1982. The 

rest, as they say, is history.

References

1. Sandstead, HH, and GA Leveille, guest 

editors. 2005. Symposium: History 

and Legacy of The Interdepartmental 

Committee on Nutrition for National 

Defense (National Development). J 

Nutr May;135(5):1256-85.

2. Nutrition Today. 1972. Highlights 

from the Ten-State Nutrition Survey. 

Nutrition Today Jul/Aug;7(4):4-11.

3. Staff of the Select Committee on 

Nutrition and Human Needs, United 

States Senate. 1975. Towards a 

National Nutrition Policy: Nutrition 

and Government. Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office. 70 p.

4. Staff of the Select Committee on 

Nutrition and Human Needs, United 

States Senate. 1977. Dietary Goals 

for the United States. Washington, 

DC: Government Printing Office. 10 

p. [cited 2010 Apr 1]. Available from: 

http://zerodisease.com/archive/

Dietary_Goals For_The_United_States.

pdf.

5. U.S. Congress. 1977. Food and 

Agriculture Act of 1977. Public Law No 

95-113. 95th Congress. Washington, 

DC: Government Printing Office.

6. National Agricultural Research, 

Extension and Teaching Policy Act. 

1977; 7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.

Center Directors of the Jean Mayer 

USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging

Hamish N. Munro

1982-1984

Harold H. Sandstead

1984-1985

Irwin Rosenberg

1986-2000

Robert (Rob) Russell

2001-2008

Simin Meydani

2009-present 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 303

Chapter 12

History of the Western Human 

Nutrition Research Center

Robert A. Jacob 

Robert A. Jacob, Ph.D., is formerly 

Research Chemist, USDA-ARS Western 

Human Nutrition Research Center, Davis, 

CA. He is now retired.

Abbreviations

ARS Agricultural Research Service

DOD Department of Defense

EEG Electroencephalography

FY Fiscal Year

LAIR Letterman Army Institute of 

Research

LAMC Letterman Army Medical Center

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

RDA Recommended Dietary 

Allowance

SEA Science and Education 

Administration

USAMRDC U.S. Army Medical Research 

and Development Command

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

WHNRC Western Human Nutrition 

Research Center

The history of human nutrition research 

in the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) dates back to the 1890s with the 

Congressional mandate of a program and 

the legacy of USDA nutrition research 

pioneer Wilbur O. Atwater. This laid the 

basis for later Congressional mandates that 

the USDA be the lead agency to conduct 

human nutrition research in the United 

States. The Food and Agriculture Act of 

1977 mandated that the USDA “establish 

research into food and human nutrition as a 

separate and distinct mission” and “assess 

the potential value and cost of establishing 

regional food and nutrition research centers 

in the United States.” 

By the late 1970s, centers in the Midwest 

(the Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research 

Center in Grand Forks, ND), the Northeast 

(the Human Nutrition Research Center 

on Aging in Boston, MA), the South (the 

Children’s Nutrition Research Center in 

Houston, TX), and the West (the Western 

Human Nutrition Research Center) were 

in operation or development. Within 

USDA, the program in human nutrition 

research was to be administered by the 

Agricultural Research Service (ARS). Upon 

reorganization of the USDA during the 

Carter Administration (1977-1981), this 

responsibility shifted to the Science and 

Education Administration (SEA), then 

back to ARS during the succeeding Reagan 

Administration.
304 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

The Role of the U.S. Army in Establishment 

of the Western Human Nutrition Research 

Center

In 1974, the U.S. Army Medical and 

Nutrition Research Laboratory moved from 

Fitzsimons General Hospital in Denver, 

CO, to the newly built Letterman Army 

Institute of Research (LAIR) in the Army’s 

Presidio of San Francisco, CA. Adjacent to 

the Letterman Army Medical Center (LAMC), 

the 3-story LAIR building was designed to 

resist earthquake damage, and it contained 

state-of-the-art facilities to conduct Army 

research programs. Facilities for nutrition 

research included a 12-bed metabolic 

unit with a kitchen, analytical laboratory, 

and capabilities for research involving 

experimental animals and radioactive 

isotopes. The mission of LAIR was to 

conduct research to benefit the soldier, and 

it included programs in shock and trauma, 

blood replacement, wound healing, occular 

and cutaneous hazards, and nutrition. 

The nutrition component served all of the 

Armed Forces and was tasked to evaluate 

the nutritional status of military personnel 

and conduct nutrition research to improve 

military personnel’s health and fitness for 

combat. 

The Nutrition group in Denver was well 

known for its expertise in assessing the 

nutritional status of populations, having 

participated in the Interdepartmental 

Committee on Nutrition for National 

Defense’s 35 Country Nutrition Survey for 

1956-1967, and the Ten State Nutrition 

Survey for 1968-1970. At LAIR, the group 

continued research in experimental human 

nutrition with investigations into the 

metabolic fate and human requirement 

for vitamins A and C and B vitamins. The 

availability of clinical and metabolic ward 

facilities at both Denver and LAIR allowed 

pursuit of clinical nutrition goals including 

understanding the role of diet in muscle 

metabolism and physical endurance, 

stress fractures associated with training, 

the effects of nutrients on gastrointestinal 

function, and the occurrence of noninfectious diarrhea. Transferees from the 

Denver laboratory that assumed leadership 

positions at LAIR included Colonel Edward 

Canham, M.D., Commander; Colonel Robert 

Herman, M.D., Director, Department of 

Medicine; and Howerde Sauberlich, Ph.D., 

Director, Department of Nutrition. In 1976, 

the total staff authorized for food and 

nutrition research at LAIR included 74 

military and 49 civilian positions.

Due to cutbacks in military spending after 

the Vietnam War, the U.S. Army evaluated 

its priorities for funding research. Within 

the U.S. Army Medical Research and 

Development Command (USAMRDC), 

nutrition research received low priority 

scores. Subsequently, a series of cuts were 

made to the LAIR budget in the late 1970s, 

with most of the cuts being applied to the 

nutrition research program. Responding to 

a 1977 Office of Management and Budget 

request to cut manpower spaces, the 

USAMRDC applied all but 4 of 166 cuts 

to LAIR, effectively eliminating the Army’s 

nutrition research program there and 

threatening the existence of LAIR (what 

with the building just being completed and 

occupied in 1974). 

The looming closure of the nutrition 

research program at LAIR captured the 

attention of the scientific community 

and the U.S. Congress. In July of 1977, 

Arnold Schaefer of the Swanson Center 

for Nutrition in Omaha, NE, and LaVell 

Henderson, President of the American 

Institute of Nutrition, spoke publicly against 

the possible loss of the Army’s nutrition 

research program at LAIR and suggested 

that it might be transferred to the USDA to 

form a Western Human Nutrition Research 

Laboratory. San Francisco Representative 

John Burton (D-CA), Senator George 

McGovern (D-SD), Chairman of the Senate 

Select Committee on Nutrition and Human 

Needs, and other legislators found the 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 305

cuts to the LAIR nutrition program and 

facility to be disturbing considering that 

LAIR was a new facility, and in light of 

increased funding to the USDA to create 

human nutrition research centers including 

a location in the West. At the same time, 

hearings before the House Committee 

on Government Operations resulted in 

the recommendation that if the Army 

did not fully utilize LAIR’s facilities and 

technical capabilities, especially in nutrition 

research, all or part of the facility should be 

transferred to USDA as part of the proposed 

Western Human Nutrition Research Center. 

The Conference report for the Fiscal Year 

(FY) 1979 (October 1978 through September 

1979) Department of Defense (DOD) 

appropriations bills designated $1.8 million 

as the last year of funding for the Army 

nutrition research program and stated that 

“the program shall be transferred to the 

USDA.” 

Through FY 1979, it was not clear to what 

extent the Army would divest of its nutrition 

research program, and negotiations between 

the Army and USDA did not successfully 

resolve the questions about the fate of 

the nutrition research program at LAIR. 

At this early stage, the two agencies were 

sometimes far apart in regard to the possible 

use of LAIR facilities for USDA nutrition 

research. A June 1979 proposal from 

Anson Bertrand, Director of the USDA’s 

Science and Education Administration 

(SEA), suggested four options, requiring 

from 40 to 100 percent (83,000 to 200,000 

square feet) of the LAIR facility to house 

26 to 64 research scientists. In September 

Lt. General Charles Pixley of the Surgeon 

General’s Office replied that the Army 

currently occupied 75 percent of LAIR, with 

plans to fully utilize the building within 2 

years, but that a maximum of 3,000 square 

feet of space could be allocated in LAIR for 

up to 25 USDA employees. 

However, in the FY 1980 USDA and DOD 

appropriations bills, Congress provided 

USDA with $1 million to develop a Western 

Nutrition Research Center at LAIR and 

directed the Army to transfer 19 personnel 

and facilities devoted to nutrition at LAIR to 

the USDA. The Army was further directed 

to negotiate with USDA so that USDA 

could perform the Army’s mission-essential 

nutrition research on a reimbursable 

basis. By April of 1980, a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) between the USDA 

and the Army provided the basis for the 

transfer of the Army’s LAIR nutrition 

research program to USDA, thereby creating 

the USDA Western Human Nutrition 

Research Center (WHNRC)—the fifth USDA 

human nutrition research center, after the 

centers in Beltsville, Grand Forks, Boston, 

and Houston. The MOU was signed by 

Anson Bertrand for USDA/SEA, and by 

Joseph H. Yang, Assistant Secretary of the 

Army. The MOU specified that transfer of 

the Army’s nutrition research program at 

LAIR was to be effective beginning April 

6, 1980. It did not involve transfer of 

funds, but it included 19 permanent fulltime staff positions and equipment and 

supplies associated with LAIR’s nutrition 

research activities. Also specified was 

assignment of nutrition-associated space 

totaling most of the third floor of the 

building—including the metabolic ward 

and kitchen, associated analytical facilities, 

and laboratory and office space to support 

19 personnel—and some 30 rooms in a 

separate but contiguous building for animal 

housing. The USDA would reimburse the 

Army for their floor space and shared 

support facilities and services such as 

animal care, use of radioisotopes, library, 

auditorium, and shipping/receiving via an 

Interagency Support Agreement. To help 

complete ongoing Army nutrition projects, 

some employees who transferred to USDA 

would continue work on the projects until 

September 30, 1980, with some associated 

DOD funds to reimburse the USDA for 

completing the work. The basic arrangement 

laid out in the 11-point MOU of April 1980 

served the needs of both the Army and the 
306 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

USDA, and allowed their respective research 

programs to co-exist productively at LAIR for 

nearly two decades. 

Legislative language related to establishment 

of the human nutrition research centers 

(HNRCs) in the 1960s and 70s often 

suggested affiliation of the centers with 

nearby universities. The benefits derived 

from interaction with university facilities 

and research expertise had long been 

realized by the USDA’s agricultural 

research establishment; hence, the formal 

affiliation of the Grand Forks, Boston, and 

Houston HNRCs with the University of 

North Dakota, Tufts University, and Baylor 

University, respectively. Establishment of 

the Western Center on a campus of the 

University of California (UC) at Berkeley, 

Davis, or Los Angeles made good sense 

in that all three campuses had nationally 

prominent nutrition departments. In July 

of 1978, Professor William Weir, Chairman 

of the Nutrition Department at UC Davis, 

submitted a proposal to the USDA to 

establish the Western Human Nutrition 

Research Center on the Davis campus—a 

campus strong in agricultural sciences as 

well as nutrition. 

In the end, the availability of the excellent 

LAIR nutrition research facilities precluded 

the selection of a UC site for the WHNRC in 

1980. However, productive collaborations 

of the WHNRC with all three UC campuses 

continued throughout WHNRC’s tenure 

in the Presidio of San Francisco, the LAIR 

era ending with the closure of the Army’s 

Presidio base in 1994, the subsequent 

closure of LAMC and LAIR, and the Center’s 

eventual move to the UC Davis campus in 

1999. 

The WHNRC in the Presidio of San Francisco 

(1980-1999)

One of the unique features of the new 

WHNRC was its location in the Presidio of 

San Francisco, a park-like military base 

first occupied by the Spanish in 1776 

and bordered by the Pacific Ocean and 

San Francisco Bay. Visitors to the Center 

were always taken through the thirdfloor hallway, where they marveled at a 

panoramic view of the Bay, the Golden Gate 

Bridge, and the Marin Headlands in the 

background. 

The new WHNRC was to be administered 

through the Human Nutrition Center of 

the USDA/SEA in Washington, DC, by D. 

Mark Hegsted, Administrator, and James 

“Jack” Iacono, Associate Administrator. 

The mission of the Center, as stated by 

USDA Assistant Secretary Mary Jarratt 

before the House Committee on Science and 

Technology in June 1981, was to “improve 

methodology for assessing nutritional 

status” and “design and evaluate nutrition 

intervention programs.” While the Center’s 

mission statement has changed somewhat 

over the years, the goals of determining 

nutrient requirements, improving nutritional 

assessment methods, and testing nutritional 

interventions for promoting health have 

remained. 

Initially, some 10 DOD civilian employees 

at LAIR converted to USDA positions at 

the WHNRC. These included four research 

scientists: Howerde Sauberlich, Mary 

“Molly” Kretsch, James Skala, and Herman 

Johnson. Dr. Sauberlich, formerly Director 

of the Department of Nutrition at LAIR, 

became the first Director of the WHNRC. 

One of the key leaders and nutrition 

research scientists at LAIR in 1980 was 

Colonel Robert Herman, a physician 

who was Director of the Department of 

Medicine at LAIR and Chief of Endocrine 

and Metabolic Services at the adjacent 

Letterman Army Medical Center (LAMC). A 

highly respected nutrition research scientist, 

educator, and administrator, Dr. Herman 

was in charge of clinical nutrition research 

and the metabolic unit at LAIR, was 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 307

President of the American Society of Clinical 

Nutrition, Editor of the American Journal of 

Clinical Nutrition, and recipient of numerous 

medals and awards for his work in nutrition. 

Dr. Herman’s untimely death on Christmas 

Day 1980, at the age of 55, cut short his 

illustrious career and any potential role in 

the new USDA nutrition research effort at 

LAIR. A part of his legacy remained with 

the WHNRC, however, as his substantial 

collection of nutrition-related books and 

journals were later gifted to the Center by 

his widow and scientific colleague, Yaye 

(Tokuyama) Herman.

An Inaugural Symposium was held at the 

fledgling WHNRC on August 13-14, 1981. 

The symposium was sponsored by the USDA 

Agricultural Research Service (ARS)—again 

charged with the USDA’s human nutrition 

research program in the new Reagan 

Administration—in cooperation with the 

University of California. The Symposium 

focused on two themes: “Evaluating 

Human Nutrition Intervention Programs” 

and “Assessing Nutrient Adequacy of Food 

as Consumed.” The program included 

representatives of U.S. Government agencies 

involved in food and nutrition programs 

and national and international speakers 

with expertise in the chosen themes. (One 

of the few difficulties of the USDA being colocated with the Army at LAIR was obtaining 

advance permission for foreign national 

visitors to enter a U.S. military research 

facility.)

Transition: Army to USDA Nutrition 

Research Center

Howerde Sauberlich was the first of several 

nationally recognized nutrition scientists 

to be appointed Director of the WHNRC. A 

pioneer in developing laboratory methods 

for assessing human nutritional status, 

Dr. Sauberlich had earlier published the 

widely acclaimed compendium of methods 

“Laboratory Tests for the Assessment 

of Nutritional Status” (1). Along with 

co-author and biochemist colleague, 

James Skala, he established the Center’s 

Bioanalytical Support Laboratory, which 

became the Analytical Biochemistry Section 

of the WHNRC’s nutritional assessment 

armamentarium. 

Two other scientists who transferred 

from LAIR to USDA began work on 

establishing the dietary intake and body 

composition sections of the Center’s 

nutritional assessment capability: Research 

Nutritionist Molly Kretsch and Research 

Physiologist Herman Johnson. In addition 

to her research assignment, Dr. Kretsch 

served as Director of the Center’s Human 

Metabolic Research Unit from 1980 to 

1983. Like Dr. Sauberlich, Drs. Kretsch 

and Johnson brought methods used in 

the Army’s nutrition research studies to 

the new WHNRC and began to integrate 

them into the Center’s program. Dr. 

Kretsch helped to establish computerized 

methods for accurately estimating food 

intakes and determining the nutrient 

content of foods. The inaccuracy of the 

methods in those days led Dr. Kretsch to 

develop a new computerized approach to 

dietary intake assessment that utilized bar 

codes to identify food items and portable 

electronic weight scales to measure 

the quantities of each food consumed. 

Howerde Sauberlich, 

formerly Director of the 

Department of Nutrition 

at Letterman Army 

Institute of Research 

(LAIR), became the first 

Director of the Western 

Human Nutrition 

Research Center.

1981
308 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Comparison of the results against carefully 

weighed foods provided to volunteers in the 

Center’s metabolic unit demonstrated the 

increased accuracy of the technique over 

the commonly used food diary and recall 

methods (2). Among body composition 

methods, Dr. Johnson helped set up 

methods for determining lean body mass by 

40K counting and body water by D2O (heavy 

water) dilution and bioelectrical techniques 

(3). 

The Role of Fats in Chronic Disease 

and Immunocompetence

In 1982, Dr. Sauberlich left the WHNRC 

and returned to Alabama to join the 

newly organized Department of Nutrition 

Sciences at the University of Alabama, 

Birmingham. The ARS, now managing the 

USDA HNRCs after the Carter to Reagan 

transition, appointed James “Jack” Iacono 

as Center Director. Within ARS, Dr. Iacono 

had experience as an administrator as well 

as a research scientist. He had directed a 

successful nutrition research program at 

the USDA-ARS Beltsville Human Nutrition 

Research Center (BARC) and was later 

appointed as Associate Administrator of 

SEA’s Human Nutrition Center during 

the Carter Administration. A nutritional 

biochemist, Dr. Iacono’s research interests 

were primarily on the effects of fat intake 

on an individual’s risk of developing chronic 

disease, especially heart disease and stroke. 

A key member of his research team, Rita 

Dougherty, made the move from Beltsville 

to San Francisco with him, providing some 

continuity for his research program during 

the transition. 

Dr. Iacono’s research on the effects of fat 

intake included study of populations in 

Finland and Italy, as well as in the United 

States. This allowed study of different types 

of fat, e.g. the higher saturated fat (in meat 

and dairy products) of the Finnish diet 

versus higher monounsaturated fat (in olive 

oil and nuts) in Italy and polyunsaturated 

fat (in soybean, corn, and seed oils) in the 

United States. (4). Like many of the WHNRC 

scientists, Dr. Iacono took advantage of 

the Center’s metabolic unit to conduct 

human nutrition studies, where the diet and 

lifestyle of volunteer subjects were precisely 

controlled and studies could extend to 

3 months or more. This was especially 

important when sensitive and slow-changing 

end-points such as blood pressure, 

coagulation, and immune function were 

measured. While operation of the Center’s 

12-bed metabolic unit was complicated and 

expensive, the results of such studies were 

regarded as unique in terms of their quality 

and relevance to human nutrition. At a time 

when dietary fat was largely considered as 

harmful, Dr. Iacono’s research helped to 

show that some types of fat have beneficial 

effects on health, such as his findings that 

replacing some saturated fat in the diet with 

polyunsaturated fat lowers blood pressure 

in normotensive as well as hypertensive 

individuals (5). Stemming from his research 

results and broad knowledge of the effects of 

dietary fat intake, Dr. Iacono contributed to 

public health recommendations on the kinds 

and optimal amounts of dietary fat to help 

prevent degenerative diseases (6). 

In 1983, Dr. Iacono recruited Gary 

Nelson, a lipids biochemist from the 

James “Jack” Iacono was 

appointed Director of the 

Western Human Nutrition 

Research Center.

1982
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 309

NIH National Heart, Lung, and Blood 

Institute, to provide further expertise in 

lipid analysis and expand the Center’s 

research on physiologic effects of dietary 

fat intake, especially as related to blood 

clotting and risk of stroke. Later in 1983, 

Dr. Nelson recruited Darshan Kelley to 

begin tissue culture studies. Dr. Kelley’s 

research later evolved into a program 

on nutritional immunology, a discipline 

believed important to understanding the 

diverse effects of fat and other nutrients 

on health. During his first few years at the 

WHNRC, Dr. Nelson set up lipid analysis 

methods and conducted several studies on 

fat metabolism in experimental animals. 

In 1989, he conducted the first of several 

human studies, a 100-day metabolic unit 

study in which the effects of a high salmon 

intake (about a pound a day) in nine healthy 

men were compared to those of a similar 

diet without the salmon. The study was 

conducted because health benefits were 

being alleged to consumption of fish oil 

capsules, yet a guiding tenet of the USDA’s 

human nutrition research program was to 

understand and publicize the health benefits 

of foods rather than supplements. 

While some of the blood fat measures 

improved (decreased triglycerides and 

increased HDL “good” cholesterol), few of 

the health-related measures, including 

blood coagulation tests, were affected 

significantly by the high salmon intake (7). 

The results also indicated that the shortterm consumption of a high fish (salmon)-

containing diet does not adversely affect the 

immune system, as had been reported with 

fish oil supplements. (It was anecdotally 

reported that the volunteer subjects were 

not inclined to eat any kind of salmon for 

some time after they completed the study.) 

Dr. Nelson collaborated with Drs. Iacono 

and Kelley to conduct human feeding 

studies in men and women of other highly 

unsaturated fatty acids (alpha-linolenic, 

docosahexaenoic, conjugated linoleic acid) 

that had shown some health benefits in 

animal models but had not been studied 

much in humans. Found in some fatty 

foods, especially fish, flaxseed, cheese, 

and dairy products, their ingestion was 

purported to provide an array of health 

benefits, mostly related to heart disease, 

stroke, and immune function. The study 

findings showed that high intakes of these 

fatty acids, or foods that contain them, 

provided little or no anti-thrombotic or 

immune function benefits, important 

information at a time when the over-thecounter market for supplements of such was 

booming (8,9). 

Darshan Kelley’s research program on 

the effects of fats and other nutrients 

on immune function was seen as a key 

element for attaining the Center’s goal 

of understanding the roles that foods 

and specific nutrients play in preventing 

chronic diseases such as heart disease, 

cancer, arthritis and diabetes. While Dr. 

Nelson studied effects on blood clotting, 

Dr. Kelley focused on the immune 

and inflammatory responses that are 

closely related to risk of heart disease 

and arthritis. In collaboration with Drs. 

Iacono and Nelson, Dr. Kelley conducted 

controlled human studies of the fatty acids 

mentioned above to determine their effect 

on the body’s immunocompetence and 

inflammatory status. A study that varied 

the consumption of total fat and linoleic 

acid (a fatty acid found in soybean and 

other seed oils) showed that reduction in 

total fat intake enhanced several indices of 

human immune response and contributed 

to the Recommended Dietary Allowances 

(RDA) for total fat (not to exceed 30% of 

energy) and for linoleic acid (not to exceed 

10% of total energy) (10). Dr. Kelley also 

conducted several studies of the effects of 

dietary omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids 

(alpha-linolenic and docosahexaenoic acids) 

and showed that the non-marine sources 

of these fats (such as flaxseed) are safe and 

have substantial anti-inflammatory effects 
310 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

similar to those observed with fish oils. 

An increase in the consumption of foods 

rich in these types of fatty acids is now 

recommended to help prevent and manage 

a number of chronic inflammatory diseases 

including arthritis, type 2 diabetes, and 

heart disease (11). 

Subsequent studies by Dr. Kelley 

demonstrated that one of the trans fatty 

acids, conjugated linolenic acid, caused 

the development of insulin resistance and 

nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in animal 

models, and that both these metabolic 

disorders could be prevented simultaneously 

by increasing the intake of omega-3 fatty 

acids (12). These results suggest that an 

increase in the intake of trans fatty acids 

and a reduction in the intake of omega-3 

fatty acids is one of the major causes 

for the rapid increase in the incidence of 

insulin resistance, diabetes, and fatty liver. 

Evidence from Drs. Nelson’s and Kelley’s 

studies showing that arachidonic and 

docosahexaenoic acids did not provoke 

blood clotting or inflammatory problems in 

humans contributed to the decisions to add 

these two fatty acids to infant formulas in 

more than 100 countries. 

The large number of publications resulting 

from each of the above human studies (from 

five to eight for each study) is somewhat 

typical of the live-in metabolic unit studies 

conducted at the WHNRC. This reflects 

not only the research goals of multiple 

investigators but also the intention to obtain 

the most pertinent findings from difficult, 

time-consuming, and costly studies.

Research on Mineral Nutrients

In the early 1980s at the USDA-ARS 

Western Regional Research Laboratory in 

Albany, CA, Judy Turnlund was developing 

a new methodology for studying the body’s 

metabolism of essential minerals using 

stable isotopes. Because the isotopes were 

not radioactive, they could be used safely 

in humans to track a dose of a mineral in 

accessible body compartments such as 

the blood, urine, and feces. The method 

required a sophisticated mass spectrometer 

and human studies where the diet could 

be controlled and all excreta collected. 

Dr. Turnlund met the latter need by 

collaborating with scientists in the Nutrition 

Department of the University of California at 

Berkeley who operated an active metabolic 

unit (“the penthouse”) for controlled human 

nutrition studies. The closure of the unit in 

the mid-1980s led to Dr. Turnlund’s move 

across the Bay to the WHNRC, where the 

12-bed metabolic unit and other resources 

allowed her to continue to refine the 

methodology and utilize it to study human 

mineral metabolism and requirements. As 

copper was being revealed as an essential 

nutrient for the formation and health of 

bones, the nervous system, heart, and blood 

vessels, Dr. Turnlund conducted studies in 

men and women that allowed her to map the 

metabolism of copper in the body and more 

reliably estimate the human dietary copper 

requirement. The studies resulted in the 

first RDA for copper (13) and provided data 

to more reliably estimate the safe upper limit 

for copper intake (14). 

Since little was known about human 

metabolism and requirement for the 

essential minerals molybdenum and 

magnesium, Dr. Turnlund conducted 

studies to fill the knowledge gap on these 

nutrients (15,16). The molybdenum studies 

provided the data needed to establish 

the first RDA for molybdenum (17). She 

also utilized her knowledge of mineral 

nutrition and stable isotope methodology in 

collaborations with other WHNRC scientists, 

studying zinc, calcium, and iron. Starting 

with mathematical modeling programs from 

other scientific institutions, Dr. Turnlund 

applied data from her human studies to 

develop the first-ever computerized models 

of how copper and molybdenum are 

metabolized in healthy people (18). This 

allowed unique predictions of such things 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 311

as intestinal absorption, excretion, body 

turnover, and even tissue concentrations 

of the minerals at a given intake. A pioneer 

and international authority on mineral 

nutrition, Dr. Turnlund was a member of 

the National Academy of Sciences expert 

panel that formulated the year 2000 RDAs 

for many essential minerals including 

copper, iron, molybdenum, and zinc (19). Dr. 

Turnlund served as Acting Center Director 

during the period 1992-1994, while Dr. 

