Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

NE 1023 Minutes Technical Committee Workshop June 9-11, 2008 The New England Center, Durham, NH University of New Hampshire (host) Attending: R. Cook, UMaine J. Lee, UDC N. Cohen, UMass I. Lofgren, URI J. Curran-Celenatano, UNH D. Mitchell, PSU M. Delmonico, URI W. Rice, UDC P. Ganganna, UDC K. Rocheford, UNH M. Kantor, UMD C. Violette, UNH C. Lammi-Keefe, LSU S. Welch, CSREES G. Wyche-Moore, UDC Presiding: Mark Kantor, Chair Welcome and Introductions: The group was welcomed by Mark Kantor, Chair of the Technical Committee. He thanked the members from UNH for hosting the meeting. Group members introduced themselves during dinner on June 9, 2008. The group was welcomed to UNH by Dr. Chris Neefus, Interim Associate Director of the UNH Agricultural Experiment Station. The meeting began at 8:10 AM on Tuesday, June 10, 2008. Joanne Curran-Celentano introduced her graduate student, Kate Rocheford, who is attending the meeting. The group also welcomed Irgrid Lofgren and Matt Delmonico from URI to their first meeting. Mark Kantor indicated that he recruited Nadine Sahyoun from the University of Maryland to join the group but she was unable to attend this meeting. Gloria Wyche-Moore introduced Dr. Prema Gangana, Professor and Director of the DPD program for the University of the District of Columbia, as a new member of this group. Dr. Jiles from UDC has retired and will no longer participate in the NE 1023 project. It was noted that Marla Reicks from the University of Minnesota will no longer be participating in NE 1023 due to other commitments. The minutes of the 2007 Technical Meeting were reviewed and approved with the following changes: " The date of the minutes was corrected to 2007. " Under Executive Committee Meeting section change number 3 to: For the next proposal, the group will explore ways to recruit new members. " Timeline. Objective 1, Experiment 1  Delete CT as a participating state and add Louisiana. Reporting and Deadlines for Rewrite/New Proposal Mark Kantor outlined that one of our meeting goals was to have a plan in place to write and submit our next proposal. He contacted Rubie Mize from USDA to determine the submission process and timeline for our next proposal. We will also need to submit an Annual and Mid-Term Review. Mark, Gloria, and Susan outlined the following dates and tasks which were discussed by the group: New Proposal " June 20, 2008  Deadline for submitting a Request to Write a Proposal. This is a one paragraph justification of our next proposal. This is reviewed by the Multistate Activities Committee (MAC) and a recommendation made to the Northeastern Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors (NERA) at their meeting on July 14-15, in Washington DC. " If NERA approves our request, then the first deadline for a full proposal is August 29, 2008. If this timeline is too ambitious, the next deadline for a full proposal is January 31, 2009. " If the January 31, 2009 date is selected then we submit our peer-reviewed proposal to MAC by February 27, 2009. " March 24, 2009 - NERA approves MACs recommendation. Unsuccessful proposals are returned for rewriting. Approved proposal forwarded to CSREES. " June 19, 2009  Last opportunity to resubmit proposal for MAC review. " July 13, 2009  NERA approves MACs recommendation. Approved proposals forwarded to CSREES. The group discussed the timeline and agreed to submit the full proposal in January, 2009. The group agreed to work on the proposal during the summer of 2008 so that the draft is well developed before the fall semester begins. Mark volunteered to draft the justification paragraph for the June 20, 2008 deadline. Susan suggested we review the statement and justification from our current proposal and position the new proposal so that it builds on the results/outcomes of this proposal. She added that we are unique in that we are the only multistate project focusing on the older adult target audience. Reports " August 10, 2008  Annual meeting report due. This report is derived from our meeting minutes and submitted electronically. The Chair submits this report. " August 29, 2008 Mid-Term Review Report (Completed by Advisor). The group reviewed the Mid-Term Report format sent by Rubie. There are four categories to the report: Progress Report, Linkages, Funding, and Information and Technology Transfer. Each field is