It seems most people are using the older RDI system for their baseline nutrient needs. Another (Newer) system is the DRI, however, both may be a fallacy.
You’ll be interested in reading this quote:
In September 2007, the Institute of Medicine held a workshop entitled “The Development of DRIs 1994–2004: Lessons Learned and New Challenges.” At that meeting, several speakers stated that the current Dietary Recommended Intakes (DRI’s) were largely based upon the very lowest rank in the quality of evidence pyramid, that is, opinion, rather than the highest level – randomized controlled clinical trials. Speakers called for a higher standard of evidence to be utilized when making dietary recommendations.
In other words, we’re basing this whole idea of a nutritionally complete food substitute on the idea that these values are scientifically valid, though many speakers at this meeting raised concerns that these established values may have little scientific merit.
How do we decide what is our real “Adequate Intake” and our actual “Recommended Allowance”?
I certainly don’t want to base my food substitute off of something experts claim is opinion-based.
Another quote highlighting the problem:
The value of RDA/RDIs is disputed among nutritionists. Indeed, even the “definition of RDAs and their relevance to health” is disputed.
For example, the daily maximum for some nutrients, like sodium are higher in the U.S. than in other parts of the developed world, and are far above established safe minimums. For instance, the National Research Council has found that 500 mg of sodium per day (approximately the amount in a quarter-teaspoon of table salt) is a safe minimum level. In Great Britain, the daily allowance for salt is 6g (approximately 1 tablespoon, about the upper limit in the U.S.), but are still considered “too high”.