Iacono was assigned to ARS Headquarters 

in Beltsville, MD, and the ARS Western 

Regional Research Center in 1992-1993, and 

after his retirement in 1994. In recognition 

of her outstanding accomplishments in 

human nutrition, she received the American 

Institute of Nutrition’s Lederle Award in 

1996. 

In July of 1994, the WHNRC and the 

UC Davis Department of Nutrition cohosted a symposium “New Approaches 

to Define Nutrient Requirements.” Held 

at the WHNRC, the symposium explored 

the evidence for estimating nutrient 

requirements based on physiologic 

functions as well as traditional biochemical 

measures such as balance studies and 

blood concentrations. Attended by scientists 

from academia, government, and industry, 

the proceedings of the symposium were 

published in the American Journal of 

Clinical Nutrition with Dr. Turnlund of the 

WHNRC and Dr. Barbara Schneeman of UC 

Davis as Scientific Editors (20). 

After Dr. Iacono’s retirement and a 

nationwide search for a new Center 

director, ARS appointed Janet King to 

the position in January 1995. Previously 

Chair of the Department of Nutritional 

Sciences at nearby UC Berkeley, Dr. King 

was internationally recognized for her 

research on maternal nutrition and human 

zinc requirements. Testament to her 

accomplishments and standing in the field 

of nutrition is her election to the National 

Academy of Sciences in 1994, leadership 

on national and international committees 

such as the USDA/HHS Dietary Guidelines 

Advisory Committee, the National Academy 

of Sciences’ Food and Nutrition Board 

(which established a new paradigm for 

U.S. Dietary Reference Intakes), and the 

United Nations Committee on International 

Harmonization of Dietary Standards. She 

also served as President of the American 

Society of Nutritional Sciences and an 

Associate Editor for the American Journal of 

Clinical Nutrition. At the WHNRC, Dr. King 

continued to pursue her research interests 

in zinc and maternal nutrition, sometimes 

extending her studies by collaborating with 

other WHNRC scientists. Dr. King, herself 

a pioneer in the use of stable isotopes to 

study and model mineral metabolism, 

collaborated with Dr. Turnlund on human 

studies of zinc deficiency and metabolism 

(21). Dr. King developed a kinetic model of 

zinc metabolism and showed that the size of 

exchangeable pools of zinc in the model are 

sensitive measures of zinc status (22). The 

pools are good reference points for the zinc 

status of vulnerable population groups, i.e. 

pregnant women, children fed cereal diets, 

and the elderly. Collaborations with Dr. 

Kelley and Dr. Marta Van Loan showed that 

mild zinc deficiency in healthy men did not 

alter immune function (23), but more severe 

zinc deficiency impaired skeletal muscle 

Janet King was 

appointed Director of the 

Western Human Nutrition 

Research Center.

1995
312 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

capacity (24), while collaboration with Dr. 

Chris Hawkes showed that lower selenium 

status during pregnancy is associated with 

greater glucose intolerance (25).

After gaining interest and expertise in 

selenium nutrition at UC Davis, Dr. Chris 

Hawkes joined the WHNRC in 1984. Dr. 

Hawkes’s interest in the mechanisms by 

which selenium might help prevent cancer 

added to the Center’s growing program on 

the roles of micronutrients in preventing 

chronic disease. When the occurrence of 

congenital malformations in ducks was 

attributed to high selenium concentrations 

in a California wildlife refuge, Dr. Hawkes 

collaborated with WHNRC researcher 

Stanley Omaye to study selenium toxicity 

in pregnant monkeys. They showed that, 

unlike birds, primate fetuses are well 

protected from selenium and are only at 

risk if the mother herself is poisoned by too 

much selenium. This work demonstrated 

that pregnant women needn’t be concerned 

about eating foods from high selenium 

areas, which are common in major 

agricultural production areas of the Western 

United States (26).

While previous studies of selenium nutriture 

in humans were more pharmacologic 

than nutritional, Dr. Hawkes conducted a 

4-month metabolic unit study in which the 

selenium intake of healthy men was varied 

by feeding foods that were naturally high 

or low in selenium. The study provided 

valuable new information on biochemical 

measures of selenium status and how the 

body adapts to high or low selenium intake 

(27). Since previous studies in rats showed 

that selenium may have either beneficial 

or deleterious effects on sperm function 

depending on the amount and form of 

selenium fed, Dr. Hawkes measured sperm 

properties during the study. The finding that 

the high selenium intake decreased sperm 

motility raised concern about the increasing 

frequency of selenium supplementation 

in the U.S. population and the need for 

further studies to evaluate this effect (28). 

Collaboration with WHNRC colleague 

Nancy Keim showed that selenium intake 

can modulate energy metabolism, i.e. high 

selenium intake produced a hypothyroid 

response and subsequent body weight 

gain, while low selenium intake produced a 

hyperthyroid response accompanied by loss 

of body fat and weight (29). Collaboration 

with Dr. Kelley showed that the higher 

selenium intake enhanced some aspects of 

cell mediated immunity (30). Dr. Hawkes 

is continuing his research into the role of 

selenium in helping to prevent hormonally 

related cancers, recently identifying a 

selenoprotein in breast and prostate 

epithelial cells that may be involved in 

protecting against breast and prostate 

cancer.

Vitamins and Phytonutrients

Since consumption of fruits and vegetables 

is strongly associated with health benefits 

in the population at large, the WHNRC 

developed research programs to determine 

specific nutrients in plant foods that 

promote health and their mechanisms of 

action. Micronutrients believed to modulate 

oxidative damage, inflammation, and 

immune function were examined, often via 

well-controlled human studies carried out in 

the Center’s metabolic unit.

Bringing a background in biochemical 

methods for assessing human nutritional 

status, Robert Jacob joined the WHNRC in 

1983 and assumed responsibility for the 

Center’s Bioanalytical Support Laboratory. 

With an interest in micronutrients that 

provide antioxidant protection, Dr. Jacob 

conducted two 3-month-long metabolic 

unit studies of vitamin C depletion and 

repletion in healthy men (the first study in 

collaboration with WHNRC colleagues Drs. 

James Skala and Stanley Omaye). These 

studies established plasma and leukocyte 

vitamin C as the best tests for assessing 

body vitamin C status (31), and showed that 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 313

even moderate vitamin C deficiency lowers 

antioxidant defense and increases oxidative 

damage in the body (32). This information 

was used by the Institute of Medicine’s 

Panel on Dietary Antioxidants (of which 

Dr. Jacob was a member) in 2000 as part 

of the justification for increasing the RDA 

for vitamin C based on the need to provide 

cellular antioxidant protection as well as 

prevent scurvy (33).

In the 1980s and 1990s, Dr. Jacob 

conducted three metabolic unit studies of 

B vitamins in collaboration with Dr. Marian 

Swendseid, a Professor of Nutrition in the 

UCLA School of Public Health. Results from 

a study of niacin depletion and repletion 

established red blood cell nicotinamide 

dinucleotide concentration as the first blood 

and functional measure of niacin status 

(34) and provided data on urinary excretion 

of niacin metabolites that was part of the 

information used to set the RDA for niacin 

in the 1989 publication of Dietary Reference 

Intakes for B Vitamins (35). Studies that 

varied folate intake in healthy men and 

postmenopausal women showed that even 

mild folate deficiency may increase risk of 

developing vascular disease by elevating 

plasma homocysteine, and that folate 

deficiency can cause DNA and chromosome 

aberrations and increased DNA repair 

activity, conditions which increase the risks 

of developing cancer and the occurrence of 

birth defects (36,37).

In 1996, Dr. Jacob chaired a five-member 

ARS panel that developed the first nutrient 

standards for Public Law-480 Title II grain 

blend commodities used for supplemental 

and emergency feeding throughout the 

world. The Panel’s report provided the 

first nutrient standards for Food for Peace 

grain-soy blends, which are the primary 

commodities the United States ships 

overseas for food relief. The new standards, 

which also included guidelines for extrusion 

processing that provides a pre-cooked 

“instant” product, are used by the USDA 

Farm Service Agency as the basis for 

contracts of the foods used for relief work

that are improved in their nutritional value 

and ease of use by the recipient.

To extend his studies on health-promoting 

micronutrients beyond vitamins to 

lesser known phytonutrients, Dr. Jacob 

collaborated with Drs. Shin Hasegawa and 

Gary Manners of the ARS Western Regional 

Research Center across the Bay, who had 

perfected methods for isolating triterpene 

limonoids from citrus molasses. Found 

in citrus juice and tissues, limonoids had 

been shown to provide anti-cancer activities 

in laboratory animals and human breast 

cancer cells in culture but had not been 

studied in humans. The appearance of 

limonin in the blood after doses of pure 

limonin glucoside were given orally showed 

that limonoids are absorbed systemically 

in humans and therefore may provide 

anticancer protection to body tissues (38). 

Since polyphenols from cherries and 

other bright-colored fruits showed antiinflammatory effects in animal studies, Dr. 

Jacob collaborated with Dr. Kelley and Dr. 

Adel Kader, of the UC Davis Pomology (fruit 

science) Department, to conduct a cherry 

feeding experiment in healthy women. They 

found that cherry consumption displayed 

an acute anti-inflammatory effect within 

5 h of a single serving of cherries (39). Dr. 

Kelley followed this up with a long-term 

cherry consumption study and found that 

consumption of Bing sweet cherries by 

healthy adults for 4 weeks significantly 

reduced circulating concentrations of several 

markers of inflammation (40). These results 

may explain the long-held anecdotal belief 

that consumption of cherry products can 

reduce the symptoms of gout and arthritis.

Carotenoids are a family of over 600 plant 

pigments that are strongly associated 

with cancer and heart disease prevention 

through epidemiological studies, but whose 

health benefits in humans have not been 
314 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

established experimentally. Betty Burri 

joined the WHNRC in 1985 and became 

interested in the body’s metabolism of 

carotenoids and their nutritional value 

beyond serving as vitamin A precursors. 

Dr. Burri addressed these questions by 

developing new methods for assessing 

vitamin A status and blood carotene 

concentrations (41). She then conducted two 

metabolic unit studies with healthy women 

in which she varied the carotene intake by 

feeding a low carotene diet and one replete 

with beta-carotene. To precisely measure 

beta-carotene absorption and conversion to 

vitamin A, she collaborated with UC Davis 

Nutrition Professor Dr. Andrew Clifford 

and perfected a dual tracer–stable isotope 

technique that allowed metabolic tracing 

of deuterated vitamin A and beta-carotene 

isotopes in the study subjects (42). These 

studies showed that some measures of 

antioxidant defense decreased and increased 

during periods of carotene depletion 

and repletion, respectively (43), and that 

carotene depletion induced changes in 

thyroid hormones and menstrual cycles 

(44). These results suggest that carotenoids 

have physiological roles independent of 

their function as precursors of vitamin A. 

Measurement of the conversion of betacarotene to vitamin A was studied in both 

men and women and showed that the 

conversion was lower and more variable 

between individuals than previously 

believed. This helps explain the generally 

poor results from public health programs 

that attempt to improve vitamin A status 

through the incorporation of beta-carotene 

rich foods in the diet (45).

By the late 1980s, WHNRC scientists were 

examining nutritional correlates of many 

biochemical and physiological functions; 

however, no research on neural and 

behavioral pathways had been established. 

In 1986, Monica Schaeffer began a program 

to measure indicators of neural functions, 

including sensory, motor, and cognitive 

functions. Since both deficient and excess 

vitamin B6 had been shown to result in 

nervous system abnormalities, she set 

up methods to study sensory and motor 

functions in the rat model. In several 

studies, she found that both deficiency and 

excess of vitamin B6 resulted in decreased 

startle response, while deficiency also 

resulted in gait abnormalities (46,47). 

These results represent early evidence of a 

nutritional principle that was increasingly 

documented over succeeding years: that 

body functions operate optimally over 

a range of nutrient intakes and may be 

compromised at either low or high nutrient 

intakes.

Also interested in studying nutritionbehavior correlates, Molly Kretsch set up 

sensory deprivation and testing rooms 

at the WHNRC where cognitive function 

tests could be reliably administered to 

nutrition research subjects. In collaboration 

with Herman Johnson, Dr. Kretsch 

tested cognitive functions in healthy, 

premenopausal women involved in WHNRC 

energy-weight loss studies. The findings 

from one study showed a decline in iron 

status of dieting women that correlated with 

poor performance on a measure of sustained 

attention (48). This was among the first 

evidence that one of the most common 

nutritional deficiencies of young women, 

mild iron deficiency short of anemia, may 

have adverse physiologic consequences, i.e. 

cognitive impairment. With help from the 

nearby Letterman Army Medical Center, 

Dr. Kretsch also set up equipment to take 

electroencephelographic (EEG) tests as 

measures of brain activity. Her use of the 

tests in a vitamin B6 study provided the 

first clinical evidence of EEG abnormalities 

with short-term vitamin B6 deficiency in 

women (49). Linkage of this information 

with biochemical status measures played an 

important role in setting the 1998 U.S. RDA 

for vitamin B6.

In 1998, the WHNRC received a boost to its 

program on nutrition and immune function 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 315

with the addition of Charles Stephensen. 

He joined WHNRC from the School of 

Public Health at the University of Alabama, 

Birmingham, where he had participated 

in studies that showed important links 

between vitamin A and infectious disease. 

His principal focus was to determine 

the role of nutrients that act via nuclear 

receptors (including vitamins A and D and 

some fatty acids) in maintaining a healthy 

immune system. Dr. Stephensen’s WHNRC 

research has demonstrated that vitamin A, 

and other nutrients that act via the retinoid 

X receptor, can directly promote survival 

of T lymphocytes and development of Th2 

memory cells, which mediate immune 

responses that protect against mucosal and 

parasitic infections (50). Dr. Stephensen 

and collaborators have also shown that 

adolescents and young adults with HIV 

infection have poor-quality diets and low 

intake of many micronutrients, resulting in 

poor status of vitamins E and D (51). Since 

recent evidence indicates many potential 

benefits for vitamin D nutriture beyond bone 

health, Dr. Stephensen has begun work on 

studies to develop and validate methods that 

quantitatively assess the contribution of sun 

exposure, diet, and skin pigmentation to 

vitamin D status in free-living individuals, 

and to determine the prevalence of vitamin 

D deficiency in infants and their mothers in 

the Sacramento, CA, area.

Body Weight, Nutrition, and Health

Critical to the study of nutrition and health 

is development of methods and research on 

body composition and energy metabolism. 

With a Ph.D. degree in exercise physiology 

and background in body composition 

methodologies from the University of 

Illinois, Marta Van Loan joined the WHNRC 

in 1982. Her responsibilities at the new 

Center included the development of a body 

composition laboratory for the assessment 

of human nutritional status as well as 

a research assignment on nutrition and 

body composition. Dr. Van Loan conducted 

numerous studies to validate new body 

composition methods, including total 

body electrical conductivity (TOBEC) for 

measuring fat-free mass, dual energy x-ray 

absorptiometry (DEXA) for measuring bone 

mineral density, and bioelectrical impedance 

spectroscopy (BIS) for determination of total 

body water and extracellular fluid (52,53). 

These methods featured improved reliability 

and ease of use, thus making them suitable 

for use in controlled human studies at the 

Center and in studies that involved large 

numbers of men and women.

Having validated a full range of body 

composition methods, Dr. Van Loan began 

studies on the influence of eating behaviors 

and dietary patterns on bone health. In 

studies of premenopausal women, she found 

that women who restricted their food intake 

to lose weight (“dieting”) had a lower bone 

density than women who did not engage in 

dieting. This suggested that chronic dieters 

are at greater risk of developing osteoporosis 

in later life and should monitor their bone 

density, calcium intake, and increase 

weight-bearing physical activity to maintain 

bone health (54,55). Findings from Dr. Van 

Loan’s collaboration with scientists at Iowa 

State University indicated that women who 

minimize weight gain during the menopausal 

transition may optimize appetite hormones, 

thereby facilitating appetite control and 

weight maintenance (56). Currently, Dr. Van 

Loan is participating as a Co-Investigator in 

a 3-year, multi-center trial on the efficacy of 

soy isoflavones as an alternative to hormone 

replacement therapy for minimizing bone 

loss in postmenopausal women. She is also 

the lead scientist, in collaboration with 

others at the WHNRC, in an investigation of 

the effect of dairy products on weight and 

fat loss during dietary restriction and the 

underlying mechanism (57).

In 1985, Nancy Keim joined the Center 

from the University of Wisconsin. With 

a background in dietetics and human 

nutrition, Dr. Keim began a research 
316 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

program to determine how dietary 

recommendations and practices affect 

energy metabolism and to delineate 

beneficial versus harmful effects of dieting 

on health and performance. She conducted 

a 4-month metabolic unit study to 

determine whether meal ingestion pattern 

(large morning meals vs. large evening 

meals) affects changes in body weight, body 

composition, or energy utilization during 

weight loss. Ingestion of larger morning 

meals resulted in slightly greater weight 

loss, but ingestion of larger evening meals 

resulted in better maintenance of fat-free 

(lean body) mass. Thus, incorporation 

of larger evening meals in a weight loss 

regimen may be important in minimizing 

the loss of fat-free mass (58). In a study 

of restrained eating behavior and the 

metabolic response to dietary energy 

restriction in women, Dr. Keim showed that 

the metabolism of dieting women is geared 

toward using carbohydrate for energy with 

decreased capability to burn fat. This finding 

suggests an alteration of metabolism that 

favors storage of fat and may contribute to 

weight regain in women who are chronic or 

“yo-yo”dieters (59).

Transition: Leaving the Presidio of 

San Francisco

The recommendations of the 1988 U.S. 

Base Realignment and Closure Commission 

included closure of the Army base at the 

Presidio of San Francisco. For some years 

thereafter, the fate of LAMC and LAIR was 

still uncertain. The cost of retrofitting 

the 1968-era LAMC hospital to modern 

earthquake and egress standards was too 

great to save it from closure; however, the 

more modern LAIR research building, home 

to the Army’s “research-for–the soldier” 

program and the now-mature WHNRC, had 

no such liability. After much discussion at 

local, city, and national levels about the 

fate of this jewel of a property bordering the 

Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay, the 

U.S. Congress directed that the National 

Park Service take over the property and 

add it to the U.S. National Park System as 

part of the existing Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area. As per Congressional 

directive, the Army would abandon all its 

Presidio property, including LAMC and LAIR. 

(A more detailed history of the Letterman 

properties in the Presidio of San Francisco 

is available at http://www.militarymuseum.

org/LettermanAMC.html.)

While the Presidio property was officially 

transferred from the U.S. Army to the 

National Park Service in October 1994, 

the status of the LAIR building, as well as 

WHNRC’s occupancy, was still unknown 

when Janet King joined the Center as 

Director in 1995. As the Army moved out of 

the LAIR building, Dr. King and the Center’s 

administrative staff faced the challenges 

of operating the Center as a tenant of 

the National Park Service but without 

the Army’s shared support facilities and 

services. In August 1996, the National Park 

Service notified Dr. King that the WHNRC’s 

scientific research program did not fit the 

theme of the Presidio Park that was being 

envisioned and thus the Center would 

have to leave the Presidio. At this time, the 

National Park Service did not give Dr. King 

a leave-by date but assured her that the 

Center would have plenty of time to plan for 

the transition once a firm date was provided. 

In late 1996, knowing that the WHNRC 

would have to move out of the Presidio but 

not knowing exactly when, the ARS and 

Dr. King faced the challenge of planning 

for the future of the WHNRC. Over the 

years, the Center and its scientists had 

established collaborations and contacts 

with UC Davis, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and 

the ARS Western Regional Research Center 

across the Bay in Albany, so these were all 

possible sites to which the WHNRC might 

relocate. Finding space for a research center 

with 14 scientists, some 80 total staff, and 

substantial laboratory and animal facilities 

was a daunting task. Since the WHNRC was 

the only one of the ARS HNRCs without its 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 317

own building, ARS was looking for a site 

where it could construct a building for the 

Center and purchase or lease property on a 

long-term basis. The lack of property space 

was a problem for all of the potential sites 

except the UC Davis campus, located on the 

farm acreage of Davis in the Central Valley 

of California, about 75 miles northeast 

of San Francisco. While the other two 

UC campuses also had nationally ranked 

nutrition departments, UC Davis was 

stronger in agricultural sciences, especially 

plant and animal sciences, and thus a good 

fit for the Center’s mission of understanding 

the relations among farm, food, and health. 

The U.S. Congress appreciated the plight of 

the WHNRC and began designating funds 

for construction of a building for the Center, 

although the total amount was appropriated 

over 4 years (1996-1999) due to tight 

Federal budgets and the need to cut costs. 

This piecemeal and protracted funding 

process delayed planning for the building, 

because plans could not be finalized until 

the amount funded was known. With the 

help of colleagues at UC Davis, the USDA 

and the University of California eventually 

formulated an MOU (memorandum of 

understanding) that designated a longterm lease to property on the west end of 

campus for the new WHNRC building. The 

last portion of funds for the new building 

was appropriated with the help of a Davis 

area congressman, Rep. Victor Fazio (D-CA). 

One of the key figures in the negotiations 

between ARS and UC Davis was Charles 

Hess, a plant scientist and administrator 

who had served UC Davis as Dean of the 

College of Agricultural and Environmental 

Sciences for the period 1975-1989 and 

USDA as Assistant Secretary of Science 

and Education for the period 1989-1991. 

Many other individuals at UC Davis also 

contributed to bringing the WHNRC to the 

campus, including Robert Grey, Provost, 

M.R.C. Greenwood, Dean of Graduate 

Studies, and Carl Keen, Chair of the 

Nutrition Department. 

In August 1998, Dr. King received word from 

the National Park Service that the WHNRC 

must vacate the Presidio—and within 30 

days. Meeting this deadline was impossible 

for a number of reasons, one being that 

arrangements for WHNRC space on the UC 

Davis campus had not been completed. 

Dr. King and the Center’s Administrative 

Officer Leo Rachel then negotiated with 

the National Park Service for a 6-month 

extension of the leave-by date. Now assured 

of funding for a new building, and knowing 

where (and when) they were going, Dr. King 

and the WHNRC staff began planning for 

the move. Committees were formed to work 

on the design and specifications for the new 

building under the leadership of Research 

Scientist Nancy Keim.

The WHNRC at the University of California 

Davis (1999-Present)

In the spring of 1999, the WHNRC began 

moving to the UC Davis campus. Since 

existing office and laboratory space on 

the campus was largely occupied, and no 

single campus building or department 

could house the WHNRC in its entirety, the 

Center’s research program was partitioned 

to several campus departments where space 

could be allocated and complementary 

research was being conducted. Thus, 

WHNRC scientists’ laboratories were 

relocated to various locations on campus, 

including the Departments of Nutrition, 

Pomology (fruit science), Food Science, and 

Medicine. Likewise, the administrative and 

support functions were relocated where 

space was available on campus, with some 

of the former finding space in a nearby 

USDA administrative building in Davis. 

In hindsight, this arrangement had the 

advantage of allowing a 7-year period of 

close contact between WHNRC scientists 

and their UC Davis colleagues, stimulating a 

variety of interactions that would benefit the 

Center’s research program.
318 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Having successfully led the WHNRC into 

the new millennium and met the challenge 

of moving the WHNRC to its permanent 

location on the UC Davis campus, Dr. King 

left the Center and ARS in 2003 to continue 

her nutrition research career at the Children’s 

Hospital Oakland Research Institute in Oakland, CA. 

In 2007, Dr. King was inducted into the ARS 

Science Hall of Fame, the third nutrition 

scientist to be so honored (after Drs. Hamish 

Munro and Walter Mertz).

After a nationwide search for a new Center Director, 

ARS selected Lindsay Allen to be Center Director in 

2004. A Professor of Nutrition at UC Davis, 

Dr. Allen is an accomplished research 

scientist in the area of micronutrient 

nutrition and a leader in the nutrition 

science profession. She served as President 

of the American Society for Nutrition and the 

Society for International Nutrition Research, 

and is Vice-President of the International 

Union of Nutritional Sciences. Dr. Allen 

has been a member of many Institute of 

Medicine committees, including the Food 

and Nutrition Board, and the Standing 

Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of 

Dietary Recommended Intakes. She has 

worked to raise awareness and improve 

micronutrient nutrition worldwide through 

food-based, supplementation, and/or foodfortification interventions (60,61). Dr. Allen 

discovered that vitamin B12 deficiency was 

highly prevalent in developing countries 

due to a low intake of animal-source foods 

(62) and was associated with impaired 

function. One of the important findings from 

her collaborative study with colleagues at 

UC Davis and the University of Michigan 

was that both low folate and vitamin B12 

nutriture are associated with dementia and 

cognitive impairment in elderly Mexican 

Americans, and that higher plasma vitamin 

B12 levels may reduce the risk by lowering 

plasma homocysteine (63,64).

The New Millennium—at UC Davis

Groundbreaking for the WHNRC’s new 

building at UC Davis took place in 2002; 

however, the building was not dedicated and 

occupied until 2006. Upon occupancy of 

the 2-story, 49,000-square-foot structure, 

the WHNRC staff numbered about 100 

and included 15 lead scientists, as well as 

post-doctoral researchers and pre-doctoral 

students. Support facilities included a 

12-bed metabolic unit, research kitchen, 

Bioanalytical and Physiological Support 

Laboratories for conducting carefully 

controlled nutrition studies of a few hours to 

months in duration. An indirect calorimeter 

for measuring human energy expenditure 

was completed in 2008.

While maintaining the overall goal of 

improving the health of Americans through 

nutrition, the mission of the WHNRC at the 

turn of the century had been extended to 

emphasize two issues that had been coming 

to the forefront of nutrition science. These 

were (1) the role of nutrition in maintaining 

a healthy body weight, a reflection of 

concern over the growing incidence of 

obesity in the United States; and (2) the 

mechanisms by which food constituents 

affect health and how these are influenced 

by an individual’s genetic makeup and 

environment. This led Center Directors King 

and Allen to recruit research scientists who 

had interest and background in these areas. 

Important to progress in the second area 

above was the understanding and utilization 

of emerging technologies in molecular 

biology, genomics, and metabolomics.

Since consumption of fructose-sweetened 

beverages in the United States has increased 

greatly over the past three decades, 

concomitant with increased obesity and 

diabetes, Nancy Keim teamed with UC 

Davis scientist Peter Havel to conduct a 

series of studies to assess the effects of 

higher fructose consumption on energy 

and lipid metabolism. They found that 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 319

beverages sweetened with fructose and high 

fructose corn syrup resulted in alterations 

in hormones associated with hunger, 

including insulin, leptin, and ghrelin, 

elevated circulating blood triglyceride 

concentrations, reduced ability to burn fat 

for energy, decreased resting metabolic rate, 

and evidence of insulin resistance (65). The 

results suggest that long-term consumption 

of diets high in fructose may contribute to 

increased risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart 

disease.

In 2000, Liping Huang joined the Center 

as a research geneticist. She began a 

program to identify the genetic influences 

on zinc homeostasis at the molecular 

and cellular levels in humans. Dr. Huang 

identified zinc transport proteins whose 

biosynthesis is under genetic control and 

showed that alteration of genetic expression 

of some of these proteins may play a role 

in the progression of prostate cancer (66). 