limited to 2000 characters if possible. Gloria determined that the report can be longer but would be submitted as a pdf document. Information to complete the report can be gleaned from our annual reports and timeline changes. Washington Report  Susan Welch Susan now sends her annual report to individual committees in February. She indicated that there are two funding streams related to nutrition  Bioactive Food Components and Obesity. Susan reported that the new Farm Bill includes some changes in the leadership of CSREES. As of October 1, 2009, CSREES will become the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. The head of NIFA will be a political appointee, though not Senate approved. The Head will be a renowned scientist appointed for a 6 year term. He/she will serve at the discretion of the President and report to the Assistant/Associate Secretary. NIFA will include Cooperative Extension, Competitive Programs, and Capacity Building Programs (formula funded). The Farm Bill includes no new money for nutrition. This Farm bill does not move additional formula funds to competitive. The indirect cost ceiling was raised to 22%. There may be a delay in the NRI RFPs because of the changes. Susan also updated the group on eXtension. There are two communities of excellence related to nutrition; Families, Food & Fitness and Family Caregiving. Susan encouraged us to join these communities. URI Research  Older Adults Matt Delmonico and Ingrid Lofgren from the University of Rhode Island provided an overview of their research project with older adults. Their research integrates diet and exercise to improve physical function and muscle power, decrease CHD risk, and decrease the loss of lean mass. Their intervention targets overweight older adults and will be conducted in two phases. The group discussed their research protocol and how we can integrate this project into the current NE 1023 project and the next proposal. Matt and Ingrid will coordinate with Nancy Fey-Yensan at URI to complete their Appendix E document so they can officially join the current NE 1023 project. Station Reports Each station reported its activities over the past year. Hard copies of the reports were provided to meeting participants and are included in this mailing. Revised/Updated Timeline The following changes were made to the project timeline: Objective 1, Experiment 1  Delete CT as a participating state and add Louisiana. Extend Collect additional blood samples for LA to years 4 and 5. Extend Analysis to year 3. Objective 1, Experiment 2  Extend Analyze dietary data and patterns to years 3, 4, 5. Extend Data analysis and manuscripts to years 4 and 5. Extend 24-hour recall and FFQestimates of whole grain to include year 5. Objective 2, Experiment 1  Delete MD from participating states. Experiment 3  Delete MA as a participating state. Executive Committee Meeting The Executive Committee met late Tuesday afternoon. Attending: Mark Kantor, Chair; Catherine Violette, Secretary; Diane Mitchell, Member-at-Large; William Rice, Member-at-Large; and Susan Welch, CSREES Advisor. The following items were discussed: 1. Officers: - Matt Delmonico was nominated as a Member at Large, 2009-2011 - Ingrid Lofgren was nominated as Vice Chair, 2009-2010 2. Next annual meeting: The location of the next annual meeting was discussed and it was decided to hold it in Portland Maine. During the meeting we will recognize Dick Cooks outstanding contributions to this multistate research group since its inception in 1965. Dick is retiring in 2009. Executive Committee members will share in the tasks of organizing the meeting. Meeting dates were discussed to see if there might be another time in early summer with fewer conflicts as early June. The date was finalized as June 7-9, 2009. New Proposal The group reviewed and discussed the draft objectives for the next proposal that had been initially developed during the 2007 Annual Meeting. The objectives were revised and potential experiments discussed. A draft title for the new proposal was also discussed. After much discussion the group agreed to the following: Title: Changing the Health Trajectory for Older Adults Through Effective Diet and Activity Modification(s) Objectives: 1. Expand investigative approaches to include physical activity as well as dietary intake (fruit, vegetables, and whole grains) to improve the health of older adults. " Matt and Ingrid (URI) " Catherine and Kate (UNH) " Mark (UMD) " Bill, James, Prema (UDC) 2. Identify effective biomarkers and other indicators that reflect improvement in diet (fruit, vegetables, and whole grains) and physical activity in older adults. " Prema (UDC) " Joanne (UNH) " Carol (LSU) " Ingrid and Matt (URI) " Diane (PSU) Because of changes in the group membership due to retirements and changing job responsibilities, the group discussed recruiting new members for the next proposal. The following recruiting strategies were proposed: " Susan suggested that our personal contacts are one of the best ways to recruit new members. She offered to send a request to all Nutrition Department Heads to identify other researchers who may be interested in joining our project. " Once our new draft proposal title and objectives are approved, we can use that as a recruiting tool. " We agreed that Matt, Ingrid and Prema be added to the NE 1023 project this year. " We reviewed our contacts and agreed to the following: o Catherine will contact colleagues at UVM o Dick/Joanne/Catherine will contact Beth Caulder and Dorothy Klimis-Zakas at UMaine as Dick will be retiring next year o New York  perhaps Judy Gilbride could suggest someone o New Jersey  Catherine will contact Deb Keenan to inquire Our next steps to develop the proposal include: o Ask Diane to draft the Issues/Justification section o Ask all group members to draft an experiment (including a rationale, justification, hypothesis, and methods) o Once we have established the project framework, recruit additional members o Plan meetings/subcommittees to work on the proposal this summer and fall Request to Write a Proposal  Due June 20, 2008 The group discussed the content of our request for a rewrite/new proposal. Gloria suggested we provide an overview of the new project including what we want to do. She suggested we outline how the new project builds and extends our previous project(s). We should include our objectives and expected outcomes. Mark will draft the request and send to the group for comment by June 13, 2008. He will then revise and submit by June 20, 2008. The group suggested we ask Diane to help with the Issues and Justification section because she recently completed a literature review. Midterm Report  Completed by August 1, 2008 Gloria submits the Mid Term Report for the group. Gloria needs to submit this Midterm review by Aug. 29, 2008, but would like to receive it from us by Aug. 1, 2008. Mark volunteered to draft the Progress Report section, Funding section and Information and Technology Transfer section. Catherine offered to draft the Linkages section. The report will be based on our written annual reports submitted during each of the previous annual meetings of the current project. However, Mark will send out a request to the entire group requesting additional information. If all group members summarize their activities and accomplishments, the Midterm report will be easier to compile. The deadline for each stations summary to be sent to Mark is July 16, 2008. Annual Report  Due August 10, 2008 The report of our annual meeting is due 30 to 60 days after our meeting. This report is taken largely from the minutes of the meeting. However, we will need to summarize the individual station annual reports and publications. Mark volunteered to prepare the report. He will ask members to summarize their activities. The format for the report can be found in section D of the Guidelines for Multistate Research Reports. Whole Grain Intake in Aging Paper The paper outline drafted during the 2007 annual meeting was discussed. Potential journals for publication were discussed, eg Topics in Clinical Nutrition. The group discussed the various methodological issues associated with whole grains. We agreed to draft one summary paper with a focus on older adults. Diane will share a literature review she completed recently on whole grain food intake in older adults. Joanne and Kate will contact Len Marquart to redo the overview/introduction to better match a review paper format. Meeting Wrap-Up Mark thanked the group for the progress made during the meeting. He indicated that he would send an email detailing what needs to be done with specific time deadlines. He will also let us know what additional information he needs for the new proposal and reports. The meeting adjourned at 11:25 AM on Wednesday, June 11, 2008.

