A diet high in fruits and vegetables (F&V) has been associated with a decreased risk of certain cancers, reduced morbidity and mortality from heart disease, and enhanced weight management. Yet to date, most of the US population does not consume the recommended amount of F&V despite numerous interventions and government guidelines to promote consumption. Research has found various impediments to F&V consumption, such as high costs, an obesogenic environment and low socio-economic status. However, studies have not sufficiently focused on barriers and enablers to F&V intake among adult multi-ethnic populations. The present qualitative study examines 147 focus group participants' perceptions of impediments and enablers to F&V consumption. Twelve focus groups were conducted among African American, Hispanic and Caucasian men and women in North Carolina and Connecticut. Focus groups were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and entered into QSR NVivo Software. Text data were systematically analyzed by investigators to identify recurrent themes both within and across groups and states. Focus group results indicate that most participants were aware of the health benefits associated with a diet rich in F&V. Yet many admitted not adhering to the Health and Human Service's recommendations. Individual impediments consisted of the high costs of F&V and a perceived lack of time. Early home food environment was perceived as affecting F&V consumption later in life. Other barriers reported were ethnic-specific. The African American participants reported limited access to fresh produce. This finding is consistent with numerous studies and must be addressed through health promotion intervention. Both the church and primary care clinics were described by African Americans as appropriate settings for health behavior interventions; these findings should be considered. Hispanic participants, mostly immigrants, cited inhibiting factors encountered in their adopted US environment. There is a need to improve the availability and access to fresh F&V commonly available in the home countries of Hispanic immigrants.

This review examines whether there is evidence that a strict vegan diet confers health advantages beyond that of a vegetarian diet or overall healthy eating. Few studies include vegan subjects as a distinct experimental group, yet when vegan diets are directly compared to vegetarian and omnivorous diets, a pattern of protective health benefits emerges. The relatively recent inclusion of vegan diets in studies of gut microbiota and health allows us the opportunity to assess whether the vegan gut microbiota is distinct, and whether the health advantages characteristic of a vegan diet may be partially explained by the associated microbiota profile. The relationship between diet and the intestinal microbial profile appears to follow a continuum, with vegans displaying a gut microbiota most distinct from that of omnivores, but not always significantly different from that of vegetarians. The vegan gut profile appears to be unique in several characteristics, including a reduced abundance of pathobionts and a greater abundance of protective species. Reduced levels of inflammation may be the key feature linking the vegan gut microbiota with protective health effects. However, it is still unclear whether a therapeutic vegan diet can be prescribed to alter the gut microflora for long-term health benefits.

Better techniques are needed to help consumers make lower calorie food choices. This pilot study examined the effect of menu labeling with caloric information and exercise equivalents (EE) on food selection. Participants, 62 females, ages 18-34, recruited for this study, ordered a fast food meal with menus that contained the names of the food (Lunch 1 (L1), control meal). One week later (Lunch 2 (L2), experiment meal), participants ordered a meal from one of three menus with the same items as the previous week: no calorie information, calorie information only, or calorie information and EE. There were no absolute differences between groups in calories ordered from L1 to L2. However, it is noteworthy that calorie only and calorie plus exercise equivalents ordered about 16% (206 kcal) and 14% (162 kcal) fewer calories from Lunch 1 to Lunch 2, respectively; whereas, the no information group ordered only 2% (25 kcal) fewer. Menu labeling alone may be insufficient to reduce calories; however, further research is needed in finding the most effective ways of presenting the menu labels for general public.