Since sensitive measures of human zinc 

status had not been identified, Dr. Huang 

studied the potential of tests for the genetic 

expression of the zinc transport proteins as 

markers of zinc status. From lymphocyte 

cell culture and human studies, she found 

that the level of genetic expression (mRNA) 

of the ZIP1 zinc transport protein was 

inversely related to zinc availability (67). 

This suggests a potential application of ZIP1 

as a biomarker of zinc status in humans.

Previously a professor at the Pennington 

Biomedical Research Center at Louisiana 

State University, Molecular Biologist Daniel 

Hwang joined the WHNRC in 2002. Dr. 

Hwang studies the molecular mechanisms 

by which different types of dietary fatty acids 

and phytochemicals modify risks of chronic 

diseases. He has shown that saturated 

fatty acids stimulate but polyunsaturated 

fatty acids and some plant polyphenols 

inhibit recognition receptors (TLRs and 

Nods) involved in the body’s immune and 

inflammatory responses (68,69). These 

results indicate that saturated fatty acids 

promote inflammation linked to chronic 

diseases while polyunsaturated fatty acids 

and plant polyphenols inhibit this process. 

Ongoing research to validate and extend 

these findings uses transgenic animal 

models to determine whether dietary n-3 

polyunsaturated fatty acids and plant 

polyphenols inhibit tumorigenic potential 

as a result of suppression of TLRs or Nodsinduced inflammation.

In 2003, Molecular Biologist Susan Zunino 

joined the Center’s research program 

to study the mechanisms by which 

phytochemicals in fruits and vegetables 

promote immune function and protect 

against chronic disease. Using healthy 

and cancerous cells as laboratory models, 

Dr. Zunino showed that phytochemicals, 

including resveratrol from grapes and 

quercitin from strawberries, can kill acute 

lymphoblastic leukemia cells, possibly 

by interfering with energy production 

in subcellular mitochondria (70). In 

collaboration with WHNRC scientist Charles 

Stephensen, Dr. Zunino found that a freezedried powder form of table grapes fed to 

diabetic mice prevented the progression of 

diabetes and increased survival time (71).

Three scientists who joined the WHNRC 

research program in 2005-2007 are 

attacking the growing problem of obesity 

in the United States by investigating the 

biochemical, genetic, and behavioral aspects 

of nutrition-obesity connections. Research 

Physiologist Sean Adams investigates the 

etiology of obesity and associated disorders 

such as diabetes, determines how specific 

foods and food components modify these 

parameters, and searches for molecular 

biomarkers reflective of a healthy or 

disordered metabolism. Studies designed 

to understand how fat tissue size and 

physiology are controlled led to the discovery 

of unique proteins robustly expressed in 

adipocytes (fat cells) and peripheral neurons 

and that are controlled by diet, metabolically 

relevant cues, and obesity (72). Since 
320 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

peripheral neurons transmit metabolic and 

sensory information (temperature and pain, 

for example) to the brain, these findings 

shed light on mechanisms by which diet and 

fat tissue influence nervous system function 

and neuropathy development. 

Other ongoing efforts in Dr. Adams’s 

laboratory focus on the influence of dietary 

calcium (Ca) on inflammatory and immune 

cell patterns in the fat tissue of animals 

and humans, since low Ca intake has been 

associated with increased inflammation in 

adipose tissue. More recently, as a result 

of collaborations between John Newman 

of the WHNRC and colleagues at the 

University of Alabama Birmingham, Case 

Western Reserve University, UC Davis, and 

the University of Ottawa, metabolomics 

technologies have been applied to identify 

metabolite biomarkers of fat metabolism 

in diabetics and in isolated mitochondria 

(energy-generating organelles) from muscle 

tissue. In addition to providing insights 

into the etiology of metabolic disease, 

these efforts should provide useful clinical 

tools for predicting diabetes risk and for 

tracking how dietary and physical activity 

interventions prevent or thwart progression 

of disease.

Research Chemist John Newman brings 

expertise in state-of-the-art analytical 

instrumentation to apply metabolomics to 

determine the impact of diet and dietary 

components on human health and obesity. 

Special emphasis is given to the obesity 

problem and its complications associated 

with the high-fat “Western” diet. While Dr. 

Newman collaborates with researchers 

within the WHNRC, the United States, 

and abroad, his primary focus is on the 

impact that the content and composition 

of dietary fat has on the levels of lipid 

metabolites that regulate cellular growth, 

inflammation, blood pressure, and 

satiety, with experiments to delineate how 

differences in individual responses to dietary 

fat might manifest in risks for obesity and 

health complications. Using newly developed 

tools, Dr. Newman recently demonstrated 

subtle changes in lipoprotein structure and 

function with associations to dyslipidemiaassociated cardiovascular disease (73). 

Current studies are exploring how omega6:omega-3 ratios of high-fat diets derived by 

blending butter fat, corn oil, olive oil, flax 

oil, and/or fish oil influence these structural 

aspects of circulating lipoproteins, as well 

as the molecular responses of peripheral 

tissues. These research goals extend and 

complement the WHNRC’s impact in the 

area of dietary fats on health accomplished 

by Drs. Iacono, Nelson, Kelly, and Hwang.

Nutritionist Kevin Laugero studies 

neurobehavioral aspects of eating behavior 

and nutrition-based interventions aimed 

at facilitating long-term adoption of the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The 

primary objective of Dr. Laugero’s research 

is to understand the impact of stress on 

food choice, and how foods switch off 

the response to psychological stress. Dr. 

Laugero’s research also aims to understand 

the role and underpinnings of chronic 

psychosocial stress in dysfunctional eating 

behaviors, particularly as they relate to 

obesity and the metabolic syndrome. He is 

currently testing whether increased physical 

activity in obese persons reduces the 

effects of chronic stress on eating behavior 

and energy metabolism, and identifying 

metabolic profiles that relate to weight loss 

or gain (74).

Acknowledgments

The assistance of David D. Schnakenberg, 

LTC, U.S. Army, in supplying information 

on the role of the U.S. Army in the 

establishment of the WHNRC in the Presidio 

of San Francisco is greatly appreciated. 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 321

References

1. Sauberlich, HE, RP Dowdy, and JH

Skala. 1974. Laboratory tests for the 

assessment of nutritional status. Boca 

Raton, FL: CRC Press. 486 p.

2. Kretsch, MJ, and AK Fong. 1990. Validation of a new computerized technique for quantitating individual dietary intake: the Nutrition Evaluation 

Scale System (NESSy) vs the weighed 

food record. Am J Clin Nutr 51:477-

84.

3. Johnson, HL, SP Virk, P Mayclin, and 

T Barbieri. 1992. Predicting total body 

water and extracellular fluid volumes 

from bioelectrical measurements of 

the human body. J Am Coll Nutr 

11:539-47.

4. Dougherty, RM, C Galli, A FerroLuzzi, and JM Iacono. 1987. Lipid and 

phospholipid fatty acid composition of 

plasma, red blood cells, and platelets 

and how they are affected by dietary 

lipids: a study of normal subjects from 

Italy, Finland, and the USA. Am J Clin 

Nutr 45:443-55. 

5. Iacono, JM. 1987. Dietary intervention 

studies to reduce risk factors related 

to cardiovascular diseases and cancer. 

Prev Med 16:516-24.

6. Iacono, JM, and GE McKeown-Eyssen. 

1987. Recommendations of the fat and 

fiber groups from the workshop on 

new developments on dietary fat and 

fiber in carcinogenesis (optimal types 

and amounts of fat or fiber). Prev Med 

16:592-5.

7. Nelson, GJ, PC Schmidt, and L 

Corash. 1991. The effect of a salmon 

diet on blood clotting, platelet 

aggregation and fatty acids in normal 

adult men. Lipids 26:87-96.

8. Nelson, GJ, PC Schmidt, G Bartolini, 

et al. 1997. The effect of dietary 

arachidonic acid on platelet function, 

platelet fatty acid composition, and 

blood coagulation in humans. Lipids 

32:421-5. 

9. Kelley, DS, VA Simon, PC Taylor, et al. 

2001. Dietary supplementation with 

conjugated linoleic acid increased its 

concentration in human peripheral 

blood mononuclear cells, but did 

not alter their function. Lipids 

Jul;36(7):669-74.

10. Kelley, DS, RM Dougherty, LB Branch, 

et al. 1992. Concentration of dietary 

N-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids and 

the human immune status. Clin 

Immunol Immunopath 62:240-4.

11. Kelley, DS, PC Taylor, GJ Nelson, et al. 

1998. Docosahexaenoic acid ingestion 

inhibits natural killer cell activity and 

production of inflammatory mediators 

in young healthy men. Lipids 34:317-

24.

12. Kelley, DS, M Vemuri, Y Adkins, et 

al. 2008. Flaxseed oil prevents trans10,cis-12-conjugated linoleic acidinduced insulin resistance in mice. 

Brit J Nutr Mar;101(5):701-8. Epub 

2008 Aug 19.

13. Turnlund, JR, KC Scott, GL Peiffer, et 

al. 1997. Copper status of young men 

consuming a low-copper diet. Am J 

Clin Nutr 65:72-8.

14. Turnlund, JR, WR Keyes, SK Kim, 

and JM Domek. 2005. Long-term 

high copper intake: effects on 

copper absorption, retention, and 

homeostasis in men. Am J Clin Nutr 

81:822-8.

15. Turnlund, JR, WR Keyes, and GL 

Peiffer. 1995. Molybdenum absorption, 

excretion, and retention studied with 

stable isotopes in young men at five 

intakes of dietary molybdenum. Am J 

Clin Nutr 62:790-6.

16. Sabatier, M, WR Keyes, F Pont, MJ 

Arnaud, and JR Turnlund. 2003. 

Comparison of stable-isotope-tracer 

methods for the determination of 

magnesium absorption in humans. 

Am J Clin Nutr 77:1206-12.

17. Turnlund, JR, WR Keyes, GL Peiffer, 

and G Chiang. 1995. Molybdenum 

absorption, excretion, and retention 
322 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

studied with stable isotopes in young 

men during depletion and repletion. 

Am J Clin Nutr 61:1102-9.

18. Turnlund, JR, KH Thompson, and KC 

Scott. 1998. Key features of copper 

versus molybdenum metabolism 

models in humans. Adv Exp Med Biol 

445:271-81.

19. Panel on Micronutrients, Food and 

Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine. 

2000. Dietary Reference Intakes 

for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, 

Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, 

Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, 

Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc. 

Washington, DC: National Academy 

Press. 773 p.

20. Turnlund, JR, and BO Schneeman, 

guest scientific editors. 1996. New 

approaches to define nutrient 

requirements. Am J Clin Nutr 

63:983S-1001S.

21. King, JC, DM Shames, NM Lowe, et 

al. 2001. Effect of acute zinc depletion 

on zinc homeostasis and plasma 

zinc kinetics in men. Am J Clin Nutr 

74:116-24.

22. Lowe, NM, LR Woodhouse, B

Sutherland, et al. 2004. Kinetic 

parameters and plasma zinc 

concentration correlate well with net 

loss and gain of zinc from men. J Nutr 

134:2178-81.

23. Pinna, K, DS Kelley, PC Taylor, and 

JC King. 2002. Immune functions 

are maintained in healthy men with 

low zinc intake. J Nutr 132:2033-6. 

(Erratum in: J Nutr 2002;132:3431.)

24. Van Loan, MD, B Sutherland, NM 

Lowe, et al. 1999. The effects of zinc 

depletion on peak force and total work 

of knee and shoulder extensor and 

flexor muscles. Int J Sport Nutr 9:125-

35.

25. Hawkes, WC, Z Alkan, K Lang, and JC 

King. 2004. Plasma selenium decrease 

during pregnancy is associated with 

glucose intolerance. Biol Trace Elem 

Res 100:19-29.

26. Hawkes, WC, CC Willhite, KA 

Craig, et al. 1992. Effects of excess 

selenomethionine on selenium status 

indicators in pregnant long-tailed 

macaques (Macaca fascicularis). Biol 

Trace Elem Res 35:281-97.

27. Hawkes WC, Alkan FZ, Oehler L.

Absorption, distribution and excretion 

of selenium from beef and rice in 

healthy North American men. J Nutr. 

2003;133:3434-42.

28. Hawkes, WC, and PJ Turek. 2001.

Effects of dietary selenium on sperm 

motility in healthy men. J Androl 

22:764-72.

29. Hawkes, WC, and NL Keim. 2003.

Dietary selenium intake modulates 

thyroid hormone and energy 

metabolism in men. J Nutr 133:3443-

8.

30. Hawkes, WC, DS Kelley, and PC 

Taylor. 2001. The effects of dietary 

selenium on the immune system in 

healthy men. Biol Trace Elem Res 

81:189-213.

31. Jacob, RA, JH Skala, and ST Omaye. 

1987. Biochemical indices of human 

vitamin C status. Am J Clin Nutr 

46:818-26.

32. Fraga, CG, PA Motchnik, MK 

Shigenaga, et al. 1991. Ascorbic acid 

protects against endogenous oxidative 

DNA damage in human sperm. Proc 

Natl Acad Sci 88:11003-6.

33. Panel on Dietary Antioxidants and 

Related Compounds, Food and 

Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine. 

2000. Dietary Reference Intakes for 

Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Selenium, 

and Carotenoids. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 529 p. 

34. Jacob, RA, ME Swendseid, RW McKee, 

et al. 1989. Biochemical markers for 

assessment of niacin status in young 

men: urinary and blood levels of 

niacin metabolites. J Nutr 119:591-8.

35. Panel on Folate and Other B Vitamins, 

Food and Nutrition Board, Institute 

of Medicine. 1989. Dietary Reference 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 323

Intakes for Thiamine, Riboflavin, 

Niacin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Vitamin 

B12, Pantothenic Acid, Biotin, and 

Choline. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press. 592 p.

36. Jacob, RA, M Wu, SM Henning, and 

ME Swendseid. 1994. Homocysteine 

increases as folate decreases in 

plasma of healthy men during shortterm dietary folate and methyl group 

restriction. J Nutr 124:1072-80.

37. Jacob, RA, DM Gretz, PC Taylor, et 

al. 1998. Moderate folate depletion 

increases plasma homocysteine 

and decreases lymphocyte DNA 

methylation in postmenopausal 

women. J Nutr 128:1204-12.

38. Manners, GD, RA Jacob, AP Breksa, 

et al. 2003. Bioavailability of citrus 

limonoids in humans. J Agric Food 

Chem 51:4156-61. 

39. Jacob, RA, GM Spinozzi, VA Simon, 

et al. 2003. Consumption of cherries 

lowers plasma urate in healthy 

women. J. Nutr 133:1826-9.

40. Kelley, DS, R Rasooly, RA Jacob, 

et al. 2006. Consumption of Bing 

sweet cherries lowers circulating 

concentrations of inflammation 

markers in healthy men and women. J 

Nutr 136:981-6.

41. Burri, BJ, DD Bankson, and TR 

Neidlinger. 1990. Use of free and 

transthyretin-bound retinol-binding 

protein in serum as tests of vitamin 

A status in humans: effect of high 

creatinine concentrations in serum. 

Clin Chem 36:674-6.

42. Burri, BJ, and JY Park. 1998. 

Compartmental models of vitamin 

A and beta-carotene metabolism in 

women. Adv Exp Med Biol 445:225-

37.

43. Dixon, ZR, BJ Burri, A Clifford, 

et al. 1994. Effects of a carotenedeficient diet on measures of oxidative 

susceptibility and superoxide 

dismutase activity in adult women. 

Free Radic Biol Med 17:537-44.

44. Burri, BJ. 1995. Serum thyroid 

hormone concentrations may increase 

during carotene depletion of healthy 

young women. J Nutr Biochem 6:613-

7.

45. Hickenbottom, SJ, JR Follett, Y Lin, 

et al. 2002. Variability in conversion 

of beta-carotene to vitamin A in men 

as measured by using a double-tracer 

study design. Am J Clin Nutr 75:900-7.

46. Schaeffer, MC, EF Cochary, and JA 

Sadowski. 1990. Subtle abnormalities 

of gait detected early in vitamin B6 

deficiency in aged and weanling rats 

with hind leg gait analysis. J Am Coll 

Nutr 9:120-7.

47. Schaeffer, MC. 1993. Excess dietary 

vitamin B-6 alters startle behavior of 

rats. J Nutr 123:1444-52.

48. Kretsch, MJ, AK Fong, MW Green, 

and HL Johnson. 1998. Cognitive 

function, iron status, and hemoglobin 

concentration in obese dieting women. 

Eur J Clin Nutr 52:512-8.

49. Kretsch, MJ, HE Sauberlich, JH Skala, 

and HL Johnson. 1995. Vitamin B-6 

requirement and status assessment: 

young women fed a depletion diet 

followed by a plant- or animal-protein 

diet with graded amounts of vitamin 

B-6. Am J Clin Nutr 61:1091-101.

50. Stephensen, CB, R Rasooly, X Jiang, 

et al. 2002. Vitamin A enhances in 

vitro Th2 development via retinoid 

X receptor pathway. J Immunol 

168:4495-503.

51. Stephensen, CB, GS Marquis, LA 

Kruzich, et al. 2006. Vitamins D status 

in adolescents and young adults with 

HIV infection. Am J Clin Nutr 83:1135-

41.

52. Van Loan, MD, and LS Koehler. 1990. 

Use of total-body electrical conductivity 

for the assessment of body composition 

in middle-aged and elderly individuals. 

Am J Clin Nutr 51:548-52.

53. Van Loan, MD, and PL Mayclin. 1992. 

Body composition assessment: dualenergy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) 
324 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

compared to reference methods. Eur J 

Clin Nutr 46:125-30.

54. Van Loan, MD, and NL Keim. 2000. 

Influence of cognitive eating restraint 

on total-body measurements of bone 

mineral density and bone mineral 

content in premenopausal women 

aged 18-45 y: a cross-sectional study. 

Am J Clin Nutr 72:837-43.

55. Bacon, L, JS Stern, NL Keim, and MD 

Van Loan. 2004. Low bone mass in 

premenopausal chronic dieting obese 

women. Eur J Clin Nutr 58:966-71.

56. Ritland, LM, DL Alekel, OA Matvienko, 

et al. 2008. Centrally located body fat 

is related to appetitive hormones in 

healthy postmenopausal women. Eur 

J Endocrinol 158:889-97. Epub 2008 

Apr 7.

57. Teegarden, D, KM White, RM Lyle, et 

al. 2008. Calcium and dairy product 

modulation of lipid utilization and 

energy expenditure. Obesity (Silver 

Spring) Jul;16(7):1566-72. Epub 2008 

Apr 17.

58. Keim, NL, MD Van Loan, WF Horn, et 

al. 1997. Weight loss is greater with 

consumption of large morning meals 

and fat-free mass is preserved with 

large evening meals in women on a 

controlled weight reduction regimen. J 

Nutr 127:75-82.

59. Keim, NL, and WF Horn. 2004. 

Restrained eating behavior and the 

metabolic response to dietary energy 

restriction in women. Obes Res 

12:141-9.

60. Allen, LH, B de Benoist, O Dary, and 

R. Hurrell, eds. 2008. Guidelines 

for the Micronutrient Fortification of 

Foods. World Health Organization and 

Food and Agriculture Organization 

of the United Nations. Geneva, 

Switzerland: WHO Press. 367 p.

61. Siekmann, JH, LH Allen, NO 

Bwibo, et al. 2003. Kenyan school 

children have multiple micronutrient 

deficiencies, but increased plasma 

vitamin B-12 is the only detectable 

micronutrient response to meat 

or milk supplementation. J Nutr 

133:3972S-80S.

62. Allen, LH. 2004. Folate and vitamin 

B12 status in the Americas. Nutr Rev 

62:S29-33.

63. Haan, MN, JW Miller, AE Aiello, et 

al. 2007. Homocysteine, B vitamins, 

and the incidence of dementia and 

cognitive impairment: results from 

the Sacramento Area Latino Study on 

Aging. Am J Clin Nutr 85:511-7.

64. Ramos, MI, LH Allen, DM Mungas, 

et al. 2005. Low folate status is 

associated with impaired cognitive 

function and dementia in the 

Sacramento Area Latino Study on 

Aging. Am J Clin Nutr 82:1346-52.

65. Stanhope, KL, SC Griffen, BR Bair, et 

al. 2008. Twenty-four-hour endocrine 

and metabolic profiles following 

consumption of high-fructose corn 

syrup-, sucrose-, fructose-, and 

glucose-sweetened beverages with 

meals. Am J Clin Nutr 87:1194-203.

66. Huang, L, CP Kirschke, and Y Zhang. 

2006. Decreased intracellular zinc in 

human tumorigenic prostate epithelial 

cells: a possible role in prostate cancer 

progression. Cancer Cell Int 6:10.

67. Andree, KB, J Kim, CP Kirschke, et 

al. 2004. Investigation of lymphocyte 

gene expression for use as biomarkers 

for zinc status in humans. J Nutr 

134:1716-23.

68. Zhao, L, MJ Kwon, S Huang, et al. 

2007. Differential modulation of Nods 

signaling pathways by fatty acids in 

human colonic epithelial HCT116 

cells. J Biol Chem 282:11618-28. 

Epub 2007 Feb 15.

69. Youn, HS, JY Lee, SI Saitoh, et 

al. 2006. Suppression of MyD88- 

and TRIF-dependent signaling 

pathways of Toll-like receptor by 

(-)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate, a 

polyphenol component of green tea. 

Biochem Pharmacol 72:850-9. Epub 

2006 Aug 4.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 325

70. Zunino, SJ, and DH Storms. 2006. 

Resveratrol-induced apoptosis is 

enhanced in acute lymphoblastic 

leukemia cells by modulation of the 

mitochondrial permeability transition 

pore. Cancer Lett 240:123-34. Epub 

2005 Oct 13.

71. Zunino, SJ, DH Storms, and CB 

Stephensen. 2007. Diets rich in 

polyphenols and vitamin A inhibit the 

development of type I autoimmune 

diabetes in nonobese diabetic mice. J 

Nutr 137:1216-21.

72. Oort, PJ, TA Knotts, M Grino, et 

al. 2008. Gamma-synuclein is an 

adipocyte-neuron gene coordinately 

expressed with leptin and increased in 

human obesity. J Nutr 138:841-8.

73. Newman, JW, BD Hammock, GA 

Kaysen, and GC Shearer. 2007. 

Proteinuria increases oxylipid 

concentrations in VLDL and HDL, but 

not LDL particles in the rat. J Lipid 

Res 48:1792-800.

74. Laugero, KD. 2008. Filling in the gaps 

of chronic psychological stress disease 

models: what’s metabolic profiling 

have to do with it? Endocrinology 

149:2712-3.
326 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Chapter 13

Inception and History of the 

Arkansas Children’s Nutrition 

Center

Thomas M. Badger, Andrea C. Stokes, and 

Michèle M. Perry 

Thomas M. Badger, Ph.D., is Director and 

Chief Executive Officer; Andrea C. Stokes is 

Clinical Research Promoter; and Michèle M. 

Perry is Director of Information, USDA-ARS 

Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center, Little 

Rock, AR.

Abstract 

Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center 

(ACNC) was realized from the vision of 

individuals who understood the importance 

of providing good nutrition to the children 

of Arkansas. The work and research of 

ACNC has expanded since its beginning in 

1994, thanks to the support of Arkansas 

Children’s Hospital, the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, and many government 

officials including Senator Dale Bumpers 

(D-AR). Led by Thomas Badger, Ph.D., 

ACNC currently receives approximately 

$5.2 million in annual funds from USDA. 

Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center is 

truly carrying out its mission to maximize 

the health of children from conception 

through adolescence and their health as 

adults, especially during aging. 

The Beginning

Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center 

is located on the grounds of Arkansas 

Children’s Hospital (ACH), one of the top 

pediatric hospitals in the United States, 

according to U.S. News and World Report 

(1). ACH was founded outside the small 

Arkansas town of Morrilton in 1912 as the 

Arkansas Children’s Home Society, a branch 

of the National Children’s Home Society. It 

was created “to care for Arkansas’ orphaned, 

neglected, homeless and poverty-stricken 

children.” By 1926, the facility had moved 

to its current location in Little Rock following 

a fundraising campaign that garnered more 

than $200,000 in building funds. Today, 

ACH is a private, non-profit institution. 

It is the only pediatric medical center in 

Arkansas and the most comprehensive in 

the region (2). ACH houses its own pediatric 

research facility: Arkansas Children’s 

Hospital Research Institute (ACHRI). ACH 

also works collaboratively with the State’s 

only medical school, the University of 

Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS). 

At its inception, Arkansas Children’s 

Nutrition Center (ACNC) was initially 

the vision of Dr. Robert Fiser, a pediatric 

endocrinologist and chair of the 

Department of Pediatrics for the UAMS. 

His understanding of the importance of 

providing good nutrition to children planted 

seeds for the developments that would 

lead to ACH’s relationship with USDA and 

its Agricultural Research Service (ARS). 

Dr. Fiser intended to accomplish his 

goal and vision for the development of a 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 327

nutrition center by recruiting Dr. Thomas 

M. Badger, then an associate professor at 

Harvard Medical School and director of the 

Vincent Memorial Research Laboratories 

at Massachusetts General Hospital. 

Dr. Badger earned a Ph.D. in nutrition 

and biochemistry from the University 

of Missouri-Columbia and conducted 

postdoctoral work in neuroendocrinology at 

Washington University School of Medicine 

in St. Louis, MO. His National Institutes 

of Health (NIH)-funded research program 

in Boston focused on the interactions of 

nutrition, reproductive neurobiology, and 

development, and Dr. Fiser learned of Dr. 

Badger through his colleagues at Harvard. 

In 1986, Dr. Fiser convinced Dr. Badger to 

move to Little Rock and help him build a 

nationally competitive pediatric research 

program. Dr. Badger was charged with 

helping ACH and the UAMS Department 

of Pediatrics develop and establish the 

Arkansas Children’s Hospital Research 

Institute (ACHRI), an institute established by 

the Board of Trustees of Arkansas Children’s 

Hospital in 1989 exclusively for UAMS 

researchers on the ACH campus, and with 

working with Dr. Fiser and Senator Bumpers 

to win funding for the establishment of a 

USDA-funded Human Nutrition Research 

Center (HNRC).