Accomplishments for NE1023 - 2008 report New Hampshire. Biomarkers of risk of age related macular degeneration and dietary patterns to lower risk in the elderly are continuing. The effects of dietary intake of lutein and zeaxanthin (which accumulate in the retina as macular pigment) on C-reactive protein was studied. CRP was found to be inversely related to macular pigment density. A protocol is being developed to study the association between glycemic index, macular pigment density, and dietary intake of fruits and vegetables and whole grains in young and older adults. University of the District of Columbia. 80 elderly African American subjects (mean age = 71 yrs, 56% male) were interviewed using the DETERMINE checklist, a 24-hour diet recall, and a protocol using cognitive interviewing methods. Among the chief findings were: 41% of the subjects were at moderate or high nutritional risk as indicated by DETERMINE; 24% were obese; 56% had been diagnosed with either high blood pressure, diabetes, or both, 96% reported they had attempted to change their diets because of the diagnosis. Furthermore, while all of the subjects were aware that fruits and vegetables are beneficial, 72% did not know why and only 25% ate 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables per day. Regarding whole grains, 75% were aware that whole grains are beneficial but only 13% were able to identify whole grain products other than whole wheat bread. University of Maine. A grain screener developed by the Univ. of Rhode Island was modified for use with the DETERMINE checklist. Four additional whole grain items (muesli, wheat crackers, wheat pita bread, 100% whole wheat pasta) were included in the screener while enriched white flour was removed from original questionnaire. The screener contained both whole grain and refined grain products, and was used with participants of Area Agencies on Aging (AAA) in Maine. A total of 228 screeners were received from the AAAs but only 122 screeners had valid ID numbers that could be used in the analyses. Screener results (frequency of consumption of items) were compared to the level of nutritional risk of individuals as assessed by the DETERMINE checklists to see if consumption of whole grain items decreased risk scores. The small sample size was a major limitation and consumption of only one item, white pasta, was associated with a significant increase (p=0.04) in the level of nutritional risk. An evaluation was conducted on the Maine FarmShare Farmers Market Programs covering the years 2002-2005. 10,481 surveys were returned by seniors, and 4,087 included comments about the program. In general, participants with health-related problems found the program to be beneficial. Budgeting, income and pricing were of high concern to these low income seniors. Convenience, location, and transportation also were concerns among this group. University of New Hampshire. Trained interviewers completed face-to-face interviews with adults 65 years of age or older. The research interview was designed to collect both quantitative and qualitative data on grain and whole grain food intake, factors and barriers related to the selection on whole grain foods, general knowledge of the importance of eating whole grain foods, and cognitive processes and package information used by older adults to identify whole grain foods. A total of 111 interviews were conducted with 99 or the interviews yielding usable audio recordings. In NH, 34 interviews were conducted by trained extension educators, a graduate student, and a member of the experiment planning team. All interview audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and checked for accuracy. To facilitate the analysis of qualitative data, participants responses to individual questions were compiled. Preliminary coding schemes were developed for six of the interview questions. Each research station agreed to code assigned question sets. The coding teams are developing a coding scheme for each question. Results will be discussed until agreement is reached and finalized. Coding will be validated by other core planning team members. Analysis will be completed during he summer of 2008. University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Massachusetts researchers recruited 22 older adults from local senior centers after obtaining permission from the MA Executive Office of Elder Affairs and the University of Massachusetts Amherst Institutional Review Board. Interviews were conducted during the summer and fall of 2006 through January 2007 to learn more about food shopping and food choice habits in older adults. A qualitative semi-structured interview instrument was administered to gather data on demographics, whole grain consumption patterns, and factors influencing these patterns. Interviews were recorded by tape; tapes were then sent to NH for transcription. Transcriptions were then returned to participating stations and checked for completeness and accuracy. In 2007-8, researchers at MA examined the responses to three of the interview questions from the 110 interviews completed in the 5 participating states, looking for emerging themes related to current perceptions of whole grains. Preliminary analysis indicates that while many respondents were aware of whole grains, some had misinformation about the meaning of this term. When asked what foods they think of when we use the term whole grain, about half of subjects mentioned breads and cereals in general. While many participants mentioned whole wheat or whole grain bread, only some respondents listed particular grains such as barley or oats. In contrast, some subjects considered fruits, vegetables, beans, peas and nuts when thinking about the term whole grain. When asked how they would explain the term whole grain to a friend, the majority of responses related to foods not processed or refined or having components added or taken out. Many mentioned particular foods or ingredients in the definition, and cited nutrition or health benefits. (Theyre not processed as much. Theyre more natural. And theyre healthy. I would tell them theyre good for us to eat.) Others associated a specific color or texture as being whole grain. However, seeds and nuts were also listed in