Search

Background: Fructose consumption has been linked to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in children. However, the effect of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) compared with sucrose in pediatric NAFLD has not been investigated.Objectives: We tested whether the isocaloric substitution of dietary sucrose by HFCS would increase the severity of NAFLD in juvenile pigs, and whether this effect would be associated with changes in gut histology, SCFA production, and microbial diversity.Methods: Iberian pigs, 53-d-old and pair-housed in pens balanced for weight and sex, were randomly assigned to receive a mash diet top-dressed with increasing amounts of sucrose (SUC; n = 3 pens; 281.6-486.8 g/kg diet) or HFCS (n = 4; 444.3-724.8 g/kg diet) during 16 wk. Diets exceeded the animal's energy requirements by providing sugars in excess, but met the requirements for all other nutrients. Animals were killed at 165 d of age after blood sampling, and liver, muscle, and gut were collected for histology, metabolome, and microbiome analyses. Data were analyzed by multivariate and univariate statistics.Results: Compared with SUC, HFCS increased subcutaneous fat, triacylglycerides in plasma, and butyrate in colon (P ≤ 0.05). In addition, HFCS decreased UMP and short-chain acyl carnitines in liver, and urea nitrogen and creatinine in serum (P ≤ 0.05). Microbiome analysis showed a 24.8% average dissimilarity between HFCS and SUC associated with changes in SCFA-producing bacteria. Body weight gain, intramuscular fat, histological and serum markers of liver injury, and circulating hormones, glucose, and proinflammatory cytokines did not differ between diets.Conclusions: Fructose consumption derived from HFCS promoted butyrate synthesis, triglyceridemia, and subcutaneous lipid deposition in juvenile Iberian pigs, but did not increase serum and histological markers of NAFLD compared with a sucrose-enriched diet. Longer studies could be needed to observe differences in liver injury among sugar types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract The terms NIMBY (Not-In-My-Back-Yard) and YIMBY (Yes-In-My-Back-Yard) describe negative and positive attitudes toward proposed development projects respectively. These attitudes are posited to be influenced by geographic (spatial) discounting wherein the distance from domicile may contribute to local opposition or support. In contrast to specific development projects, the potential influence of NIMBY/YIMBY in a general land use planning process has not been systematically evaluated. In this study, we analyzed empirical data from a public participation GIS (PPGIS) process implemented for a general plan revision to examine the evidence for geographic discounting for a range of land uses using mapped preferences by community residents. Using distance analysis, we found significant evidence for geographic discounting by land use type with variable discount rates influenced by location of residence and the spatial configuration of land use in the planning area represented by zoning. The findings were consistent with NIMBY/YIMBY expectations with the exception of residential development where the results were more ambiguous. Residents want future land uses with amenities (open space, recreation, and trails) closer to domicile and more intensive, developed land uses (commercial, tourism, events, parking) further away. The findings have potentially broad implications because general/comprehensive planning—a requirement of most local governments in the U.S.—is operationalized through land use zones that appear subject to spatial discounting and the manifestation of potential NIMBY/YIMBY effects in the planning process. Future research should examine other planning contexts such as large urban areas with a greater diversity of land uses. Highlights • Describes participatory mapping process for general land use planning. • Examines evidence for geographic (spatial) discounting by land use category. • Finds different spatial discount rates apply to different types of land use. • Spatial discounting influenced by location of residence and current land use. • Presents implications for general land use planning and zoning processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous studies suggest that Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants purchase less produce than nonparticipants. Whether this is due to buying smaller amounts or to being less likely to buy any produce is unclear. Purchase patterns may also differ over the monthly distribution cycle. To examine differences in the likelihood and amounts of fruits and vegetables purchased between SNAP household compared with nonparticipant households and to determine differences in produce purchases among SNAP households at different time points in the monthly distribution cycle. Cross-sectional. Data from 4708 households in the National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey (April 2012 to January 2013). Participants recorded all foods acquired over 7 days. Fruits and vegetables acquired over a 7-day period. Weighted logistic and linear regression models adjusting for household and primary respondent characteristics were used to compare odds of purchasing fruits and vegetables and amounts purchased across 3 categories: SNAP participants, SNAP-eligible nonparticipants, and ineligible nonparticipants. SNAP participants were further subdivided according to weeks since last receiving benefits. In adjusted analyses, SNAP participants and nonparticipants were similarly likely to purchase fruits and vegetables. However, SNAP households within a week of receiving benefits were more likely than SNAP households later in the benefit cycle to buy fruit overall, especially frozen or canned fruit, and vegetables overall, including fresh, frozen or canned, starchy, and nonstarchy vegetables (fruit odds ratio [OR] 1.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12, 2.53; vegetable OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.04, 2.55 vs households in middle of cycle). In contrast, those in the last week of the benefit cycle were less likely to purchase fruit, especially fresh fruit, and vegetables, especially fresh and nonstarchy vegetables (fruit OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35, 0.94; vegetable OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42, 0.79 vs. households in middle of cycle), and when they bought vegetables, they bought significantly less. Considering all SNAP households together at different points in their distribution cycle masks substantial declines in purchasing fruits and vegetables over the monthly cycle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]