The Foundation

The ACHRI was established as a private, 

not-for-profit corporation owned by the 

ACH. It has a separate board of trustees 

and president/chief executive officer. The 

first ACHRI board, led by Chair Charles 

Whiteside III of Merrill Lynch and Company, 

recognized the need for a building to house 

the pediatric research facility. At the time, 

even though the UAMS Department of 

Pediatrics and nearly all of Arkansas’ major 

pediatric care providers were housed on 

the ACH campus, most pediatric research 

was being conducted on the UAMS campus, 

nearly a mile from ACH. Thus, in 1990, the 

ACHRI Board recommended the purchase 

of the original Baptist Hospital of Little 

Rock, which was immediately adjacent to 

the ACH campus. ACH imploded all the 

buildings except for two and then deeded 

the 130,000-square-foot Surgery and 

Radiology Building to ACHRI with the idea 

of renovating it for research. Funds were 

raised and a state-of-the-art animal research 

facility was built on the ground floor to 

house both typical research animals and 

larger animals such as pigs, sheep, and 

calves. In 1991, ACH and UAMS reached 

an agreement to combine the strengths 

to enhance the capabilities of ACHRI (3), 

and research began in the new ACHRI 

animal facility in 1992. The ACHRI building 

provided the much-needed space for basic 

animal research to be conducted on the ACH 

campus, and this was an important first 

step in building future research programs, 

since all developmental animal research 

at that time was performed several miles 

away in an old, outdated barn on the 

campus of the Veteran’s Administration 

Hospital. Furthermore, before ACHRI was 

established at ACH, research and clinical 

chemistry laboratories were combined, 

and thus laboratories devoted exclusively 

to researchers were limited on the ACH 

campus and were mostly housed at UAMS.

Dr. Thomas M. Badger moved 

to Little Rock, AR, to help 

Dr. Robert Fiser build a 

nationally competitive 

pediatric research program. 

Dr. Badger worked with 

Dr. Fiser and Senator Dale 

Bumpers to win funding for 

the establishment of a USDAfunded Human Nutrition 

Research Center—the 

Arkansas Children’s Nutrition 

Center.

1986
328 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

The Human Nutrition Research Center

Drs. Fiser and Badger worked closely with 

Senator Bumpers and Mr. Chuck Culver, an 

attorney and the former campaign manager 

for Senator Bumpers, to draft initial 

exploratory language about the development 

of a human nutrition research center 

(HNRC) on the ACH campus. Congress 

appropriated $100,000 and directed the ARS 

to determine the feasibility of establishing 

an HNRC devoted exclusively to research 

into the nutritional status and needs of 

infants and children. This resulted in a site 

visit committee being sent from the ARS in 

January of 1994 to review the Congressional 

request and to make a recommendation. 

Arkansas was not alone in its request, and 

other universities had similar proposals for 

establishment of an HNRC on the campuses 

of their respective facilities. The site 

committee concluded that ACH possessed 

all of the necessary components that would 

support a children’s nutrition center.

Arkansas was and remains an ideal 

location to house the newest of the six 

HNRCs. Its stable rural population allows 

longitudinal studies to be conducted with 

low attrition rates. Arkansas also has a 

metropolitan component in its capitol city, 

Little Rock. These two diverse settings, 

rural and metropolitan, provide researchers 

with excellent opportunities to conduct 

clinical studies. Furthermore, Arkansas 

has traditionally ranked as either first or 

second in the prevalence of obesity in the 

Nation, making it a fertile area to study 

overweight and obesity. Moreover, the 

high rate of poverty in the State makes 

the issue of nutritional status even more 

important, as good nutrition leads to good 

overall health and lower healthcare costs. 

Arkansas is also an agricultural State 

with several food processing firms and a 

business force interested in nutrition and 

diet. These factors give Arkansas Children’s 

Nutrition Center the opportunity to be on 

the cutting edge of exploring the effects of 

diet and nutrition, developing prevention 

interventions and educational components 

for improving nutritional status for children.

In 1994, Congress appropriated $1.2 

million and directed the ARS to establish 

the sixth human nutrition research 

center at Arkansas Children’s Hospital. 

Thus, the Arkansas Children’s Nutrition 

Center (ACNC) was born with a mission 

to investigate dietary factors that will 

maximize the health of children from 

conception through adolescence, as well 

as their health as adults, especially during 

aging. In accomplishing this mission, 

children and their families are studied 

relative to commonly consumed foods, and 

animal and cellular models are used to 

address questions not possible in children. 

Animal studies are used to establish new 

hypotheses, test existing ones, and clarify 

basic metabolic functions of nutrients and 

dietary factors in common foods. Controlled 

dietary, metabolic, and behavioral studies 

are conducted to obtain data on which 

dietary strategies can be developed for 

healthy and safe human development, 

healthy maturation of the American 

populace, and guidance for improving the 

nutritional policy on the quality and safety 

of the Nation’s food supply.

Before any of the appropriated funds could 

be released, however, research proposals 

and budgets were drafted, and an agreement 

was established between ACH and the 

ARS. Beginning in December of 1994, 

Dr. Badger, Dr. Charles Onstad, and Dr. 

Roscoe Dykman drafted two proposals 

that laid the groundwork for future 

development of the Center, “Psychological 

and Psychophysiological Functioning 

of Children With Failure to Thrive” and 

“Exposure to Dietary Factors Early in 

Human Development: Long-Term Health 

Consequences of Phytochemical Intake.” 

The objectives were to determine the 

effects of diet on cognitive and behavioral 

development and brain function; cellular 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 329

and metabolic imprinting; development 

and function of metabolic, endocrine, 

and immune systems; child health and 

development; their long-term health as 

adults, concentrating especially on bone 

(skeletal) development and adipogenesis 

as it relates to osteoporosis and obesity, 

respectively; and cancer risks (4,5). 

Research began in August of 1995. In 

October of 1995, Congress appropriated an 

additional $300,000, bringing the yearly 

total in appropriated funds to $1.4 million. 

Also in 1995, the ACHRI completed 

renovation of the second floor of the ACHRI 

Research Building (35,000 sq. ft.). This 

new ACHRI space, combined with the 

previously developed animal facility on the 

first floor, allowed the ACNC investigators 

to move from the UAMS campus to the 

ACH campus. This presence on the ACH 

campus signified the beginning of a new 

focus on pediatric nutrition in Arkansas; 

however, the need for a separate ACNC 

building remained a priority. This ACHRI 

space would be the home of the basic ACNC 

research for a few years, while the clinical 

studies were conducted in the main hospital 

one block away. All previous HNRCs had 

Federal buildings to house their research. 

In an interesting twist, however, Congress 

had restricted the use of Federal funds for 

new buildings during the initial period in 

which the ACNC funds were appropriated, 

leaving the ACH to guarantee a private 

building to house the program. Without a 

major donor, the ACHRI and ACH began 

fundraising efforts to build a single-story, 

25,000-square-foot building to house all 

clinical studies for ACNC, with the idea 

of structuring the building for the future 

addition of four floors. In 1997, Arkansas 

Children’s Nutrition Center opened its doors, 

making it the only HNRC not housed in a 

Federal building. The building contained 

a 6-bed live-in facility, a 100-subject-perday outpatient facility, a clinical nutrition 

laboratory, a human brain function 

laboratory, a recruiting center, and a 

psychological evaluation unit. Also in 1997, 

funding was increased by an additional 

$500,000, bringing the yearly total in 

appropriated funding to $1.9 million.

Major foci of ACNC research are the longterm health consequences of early nutrition 

and diet, the health effects of dietary 

factors other than traditional nutrients, and 

prevention of chronic diseases that have 

their origins during early development. The 

Center conducts work in five primary areas: 

brain development, cognition, and behavior; 

phytochemicals and peptides; immunology, 

food allergies, and food safety; bone 

development and structural integrity; and 

adipogenesis, fat metabolism, and obesity. 

In 2002, ACNC began one of the most 

comprehensive prospective, longitudinal 

studies of infant feeding that also embodies 

all five focus areas of the ACNC mission 

areas mentioned above. This study 

addresses the effects of diet on metabolism, 

body composition, and brain function in 

infants and children. It is referred to as 

the “Beginnings Study.” This study follows 

600 children who were breastfed or fed 

milk-based formula or soy-based formula. 

Healthy participants are studied from age 

1 month through age 6 years to determine 

developmental factors of feeding on growth 

and cognition. Extensive longitudinal 

studies in food intake, nutritional status, 

body mass and composition, metabolism, 

organ development, and brain development 

and function are conducted in these 

children. This study will have a significant 

impact on our understanding of potential 

child health differences between breast and 

formula feeding and on the effects of soyformula. 

The Beginnings Study is a high-profile 

study, because it specifically addresses 

the controversial issue of the health 

effects of soy formula, which has been 

severely restricted in France, the United 

Kingdom, and Israel, primarily because 
330 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

of potential adverse estrogenic effects of 

soy phytochemicals known as isoflavones. 

In fact, France also recommends that soy 

foods not be fed to children younger than 3 

years. Since more than 1 million American 

infants consume soy formula each year, 

this is an important infant nutrition issue 

to research. Furthermore, the National 

Institutes of Health’s (NIH) National 

Toxicology Program (NTP) and the National 

Institute for Environmental Health Sciences 

(NIEHS) held a workshop to discuss 

potential effects of soy formula and genistein 

(the major isoflavone in soy protein) on the 

reproductive system and concluded that 

more research was needed on soy formula. 

This has led to a new NIEHS study similar to 

the Beginnings Study, which began in 2010. 

This study points out several important 

issues related to the HNRCs in general 

and the ACNC in particular. First, a 

longitudinal study of this type requires a 

team of experts and a unique facility that 

is typical of the HNRCs but not typical of 

other research facilities. One of the most 

important features of the HNRC program 

is its abilities to conduct important and 

needed research studies that have either 

not been possible in other facilities or 

for which funding has not been possible. 

Second, longitudinal studies such as the 

Beginnings Study require a team of highly 

qualified pediatricians, neuroscientists, 

nutritionists, endocrinologists, 

psychologists, toxicologists, immunologists, 

radiologists, and others, plus a dependable 

study population that is stable and diverse. 

Arkansas has both the team of investigators 

and the study population necessary for such 

prospective, longitudinal studies.

At the time of writing this chapter, the 

Beginnings Study is about 60 percent 

complete, thus results are preliminary. 

However, this study is part of a large 

translational program within the ACNC 

involving studies in developing pigs fed the 

same infant formula employed in clinical 

studies, in rodents fed the same soybean 

components used to make soy formula, 

and in cell cultures to study specific serum 

metabolites from infants and animals fed 

various diets. 

Longitudinal study of the same infants at 6 

years shows that regardless of the feeding 

type (breastfeeding or formula feeding), 

the child grows within the national norms 

established years ago, and this includes the 

well-known and subtle difference between 

breastfed and formula-fed infants. Results 

from the Beginnings Study and the related 

pig, rodent, and cell culture research 

suggest that (1) the developing body reflects 

the diet being consumed; (2) infants and 

animals fed soy tend to be leaner; (3) dietary 

factors, especially phytochemicals, alter gene 

expression and metabolic profiles; (4) there 

are slight differences in brain development 

and function of infants fed breast milk or 

formula—in most cases, milk formula is less 

like breast milk than soy formula; however, 

children score within normal limits on all 

standardize behavioral tests; (5) differences 

in brain function noted very early in life 

tend not to be present later in life; and 

(6) no adverse effects of soy formula were 

observed in development, including in the 

reproductive tract. 

In 2004, ACH and ACHRI broke ground for 

a $17.1 million expansion and appointed Dr. 

Richard F. Jacobs as president of ACHRI. 

During this expansion, a second floor 

was added to the current ACNC building. 

This floor added sufficient laboratory and 

office space to house the ACNC basic 

research team that had been housed in the 

ACHRI facilities since 1995. Importantly, 

the combination of basic and clinical 

investigators in the same building added 

strength to the translational research that 

began in 2000. From that point forward, 

the vast majority of research projects within 

the ACNC are translational, meaning that 

important clinical problems are tackled by 

studies in children, where possible, but are 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 331

taken to animal and cell models to learn 

more about mechanisms and to study issues 

not possible in children. The important basic 

information can then be used to develop 

further and more indepth clinical studies in 

children, thus making maximal use of basic 

and clinical studies. 

The ACNC grew from an initial appropriation 

of $1.2 million to an annual budget of 

more than $6.2 million in USDA funds, 

which is also matched by approximately 

the same amount in NIH funding. From 

the inception of the Arkansas Children’s 

Nutrition Center, the ACH has provided 

more than $25 million in building and 

renovation costs and more than $17 million 

in indirect costs. Furthermore, the UAMS 

Departments of Pediatrics, Physiology/

Biophysics, Pharmacology/Toxicology, 

Microbiology/Immunology, and Neurology 

have provided academic appointments to the 

ACNC investigators. Thus, the ACNC is truly 

a partnership between Federal and State 

governments and private business. 

Scientific advancements from ACNC 

research have come in our understanding 

of the effects of soy infant formula on child 

growth, development, and health; the 

significant role of phytochemicals in gene 

expression and the subsequent changes in 

metabolism; and brain development over the 

first several years of life (6).

It took real leadership and vision of Dr. 

Robert Fiser and Senator Dale Bumpers 

to get the Center started, and many other 

people worked very hard as a team to see it 

grow. Among those who were particularly 

instrumental were ACHRI Chairman Charles 

Whiteside and his board; several of the ACH 

boards; former Senator David Pryor (D-AR) 

and his staff; Congressman Ray Thornton 

(D-AR) and his staff; Chuck Culver; ACH 

President/CEO Dr. Rand O’Donnell; ACH 

President/CEO Jon Bates; Senator Blanche 

Lincoln (D-AR); Senator Mark Pryor (DAR); Congressmen Vic Snyder (D-AR), Mike 

Ross, John Boozman, and Marion Berry; 

and UAMS Department Chair and ACHRI 

President/CEO Richard Jacobs.

References 

1. Best Children’s Hospitals [Internet]. 

2008. Washington, DC: US News and 

World Report [cited 2008 Jul 25]. 

Available from http://www.usnews.

com/listings/hospitals/6710340/pediatric 

2. Arkansas Children’s Hospital Team 

Playbook. 2008. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas Children’s Hospital Human 

Resources Department, p. 5.

3. Clark, RM, board chair. 2007. Arkansas Children’s Hospital Research 

Institute: Where Miracles Begin. 2007 

Annual Report. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas Children’s Hospital Research 

Institute, p. 4. 

4. Badger, TM, and C Onstad. 1995. 

Psychological/Psychophysiological 

Functioning of Children with Failure 

to Thrive. (USDA, ARS CRIS No 6251-

51000-001-01S.) Little Rock, AR: Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center. 

5. Badger, TM, C Onstad, and R Prior. 

1995. Dietary Factors Early in Human 

Development: Health Consequences 

of Phytochemical Intake. (USDA ARS 

CRIS No 6251-51000-002-02S.) Little 

Rock, AR: Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center.

6. Clark, RM, board chair. 2007. Arkansas Children’s Hospital Research 

Institute: Where Miracles Begin. 2007 

Annual Report. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas Children’s Hospital Research 

Institute, p. 13.
332 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center 

Publications

1. Hu Y, V Mishin, I Johansson, et al. 

1994. Chlormethiazole as an efficient 

inhibitor of cytochrome P450 2E1 expression in rat liver. J Pharmacol Exp 

Ther.269:1286-91.

2. McGehee, RE, Jr., MJ Ronis, RM 

Cowherd, et al. 1994. Characterization 

of cytochrome P450 2E1 induction in 

a rat hepatoma FGC-4 cell model by 

ethanol. Biochem Pharmacol 48:1823-

33.

3. Ronis, MJ, M Ingelman-Sundberg, 

and TM Badger. 1994. Induction, 

suppression and inhibition of multiple 

hepatic cytochrome P450 isozymes 

in the male rat and bobwhite quail 

(Colinus virginianus) by ergosterol 

biosynthesis inhibiting fungicides 

(EBIFs). Biochem Pharmacol 48:1953-

65.

4. Badger, TM, MJ Ronis, M IngelmanSundberg, and R Hakkak. 1995. 

Inhibition of CYP2E1 activity does 

not abolish pulsatile urine alcohol 

concentrations during chronic alcohol 

infusions. Eur J Biochem 230:914-9.

5. Lumpkin, CK, Jr., TL Moore, MD 

Tarpley, et al. 1995. Acute ethanol and 

selected growth suppressor transcripts 

in regenerating rat liver. Alcohol 

12:357-62.

6. Pihoker, C, R Middleton, GA Reynolds, 

et al. 1995. Diagnostic studies with 

intravenous and intranasal growth 

hormone-releasing peptide-2 in 

children of short stature. J Clin 

Endocrinol Metab 80:2987-92.

7. Ronis, MJ, and TM Badger. 1995. 

Toxic interactions between fungicides 

that inhibit ergosterol biosynthesis 

and phosphorothioate insecticides 

in the male rat and bobwhite quail 

(Colinus virginianus). Toxicol Appl 

Pharmacol 130:221-8.

8. Hakkak, R, S Korourian, MJ Ronis, et 

al. 1996. Effects of diet and ethanol 

on the expression and localization of 

cytochromes P450 2E1 and P450 2C7 

in the colon of male rats. Biochem 

Pharmacol 51:61-9.

9. Hakkak, R, S Korourian, MJ Ronis, 

and TM Badger. 1996. Effects of 

diet and ethanol treatment on 

azoxymethane-induced liver and 

gastrointestinal neoplasia of male rats. 

Cancer Lett 107:257-64.

10. Helm, RM, G Wheeler, AW Burks, et 

al. 1996. Flow cytometric analysis 

of lymphocytes from rats following 

chronic ethanol treatment. Alcohol 

13:467-71.

11. Lumpkin, CK, Jr., J Aronson, XC 

Shen, et al. 1996. The impact of 

total enteral nutrition on distraction 

osteogenesis in a rat model. J Bone 

Miner Res 11:962-9.

12. Ronis, MJ, TM Badger, SJ Shema, 

et al. 1996. Reproductive toxicity 

and growth effects in rats exposed 

to lead at different periods during 

development. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 

136:361-71.

13. Ronis, MJ, LM Bell, M Parker, et al. 

1996. Neuroendocrine mechanisms 

underlying the reproductive toxicity of 

lead in a rat lifetime exposure model. 

Metal Ions in Biology and Medicine 

4:420-2.

14. Shelnutt, SR, TM Badger, and 

SM Owens. 1996. Phencyclidine 

metabolite irreversible binding in the 

rat: gonadal steroid regulation and 

CYP2C11. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 

277:292-8.

15. Aronson, J, XC Shen, GG Gao, et 

al. 1997. Sustained proliferation 

accompanies distraction osteogenesis 

in the rat. J Orthop Res 15:563-9.

16. Aronson, J, XC Shen, RA Skinner, 

et al. 1997. Rat model of distraction 

osteogenesis. J Orthop Res 15:221-6.

17. Chen, GF, MJ Ronis, PE Thomas, 

et al. 1997. Hormonal regulation of 

microsomal cytochrome P450 2C11 in 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 333

rat liver and kidney. J Pharmacol Exp 

Ther 283:1486-94.

18. McGehee, RE, Jr., MJ Ronis, and 

TM Badger. 1997. Regulation of the 

hepatic CYP 2E1 gene during chronic 

alcohol exposure: lack of an ethanol 

response element in the proximal 

5’-flanking sequence. DNA Cell Biol 

16:725-36.

19. Pihoker, C, TM Badger, GA Reynolds, 

and CY Bowers. 1997. Treatment 

effects of intranasal growth hormone 

releasing peptide-2 in children with 

short stature. J Endocrinol 155:79-86.

20. Fang, C, KO Lindros, TM Badger, 

et al. 1998. Zonated expression of 

cytokines in rat liver: effect of chronic 

ethanol and the cytochrome P450 2E1 

inhibitor, chlormethiazole. Hepatology 

27:1304-10.

21. Ronis, MJ, TM Badger, SJ Shema, 

et al. 1998. Endocrine mechanisms 

underlying the growth effects of 

developmental lead exposure in 

the rat. J Toxicol Environ Health A 

54:101-20.

22. Ronis, MJ, TM Badger, SJ Shema, et 

al. 1998. Effects on pubertal growth 

and reproduction in rats exposed 

to lead perinatally or continuously 

throughout development. J Toxicol 

Environ Health A 53:327-41.

23. Ronis, MJ, M Celander, and TM 

Badger. 1998. Cytochrome P450 

enzymes in the kidney of the 

bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus): 

induction and inhibition by ergosterol 

biosynthesis inhibiting fungicides. 

Comp Biochem Physiol C Pharmacol 

Toxicol Endocrinol 121:221-9.

24. Ronis, MJ, J Huang, V Longo, et al. 

1998. Expression and distribution of 

cytochrome P450 enzymes in male 

rat kidney: effects of ethanol, acetone 

and dietary conditions. Biochem 

Pharmacol 55:123-9.

25. Chen, GF, MJ Ronis, M IngelmanSundberg, et al. 1999. Hormonal 

regulation of microsomal cytochrome 

P4502E1 and P450 reductase in rat 

liver and kidney. Xenobiotica 29:437-

51.

26. Cimino, CO, SR Shelnutt, MJ Ronis, 

and TM Badger. 1999. An LC-MS 

method to determine concentrations 

of isoflavones and their sulfate and 

glucuronide conjugates in urine. Clin 

Chim Acta 287:69-82.

27. Korourian, S, R Hakkak, MJ Ronis, 

et al. 1999. Diet and risk of ethanolinduced hepatotoxicity: carbohydratefat relationships in rats. Toxicol Sci 

47:110-7.

28. Ronis, MJ, JC Rowlands, R Hakkak, 

and TM Badger. 1999. Altered 

expression and glucocorticoidinducibility of hepatic CYP3A and 

CYP2B enzymes in male rats fed diets 

containing soy protein isolate. J Nutr 

129:1958-65.

29. Badger, TM, JO Hoog, S Svensson, et 

al. 2000. Cyclic expression of class I 

alcohol dehydrogenase in male rats 

treated with ethanol. Biochem Biophys 

Res Commun 274:684-8.

30. Hakkak, R, S Korourian, SR Shelnutt, 

et al. 2000. Diets containing whey 

proteins or soy protein isolate 

protect against 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)

anthracene-induced mammary tumors 

in female rats. Cancer Epidemiol 

Biomarkers Prev 9:113-7.

31. Oinonien, T, MJ Ronis, T Eigell, et 

al. 2000. Growth hormone regulated 

periportal expression of CYP2C7 in rat 

liver. Biochem Pharmacol 59:583-9.

32. Rowlands, JC, H Wang, R Hakkak, et 

al. 2000. Chronic intragastric infusion 

of ethanol-containing diets induces 

CYP3A9 while decreasing CYP3A2 

in male rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 

295:747-52.

33. Shelnutt, SR, CO Cimino, PA Wiggins, 

and TM Badger. 2000. Urinary 

pharmacokinetics of the glucuronide 

and sulfate conjugates of genistein 

and daidzein. Cancer Epidemiol 

Biomarkers Prev 9:413-9.
334 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

34. Aronson, J, GG Gao, XC Shen, et al. 

2001. The effect of aging on distraction 

osteogenesis in the rat. J Orthop Res 

19:421-7.

35. Aronson, J, WR Hogue, CM Flahiff, 

et al. 2001. Development of 

tensile strength during distraction 

osteogenesis in a rat model. J Orthop 

Res 19:64-9.

36. Aronson, J, GG Gao, X Shen, et 

al. 2001. Effect of aging distract 

osteogenesis in the rat. J Orthop Res 

19:421-7.

37. Badger, TM. 2002. Health 

consequences of early soy 

consumption: a review of human 

and animal studies. Proceedings of 

the 4th International Symposium 

on the Role of Soy in Preventing and 

Treating Chronic Disease, J Nutr. 

132(3):545S-619S.

38. Badger, TM. 2001. Diet, nutrition 

and alcohol-induced liver disease: 

what have we learned from animal 

models? 8th Congress of the European 

Society for Biomedical Research on 

Alcoholism, Alcohol & Alcoholism. 36: 

437-506.

39. Badger, TM, MJJ Ronis, R Hakkak, 

et al. 2001. Ethanol-induced 

hepatotoxicity in male rats fed low 

carbohydrate diets: intragastric 

vs. liquid diet models. Toxicologist 

60:346.

40. Badger, TM, T Fletcher, M Ferguson, 

et al. 2001. Time course of CYP2E1 

induction, steatosis and alcoholinduced liver damage in a rat model 

utilizing total enteral nutrition (TEN). 

Alcoholism Clin Exp Res 25:130A.

41. Badger, TM, MJJ Ronis, R Hakkak, 

et al. 2001. Intragastric verses liquid 

diet models of alcohol-induced liver 

damage using low carbohydrate 

concentrations. 8th Congress of the 

European Society for Biomedical 

Research on Alcoholism, Alcohol & 

Alcholism, 36: 437-506.

42. Badger, TM, MJ Ronis, and R Hakkak. 

2001. Developmental effects and 

health aspects of soy protein isolate, 

casein, and whey in male and female 

rats. Int J Toxicol 20:165-74.

43. Bykov, I, S Heinaro, T Badger, et 

al. 2001. Diet-dependent effects 

of L-Carnitine on alcohol-induced 

steatosis in rat liver. 8th Congress of 

the European Society for Biomedical 

Research on Alcoholism, Alcohol & 

Alcoholism, 36: 437-506.

44. Cao, G, and RL Prior. 2001. 

Measurement of total antioxidant 

capacity in nutritional and clinical 

studies. In E Cadenas and L Packer, 

eds., Handbook of Antioxidants, 2nd 

edition, pp. 47-55. Monticello, NY: 

Marcel Dekker, Inc.

45. Hakkak, R, S Korourian, T Fletcher, 

et al. 2001. Effects of dietary 

saturated fat on growth and ethanolinduced hepatotoxicity in male rats. 

Toxicologist 60:347.

46. Hakkak, R, S Korourian, MJ Ronis, et 

al. 2001. Dietary whey protein protects 

against azoxymethane-induced colon 

tumors in male rats. Cancer Epidemiol 

Biomarkers Prev 10:555-8.

47. Hakkak, R, S Korourian, MJ Ronis, 

et al. 2001. Soy protein isolate 

consumption protects against 

azoxymethane-induced colon tumors 

in male rats. Cancer Lett 166:27-32.

48. Kalt, W, DAJ Ryan, JA Duy, et al. 

2001. Intraspecific and interspecific 

variation in anthocyanins, phenolics 

and antioxidant capacity among 

genotypes of lowbush and highbush 

blueberries. J Agric Food Chem 

49:4761-7.

49. Lumpkin, CK, J Aronson, GG Gao, et 

al. 2001. Chronic ethanol effects on 

rat bone strength and regeneration. 

Toxicologist 60:388.

50. Min, S, RC Simmen, L Alhonen, et 

al. 2001. Altered levels of growthrelated and novel gene transcripts 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 335

in reproductive and other tissues 

of female mice overexpressing 

spermidine/spermine N1-

Acetyltransferase (SSAT). J Biol Chem 

277:3647-57.

51. Ou, B, M Hapsch-Woodill, and 

RL Prior. 2001. Development and 

validation of an improved oxygen 

radical absorbance capacity (ORACfl) 

assay using fluorescein as the 

fluorescent probe. J Agric Food Chem 

46:4619-26.

52. Peterson, DR, B Sampey, MJJ 

Ronis, and TM Badger. 2001. 

Immunohistochemical characterization 

of hepatic 4-NE and MDA-adducted 

proteins following chronic intragastric 

ethanol infusion to rats. Toxicologist 

60:347.