the definitions of several participants. When asked what they had heard or read about whole grains lately, about one-third of people interviewed either did not respond or said they had not heard or read anything. Those that did respond pointed to the benefits of whole grains either in a specific way (e.g. colon health from roughage) or in general as promoting health. Nutritional misinformation was also noted; for example, two respondents mentioned that whole grains means no additives or no saturated or trans-fats. The fiber content was also frequently mentioned. Subjects used a variety of information sources to learn about whole grains: magazines were cited most frequently, and the food label and newspapers were also important sources. University of Maryland. During the past year, Maryland has been working on Experiment 2 (identification of food choice factors associated with fruit, vegetables and whole grains using cognitive interviewing techniques with older adults) and has been collaborating with New Hampshire (lead station), Minnesota, and Massachusetts on transcribing, checking for accuracy, and analyzing the taped interviews we conducted with older adults (>65 years of age). These interviews were designed to assess knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors with respect to whole grain foods. In particular, we were interested in exploring the process that older adults follow when examining packaged food products in trying to decide whether or not the product is a whole grain. Previously, we had developed a survey and a semi-structured cognitive interview instrument addressing whole grain. The materials developed included a script with instructions for doing a food identification activity involving three food products, a grain food inventory, an attitudinal (agree/disagree) survey, a stages of change instrument, and a demographic questionnaire. A total of 26 interviews were conducted in Maryland. We held a series of telephone conference calls during the past year that focused on how the information collected during the interviews should be organized and analyzed, and to discuss the results obtained thus far. The collaborating states were assigned different sections of the interviews to analyze. Maryland and New Hampshire worked together on the identification exercise and are in the process of deciding how to code and summarize the comments and information obtained for this exercise. Among the questions to be addressed are: What do we want to conclude from this exercise, or what do we want to learn from it? To what extent do subjects use the ingredient list, health claims, pictures of the product, color of the food product, any logos or symbols (such as American Heart Association or Whole Grains Council), fiber content, or other words or pieces of information on the label? Among the preliminary observations, subjects seemed to realize that the answer to whether or not a product was whole grain was found in the ingredient list, but most subjects did not really understand how to interpret the ingredient list. As they examined the food products, subjects often made general comments unrelated to the question of whether or not the product was whole grain. For example, they often commented on whether or not they would buy the product, if they eat the product or have ever tried it; some mentioned price, taste, and talked about various medical conditions they have. Subjects often seemed to be thinking out loud. They read various pieces of information on the label and seemed to be trying to figure out what the information meant as they were reading it and whether the information might indicate that the product is a whole grain. We found no evidence that subjects knew there was a health claim for whole grains, or that there was a Whole Grains Council logo. Not a single subject seemed to understand how to use the %DV to tell if a product was a good source of a nutrient (e.g., the 5-20 rule). No one was aware or recognized that there was an official health claim on the Wheat Thins box, indicating that the product was whole grain. Subjects often mention items on the label that were of interest to them or that they might be more familiar with, such as sodium, calories, fiber, cholesterol, calcium. When mentioning these unrelated items, however, not a single subject mentioned the %DV. Subjects apparently had little or no knowledge of what constitutes a good source of a nutrient, or high levels of undesirable nutrients. Even the subjects who seemed to be more knowledgeable about nutrition and reading labels were not able to identify a whole grain product. Subjects seemed to have at least a general idea that they could learn whether or not a product was whole grain by looking at the ingredient list, but they were not exactly sure how to go about doing this, nor were they sure about what they were looking for. Subjects did not explicitly state that if the first ingredient is a whole grain ingredient, than they conclude that the product is whole grain, although some subjects implied this.

Benoit, J.E. Evaluation of nutritional risk in Maines senior population with an emphasis on how whole grain intake affects nutritional status. Masters Degree Thesis. Fogler Library, University of Maine, Orono, ME. May 2008. 84 pp. Bergeron, C. Perceptions of experiences of older adults participating in the Maine Senior FarmShare Program. Honors Degree Thesis. The Honors College. University of Maine, Orono, ME. May 2008. 50 pp. Wenzel AJ, Sheehan JP, Burke JD, Lefsrud MG, Curran-Celentano J. 2007. Dietary intake and serum concentrations of lutein and zeaxanthin, but not macular pigment optical density, are related in spouses. Nutrition Research. 27:462-469. Wenzel AJ, Sheehan JP, Stringham JM, Gerweck C, Fuld K, Curran-Celentano J. 2007. Macular pigment optical density at four retinal loci during 120 days of lutein supplementation. Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics. 27:329-335. Wenzel AJ, Burke JD, Curran-Celentano J. Relations between tissue concentrations of lutein and zeaxanthin and measures of dietary intake of xanthophylls and fruits and vegetables. Presented at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Annual Conference, Fort Lauderdale, FL 2007.