53. Ronis, MJ, JC Rowlands, R Hakkak, 

and TM Badger. 2001. Inducibility 

of hepatic CYP1A enzymes by 

3-methylcholanthrene and isosafrole 

differs in male rats fed diets 

containing casein, soy protein isolate 

or whey from conception to adulthood. 

J Nutr 131:1180-8.

54. Ronis, MJ, J Aronson GG Gao, et al. 

2001. Skeletal effects of developmental 

lead exposure in rats. Toxicol Sci 

62:321-9.

55. Ronis, MJJ, J Parker, C Rector, et al. 

2001. The effects of developmental 

lead exposure on testicular 

steroidogenesis in the male rat 

involves inhibition of luteinizing 

hormone-stimulated expression of 

CYP17A1 and the acute steroidogenic 

regulatory protein (StAR). Soc Study 

Reproduc 64:123.

56. Ronis, MJJ, TM Badger, C Rector, et 

al. 2001. Effects of lead on stimulated 

growth hormone release during 

puberty in developmentally exposed 

rats. Toxicologist 60:228.

57. Rowlands, JC, L He, R Hakkak, et 

al. 2001. Soy and whey proteins 

downregulate DMBA-induced liver and 

mammary gland CYP1 expression in 

female rats. J Nutr 131:3281-7.

58. Rowlands, JC, L He, BM Young, and 

TM Badger. 2001. Glucose inhibition 

of ethanol induced CYP2E1 MRNA 

expression in FGC-4 cells. Toxicologist 

60:1936.

59. Aronson, J, L Liu, Z Liu, et al. 2002. 

Decreased endosteal intramembrous 

bone formation accompanies aging 

in a mouse model of distraction 

osteogenesis. J Regenerative Med 3:7-

16.

60. Badger, TM, MJ Ronis, R Hakkak, et 

al. 2002. The health consequences 

of early soy consumption. J Nutr 

132:559S-65S.

61. Badger, TM, R Hakkak, D Irby, et al. 

2002. Effects of pregnancy and diet on 

pulsatile ethanol excretion in female 

rats fed via total enteral nutrition. 

Toxicologist 2002;66:231.

62. Badger, TM, T Fletcher, M Ferguson, et 

al. 2002. A new paradigm to determine 

the effects of ethanol in pregnancy: 

overnight ethanol infusion in pregnant 

rats utilizing total enteral nutrition. 

Alcohol Clin Exp Res 26:118A.

63. Brown, EC, DS Perrien, TW Fletcher, 

et al. 2002. Skeletal toxicity associated 

with chronic ethanol exposure in a rat 

model using total enteral nutrition. J 

Pharmacol Exp Ther 301:1132-8.

64. Chang, HC, T Fletcher, M Ferguson, et 

al. 2002. Serum and tissue profiles of 

isoflavone aglycones and conjugates 

in rats fed diets containing soy protein 

isolate (SPI). FASEB J 16:A1008.

65. Dykman, RA. 2002. A historical 

overview of ERP research on subgroups of AD/HD and reading 

disabled children. Intl J Psychophysiol 

44:64.

66. Fang, N, MJJ Ronis, H Hardy, et 

al. 2002. Characterization of new 

midazolam metabolites generated 

by hepatic microsomes from 

dexamethasone-induced male rats by 

LC-MS/MS. FASEB J 16:A244.
336 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

67. Fang, N, S Yu, and TM Badger. 2002. 

Characterization of isoflavones and 

their conjugates in female rat urine 

using LC/MS/MS. J Agric Food Chem 

50:2700-7.

68. Fang, N, S Yu, and RL Prior. 2002. 

Characterization of phenolic 

constituents in dried plums. J Agric 

Food Chem 50:3579-85.

69. Fang, N, S Yu, and RL Prior. 2002. 

LC/MS/MS characterization of 

phenolic constituents in dried plums. 

J Agric Food Chem 50:3579-85.

70. Fang, N, S Yu, and TM Badger. 2002. 

Characterization of triterpene alcohol 

and sterol ferulates in rice bran using 

LC/MS/MS. J Am Chem Soc 50:2700-

7.

71. Gu, L, G Tao, W Gu, and RL Prior. 

2002. Determination of soyasaponins 

in soy with LC-MS following structural 

unification by partial alkaline 

degradation. J Agric Food Chem 

50:6951-9.

72. Gu, L, M Kelm, JF Hammerstone, et 

al. 2002. Fractionation of polymeric 

procyanidins from lowbush blueberry 

and quantification of procyanidins 

in selected foods with an optimized 

normal-phase HPLC-MS fluorescent 

detection method. J Agric Food Chem 

50:4852-60.

73. Gu, L, M Kelm, J Hammerstone, and 

R Prior. 2002 Monomeric, oligomeric, 

and polymeric proanthocyanidins 

(PAC) in selected food: quality and 

quantity. FASEB J 16:A1011.

74. Hakkak, R, MJJ Ronis, S Korourian, 

et al. 2002. Effects of the dietary 

antioxidants butylated hydroxytoluene 

(BHT) and N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) on 

alcohol-induced liver damage in a rat 

model utilizing total enteral nutrition. 

Toxicologist 66:366.

75. Hakkak, R, S Korourian, T Fletcher, 

et al. 2002. The effects of rice protein 

isolate on DMBA-induced mammary 

tumors in rats. Proc Am Assoc Cancer 

Res 43:823.

76. Hakkak, R, S Korourian, T Fletcher, 

et al. 2002. The effects of soy 

protein isolate containing negligible 

isoflavones and of caesin on DMBAinduced mammary tumors in rats. 

Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 43:823.

77. Harman, K, RT Pivik, JL D’Eon, 

et al. 2002. Sleep in depressed 

and nondepressed participants 

with chronic low back pain: 

electroencephalographic and 

behaviour findings. Sleep 25:775-83.

78. Hausman, GJ, RL Richardson, and FA 

Simmen. 2002. Secretion of insulinlike growth factor (IGF)-I and -II 

and IGF Binding Proteins (IGFBPS) 

in fetal stromal-vascular (S-V) cell 

cultures obtained before and after 

onset of adipogenesis in vivo. Growth 

Development Aging 66:11-26.

79. He, L, MJ Ronis, and TM Badger TM. 

2002. Ethanol induction of class I 

alcohol dehydrogenase expression in 

the rat occurs through alterations in 

CCAAT/enhancer binding proteins 

beta and gamma. J Biol Chem 

277:43572-7.

80. Korourian, S, R Hakkak, T Fletcher, 

et al. 2002. Inhibition of CYP2E1 

and ADH does not inhibit alcoholinduced liver damage in a rat model 

utilizing low carbohydrate total enteral 

nutrition. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 

26:66A.

81. Lamontagne, C, F Gosselin, and T 

Pivik. 2002. Sigma smooth pursuit eye 

tracking: constant k values revisited. 

Exp Brain Res 143:130-2.

82. Macpherson, ML, R Simmen, FA 

Simmen, et al. 2002. Insulin-like 

growth factor-I and insulin-like growth 

factor binding protein-2 and -5 in 

equine seminal plasma: association 

with sperm characteristics and 

fertility. Biol Reprod 67:648-54.

83. Mcquown, JR, PS Oh, and RC 

Simmen. 2002. Functional interaction 

between ligand-activated estrogen 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 337

receptor (ER)-alpha and the 

transcription factor BTEB1 in uterine 

cells. Soc Study Reproduction 66:243.

84. Ou, B, H Hampsch-Woodill, J 

Flanagan, et al. 2002. Novel 

fluorometric assay for hydroxyl radical 

prevention capacity using fluorescein 

as the probe. J Agric Food Chem 

50:2772-7.

85. Perrien, DS, EC Brown, TW Fletcher, 

et al. 2002. Interleukin-1 and tumor 

necrosis factor antagonists attenuate 

ethanol-induced inhibition of bone 

formation in a rat model of distraction 

osteogenesis. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 

303:904-8.

86. Perrien, DS, EC Brown, J Aronson, 

et al. 2002. Immunohistochemical 

study of osteopontin expression during 

distraction osteogenesis in the rat. J 

Histochem Cytochem 50:567-74.

87. Pivik, RT. 2002. Blinking, information 

processing and morning nutrition. 

Pediatr Res 51:29A.

88. Pivik, RT. 2002. Psychophysiology of 

sleep disorders. In H Dhaenen, JA den 

Boer, H Westenburg, and P Willner, 

eds., Textbook of Biological Psychiatry, 

pp. 1260-1273. London, United 

Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

89. Pivik, RT, and RA Dykman. 2002. 

Blinking, information processing and 

morning nutrition in preadolescents. 

Soc Psychophysiological Res 39:S66.

90. Pivik, RT, and RA Dykman. 2002. 

Eating a school breakfast: effects 

on physiological arousal. FASEB J 

16:A253.

91. Prior, RL, G Cao, H Hoang, et al. 

2002. Urinary excretion of metabolites 

of 5-(hydroxymethyl)-2-furaldehyde 

(HMF) in human subjects. FASEB J 

16:A1009.

92. Prior, RL, G Cao, H Hoang, et al. 2002. 

In vivo antioxidant capacity in human 

subjects following consumption of 

prune juice, prunes, or blueberries. 

FASEB J 16:A1010.

93. Ronis, MJJ, S Korourian, R Hakkak, 

et al. 2002. Liver pathology and 

changes in hepatic cytokine profiles 

in male and female rats treated 

chronically with ethanol as part of a 

low carbohydrate diet. Alcohol Clin 

Exp Res 26:67A.

94. Ronis, MJJ, T Fletcher, M Ferguson, 

et al. 2002. Alcohol exacerbates 

bone loss in pregnant rats even in 

the presence of adequate nutrition. 

Alcohol Clin Exp Res 66:142A.

95. Ronis, MJJ, H Hardy, R Hakkak, and 

TM Badger. 2002. Effects of dietary 

whey protein on hepatic CYP1A1/2 

activity, expression and inducibility in 

the 25 day old male sprague-dawley 

rat. FASEB J 16:A643.

96. Ronis, MJJ, TM Badger, R Hakkak, 

et al. 2002. Lack of sex differences 

in alcohol-induced liver damage 

in rats fed low carbohydrate diets. 

Toxicologist 66:366.

97. Ronis, MJJ, R Hakkak, T Fletcher, 

et al. 2002. Effects of altered 

dietary protein source on tibial 

trabecular bone density in intact and 

ovarectomized female rats. FASEB J 

16:A643.

98. Ronis, MJJ, H Hardy, J Badeaux, et 

al. 2002. Effects of dietary soy protein 

isolate on hepatic CYP3A activity, 

expression, and inducibility in the 

25 day old male sprague-dawley rat. 

FASEB J 16:A643.

99. Rowlands, JC, R Hakkak, MJ Ronis, 

and TM Badger. 2002. Altered 

mammary gland differentiation and 

progesterone receptor expression in 

rats fed soy and whey proteins. Toxicol 

Sci 70:40-5.

100. Rowlands, JC, MA Berhow, and 

TM Badger. 2002. Estrogenic and 

antiproliferative properties of soy 

sapogenols in human breast cancer 

cells in vitro. Food Chem Toxicol 

40:1767-74.
338 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

101. Schmidt, MS, EW Askew EW, DE 

Roberts, et al. 2002. Oxidative 

stress in humans training in a cold, 

moderate altitude environment and 

their response to a phytochemical 

Antioxidant supplement. Wilderness 

Environ Med 13:94-105.

102. Shankar, K, VS Waidya, JE Manautou, 

et al. 2002. Activation of PPAE-alpha: 

a protective mechanism against 

acetaminophen hepatotoxicity in 

diabetes. FASEB J 16:A945-A965.2.

103. Shelnutt, SR, CO Cimino, PA Wiggins, 

et al. 2002. Pharmacokinetics of the 

glucuronide and sulfate conjugates 

of genistein and daidzein in men and 

women after consumption of a soy 

beverage. Am J Clin Nutr 76:588-94.

104. Wang, C, RT Pivik, A Roscoe, and 

RA Dykman, 2002. Effect of a 

glyconutritional supplement on brain 

potentials associated with language 

processing. FASEB J 16:A1012.

105. Wang, C, RT Pivik, A Roscoe, and 

RA Dykman. 2002. Effects of 

glyconutritional supplement on resting 

brain activity. FASEB J 16:A1012.

106. Wu, X, G Cao, and RI Prior. 2002. 

Absorption and metabolism of 

anthocyanins in elderly women 

after consumption of elderberry or 

blueberry. J Nutr 132:1865-71.

107. Wu, X, L Gu, and RL Prior. 

2002. Absorption/metabolism of 

anthocyanins in human subjects 

following consumption of blueberry or 

elderberry. FASEB J 16:A1009.

108. Zhang, D, RC Simmen, FJ Michel, et 

al. 2002. Secretory leukocyte protease 

inhibitor mediates proliferation of 

human endometrial epithelial cells 

by positive and negative regulation of 

growth-associated genes. J Biol Chem 

277:29999-30009.

109. Awika, JM, L Dykes, L Gu, et al. 2003. 

Processing of sorghum (Sorghum 

bicolor) and sorghum products alters 

procyanidin oligomer and polymer 

distribution and content. J Agric Food 

Chem 51:5516-21.

110. Awika, JM, LW Rooney, X Wu, et al. 

2003. Screening methods to measure 

antioxidant activity of sorghum 

(sorghum bicolor) and sorghum 

products. J Agric Food Chem 51:6657-

62.

111. Badeaux, J, H Hardy, N Floyd, et 

al. 2003. Effects of light and dark 

beers on hepatic cytochrome P450 

expression in male rats receiving 

alcoholic beverages as part of total 

enteral nutrition. Soc Toxicol 72:110.

112. Badger, TM, M Ronis, and N Fang. 

2003. The health consequences of 

dietary isoflavones. In J Zempleni and 

H Daniel, eds., Molecular Nutrition, 

pp. 201-217. Cambridge, MA: CABI 

Publishing.

113. Badger, TM, M Ronis, CK Lumpkin, et 

al. 2003. Alcohol-induced bone loss in 

pregnancy is associated with inhibited 

bone formation and disrupted calcium 

homeostasis. Res Soc Alcohol 27:60A.

114. Badger, TM, M Ronis, Y Chen, and L 

He. 2003. Effects of chronic ethanol 

on hepatic CYP2C11 in male rats: 

interactions with the Jak2-STATB 

pathway. Soc Toxicol 72:110.

115. Badger, TM, S Korourian, MJ Ronis, 

et al. 2003. Whey Protein Hydrolysate, 

but not whole whey protein, protects 

against DMBA-induced mammary 

tumors in rats. Am Assoc Cancer Res 

44:199.

116. Badger, TM, MJ Ronis, HK Sietz, et 

al. 2003. Alcohol metabolism: role in 

toxicity and carcinogenesis. Alcohol 

Clin Exp Res 27:336-47.

117. Badger, TM, MJ Ronis, SJ Frank, et 

al. 2003. Effects of chronic ethanol 

on hepatic and renal CYP2C11 in 

the male rat: interactions with the 

Janus-kinase 2-signal transducer and 

activators of transcription proteins 5b 

pathway. Endocrinol 144:3969-76.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 339

118. Bykov, I, S Yoon, M IngelmanSundberg, and KO Lindros. 2003. 

Activation of PPAE-a: a protective 

mechanism against acetaminophen 

hepatotoxicity in diabetes. Alcohol Clin 

Exp Res 26.

119. Dykman, RA, AM Johnson, PH Casey, 

et al. 2003. Relation of diet to growth 

measures in failure to thrive babies 

and toddlers. Pediatr Res 53:240A.

120. Dykman, RA, PH Casey, PA Wiggins, et 

al. 2003. Are blood chemistries related 

to food records in failure to thrive? 

FASEB J 17:A729.

121. Fang, N, S Yu, and TM Badger. 2003. 

Characterization of triterpene alcohol 

and sterol ferulates in rice bran oil 

using LC/MS/MS. FASEB J 17:A768.

122. Fang, N, S Yu, and TM Badger. 2003. 

Characterization of triterpene alcohol 

and sterol ferulates in rice bran 

using LC-MS/MS. J Agric Food Chem 

51:3260-7.

123. Fang, N, S Yu, and TM Badger. 

2003. LC/MS/MS analysis of 

lysophospholipids associated with rice 

protein isolate. FASEB J 17:A768.

124. Fang, N, S Yu, and TM Badger. 

2003. LC-MS/MS analysis of 

lysophospholipids associated with soy 

protein isolate. J Agric Food Chem 

51:6676-82.

125. Gu, L, MA Kelm, JF Hammerstone, 

et al. 2003. Screening of foods 

containing proanthocyanidins and 

their structural characterization using 

LC-MS/MS and thiolytic degradation. 

J Agric Food Chem 51:7513-21.

126. Gu, L, M Kelm, J Hammerstone, et 

al. 2003. Development of a database 

of procyanidin profile and content in 

foods. J Food Compos Anal 16:B25.

127. Gu, L, MA Kelm, JF Hammerstone, 

et al. 2003. Liquid chromatographic/

electrospray ionization mass 

spectrometric studies of 

proanthocyanidins in foods. J Mass 

Spectrom 38:1272-80.

128. Huang, D, O Boxin, M HampschWoodill, et al. 2003. High-throughput 

assay of oxygen radical absorbance 

capacity (ORAC) using a multicannel 

liquid handling system coupled with 

a microplate fluorescence reader in 

96-well format. J Agric Food Chem 

50:4437-44.

129. Jacobs, RA, GM Spinozzi, VA Simon, 

et al. 2003. Consumption of cherries 

lowers plasma urate in healthy 

women. J Nutr 133:1826-9.

130. Laly, M, HC Chang, M Harrison, et al. 

2003. The use of enzymatic hydrolysis 

of soy isoflavone conjugates may 

underestimate tissue concentrations. 

FASEB J 17:A333.

131. Perrien, DS, Z Liu, EC Wahl, et al. 

2003. Chronic ethanol exposure is 

associated with a local increase in 

TNF-α and decreased proliferation 

in the rat distraction gap. Cytokine 

23:179-89.

132. Pivik, RT, and RA Dykman. 2003. 

Morning nutrition and event-related 

potential measures of attention and 

inhibition. FASEB J 17:A1150.

133. Prior, RL, X Wu, L Gu, et al. 2003. 

Development of a database of total 

(lipophilic and hydrophilic) antioxidant 

capacity (ORAC-Fl) in foods. J Food 

Compos Anal 16:VI4.

134. Prior, RL. 2003. Fruits and vegetables 

in the prevention of cellular oxidative 

damage. Am J Clin Nutr 78:570S-8S.

135. Prior, RL, X Wu, H Hoang, and R 

Jacobs. 2003. Plasma lipophilic 

and hydrophilic antioxidant status 

in human subjects: effects of meal 

containing different berries and fruits. 

FASEB J 17:A1114.

136. Prior, RL, H Hoang, L Gu, et al. 2003. 

Assays for hydrophilic and lipophilic 

Antioxidant capacity (Oxygen Radical 

Absorbance Capacity (ORAC)) of 

plasma and other biological and food 

samples. J Agric Food Chem 51:3273-

9.
340 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

137. Prior, RL. 2003. Oligomeric and 

polymeric procyanidins (condensed 

tanins) in infant foods. FASEB J 

17:A766.

138. Ronis, M, M Zipperman, W Gardner, 

et al. 2003. Effects of caloric intake on 

ethanol metabolism in pregnant rats: 

role of alcohol dehydrogenase and 

aldehyde dehydrogenase. Soc Toxicol 

72:341.

139. Ronis, M, H Hardy, C Curtis, et al. 

2003. Induction of CYP3A1 and 

CYP3A2 in the liver of rats weened 

onto soy protein isolate (spi) from 

casein (cas). FASEB J. 2003;17:A333.

140. Ronis, MJ, M Reeves, H Hardy, et 

al. 2003. Effects of weaning to diets 

containing soy protein isolate (SPI) 

or isoflavones on growth, plasma 

IGF1 and expression of CYP2C11 and 

CYP4A1 in rat liver. Chemicke Listy 

97:S109-S110.

141. Ronis, MJ, M Reeves, H Hardy, et 

al. 2003. Effects of weaning to diets 

containing rice protein isolate (RPI) on 

growth, plasma IGF1 and expression 

of CYP2C11 and CYP4A1 in rat liver. 

Chemicke Listy 97:S109.

142. Rowlands, JC, L He, and TM Badger. 

2003. Glucose inhibition of the 

induction of CYP2E1 mRNA expression 

by ethanol in FGC-4 cells. Xenobiotica 

33:283-7.

143. Sampey, B, S Korourian, MJ Ronis, 

et al. 2003. Immunohistochemical 

characterization of hepatic 

malondialdehyde and 4-hydroxynoneal 

modified proteins during early stages 

of ethanol-induced liver injury. Alcohol 

Clin Exp Res 27:1015-22.

144. Sanchez-Moreno, C, G Cao, B Ou, 

and RL Prior. 2003. Anthocyanin and 

proanthocyanidin content in selected 

white and red wines. Oxygen radical 

absorbance capacity comparison with 

nontraditional wines obtained from 

highbush blueberry. J Agric Food 

Chem 51:4889-96.

145. Sanders, Y, TM Badger, and FA 

Simmen. 2003. Lifetime feeding of 

whey protein-based diet suppresses 

hepatic GST-pi mRNA expression in 

female rats. FASEB J 17:A1162.

146. Shankar, K, VS Vaidya, UM Apte, 

et al. 2003. Type 1 diabetic mice 

are protected from acetaminophen 

hepatotoxicity. Toxicol Sci 73:220-34.

147. Shankar, K, VS Vaidya, JE Manautou, 

and TJ Bucci. 2003. Protective 

mechanisms against acetaminophen 

toxicity in diabetic mice: role of 

PPAR-a activation. Toxicologist 

66:364.

148. Silliman, K, J Parry, LL Kirk, and 

RL Prior. 2003. Pycnogenol does not 

impact the antioxidant or vitamin C 

status of healthy young adults. J Am 

Diet Assoc 103:67-72.

149. Simmen, CM, R Eason, D Zhang, et 

al. 2003. Overexpression of the Sp/

KLF transcription factor BTEB1 alters 

cell cycle parameters in MCH-7 breast 

tumor cells. Proc Am Assoc Cancer 

Res 44:539.

150. Simmen, RC, JR Mcquown, T Kang, 

et al. 2003. Functional role of the 

kruppel-like transcription factor 

BTEB1 during pregnancy: studies 

with the BTEB1 knock-out mouse. Soc 

Study Reproduction 68:356.

151. Simmen, RCM, R Eason, R Till, et 

al. 2003. Uterine growth parameters 

and steroid receptor gene expression 

in rats on soy and whey-based diets. 

FASEB J 17:A1162.

152. Wu, X, L Gu, J Holden, et al. 2003. 

Quantification and identification of 

anthocyanins in foods using HPLC 

MS/MS with DAD detection. J Food 

Compos Anal 16:B26.

153. Wu, X, and RL Prior. 2003. Antioxidant 

activities of lipophilic extracts of forty 

foods using lipophilic oxygen radical 

absorbance capacity (ORACfl-lipo) 

assay. FASEB J 17:A1115.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 341

154. Zhang, X, D Zhang, FJ Michel, et 

al. 2003. Selective interactions of 

KLF9/BTEB1 with progesterone 

receptor isoforms A and B 

determine transcriptional activity 

of progesterone-responsive genes in 

endometrial epithelial cells. J Biol 

Chem 278:21471-82.

155. Zipperman, M, W Gardner, T Fletcher, 

et al. 2003. Effects of caloric intake 

and ethanol metabolism on fetal 

ethanol toxicity in rats. Soc Toxicol 

72:315.

156. Aronson, J, L Liu, EC Wahl, et al. 

2004. Administration of RMTNF-α

inhibits endosteal bone formation in a 

mouse distraction osteogenesis model. 

Soc Toxicol 78:1363.

157. Badger, TM, S Korourian, M Ferguson, 

et al. 2004. Antioxidant effects on 

ethanol-induced oxidative stress 

and hepatoxicity in rats fed via total 

enteral nutrition. Soc Toxicol 78:152.

158. Beger, RD, LK Schoenbachler, YP 

Dragan, et al. 2004. NMR-based 

methabonomecs study of ethanol-fed 

rats. Soc Toxicol 78:366.

159. Black, MM, DB Cutts, DA Frank, et 

al. 2004. WIC and infants’ growth, 

health, and food security: a multiyear 

surveillance study. Pediatrics 114:169-

76.

160. Casey, P, M Black, and J Cook. 2004. 

Food insecurity is not associated 

with overweight status in 2 year old 

children. Pediatr Res 55:221A.

161. Casey, P, S Goolsby, C Berkowitz, 

et al. 2004. Maternal depression, 

changing public assistance, food 

security, and child health status. 

Pediatrics 113:298-304.

162. Champagne, CM, ML Bogle, BB 

McGee, et al. 2004. Dietary intake 

in the lower Mississippi delta region: 

results from the foods of our delta 

study. J Am Diet Assoc 104:199-207.

163. Cho, MJ, LR Howard, and RL Prior. 

2004. Flavonoids, glycosides and 

antioxidant capacity of various 

blackberry, blueberry, and red grape 

genotypes determined by highperformance liquid chromatography/

mass spectrometry. J Sci Food Agric 

84:1771-82.

164. Cook, JT, DA Frank, C Berkowitz, et 

al. 2004. Food insecurity is associated 

with adverse health outcomes among 

human infants and toddlers. J Nutr 

134:1432-8.

165. Dykman, RA, and RT Pivik. 2004. 

Morning nutrition and long-latency 

cortical evoked potentials on a go/nogo task in preadolescents: facilitated 

or diminished brain function? FASEB 

J 18:A164.

166. Dykman, RA, and RT Pivik. 2004. 

Determinants of inadequate growth: 

interactions among measures of 

nutrition, growth and psychosocial 

factors. FASEB J 18:A163.

167. Dykman, RA, and RT Pivik. 2004. 

Syllable discrimination in failure to 

thrive babies: an ERP study. Society 

of Psychophysiological Research, 43rd 

Annual Meeting Abstract S37.

168. Eason, R, M Velarde, L Chatman, 

et al. 2004. Dietary exposure to soy 

and whey-based proteins alters rat 

mammary gland gene expression 

during development. FASEB J 

18:A502.

169. Eason, RR, AL Linz, L Chatman, et 

al. 2004. Sub-fertility in female mice 

lacking the kruppel-like factor 9/

basic transcription element binding 

protein-1 gene is correlated with 

decreased expression of implantationassociated genes and partial loss 

of progesterone responsiveness. 

Endocrine Society, 86th Annual 

Meeting, p. 338.

170. Eason, RR, MC Velarde, L Chatman, 

et al. 2004. Dietary exposure to 

whey proteins alters rat mammary 

gland proliferation, apoptosis, and 

gene expression during postnatal 

development. J Nutr 134:3370-7.
342 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

171. Erdman, JW, Jr., TM Badger, JW 

Lampe, et al. 2004. Not all soy 

products are created equal: caution 

needed in interpretation of research 

results. J Nutr 134:1229S-33S.

172. Fang, N, Q Li, J Zhang, et al. 2004. In 

vitro antitumor activities of methanol 

extracts from rice protein isolate. Proc 

Am Assoc Cancer Res 45:104.

173. Fang, N, S Yu, and TM Badger. 2004. 

Comprehensive phytochemical profile 

of soy protein isolate. J Agric Food 

Chem 52:4012-20.

174. Fang, N, S Yu, and TM Badger. 2004. 

Non-isoflavone phytochemicals 

associated with soy protein intake. 

FASEB J 18:A538.

175. Frank, D, D Cutts, P Casey, et al. 

2004. Racial/ethnic disparities in 

increases in food insecurity and 

hospitalizations from 1999-2000 

among families with children <3 years 

old. Pediatric Res 55:164A.

176. Gaucher, EA, LG Graddy, T Li, et 

al. 2004. The planetary biology of 

cytochrome P450 aromatases. BMC 

Biol 2:19.

177. Gilchrist, JM, PA Wiggins, JF 

Brackenbury, et al. 2004. Body 

composition among infants exclusively 

fed breast milk, milk-based formula, 

or soy-based formula: Preliminary 

data form the Beginnings study. 

FASEB J 18:A1112.

178. Gu, L, HE Pittman, and R Prior. 2004. 

Fate of ingested sorghum procyanidins 

(pca) in the gastrointestinal (gi) tract of 

weanling pigs. FASEB J 18:A517.

179. Gu, L, MA Kelm, JF Hammerstone, 

et al. 2004. Concentrations of 

proanthocyanidins in common 

foods and estimations of normal 

consumption. J Nutr 134:613-7.

180. Harsha, D, C Connell, C Champagne, 

et al. 2004. Food security and weight 

status in lower Mississippi river delta 

children. Pediatric Res 55:173A.

181. He, L, FA Simmen, MJ Ronis, and TM 

Badger. 2004. Post-transcriptional 

regulation of sterol regulatory element 

binding protein-1 by ethanol induces 

class I alcohol dehydrogenase in rat 

liver. J Biol Chem 279:28113-21.

182. Helm, RM, and AW Burks. 2004. 

Sensitization and allergic response 

and intervention therapy in animal 

models. J AOAC Int 87:1441-7.

183. Helm, RM. 2004. Diet and the 

development of atopic disease. Curr 

Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 4:125-9.

184. Helm, RM, and A Pomes. 2004. 

Cockroach and other inhalant insect 

allergens. Clin Allergy Immunol 

18:271-96.

185. Helm, RM, and A Pomes. 2004. 

Cockroach and other inhalant insect 

allergens. In RF Lockey, J Bousquet, 

and SC Burkantz, eds., Allergen 

Immunotherapy, pp. 271-296. New 

York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

186. Hidestrand, M, K Shankar, L 

Humphrey, et al. 2004. Ethanol 

pharmacokinetics are altered by 

pregnancy and caloric intake in female 

rats. Soc Toxicol 78:54.

187. Kopper, RA, NJ Odum, M Sen, et al. 

2004. Peanut protein allergens: gastric 

digestion is carried out exclusively 

by pepsin. J Allergy Clin Immunol 

114:614-8.

188. Kowalski, AA, DS Vale-Cruz, FA 

Simmen, and RCM Simmen. 2004. 

Uterine androgen receptors: roles in 

estrogen-mediated gene expression 

and DNA synthesis. Biol Reprod 

70:1349-57.

189. Linz, AL, R Xiao, M Ferguson, et al. 

2004. Developmental feeding of soy 

protein isolate to male rats inhibits 

formation of colonic aberrant crypt 

foci: major response differences to 

azoxymethane (AOM) in sprague 

dawley rats from two colonies. FASEB 

J 18:A127.

190. Linz, AL, R Xiao, JG Parker, et al. 

2004. Feeding of soy protein isolate to 

rats during pregnancy and lactation 

suppresses formation of aberrant 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 343

crypt foci in their progeny’s colons: 

interaction of diet with fetal alcohol 

exposure. J Carcinog 3:14.

191. Liu, L, J Aronson, EC Wahl, et al. 

2004. Direct bone formation in nude 

(NU/NU) mice. Soc Toxicol 78:1362.

192. Meyers, A, D Cutts, D Frank, et 

al. 2004. Subsidized housing and 

child nutritional status: data from a 

multisite surveillance study. Pediatric 

Res 55:606A.

193. Nagarajan, S, BW Stewart, and TM 

Badger. 2004. Soy isoflavones inhibit 

monocyte adhesion to endothelial cell 

adhesion molecules. FASEB J 18:A52.

194. Neault, N, D Frank, B Philipp, et al. 

2004. Impact of breastfeeding on child 

food security and health outcomes 

among an immigrant population. 

Pediatric Res 55:216A.

195. Perrien, DS, EC Wahl, WR Hogue, et 

al. 2004. IL-1 and TNF antagonists 

prevent inhibition of fracture healing 

by ethanol in rats. Toxicol Sci 82:656-

60.

196. Peterson, J, J Dwyer, P Jacques, et 

al. 2004. Tea variety and brewing 

techniques influence flavonoid content 

of black tea. J Food Compos Anal 

17:397-405.

197. Pivik, RT, and RA Dykman. 2004. 

The effects of eating breakfast on the 

contingent negative variation response 

in preadolescents: gender correlates. 

Psychophysiology 41:S84.

198. Pivik, RT, and RA Dykman. 2004. 

Contingent negative variation in 

preadolescents: gender correlates. 

Psychophysiology 41:S83.

199. Pivik, RT, H Jing, JM Gilchrist, and 

RA Dykman. 2004. Thinking outside 

the breast: ERP comparisons of 

speech stimuli processing in 3-month 

old breast and milk-fed infants. 

Psychophysiology 41:S84.

200. Pivik, RT, and RA Dykman. 

2004. Endogenous eye blinks 

in preadolescents: relationship 

to information processing and 

performance. Biol Psychol 66:191-219.

201. Pivik, RT, and RA Dykman. 2004. 

Endogenous blinks and the contingent 

negative variation: synergistic 

interactions. Psychophysiology 41:S83.

202. Pivik, RT, and RA Dykman. 2004. 

Blink-free data: are we throwing a 

baby out with the bathwater? Soc 

Psychophysiological Research, 43rd 

Annual Meeting, 2004. Abstract S67.

203. Pivik, RT, and RA Dykman. 2004. 

Cardiovascular effects of morning 

nutrition in preadolescents. Physiol 

Behav 82:295-302.

204. Pons, L, U Ponnappan, RA Hall, et 

al. 2004. Soy immunotherapy for 

peanut-allergic mice: modulation of 

the peanut-allergic response. J Allergy 

Clin Immunol 114:915-21.

205. Prior, RL, and R Cook. 2004. 

Altered ex vivo platelet aggregation 

(pa) after consumption of lowbush 

blueberries (bb) for 2 weeks in human 

participants. FASEB J 18:A852.

206. Prior, RL, X Wu, L Gu, et al. 2004. 

Absorption of antioxidants by human 

subjects following a meal containing 

either grape (g) or lowbush blueberry 

(bb) freeze dried powders. FASEB J 

18:A517.

207. Prior, RL. 2004. Absorption and 

metabolism of anthocyanins: potential 

health effects. In MS Meskin, WR 

Bidlack, and AJ Davies, eds., 

Phytochemicals: Mechanisms of 

Action, pp. 1-19. Boca Raton, FL: CRC 

Press.

208. Prior, RL. 2004. Plasma antioxidant 

measurements. J Nutr 134:3184S-5S.

209. Prior, RL, and J Joseph. 2004. Berries 

and fruits in cancer chemoprevention. 

In D Bagchi and HG Preuss, eds., 

Phytopharmaceuticals in Cancer 

Chemoprevention, pp. 465-479. Boca 

Raton, FL: CRC Press.

210. Prior, RL. 2004. Biochemical measures 

of antioxidant status. Topics Clin Nutr 

19:226-38.
344 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

211. Rains, J, D Penzien, K Harman, and 

RT Pivik. 2004. Sleep and chronic 

pain: challenges to the alpha-EEG 

sleep pattern as a pain specific sleep 

anomaly. J Psychosom Res 56:255-6.

212. Ronis, MJ, R Hakkak, S Korourian, 

et al. 2004. Alcoholic liver disease 

in rats fed ethanol as part of oral or 

intragastric low-carbohydrate liquid 

diets. Exp Biol Med 229:351-60.

213. Ronis, MJ, S Korourian, M Zipperman, 

et al. 2004. Dietary saturated fat 

reduces alcoholic hepatotoxicity in 

rats by altering fatty acid metabolism 

and membrane composition. J Nutr 

134:904-12.

214. Ronis, MJ, C Curtis, N Fang, 

and TM Badger. 2004. Dietary 

supplementation with whole shitake 

mushrooms throughout development 

increases phase ii enzyme expression 

in male but not female rat liver. 

FASEB J 18:A487.

215. Ronis, MJ, C Dahl, and TM Badger. 

2004. Feeding diets containing soy 

protein isolate (spi) or isoflavones at 

weaning alters CYP4A and CYP2C 

expression in rat kidney to favor 

production of anti-hypertensive 

arachidonic acid products. FASEB J 

18:A99.

216. Ronis, MJ, Y Chen, CH Jo, et al. 2004. 

Diets containing soy protein isolate 

increase hepatic CYP3A expression 

and inducibility in weanling male rats 

exposed during early development. J 

Nutr 134:3270-6.

217. Ronis, MJ, S Korourian, S Yoon, et al. 

2004. Lack of sexual dimorphism in 

alcohol-induced liver damage (ALD) in 

rats treated chronically with ethanolcontaining low carbohydrate diets: 

The role of ethanol metabolism and 

endotoxin. Life Sci 75:469-83.

218. Ronis, MJ, M Hidestrand, K Shankar, 

et al. 2004. Pregnancy alters the 

mechanism of alcohol-induced bone 

loss in female rats. Soc Toxicol 78:143.

219. Ronis, MJ, C Dahl, and TM Badger. 

2004. Effects of a rice protein isolate 

diet on CYP4A and CYP2C expression 

in rat kidney at weaning may alter 

arachidonic acid metabolism in favor 

of anti-hypertensive products. FASEB 

J 18:A870.

220. Ronis, MJ, Y Chen, C Curtis, and 

TM Badger. 2004. Effects of rice 

protein isolate (rpi) consumption on 

cholesterol metabolism and transport 

in weanling rats. FASEB J 18:A870.

221. Selvaraj, P, N Fifadara, S Nagarajan, 

et al. 2004. Functional regulation 

of human neutrophil Fc gamma 

receptors. Immunol Res 29:219-30.

222. Shankar, K, M Hidestrand, L 

Humphrey, et al. 2004. Maternal 

undernutrition during pregnancy 

potentiates intrauterine growth effects 

of ethanol. Soc Toxicol 78:180.

223. Simmen, FA, I Kwak, JL Blum, and 

RCM Simmen. 2004. Nutrition and 

the IGF system in reproduction. In MS 

Houston, JMP Holly, and EL Feldman, 

eds., IGF and Nutrition in Health and 

Disease, pp. 145-155. Totowa, NJ: 

Humana Press.

224. Simmen, RCM, RR Eason, JR 

Mcquown, et al. 2004. Subfertility, 

uterine hypoplasia, and partial 

progesterone resistance in mice 

lacking the Kruppel-like factor 9/

basic transcription element-binding 

protein-1 (Bteb1) gene. J Biol Chem 

279:29286-94.

225. Stewart, BW, and S Nagarajan. 

2004. Recombinant CD36-Ig blocks 

modified-LDL-mediated monocyte 

adhesion. FASEB J 18:A27.

226. Stuff, JE, PH Casey, and KL Szeto. 

2004. Household food security and 

adults’ self-reported health status. J 

Nutr 134:2330-5.

227. Velarde, MC, R Eason, SI Parisek, 

et al. 2004. The secretory leukocyte 

protease inhibitor gene is a target 

of epidermal growth factor receptor 

action in endometrial epithelial cells. 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 345

Endocrine Society, 86th Annual 

Meeting, 2004, p. 490.

228. Wahl, EC, L Liu, DS Perrien, et 

al. 2004. Inhibition of direct bone 

formation associated with chronic 

ethanol exposure in a mouse model of 

distraction osteogenesis. Soc Toxicol 

78:1365.

229. Wang, C, JS Szabo, and RA Dykman. 

2004. Effects of a carbohydrate 

supplement upon resting brain 

activity. Integr Physiol Behav Sci 

39:126-38.

230. Weber, JL, RA Hall, KL Szeto, et 

al. 2004. Relationship of body 

composition and self-reported intake 

of selected nutrients in overweight 

lower mississippi delta african 

american girls. Pediatric Academic 

Societies’ Meeting; 2004.

231. Weber, JL, L Lytle, J Gittelsohn, et al. 

2004. Validity of self-reported dietary 

intake at school meals by American 

Indian children: The Pathways Study. 

J Am Diet Assoc 104:746-52.

232. Wu, X, GR Beecher, JM Holden, et 

al. 2004. Lipophilic and hydrophilic 

antioxidant capacities of common 

foods in the United States. J Agric 

Food Chem 52:4026-37.

233. Wu, X, HE Pittman III, and RL Prior. 

2004. Pelargonidin is absorbed and 

metabolized differently than cyanidin 

after marionberry consumption in 

pigs. J Nutr 134:2603-10.

234. Wu, X, L Gu, RL Prior, and S 

McKay. 2004. Characterization of 

anthocyanins and proanthocyanidins 

in some cultivars of Ribes, Aronia, 

and Sambucus and their antioxidant 

capacity. J Agric Food Chem 52:7846-

56.

235. Wu, X, TM Vaughn, and RL Prior. 

2004. Identification of anthocyanin 

(ACN) metabolites in urine from 

weanling pigs after feeding black 

raspberry (br) or marionberry (mb). 

FASEB J 18:A517.

236. Wu, X, HE Pittman, and RL Prior RL. 

2004. Fate of black raspberry (br) 

anthocyanin (ac) and antioxidant 

capacity in contents of the 

gastrointestinal (gi) tract of weanling 

pigs. FASEB J 18:A887.

237. Wu, X, L Gu, J Holden, et al. 2004. 

Factors in the development of a 

database of food total antioxidant 

capacity using lipophilic and 

hydrophilic oxygen radical absorbance 

capacity (ORAC(FL)): a preliminary 

study of 28 foods. J Food Compos 

Anal 17:407-22.

238. Xiao, R, AL Linz, M Ferguson, et 

al. 2004. Soy and whey proteins 

alter colonic gene expression during 

tumorigenesis. Endocrine Society, 

86th Annual Meeting; 2004, p. 199.

239. Yilmaz, A, ME Davis, and RC Simmen. 

2004. Estimation of (co)variance 

components for reproductive traits in 

Angus beef cattle divergently selected 

for blood serum IGF-I concentration. J 

Anim Sci 82:2285-92.

240. Badger, TM, L He, FA Simmen, and 

MJ Ronis. 2005. Ethanol induces 

rat hepatic alcohol dehydrogenase 

(ADH) class I by interfering with 

post-translational regulation of sterol 

regulatory element binding protein-1 

(SREBP-1). Toxicologist 84:392.

241. Badger, TM, M Hidestrand, K Shankar, 

et al. 2005. The effects of pregnancy 

on ethanol clearance. Life Sci 77:2111-

26.

242. Badger, TM, MJ Ronis, RC Simmen, 

and FA Simmen. 2005. Soy protein 

isolate and protection against cancer. 

J Am Coll Nutr 24:146S-9S.

243. Baumgardner, JN, B Yarberry, J 

Badeaux, et al. 2005. Undernutrition 

fails to exacerbate alcohol-induced 

liver damage despite evidence of 

increased oxidative stress. Toxicologist 

84:15.

244. Bhattacharyya, MH, E Puzas, JB 

Lian, et al. 2005. Molecular pathways 
346 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

to toxicant-induced osteoporosis. 

Toxicologist 84:210.

245. Carter, JA, R Xiao, TM Badger, 

and FA Simmen. 2005. Dietary 

Whey protein hydrolysate (WPH) 

suppresses circulating insulin and 

C-peptide levels and inhibits colon 

tumorigenesis. FASEB J 19:A77.

246. Dave, B, RR Eason, SR Till, et al. 

2005. The tumor suppressor PTEN 

mediates the pro-apoptotic activity 

of dietary genistein on mammary 

epithelial cells: implications for 

mammary cancer protection. Proc Am 

Assoc Cancer Res 46:627.

247. Dave, B, RR Eason, SR Till, et al. 

2005. The soy isoflavone genistein 

promotes apoptosis in mammary 

epithelial cells by inducing the 

tumor suppressor PTEN. Carcinogen 

26:1793-803.

248. Eason, RR, SR Till, MC Velarde, et 

al. 2005. Uterine phenotype of young 

adult rats exposed to dietary soy or 

genistein during development. J Nutr 

Biochem 16:625-32.

249. Gu, L, RL Prior, N Fang, et al. 2005. 

Organ and subcellular distribution of 

genistein and daidzein in rats. FASEB 

J 19:A446.

250. Gu L, X Wu, B Ou, et al. 2005. 

Procyanidin (PC) content and total 

antioxidant capacity (TAC) of chocolate 

and cocoa products. FASEB J 

19:A1032.

251. Gu, L, M Laly, HC Chang, et al. 

2005. Isoflavone conjugates are 

underestimated in tissues using 

enzymatic hydrolysis. J Agric Food 

Chem 53:6858-63.

252. Gu, L, RL Prior, N Fang, et al. 2005. 

Interspecies differences of isoflavone 

metabolic phenotypes in female rats, 

pigs, monkeys, and humans. FASEB J 

19:A446.

253. Hakkak, R, A Holley, S MacLeod, et al. 

2005. Obesity promotes dmba-induced 

mammary tumor development in 

female zucker rats. FASEB J 19:A774.

254. Haley, R, M Hidestrand, K Shankar, 

et al. 2005. Estradiol protects 

against ethanol-induced bone loss in 

female rats by preventing osteoclast 

activation. Toxicologist ;84:354.

255. Harsha, D, C Connell, C Champagne, 

et al. 2005. Food security and weight 

status in lower Mississippi river delta 

children. FASEB J 19:A1023.

256. He, L, MJ Ronis, FA Simmen, and 

TM Badger. 2005. Ethanol has 

biphasic effects on expression of sterol 

regulatory element binding protein-1 

(SREBP-1) in rat FGC-4 hepatoma 

cells with inhibition at high doses 

resulting in induction of ADH class 1. 

Toxicologist 84:392.

257. Hidestrand, M, K Shankar, MJ Ronis, 

and TM Badger. 2005. Effects of light 

and dark beer on hepatic cytochrome 

P-450 expression in male rats 

receiving alcoholic beverages as part 

of total enteral nutrition. Alcohol Clin 

Exp Res 29:888-95.

258. Huang, D, B Ou, and RL Prior. 2005. 

The chemistry behind antioxidant 

capacity assays. J Agric Food Chem 

53:1841-56.

259. Jing, H, RA Dykman, RT Pivik, et 

al. 2005. Auditory event-related 

potentials in breast-fed, milk-fed, and 

soy-fed infants at 3 and 6 months of 

age. FASEB J 19:A1000.

260. Kopper, RA, NJ Odum, M Sen, et al. 

2005. Peanut protein allergens: the 

effect of roasting on solubility and 

allergenicity. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 

136:16-22.

261. Kopper, RA, CM West, and RM Helm. 

2005. Physiological digestion of peanut 

proteins in the swine model of food 

allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 133.

262. Luo, HF, Q Li, S Yu, et al. 2005. 

Cytotoxic hydroxylated triterpene 

alcohol ferulates from rice bran. J Nat 

Prod 68:94-7.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 347

263. Nagarajan, S. 2005. Role of 

IgGFcgamma receptor in the 

progression of atherosclerosis. 

American Heart Association “Learn 

and Live” Research Symposium, 

November 12, 2005, Dallas, TX, p. 27.

264. Pivik, T, RA Dykman, and TM Badger. 

2005. Eating or skipping breakfast: 

effects on resting EEG activity and 

heart rate. FASEB J 19:A1070.

265. Ronis, M, Y Chen, and T Badger. 2005. 

Effects of soy protein isolate (spi) and 

dietary isoflavones on cholesterol 

metabolism and transport in weanling 

rats. FASEB J 19:A997.

266. Ronis, MJ, A Butura, BP Sampey, et 

al. 2005. Effects of N-acetylcysteine on 

ethanol-induced hepatotoxicity in rats 

fed via total enteral nutrition. Free 

Radic Biol Med 39:619-30.

267. Ronis, MJ, T Badger, CK Lumpkin, 

et al. 2005. Mechanisms of ethanolinduced bone loss differ with 

physiological state. Toxicologist 

84:211.

268. Roughead, ZK, JR Hunt, LK Johnson, 

et al. 2005. Controlled substitution 

of soy protein for meat protein: 

effects on calcium retention, bone, 

and cardiovascular health indices 

in postmenopausal women. J Clin 

Endocrinol Metab 90:181-9.

269. Shankar, K, M Hidestrand, B Yarberry, 

et al. 2005. Microarray-based analysis 

of nutrition-ethanol interactions 

during gestation. Toxicologist 84:57.

270. Simmen, RC, RR Eason, SR Till, et 

al. 2005. Inhibition of NMU-induced 

mammary tumorigenesis by dietary 

soy. Cancer Lett 224:45-52.

271. Stewart, BW, M Ferguson, TM Badger, 

and S Nagarajan. 2005. Dietary 

soy protein isolate (spi+) inhibits 

development of atherogenesis in 

familial hypercholesterolemic mouse 

model. FASEB J 19:A1460.

272. Stuff, JE, PH Casey, K Szeto, et al. 

2005. Household food insecurity and 

adult chronic disease in the lower 

Mississippi delta. FASEB J 19:A986.

273. Velarde, MC, SL Parisek, RR Eason, 

et al. 2005. The secretory leukocyte 

protease inhibitor gene is a target 

of epidermal growth factor receptor 

action in endometrial epithelial cells. J 

Endocrinol 184:141-51.

274. Velarde, MC, RR Eason, FA Simmen, 

and RCM Simmen. 2005. The sp/

kruppel-like family (klf) member, 

basic transcriptional element binding 

protein 1 (BTEB1) is important for 

developmental synchrony of embryo 

and uterine endometrium. Biol Reprod 

73:472-81.

275. Wahl, EC, DS Perrien, J Aronson, et 

al. 2005. Ethanol-induced inhibition 

of bone formation in a rat model of 

distraction osteogenesis: a role for the 

tumor necrosis factor signaling axis. 

Alcohol Clin Exp Res 29:1466-72.

276. Wu, X, HE Pittman III, LA 

Cadwallader, and RL Prior. 2005. 

Increases in anthocyanin (ACN) 

and antioxidant capacity in the 

gastrointestinal tract (git) were greater 

in blueberry (bb) compared to Concord 

grape (cg) fed rats. FASEB J 19:A448.

277. Wu, X, HE Pittman III, S McKay, and 

RL Prior. 2005. Anthocyanins (ACNs) 

were absorbed and metabolized 

differently in weanling pigs after 

feeding black currant (BC) or 

chokeberry (CB). FASEB J 19:A415.

278. Wu, X, and RL Prior. 2005. 

Identification and characterization of 

anthocyanins by high-performance 

liquid chromatography-electrospray 

ionization-tandem mass spectrometry 

in common foods in the United States: 

vegetables, nuts, and grains. J Agric 

Food Chem 20:3101-13.

279. Wu, X, and RL Prior. 2005. Systematic 

identification and characterization of 

anthocyanins by HPLC-ESI-MS/MS in 

common foods in the United States: 

fruits and berries. J Agric Food Chem 

53:2589-99.
348 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

280. Xiao, R, TM Badger, and FA Simmen. 

2005. Dietary exposure to soy or whey 

proteins alters colonic global gene 

expression profiles during rat colon 

tumorigenesis. Mol Cancer 4:1.

281. Xiao, R, M Ferguson, TM Badger, 

and FA Simmen. 2005. Dietary 

prevention of azoxymethane (aom)-

induced intestinal cancers by whey 

protein hydrolysate (wph): are absent 

crypt foci (acf) suitable intermediate 

endpoint biomarkers for tumor 

occurence? Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 

46:1223.

282. Badger, TM, L He, FA Simmen, and 

M Ronis. 2006. Chronic feeding 

alcohol-containing diets via total 

enteral nutrition induces alcohol 

dehydrogenase (ADH) and insulin 

resistance. Toxicologist 90.

283. Chen, JR, RL Haley, M Hidestrand, 

et al. 2006. Estradiol protects 

against ethanol-induced bone loss by 

inhibiting up-regulation of receptor 

activator of nuclear factor-kappaB 

ligand in osteoblasts. J Pharmacol Exp 

Ther 319:1182.

284. Chen, JR, R Haley, M Hidestrand, 

et al. 2006. Estradiol protects 

against ethanol-induced bone loss 

by inhibiting up regulation of RANKL 

in osteoblasts. J Pharmacol Exp 

Ther. 319:1182-90.

285. Dave, B, R Eason, R Till, et al. 2006. 

Enhanced progesterone receptor 

A expression by dietary soy in a 

hormone-dependent (NMU) model 

of rat mammary carcinogenesis: 

implications for tumor progression. 

Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 47:5582.

286. Eason, RR, SR Till, JA Frank, et al. 

2006. Tumor-protective and tumorpromoting actions of dietary whey 

proteins in an N-methyl-N-nitrosourea 

model of rat mammary carcinogenesis. 

Nutr Cancer 55:171-7.

287. Geng, Y, R Till, JA Frank, et al. 2006. 

Diets containing soy protein isolate or 

the soy isoflavone genistein suppress 

p53-mediated activation of the colon 

DNA damage response pathway in 

azoxymethane-treated rats. FASEB J 

20:A564.

288. Gu, L, SE House, and RL Prior. 2006. 

Effects of level of dietary sorghum 

procyanidins on early growth and 

development of rats. FASEB J 20; 

A154.

289. Gu, L, SE House, and RL Prior. 

2006. Sorghum bran in the diet dose 

dependently increased excretion 

of catechins and microbial-derived 

phenolic acids in rats. FASEB J 20; 

A573.

290. Gu, L, SE House, R Prior, and TM 

Badger. 2006. Distribution and 

molecular forms of soy isoflavones 

in organs/tissues of rats and pigs. 

FASEB J 20:A595.

291. He, L, FA Simmen, HM Mehendale, 

et al. 2006. Chronic ethanol intake 

impairs insulin signaling in rats by 

disrupting Akt association with the cell 

membrane. J Biol Chem. 281:11126-

34

292. He, L, FA Simmen, M Ronis, and TM 

Badger. 2006. Ethanol induces and 

insulin inhibits alcohol dehydrogenase 

class 1 In FGC-4 cells: both appear to 

work through SREBP-1. Toxicologist 

90.

293. Helm, RM. 2006. Animal models for 

food allergy. In SBWHR Maleki, ed., 

Food Allergy, 1st edition, pp. 171-177. 

Washington, DC: ASM Press.

294. Chen, J-R, RL Haley, M Hidestrand, 

et al. 2006. Estradiol protects 

against ethanol-induced bone loss by 

inhibiting up-regulation of receptor 

activator of nuclear factor-kB ligand in 

osteoblasts. J Pharmacol Exp Therap 

319:1182-90.

295. Jing, H, RT Pivik, JM Gilchrist, et al. 

2006. EEG power spectral changes 

in breast fed, milk-formula fed or 

soy-formula fed infants in the first 6 

months of life. FASEB J 20;A598.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 349

296. Jing, H, RT Pivik, JM Gilchrist, and 

TM Badger. 2006. Effects of early 

infant diet on development of EEG 

during the first year of life. American 

Clinical Neurophysiology Annual 

Meeting, Chicago, IL, November 3-4, 

2006. Program B05; pp. 48-49.

297. Nagarajan, S, BW Stewart, M 

Ferguson, and TM Badger. 2006. Rice 

protein isolates inhibit the onset of 

atherogenesis in a genetically predisposed hypercholesterolemic mouse 

model. FASEB J 20;A1000.

298. Nagarajan, S, BW Stewart, and TM 

Badger. 2006. Soy isoflavones inhibit 

monocyte cd11a affinity modulation 

resulting in reduced monocyte 

adhesion to endothelial cell specific 

molecule cd54. FASEB J 20;A124.

299. Nagarajan, S, BW Stewart, and 

TM Badger. 2006. Soy isoflavones 

attenuate human monocyte adhesion 

to endothelial cell-specific CD54 by 

inhibiting monocyte CD11a. J Nutr 

136:2384-90.

300. Pivik, RT, RA Dykman, KB Tennal, 

et al.. 2006. Skipping breakfast: 

gender effects on resting heart rate 

measures in preadolescents. FASEB J 

20:A187-A188.

301. Pivik, RT. 2006. Endogenous eye 

blinks, ERP correlates of early sensory 

processing and morning nutrition 

[abstract]. Psychophysiol 40:78.

302. Pivik, RT, H Jing, JM Gilchrist, and 

TM Badger. 2006. Early infant diet: 

effects on resting cardiovascular 

activity during the first half-year of 

life. Psychophysiol 40:78.

303. Prior, RL, and X Wu. 2006. 

Anthocyanins: structural 

characteristics that result in unique 

metabolic patterns and biological 

activities. Free Radic Res 40:1014-28.

304. Rizki, G, L Arnaboldi, B Gabrielli, 

et al. 2006. Mice fed a lipogenic 

methionine-choline-deficient diet 

develop hypermetabolism coincident 

with hepatic suppression of SCD-1. J 

Lipid Res 47:2280-90.

305. Ronis, M, J Badeaux, K Seely, et 

al. 2006. Feeding of casein diets 

supplemented with blueberry or grape 

powder during development alters 

hepatic phase I and II metabolism in 

Sprague Dawley rats. FASEB J 20; 

A1015.

306. Ronis, M, Y Chen, J Badeaux, et 

al. 2006. Feeding diets containing 

rice protein isolate (RPI) at weaning 

results in activation of PPAR and 

LXR-mediated pathways as a result 

of upregulation of transcription factor 

expression. FASEB J 20:A1015.

307. Ronis, M, Y Chen, J Badeaux, and TM 

Badger. 2006. Observational study 

of weight loss on clinical markers 

for metabolic syndrome. FASEB J 

20A1016.

308. Ronis, MJ, JM Little, GW Barone, et 

al. 2006. Sulfation of the isoflavones 

genistein and daidzein in human and 

rat liver and gastrointestinal tract. J 

Med Food 9:348-55.

309. Ronis, MJ, M Zipperman, and TM 

Badger. 2006. Alcoholic hepatotoxicity 

and saturated fats in the diet: a 

modulating influence [abstract]. 

Alcohol Clin Exp Res 30:88A.

310. Schauss, AG, X Wu, RL Prior, et 

al. 2006. Antioxidant capacity and 

other bioactivities of the freeze-dried 

Amazonian palm berry, Euterpe 

oleraceae Mart. (acai). J Agric Food 

Chem 54:8604-10.

311. Schauss, AG, X Wu, RL Prior, et al. 

2006. Phytochemical and nutrient 

composition of the freeze-dried 

amazonian palm berry, Euterpe 

oleraceae Mart. (acai). J Agric Food 

Chem 54:8598-603.

312. Shankar, K, M Ferguson, T Dallari, et 

al. 2006. Caloric intake and dietary fat 

to carbohydrate ratio influence body 

weight accretion and adiposity in rats 

fed by total enteral nutrition. FASEB J 

20:A581-A582.
350 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

313. Shankar, K, M Hidestrand, X Liu, et 

al. 2006. Physiologic and genomic 

analyses of nutrition-ethanol 

interactions during gestation: 

Implications for fetal ethanol toxicity. 

Exp Biol Med 231:1379-97.

314. Shankar, K, X Liu, CM Skinner, 

et al. 2006. Nutritional status is 

a determinant of ethanol-induced 

hepatic gene expression during 

gestation. Toxicologist 90, p. 491.

315. Simmen, F, R Xiao, RS Till, et al. 

2006. Inhibitory effects of soy protein 

isolate on intestinal carcinogenesis 

in azoxymethane (AOM)-treated 

sprague-dawley rats are subsitespecific and linked to insulin/IGF 

action. In Proceedings of Fifth AACR 

International Conference “Frontiers in 

Cancer Prevention Research,” p. 117. 

Philadelphia, PA: AACR.

316. Singhal, R, M Ferguson, M Ronis, and 

TM Badger. 2006. Reduction in basal 

aryl hydrocarbon receptor expression 

and cytochrome P450-1 A1 induction 

by soy consumption. Toxicologist 90, p 

338.

317. Su, Y, R Xiao, Y Geng, et al. 2006. 

Identification of gene networks 

underlying mammary tumor protection 

by dietary exposure to soy and 

genistein. FASEB J 20:A560-A561.

318. Velarde, M, Y Geng, FA Simmen, 

and RCM Simmen. 2006. Induction 

of progesterone receptor isoform 

expression by kruppel-like factor 9/

basic transcription element binding 

protein 1 in the myometrium is 

associated with labor onset in mice. 

Proc Endocrine Soc 88.

319. Wahl, EC, L Liu, DS Perrien, et al. 

2006. A novel mouse model for the 

study of the inhibitory effects of 

chronic ethanol exposure on direct 

bone formation. Alcohol 39:159-67.

320. Xiao, R, JA Carter, AL Linz, et al. 

2006. Dietary whey protein lowers 

serum C-peptide concentration 

and duodenal SREBP-1c mRNA 

abundance, and reduces occurrence of 

duodenal tumors and colon aberrant 

crypt foci in azoxymethane-treated 

male rats. J Nutr Biochem 17:626-34.

321. Xiao, R, JA Frank, CM Skinner, and 

FA Simmen. 2006. Diets containing 

soy protein isolate or genistein fed 

to female rats during pregnancy do 

not suppress azoxymethane-induced 

intestinal cancers in the male progeny. 

FASEB J 20:A567-A568.

322. Andres, A, S Smith, TM Badger, 

and JM Gilchrist. 2007. Bone 

mineralization and vitamin D/calcium 

daily intake of infants fed breast-milk, 

milk-based formula or soy-based 

formula. FASEB J 22:5.

323. Badger, TM, MJ Ronis, Y Chen, and 

ME Ferguson. 2007. Exposure to 

soy protein isolate from conception 

fails to induce epigenetic changes 

in viable yellow agouti (Avy/a) mice, 

but partially blocks hepatosteatosis 

and altered body composition in mice 

and rats. Early Human Development 

83:S66.

324. Badger, TM, L He, F Simmen, and MJ 

Ronis. 2007. Alcohol-induced insulin 

resistance in liver: potential roles in 

regulation of ADH expression; ethanol 

clearance and alcohol liver disease. 

Alcohol Clin Exp Res 30:49A.

325. Badger, TM, G Wolff, S Stanley, et al. 

2007. In utero exposure to soy protein 

isolate does not produce epigenetic 

changes in heterozygous viable yellow 

agouti (Avy/a) mice offspring, but does 

alter body composition and prevents 

hepatosteatosis. The Endocrine 

Society, 89th Annual Meeting, June 

2-5, 2007, Toronto, Canada. Program 

No.OR16-4. [CD-ROM]

326. Bailey, E, RL Burris, TM Badger, 

and S Nagarajan. 2007. Sow-reared 

piglets show increased mitogen and 

co-stimulation induced lymphocytes 

proliferation compared to formula-fed 

piglets. FASEB J 21:A378.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 351

327. Baumgardner, J, K Shankar, TM 

Badger, and MJ Ronis. 2007. Effects 

of N-acetylcysteine on non-alcoholic 

steatohepatitis (NASH) in rats fed 

via total enteral nutrition. FASEB J 

21:A725.

328. Baumgardner, JN, K Shankar, S 

Korourian, et al. 2007. Undernutrition 

enhances alcohol-induced hepatocyte 

proliferation in the liver of rats fed 

via total enteral nutrition. Am J 

Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 

293:G355-G364.

329. Chen, JR, OP Lazarenko, TM Badger, 

et al. 2007. Wnt/RANKL-mediated 

bone growth promoting effects of 

blueberries in weanling rats. FASEB J 

22:2.

330. Chen, J, K Shankar, X Liu, et al. 2007. 

Inhibition of reactive oxygen species 

generation and downstream activation 

of the ERK/STAT3/RANKL signaling 

cascade in osteoblasts accounts for 

the protective effects of estradiol 

on ethanol-induced bone loss. The 

Endocrine Society, 89th Annual 

Meeting, June 2-5, 2007, Toronto, 

Canada. Program No.P4-85. [CD-ROM]

331. Gilchrist, JM, TM Badger, and L Gu. 

2007. Infants fed soy formula appear 

to maintain steady-state isoflavone 

concentrations. FASEB J 21:A369.

332. Gu, L, SE House, L Rooney, and RL 

Prior. 2007. Sorghum bran in the 

diet dose dependently increased the 

excretion of catechins and microbialderived phenolic acids in female rats. 

J Agric Food Chem 55:5326-34.

333. Gu, L, SE House, RL Prior, and 

L Rooney. 2007. Contents of 

procyanidins in sorghum and the 

bioavailability in weaning pigs. In

Annual Meeting Book of Abstract. 

International Food Technology 

(“2007 IFT”), July 28-August 1, 2007, 

Chicago, Illinois. Program No.227-02.

334. Gu, L, SE House, RL Prior, and 

L Rooney. 2007. Extrusion 

increased bioavailability of sorghum 

procyanidins in weanling pigs. FASEB 

J 21:A120.

335. He, L, JC Marecki, G Serrero, et al. 

2007. Dose-dependent effects of 

alcohol on insulin signaling: partial 

explanation for biphasic alcohol 

impact on human health. Mol 

Endocrinol 21:2541-50.

336. He L, F Simmen, MJ Ronis, and 

TM Badger. 2007. Chronic alcohol 

consumption induces TRB3 and 

disrupts insulin signaling through 

increased ER stress. Toxicologist 

96:328.

337. Helm, RM, C Golden, M McMahon, 

et al. 2007. Diet regulates the 

development of gut-associated 

lymphoid tissue in neonatal piglets. 

Neonatol 91:248-55.

338. Heneman, KM, HC Chang, RL Prior, 

and FM Steinberg. 2007. Soy protein 

with and without isoflavones fails to 

substantially increase postprandial 

antioxidant capacity. J Nutr Biochem 

18:46-53.

339. Jing, H, RT Pivik, JM Gilchrist, and 

TM Badger. 2007. Soy-based and 

milk-based formula may have similar 

effects on EEG development in infants. 

FASEB J 21:A322.

340. Nagarajan, S. 2007. Anti-OxLDL IgG 

blocks OxLDL interaction with CD36, 

but promotes FcgammaR, CD32Adependent inflammatory cell adhesion. 

Immunol Lett 108:52-61.

341. Pivik, RT, H Jing, JM Gilchrist, and 

TM Badger. 2007. Infant diet and 

the development of cardiovascular 

reactivity during the first year of life. 

Psychophysiol 44:S104.

342. Pivik, RT. 2007. Erp correlates of 

mental arithmetic in preadolescents: 

influence of ability and effects of 

morning nutrition. Psychophysiol 

44:S103.

343. Pivik, RT, RA Dykman, H Jing, et 

al. 2007. The influence of infant 

diet on early developmental changes 

in processing human voice speech 
352 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

stimuli: ERP variations in breast and 

milk formula-fed infants at 3 and 6 

months after birth. Dev Neuropsychol 

31:279-335.

344. Prior, R. 2007. Proanthocyanidins: 

challenges in understanding the 

chemistry, metabolism and health 

benefits. Proceedings of SICC-5: 

Singapore International Chemistry 

Conference 5 & APCE Asia-Pacific 

International Symposium on 

Microscale Separation and Analysis 

6:159.

345. Prior, RL, L Gu, X Wu, et al. 2007. 

Plasma antioxidant capacity changes 

following a meal as a measure of 

the ability of a food to alter in vivo 

antioxidant status. J Am Coll Nutr 

26:170-81.

346. Prior, RL, L Howard, L Gu, et al. 2007. 

Procyanidins: effects of source and 

extrusion conditions on structure, 

degradation and absorption/

metabolism. American Chemical 

Society 234th National Meeting and 

Exposition, August 19-23, 2007, 

Boston, MA. Washington, DC: 

American Chemical Society.

347. Prior, RL, X Wu, and L Gu. 2007. 

Flavonoid metabolism and challenges 

to understanding mechanisms of 

health effects. J Sci Food Agric 

86:2487-91.

348. Prior, RL, X Wu, T Hagar, et al. 2007. 

Anthocyanins: do they really prevent 

obesity? FASEB J 21:A103.

349. Singhal, R, TM Badger, and 

MJJ Ronis. 2007. Reduction in 

7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthraceneInduced hepatic cytochrome-P450 1A1 

expression following soy consumption 

in female rats is mediated by 

degradation of the Aryl hydrocarbon 

receptor. J Nutr 137:19-24.

350. Ronis, MJ, Wands JR, Badger TM, de 

la Monte SM, Lang CH, Calissendorff 

J. Alcohol-induced disruption of 

endocrine signaling. Alcohol Clin Exp 

Res. 2007;31:1269-85.

351. Ronis, MJ, J Chen, R Haley, et al. 

2007. The role of reduced plasma 

estradiol and impaired estrogen 

signaling in alcohol-induced bone 

loss [abstract]. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 

30:49A.

352. Ronis, MJ, Y Chen, X Liu, et al. 2007. 

Increases in CYP3A expression and 

glucocorticoid-inducibility in liver 

of rats fed soy protein isolate (spi) 

involves post-transcriptional effects on 

mRNA processing. FASEB J 21:A372.

353. Ronis, MJ, L He, and TM Badger. 

2007. Chronic alcohol consumption 

has biphasic effects on hepatic insulin 

signaling dependent on dose. Alcohol 

Clin Exp Res 31:293A.

354. Shankar, K, A Harrell, X Liu, et 

al. 2007. Increased adipocyte de 

nova lipogenesis underlies high 

carbohydrate driven obesity: role for 

ChREBP. FASEB J 21:A693.

355. Shankar, K, X Liu, TM Badger, and 

MJ Ronis. 2007. Mechanisms of 

ethanol-mediated induction of the 

renal 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamin d3-24-

hydroxylase (cyp24a1). Toxicologist 

96:391.

356. Shankar, K, X Liu, A Harrell, et 

al. 2007. Fetal programming by 

maternal obesity increases offspring’s 

susceptibility to obesity in later-life. 

FASEB J 21:A324.

357. Shankar, K, MJ Ronis, and TM 

Badger. 2007. Effects of pregnancy 

and nutritional status on alcohol 

metabolism. Alcohol Res Health 30:55-

9.

358. Simmen, FA, R Xiao, MC Velarde, et 

al. 2007. Dysregulation of intestinal 

crypt cell proliferation and villus cell 

migration in mice lacking Kruppel-like 

factor 9. Am J Physiol Gastrointest 

Liver Physiol 292:G1757-G1769.

359. Simmen, RC, MC Velarde, Z Zeng, et 

al. 2007. Altered gestation length in 

mice null for the krüppel-like factor 

9 gene or heterozygous for the leptin 

receptor mutation: useful models for 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 353

parturition defects? Biol Reprod 77: 

231-2.

360. Singhal, R, TM Badger, and 

MJ Ronis. 2007. Reduction in 

7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthraceneinduced hepatic cytochrome-P450 1A1 

expression following soy consumption 

in female rats is mediated by 

degradation of the aryl hydrocarbon 

receptor. J Nutr 137(1):19-24. 

361. Singhal, R, K Shankar, TM Badger, 

and MJ Ronis. 2007. Estrogenic status 

modulates dmba-mediated hepatic 

gene expression: microarray-based 

analysis. Toxicologist 96:159.

362. Singhal, R, K Shankar, TM Badger, 

and MJ Ronis. 2007. Is soy 

estrogenic? Hepatic gene expression 

in the presence or absence of 

endogenous estrogen. FASEB J 

21:A1103.

363. Smith, S, JM Gilchrist, and TM 

Badger. 2007. Inadequate maternal 

docosahexaenoic acid intake in 

lactating women. J Am Diet Assoc 

107:A111.

364. Su, Y, FA Simmen, R Xiao, and RC 

Simmen. 2007. Expression profiling of 

rat mammary epithelial cells reveals 

candidate signaling pathways in 

dietary protection from mammary 

tumors. Physiol Genomics 30:8-16.

365. Su, Y, RR Eason, Y Geng, et al. 

2007. In utero exposure to maternal 

diets containing soy protein isolate, 

but not genistein alone, protects 

young adult rat offspring from NMUinduced mammary tumorigenesis. 

Carcinogenesis 28:1046-51.

366. Thampi, P, RL Burris, RM Helm, and S 

Nagarajan. 2007. Sow-reared neonatal 

pigs exhibit increased innate immune 

response than formula-fed pigs. 

FASEB J 21:A376.

367. Velarde, MC, Z Zeng, JR Mcquown, 

et al. 2007. Kruppel-like factor 9 is a 

negative regulator of ligand-dependent 

estrogen receptor alpha signaling in 

Ishikawa endometrial adenocarcinoma 

cells. Mol Endocrinol 21:2988-3001.

368. Velarde, MC, FA Simmen, and RC 

Simmen. 2007. Krüppel-like factor 

9 regulates cell proliferation and 

compartmental expression of estrogen 

and progesterone receptors in the 

mouse uterine endometrium. Biol 

Reprod 77: 182-3.

369. Wahl, EC, J Aronson, L Liu, et al. 

2007. Chronic ethanol exposure 

inhibits distraction osteogenesis in a 

mouse model: role of the TNF signaling 

axis. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 220:302-

10.

370. Wang, T, K Shankar, MJ Ronis, and 

HM Mehendale. 2007. Mechanisms 

and outcomes of drug- and toxicantinduced liver toxicity in diabetes. Crit 

Rev Toxicol 37:413-59.

371. Wolff, GL, JS Stanley, ME Ferguson, 

et al. 2007. Agouti signaling protein 

stimulates cell division in “viable 

yellow” (A(vy)/a) mouse liver. Exp Biol 

Med 232:1326-9.

372. Wu, X, T Hagar, HEHA Pittman, 

et al. 2007. Phenolic acids in the 

gastrointestinal (GI) tract of pigs fed 

black raspberry. FASEB J 21:A119.

373. Wu, X, RS Till, TM Badger, et al. 

2007. Early effects of blueberry and 

Concord grape intake on rat mammary 

gland development suggest potential 

protective mechanisms for mammary 

tumorigenesis. FASEB J 21:A367.

374. Xiao, R, LJ Hennings, TM Badger, 

and FA Simmen. 2007. Fetal 

programming of colon cancer in 

adult rats: correlations with altered 

neonatal growth trajectory, circulating 

IGF-I and IGF binding proteins, and 

testosterone. J Endocrinol 195:79-87.

375. Xiao, R, and FA Simmen. 2007. 

Colonic fatty acid synthase is downregulated in sprague-dawley rats fed 

soy protein isolate. FASEB J 21:A367

376. Yu, S, ZT Nehus, TM Badger, and N 

Fang. 2007. Quantification of vitamin 

E and gamma-oryzanol components 
354 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

in rice germ and bran. J Agric Food 

Chem 55:7308-13.

377. Baumgardner, JN, K Shankar, L 

Hennings, et al. 2008. A new model 

for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in the 

rat utilizing total enteral nutrition to 

overfeed a high-polyunsaturated fat 

diet. Am J Physiol Gastrointest.Liver 

Physiol 294:G27-G38.

378. Butura, A, S Korourian, K 

Shankar, et al. 2008. Cytokine and 

chemokine expression associated 

with steatohepatitis and hepatocyte 

proliferation in rats fed ethanol via 

total enteral nutrition. Toxicologist 

102:173.

379. Chen, J.R., R Singhal, OP Lazarenko, 

et al. 2008. Promotion of bone 

growth by dietary soy protein isolate: 

comparison with dietary casein, whey 

hydrolysate and rice protein isolate in 

growing female rats. FASEB J 22:5.

380. Chen, JR, K Shankar, S Nagarajan, 

et al. 2008. Protective effects of 

estradiol on ethanol-induced bone loss 

involve inhibition of reactive oxygen 

species generation in osteoblasts 

and downstream activation of the 

extracellular signal-regulated kinase/

signal transducer and activator of 

transcription 3/receptor activator of 

nuclear factor-kappaB ligand signaling 

cascade. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 

324:50-9.

381. Gilchrist, JM, A Andres, SA Smith, 

and TM Badger. 2008. Maternal 

overweight predicts infant caloric 

intake from complimentary foods and 

weight-for-length at age 6 months. 

FASEB J 22:3.

382. Gu, L, SE House, LW Rooney, and 

RL Prior. 2008. Sorghum extrusion 

increases bioavailability of catechins 

in weanling pigs. J Agric Food Chem 

56:1283-8.

383. Gu, L, A Hager, RJ Robbins, and R 

Prior. 2008. Analyses of procyanidins 

in foods using Diol phase HPLC. 

FASEB J 22:5.

384. Hager, TJ, LR Howard, and RL Prior. 

2008. Processing and storage effects 

on monomeric anthocyanins, percent 

polymeric color, and antioxidant 

capacity of processed blackberry 

products. J Agric Food Chem 56:689-

95.

385. Hager, TJ, LR Howard, R Liyanage, et 

al. 2008. Ellagitannin composition of 

blackberry as determined by HPLCESI-MS and MALDI-TOF-MS. J Agric 

Food Chem 56:661-9.

386. Horton, C, RL Burris, TM Badger, and 

S Nagarajan. 2008. Soy-based formula 

does not adversely affect immune 

system development in neonatal 

piglets. FASEB J 22:6.

387. Jing, H, RT Pivik, JM Gilchrist, and 

TM Badger. 2008. No difference 

indicated in electroencephalographic 

power spectral analysis in 3- and 

6-month-old infants fed soy- or milkbased formula. Matern Child Nutr 

4:136-45.

388. Jing, H, RT Pivik, JM Gilchrist, 

and TM Badger. 2008. Infant 

diet differentially affects human 

electroencephalographic activities in 

the first year of life. FASEB J 22:6.

389. Nagarajan, S, RL Burris, BW Stewart, 

et al. 2008. Dietary soy protein isolate 

ameliorates atherosclerotic lesions 

in apolipoprotein E-deficient mice 

potentially by inhibiting monocyte 

chemoattractant protein-1 expression. 

J Nutr 138:332-7.

390. Pivik, RT, H Jing, JM Gilchrist, and 

TM Badger. 2008. Early infant diet 

and ERP correlates of speech stimuli 

discrimination in 9 month old infants. 

FASEB J 22:5.

391. Pivik, RT. 2008. The influence of 

mathematical ability and morning 

nutrition on mental arithmetic in 

preadolescents: an ERP study. FASEB 

J 22:5

392. Prior, R, S Wilkes, and X Wu. 2008. 

Correction of dyslipidemia resulting 

from high fat diets with purified 
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research 355

anthocyanins from blueberry or 

strawberry but not in context of the 

complete berry. FASEB J 22:2.

393. Prior, R, and X Wu. 2008. Hydrophilic 

and lipophilic antioxidant capacity 

in foods: measurement and in vivo 

implications. In F Shahidi and C Ho, 

eds., Antioxidant Measurements and 

Applications, pp. 67-82. Washington, 

DC: Oxford University Press.

394. Prior, R, and X Wu. 2008. 

Anthocyanins: analysis and 

distribution in selected medicinal 

plants. Asian Chem Lett 12(1):9-22.

395. Prior, RL, X Wu, L Gu, et al. 

2008. Whole berries versus berry 

anthocyanins: interactions with 

dietary fat levels in the C57BL/6J 

mouse model of obesity. J Agric Food 

Chem 56:647-53.

396. Ronis, MJ, Y Chen, J Badeaux, et 

al. 2008. Expression and activity of 

CYP3A enzymes in the liver of piglets 

fed dairy- or soy-based formula in 

comparison to breast feeding. FASEB 

J 22:8.

397. Ronis, MJ, Y Chen, J Badeaux, 

et al. 2008. Diets containing soy 

or rice protein isolate increase 

insulin sensitivity and improve lipid 

homeostasis in weanling rats fed high 

fat, high cholesterol Western diets as a 

result of activation of PPAR and LXRmediated pathways. FASEB J 22:2.

398. Ronis, MJ, A Butura, S Korourian, 

et al. 2008. Cytokine and chemokine 

expression associated with 

steatohepatitis and hepatocyte 

proliferation in rats fed ethanol via 

total enteral nutrition. Exp Biol Med 

233:344-55.

399. Shankar, K, M Hidestrand, X 

Liu, et al. 2008. Chronic ethanol 

consumption inhibits postlactational 

anabolic bone rebuilding in female 

rats. J Bone Miner Res 23:338-49.

400. Shankar, K, A Harrell, X Liu, et al. 

2008. Maternal obesity at conception 

programs obesity in the offspring. Am 

J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 

294:R528-R538.

401. Shankar, K, A Harrell, JM Gilchrist, 

et al. 2008. Maternal obesity at 

conception programs obesity in the 

offspring. Early Human Development 

83:S164.

402. Shankar, K, X Liu, R Singhal, et al. 

2008. Chronic ethanol consumption 

leads to disruption of vitamin D3 

homeostasis associated with induction 

of renal 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D3-24-

hydroxylase (CYP24A1). Endocrinol 

149:1748-56.

403. Simmen, FA, A Greenway, MT 

Bowman, et al. Dietary proteins alter 

tissue-specific gene expression and 

adiposity in male Sprague-Dawley 

rats. FASEB J 22:2.

404. Simmen, FA, R Xiao, X Wu, and R 

Prior. 2008. Blueberry consumption 

inhibits gastrointestinal tumorigenesis 

in AOM-treated rats. FASEB J 22:6.

405. Simmons, C, Z Zeng, JM Pabona, et 

al. 2008. Kruppel-like factor 9 and 

regulation of endometrial estrogen 

receptor-á signaling. The Endocrine 

Society, 90th Annual Meeting, June 

15-18, 2008, San Francisco, CA; p. 

438.

406. Singhal, R, TM Badger, and MJ Ronis. 

2008. Exposure to serum from soy-fed 

rats results in proteasome-mediated 

degradation of aryl hydrocarbon 

receptor in FGC-4 cells. Toxicologist 

102:218.

407. Singhal, R, TM Badger, and MJ 

Ronis. 2008. Rats fed soy protein 

isolate (SPI) have impaired hepatic 

CYP1A1 induction by polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons as a result of 

interference with aryl hydrocarbon 

receptor signaling. Toxicol Appl 

Pharmacol 227:275-83.

408. Singhal, R, K Shankar, TM Badger, 

and MJ Ronis. 2008. Estrogenic status 

modulates aryl hydrocarbon receptormediated hepatic gene expression and 
356 History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

carcinogenicity. Carcinogen 29:227-

36.

409. Su, Y, RC Simmen, and B De Lumen. 

2008. Soy components genistein and 

lunasin regulate E-cadherin and Wnt 

signaling in mammary epithelial cells. 

FASEB J 22:1.

410. Thampi, P, BW Stewart, L Joseph, 

et al. 2008. Dietary homocysteine 

promotes atherosclerosis in apoEdeficient mice by inducing scavenger 

receptors expression. Atherosclerosis 

197:620-9.

411. Xiao, R, Y Su, RC Simmen, and FA 

Simmen. 2008. Dietary soy protein 

inhibits DNA damage and cell survival 

of colon epithelial cells through 

attenuated expression of fatty acid 

synthase. Am J Physiol Gastrointest 

Liver Physiol 294:G868-G876.

412. Zeng, Z, MC Velarde, FA Simmen, and 

RC Simmen. 2008. Delayed parturition 

and altered myometrial progesterone 

receptor isoform a expression in mice 

null for Kruppel-like factor 9. Biol 

Reprod 78:1029-37.

413. Zeng, Z, R Simmen, and FA 

Simmen. 2008. Nuclear receptor 

co-regulator krüppel-like factor 9 

in human endometrial stromal cell 

differentiation. FASEB J 22:8.
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research i

Index

1963 Report to Congress, “Proposed 

Program for Expanded Research in Food 

and Nutrition” 68, 124

A

Achterberg, Cheryl 228, 251

Adams, C.F. 133, 134, 135

Adams, Georgian 31, 44, 133, 156

Adams, Mildred 101, 156

Adams, Sean 319

Alford, John 93

Allen, Lindsay 318

Anderson, Barbara 137

Anderson, Richard 86, 87

Andrews, Karen 153, 156

Andrews, Mary 277

Andrews, Senator Mark 266, 277

Appel, Lawrence 225, 228, 251

Archer, Representative Bill 290

Arkansas Children’s Hospital 326

Atkinson, Edward T. 6, 240 

Attaya, Margaret 41, 42

Atwater, Helen 10, 200, 201

Atwater, Wilbur O. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 

11, 21, 52, 66, 73, 122, 126, 128, 131, 137, 

150, 171, 173, 199, 200, 240, 242, 243, 

244, 259, 303

B

Badger, Thomas M. 326

Baer, David 93, 97

Bailey, Ben 265

Baker, Doris 140, 143

Baker, Gladys 16, 35

Baker, O.E. 23

Balls, A.K. 32

Bane, Lita 44

Bankhead Jones Act of 1935 2

Barnes, Lewis 213

Batchelder, Esther 51, 123

Bates, Jon 331

Bauman, Carl 86

Bayley, Ned 244, 246

Baylor College of Medicine 289, 291

Beck, Melinda 88

Beecher, Gary R. 65, 79, 93, 100, 121, 125, 

141, 142, 143, 146, 147, 154, 156, 239

Behall, Kay 81, 82

Bellows, George 290

Bentley, Orville G. 291

Bentsen, Senator Lloyd 290

Berdanier, Carolyn 76, 80

Bergland, Secretary Robert 210, 246, 301

Berlin, Elliot 82

Berry, Representative Marion 331

Bertrand, Anson 305

Bevier, Isabel 21

Bhagwat, Seema 139

Bhathena, Sam 80

Bialostosky, Karil 223

Bier, Dennis 223, 296

Bieri, John 95

Birdseye, Clarence 20

Birdseye, Miriam 20, 21, 31, 38

Blanton, C.A. 186

Block, Secretary John 211, 247

Bodwell, C.E. 73, 78, 79, 92, 94

Bogle, Margaret 245, 254

Booher, Lelia 28, 29, 30, 31, 77, 85, 101, 

132, 156, 243

Booth, Sarah 150

Boozman, Representative John 331

Borum, Peggy 213

Bowen, Phyllis 98

Bowman, Shanthy 224

Britz, Steven 74

Bronner, Yvonne 225

Buege, Dennis 156

Bumpers, Senator Dale 326, 331

Burdick, Senator Quentin 267

Burkitt, Denis 81

Burri, Betty 314

Burton, Representative John 304

Bush, President George W. 202

Butler, Roy E. 31

Butrum, Ritva 135, 136, 137, 140

Byrdwell, W. Craig 148

C

Caballero, Benjamin 225

Caldwell, Alvin 45

Caldwell, Charles 74

Califano, Secretary Joseph A., Jr. 301

Callaway, Wayne 213

Callison, Elizabeth C. 28, 29, 77, 85, 132

Calloway, Doris 223
ii History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Camargo, Carlos 225

Canfield, Wesley K. 266, 269, 273

Canham, Edward 304

Cannon, Helen 265

Cao, Jay J. 273, 286

Carpenter, Rowena 33

Carter, President Jimmy 209, 246

Casey, Representative Bob 290

Cassidy, Jerry 300

Cavin, J.P. 32

Chang, Florence 156

Chang, Mei Ling 80

Chatfield, Charlotte 31, 133

Chen, Pei 148

Child Nutrition Act of 1966 208

Citizens’ Food Committee (CFC), 1947 44

Clark, Faith 31, 42, 49, 56, 68, 123, 124, 

134, 244

Claycombe, Kate J. 273, 286

Clemens, Roger 228, 251

Cleveland, President Grover 6

Clevidence, Beverly 70, 74, 82, 96, 97, 148

Clifford, Andrew 98, 306

Clinton, President Bill 224

Clydesdale, Fergus 225

Colby, Sarah E. 273, 286 

Combs, Gerald F., Jr. 272, 276, 286

Combs, Gerald F., Sr. 70, 73, 74, 125, 138, 

239, 245, 247, 252, 269, 276

Conrad, Senator Kent 268

Conway, Joan 93, 94, 95, 100, 186

Coons, Callie Mae 44, 51, 58, 101, 123, 

156, 264

Cornatzer, William E. 255, 268 

Corson, H.T. 24

Craft, Neal 95

Cronin, Fran 223

Cronister, Kathryn 46, 47

Csonska, Frank 45

Culver, Chuck 319, 322

Cutler, Rupert 246

Cutrufelli, Rena 137, 156

D

Daniel, Esther Petersen 28, 31

Davis, Carole 223, 224, 225, 226

Davis, Cindy 269, 273, 286, 287

Dawson, Harry 99

Deckelbaum, Richard 224

de Jesus, Vincent 156

de la Garza, Representative Eligio “Kika” 

291, 296

Delauro, Representative Rosa 274

del Collo, Peggy 259

Del Corral, Pedro 273, 286

Dickson, Mabel 28

Dietary Reference Intakes 21, 75, 147, 172, 

177, 182, 199, 205, 230, 270, 276, 293, 

311, 313

Dietary Supplement, Health and Education 

Act of 1994 95

Dietz, William 223

Doherty, Robert 102, 145, 157

Doisy, Edward 265

Doisy, Richard 265

Dole, Senator Robert 241, 300

Dorgan, Senator Byron 268, 274

Dougherty, Rita 308

Douglass, Larry 156

Dupont, Jacqueline 1, 70, 74, 125, 245, 

253

During, Alexandrine 96

Dutcher, Rodney 25

Dwyer, Johanna 156, 224, 245, 256

Dykman, Roscoe 319

E

Edminster, T.W. 241, 244

Eitenmiller, Ron 150

Elias, Megan 3, 15, 66, 76

Elliot, Martha 22

Ellis, Rex 86

Ellsworth, Henry Leavitt 1

Ellwood, Kathleen (Kathy) 71, 74, 126, 245, 

255, 259

Enns, Cecilia Wilkinson 191

Ershow, Abby 149

Escobar, A.J. 226

Evans, Gary W. 266, 286, 287

Exler, Jacob 127, 137, 139, 157

Expanded Food and Nutrition Act of 1969 

208

F

Failla, Mark 91, 92

Farioletti, Marius 32

Farm Bill of 1977 282, 293, 296

Fazio, Representative Victor 317
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research iii

Federal Agricultural Improvement and 

Reform Act of 1996 254

Feeley, R.M. 134

Feinberg, Matthew 156

Ferretti, Aldo 82, 147

Fields, Meira 91, 92

Fincher, Lillian 49

Finley, John 71, 75, 127, 245, 257, 258, 

269, 273, 286, 287

Fiser, Robert 326

Fisher, Katherine 44

Fjeld, Carla 71, 74, 126, 245, 255

Flannagan, Vincent 82, 147

Flannagan-Hope Act of 1947 43

Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 3, 290, 

301, 303

Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations (FAO) 24, 42, 43, 77, 100, 

153, 154, 294, 295

Food Quality and Protection Act of 1996 

172

Food Security Act of 1985 3

Food Stamp Act of 1964 181, 208

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008

 208, 257

Fosmire, Gary J. 266, 286

Fredrickson, Donald 241

Frenk, Sylvestre 290

Friend, Breta 56

Fukagawa, Naomi K. 228, 251

G

Galton, Francis 56

Gammage, Representative Bob 290

Ganther, Howard 257

Garrison, Y.J. 134

Garza, Cutberto 223, 224

Gebhardt, Sue 135, 137, 139, 157

Gershoff, Stanley 301, 302

Gladwell, Malcolm 220

Glickman, Secretary Dan 223, 224

Go, Van Liang 225

Gorseline, Harry 32

Gortner, Willis 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 76, 78, 

86, 101, 124, 140, 243, 244, 245, 257, 265

Greenfield, Heather 154

Greenwald, Peter 86, 149

Greenwood, M.R.C. 317

Grey, Robert 317

Grundy, Scott 224

Guthrie, Barbara 87

Gutierriez, Jose 140

H

Hahn, Carol J. 266, 286

Halas, Edward 266, 286

Hallfrisch, Judith 81, 82

Halsted, James A. 89, 265

Hambridge, K. Michael 89

Handler, Phil 246

Hanna, Agnes 22

Hansen, Carl 79

Hardin, Secretary Clifford 244

Harding, President Warren G. 11

Harnly, James 126, 138, 140, 145, 146, 

147, 148

Harper, Alfred E. 21, 22, 27

Harris, Ellen 71, 76, 126, 138, 139

Harris, Suzanne 125, 138

Harrison, Earl 74, 96

Hartzler, E.R. 132

Hasegawa, Shin 313

Hatch Act of 1887 1 

Hathaway, Millicent 85, 101

Havel, Peter 318

Havel, Richard 223

Hawkes, Wayne Chris 312

Hay, William Howard 56

Haytowitz, David 136, 137, 139, 156, 157

Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 213

Heckler, Secretary Margaret 211

Hegsted, D. Mark 69, 72, 73, 125, 241, 245, 

246, 247, 259, 265, 306

Henderson, LaVell 304

Hepburn, Frank 125, 136, 137, 154

Herman, Robert 304, 306, 307

Herman, Yaye Tokuyama 307

Hess, Charles 317

Hightower, Representative Jack 290

Hitchens, Anthony 93

Hoekstra, William 86

Hoke, Marge 137

Holden, Joanne 126, 135, 139, 140, 144, 

146, 149, 154, 156, 157

Hollings, Senator Ernest 241

Holsinger, Virginia 100

Hoover, Loretta 136

Hoover, President Herbert 23
iv History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

Hope, Representative Clifford R. 24, 25

Hopkins, Leon 67, 68, 86, 124

Horn, Floyd 256

Horn, Mildred J. 77, 156

Hornstein, Irwin 79, 93

Houston, Secretary David F. 10

Howe, Juliette 82, 156

Howe, Paul 26, 27, 28, 31

Hrdlicka, Ales 56

Huang, Liping 311

Humphrey, Senator Hubert 292

Hunt, Caroline L. 10, 200, 201

Hunt, Curtiss D. 269, 273, 274, 286, 287

Hunt, Janet M. 269, 273, 274, 286, 287

Hwang, Daniel 319

I

Iacono, James (Jack) 67, 69, 72, 73, 82, 

101, 125, 245, 246, 247, 290, 291, 306, 308

Interdepartmental Committee on Nutrition 

for National Defense 299, 304

Irish, Frederick W. 28, 30

Irwin, M. Isabelle 78, 89

J

Jacob, Robert A. 100, 266, 272, 286, 287, 

312, 313

Jacobs, Richard F. 330, 331

Jahns, Lisa A. 273, 286

Jarratt, Mary 298

Jen, Joseph 256

Johnson, Herman 298, 299, 306

Johnson, LuAnn 266

Johnson, Phyllis E. 266, 286, 287

Johnson, Rachel 224

Johnson, W. Thomas 269, 286, 287

Jones, D. Breese 28, 45, 77, 132, 156

Joss, Edward 32

Judd, Joseph 82, 97, 98, 100

K

Kader, Adel 313

Kamin, Henry 211

Keen, Carl 317

Keim, Nancy 304, 312, 315-318

Kelley, Darshan 309

Kelley, Ernest 32

Kelsay, June 80, 81, 85

Kennedy, Eileen 223

Kennedy, President John F. 208

Kennedy, Robert 241, 299

Kennedy, Senator Edward 299

Key, Joe L. 246

Khachik, Fred 142, 143

King, Charles Glen 50

King, Janet 225, 311, 316-318

Kinney, Terry 247

Kinsella, J.E. 134

Kittrel, Flemmie 21

Klevay, Leslie M. 266, 267, 269, 270, 273, 

286

Kline, O.L. 28, 29

Klurfeld, David 71, 75, 126, 245, 257, 258, 

259

Kneeland, Hildegarde 122

Knipling, Edward B. 256

Kott, Sally 223

Krainak, Jon 156

Kramer, Tim R. 90, 258, 266

Kretsch, Mary (Molly) 71, 75, 126, 127, 245, 

257, 306, 307, 314

Kris-Etherton, Penny 225

Kritchevsky, David 211

Kumanyika, Shiriki 223, 224

L

Lahey, Edward 54, 55

Lakshmanan, Florence 93

Lamourex, Vincent B. 50

Langworthy, Charles Ford 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 

66, 122, 242, 243

Lanza, Elaine 137, 140, 143

LaRosa, John 213

Laugero, Kevin 320

Lawson, Roger 255

Le Bovit, Corinne 57

Lemar, Linda 139, 156

Lennartson, Roy 50

Letterman Army Institute of Research 304, 

306, 314

Levander, Orville 74, 86, 87, 88, 89, 99, 

101, 134

Leverton, Ruth 57, 58, 68, 101, 123, 156, 

243, 244

Levin, Susan 48

Levy, Robert 140, 149, 211

Li, Betty 140, 143, 144, 157
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research v

Lichtenstein, Alice 224

Lichtenstein, H. 132

Lieber, Charles 213

Lincoln, President Abraham 199

Lincoln, Senator Blanche 322

Lipton, Sam 79, 93

Logan, George 266

Luecke, Richard 265

Lukaski, Henry C. 269, 272-274, 286, 287

Lupton, Joanne 225

Luthria, Devanand 148

Lykken, Glen I. 266, 269

Lynch, Marguerite 265

Lyng, Richard 247

Lyon, Joan 224

M

Madigan, Secretary Edward 220, 222

Mahon, Representative George 291

Malmberg, Carl 57

Manners, Gary 313

Marable, Nina 93

Marsh, Anne 85, 132, 137

Marsh, R.L. 132

Marshall, Mary 45, 76, 78, 102

Matthews, Ruth 125, 134, 137, 138, 139, 

150

Mayer, Jean 241, 243, 290, 299

McCarthy, Marie 137

McCay, Jeanette 42

McClain, Phillip 79, 93

McDonough, Frank 93

McGovern, Senator George 209, 241, 300, 

304

McLaughlin, L. 85

McMurry, Kathryn 224, 225

McNutt, Paul V. 33

Merrill, Annabel L. 52, 133

Merrill, Joseph 282

Mertz, Walter 67, 68, 70, 72, 73, 74, 85, 86, 

95, 101, 124, 126, 149, 245, 265, 318

Meydani, Simin 302

Meyers, Linda 213, 223

Michaelis, Michael, III 79

Miles, Carolyn 93, 94

Miller, D.F. 133

Miller, Sanford 211

Miller-Ihli, Nancy 145, 147

Milne, David B. 266, 269, 286, 287

Milner, John 213

Mitchell, Helen 33, 56

Moe, Paul 93, 94, 100

Molyé, Karen 156

Morgan, Agnes Fay 44, 54

Morrill Act of 1862 1, 201

Morris, Eugene 86

Morton, Secretary J. Sterling 6, 7, 8, 240

Moshfegh, Alanna J. 171

Moss, Mary 140, 144

Mullis, Rebecca 213

Munoz, Juan M. 266, 286

Munro, Hamish N. 302, 318

Munsell, Hazel 19, 20

Murphy, E.W. 134, 137

Murphy, Patricia 146

Murphy, Suzanne 224

N

Nair, P.P. 84, 85

National Agricultural Research and Teaching 

Act of 1977 209, 249

National Defense Advisory Committee 204

National Nutrition Conference for Defense, 

1941 33, 240

National Nutrition Monitoring and Related 

Research Act of 1990 183, 187, 213, 214, 

253

National School Lunch Act of 1946 48, 206

Nelson, E.M. 28, 30, 31

Nelson, Gary 300

Nelson, Miriam 228, 251

Nesheim, Malden 213

Nestle, Marion 223

Newman, John 320

Nichols, Buford L. 289

Nicklas, Theresa 225

Nickle, Melissa 139

Nickols-Richardson, Sharon 228, 251

Nielsen, Forrest H. 89, 263, 265-267, 269, 

272, 273

Nixon, President Richard 241, 244, 300

Norris, Karl 94, 143

Novotny, Janet 97, 98, 99, 148

Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 

1990 (NLEA) 141, 153, 252
vi History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

O

Obama, Michelle 229

Obama, President Barack 213, 229

O’Brien, Ruth 34, 44, 46, 122, 123

O’Dell, Boyd 86

O’Donnell, Rand 331

O’Haver, Tom 145

Olson, Robert 211

Omaye, Stanley 312

O’Neill, Representative Thomas P. “Tip” 300

Onstad, Charles 328

Organic Act of 1862, amended 1977 242

Orr, M.L. 133, 137

P

Pabst, Anna 19

Page, Louise 52, 53, 206, 207

Park, Jae 75, 98

Parloa, Maria 9

Parrish, Thomas 34

Pate, Russell 225

Patterson, Kristine 139

Pawlosky, Robert 147, 148

Pearson, Thomas 228, 251

Pecot, R.K. 133

Pehrsson, Pamela 139, 225

Pekarek, Robert S. 266, 286

Penland, James G. 269, 273, 286, 288

Pepper, Senator Claude 300

Pérez-Escamilla, Rafael 228, 251

Perloff, Betty 137, 157

Perry, Michèle M. 317

Peterkin, Betty 213

Phillips, Kathryn 142

Phipard, Esther 27, 50, 52, 53, 56, 206, 

207

Picklo, Matthew J. 273, 274, 286, 287

Pi-Sunyer, F. Xavier 225, 228, 251

Pixley, Lt. General Charles 305

Polansky, Marilyn 101, 132

Pomeroy, Representative Earl 268, 274

Porter, Donna 299

Posati, Linda 137

Prior, Ron 150

Pryor, Senator David 331

Pryor, Senator Mark 331

Public Law (PL) 480 of 1954 100, 254

R

Raatz, Susan K. 273, 286

Rachel, Leo 317

Rattay, Karyl 225

Reagan, President Ronald 247

Reed, Debra 223

Reeds, Peter 100

Reeves, James 137

Reeves, Philip G. 269, 273, 286

Reiser, Sheldon 67, 81, 90, 91, 255

Research and Marketing Act of 1946 2, 264

Reynolds, Robert 92, 100

Richards, Ellen 17

Richardson, Martha 137

Richmond, Surgeon General Julius 210

Rimm, Eric 228, 251

Ritchko, Sue Ann 125, 139

Rizek, Robert 68, 70, 124, 125, 134, 136, 

139, 140, 156, 244, 246

Robbins, Rebecca 148

Roberts, Lydia 33, 34

Roemmich, James N. 273, 274, 286

Roosevelt, President Franklin D. 23, 33, 34, 

173, 204, 240

Rose, Mary Schwartz 20

Rose, W.C. 78

Roseland, Janet 156

Rosenberg, Irwin 223, 299, 302

Rosenthal, Representative Benjamin 58

Ross, Representative Mike 331

Roughead, Fariba 269, 273, 286

Rumpler, William 93, 186

Russell, L. Faye 145

Russell, Robert 302

S

Saari, Jack T. 269, 273, 286

Salans, Lester 211

Sandstead, Harold H. 243, 265-267, 276, 

286-290, 300, 302

Sauberlich, Howerde 247, 304, 306-308

Schaefer, Arnold 241, 304

Schaeffer, Monica 314

Schafer, Ed 266

Schlossberg, Ken 300

Schmidt, Claude H. 257

Schnakenberg, David 320

Schneeman, Barbara 213, 223, 245, 256, 

311
History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research vii

Schoene, Norberta 82, 84, 99

Scholfield, Daniel 82

Schwarz, Klaus 72, 86, 89

Schweigert, Bernard 211

Schwenk, Frankie 74, 245, 254

Scott, Milton 257

Scrimshaw, Nevin 154

Seale, James 93, 94

Sebelius, Secretary Kathleen 228

Sebrell, W. Henry, Jr. 31, 50, 52

Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and 

Related Needs 2, 241

Sendstrom, Marvin 48

Senti, Fred 68, 123, 243

Shalala, Secretary Donna 223, 224

Sharp, Paul 54

Shaw, Anne 223, 224

Sherman, Henry C. 20, 28, 36, 37, 86, 122, 

131, 243

Showell, Bethany 139

Shuman, Clyde B. 21

Sims, Laura 125, 138

Skala, James 306, 307, 312

Slavin, Joanne 228, 251

Slover, H.T. 132, 140, 141

Smith, Allen 99

Smith, James C., Jr. 72, 86, 89, 90, 91, 95, 

96, 100, 101, 102, 157, 239

Smith, Margaret Cammaek 28

Smith, Sybil L. 28, 29, 30

Smith-Lever Act of 1914 201

Smithson, James 1

Snyder, Dan 223

Snyder, Representative Vic 331

Solano-Aguilar, Gloria 99

Souders, Helen 52, 157

Southgate, David 154

Spence, Joseph 70, 71, 74, 75, 101, 126, 

127, 245, 256, 257, 259

Spivey-Fox, Mattie R. 257

St. Jeor, Sachiko 223

Stampfer, Meir 224

Stanley, Louise 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 

25, 26, 35, 36, 101, 122, 123, 131, 243 

Stare, Fredrick 211

Stephensen, Charles 307, 311

Stern, Judith 211

Stetka, Jill 259

Stewart, Jean 137

Stewart, Kent 72, 79, 93, 124, 140, 141, 

142, 154

Stiebeling, Hazel 20. 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 

31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 46, 

47, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 64, 101, 122, 

123, 156, 201, 204, 243, 244 

Stokes, Andrea C. 326

Sullivan, Secretary Louis 213

Suttie, John 223

Swan, Patricia B. 3, 6

Sweeney, James 85, 95, 132

Swendseid, Marion 305

Szepesi, Bela 80

T

Texas Children’s Hospital 289, 291

Thomas, Robin 139, 156

Thompson, Raymond (Rick) 141

Thompson, Secretary Tommy 225

Thornton, Representative Ray 331

Tinker, Lesley 224

Tippett, Katherine S. 191

Todhunter, E. Neige 34, 55

Toepfer, E.W. 86, 123, 132, 134

Trainer, Denise 139

Trout, David 80

Trowbridge, P.F. 18

Trowell, Hugh 81

True, Alfred C. 7, 8, 10

Truman, President Harry S. 44, 206

Tucker, Donald M. 266, 269, 286, 287

Tufts University 267, 290, 299

Turnlund, Judith 310

U

Underwood, Eric 256

United Tribes Technical College 274

University of Arizona 274

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences 

326

University of California at Davis 317

University of North Dakota 263, 264, 266, 

269

Urban, Joseph 71, 74, 99

Uthus, Eric O. 269, 286, 287
viii History of USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research

V

Vallee, Bert 265

Van Deman, Ruth 38

Van Horn, Linda 228, 251

Van Loan, Marta 311, 315

Vanderslice, Joseph 140, 144, 145, 154

Vaughan, David 67, 78, 93

Vaughn, F.V. 32

Veillon, Claude 87

Veneman, Secretary Ann 225

Vilsack, Secretary Tom 228

Viteri, Fernando 282

Vo-Khactu, Kim P. 266, 286

W

Wallace, Secretary Henry C. 10, 11, 15, 16

Wallwork, James C. 266, 269, 286

Wang, Guangya 154

Wang, Thomas T. 75, 98

Warden, Beverly 97

Waterlow, John 282

Watt, Bernice 41, 42, 52, 124, 133, 134, 

137, 156

Weaver, Connie 225

Webb, Paul 92

Weihrauch, John 137 

Weinsier, Roland 224

Weir, C. Edith 67, 68, 86, 123, 124, 156, 

264

Weir, William 306

Weiss, Gertrude 51, 123

Welsh, Susan 199

West, Clive 154

Weswig, Paul 265

Whigham, Leah 273, 286

White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, 

and Health, 1969 3, 66, 241

Whiteside, Charles, III 327, 331

Whitten, Senator Jamie 290

Widdowson, Elsie 153

Wilder, Russell 33

Williams, Christine 228, 251

Wilson, President Woodrow 10

Winton, A.L. 131

Winton, K.B. 131

Wolf, Isabel 125, 138, 211, 247

Wolf, Wayne 87, 140, 141, 148, 152, 153, 

156, 157, 272

Womack, Madelyn 45, 77, 78, 79, 93, 101

Wong, Noble 93

Woods, Charles D. 8, 131

World Health Organization (WHO) 24, 100, 

101, 271, 294

Wright, Representative Jim 291

Wu, W.T. 133

Y

Yan, Lin 273, 286

Yang, Joseph H. 305

Yates, Allison 67, 71, 75, 76, 126, 127

Yeutter, Secretary Clayton 213

Young, Senator Milton R. 66, 241, 243, 255, 

268

Z

Zeng, Huawei 269, 286

Ziesel, Steven 150

Zook, E.G. 132

Zunino, Susan 319