The Potential Contribution of Fortified Maize Flour, Oil, Rice, Salt, and Wheat Flour to Estimated Average Requirements and Tolerable Upper Intake Levels for 15 Nutrients in 153 Countries.

Food fortification is designed to improve the nutritional profile of diets. The purpose of this research was to estimate the potential nutrient contribution of fortified maize flour, oil, rice, salt, and wheat flour in 153 countries, using the national intake (or availability) of the food and the nutrient levels required for fortification. This was done under two scenarios-maximum, where 100% of the food is assumed to be industrially processed and fortified, and realistic, where the maximum value is adjusted based on the percent of the food that is industrially processed and fortified. Under the maximum scenario, the median Estimated Average Requirements (EARs) met ranged from 22-75% for 14 nutrients (vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B6, B12, D, E, folic acid and calcium, fluoride, iron, selenium and zinc), and 338% for iodine. In the realistic scenario, the median EARs met were 181% for iodine and <35% for the other nutrients. In both scenarios, the median Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (ULs) met were <55% for all nutrients. Under the realistic scenario, no country exceeded 100% of the UL for any nutrient. Current fortification practices of the five foods of interest have the global potential to contribute up to 15 nutrients to the diets of people, with minimal risk of exceeding ULs.

Review of Grain Fortification Legislation, Standards, and Monitoring Documents.

OBJECTIVE: Analyze the content of documents used to guide mandatory fortification programs for cereal grains. METHODS: Legislation, standards, and monitoring documents, which are used to mandate, provide specifications for, and confirm fortification, respectively, were collected from countries with mandatory wheat flour (n=80), maize flour (n=11), and/or rice (n=6) fortification as of January 31, 2015, yielding 97 possible country-grain combinations (e.g., Philippines-wheat flour, Philippines-rice) for the analysis. After excluding countries with limited or no documentation, 72 reviews were completed, representing 84 country-grain combinations. Based on best practices, a criteria checklist was created with 44 items that should be included in fortification documents. Two reviewers independently scored each available document set for a given country and food vehicle (a country-grain combination) using the checklist, and then reached consensus on the scoring. We calculated the percentage of country-grain combinations containing each checklist item and examined differences in scores by grain, region, and income level. RESULTS: Of the 72 country-grain combinations, the majority of documentation came from countries in the Americas (46%) and Africa (32%), and most were from upper and lower middle-income countries (73%). The majority of country-grain combinations had documentation stating the food vehicle(s) to be fortified (97%) and the micronutrients (e.g., iron) (100%), fortificants (e.g., ferrous fumarate) (88%), and fortification levels required (96%). Most (78%) stated that labeling is required to indicate a product is fortified. Many country-grain combinations described systems for external (64%) monitoring, and stated that industry is required to follow quality assurance/quality control (64%), though detailed protocols (33%) and roles and responsibilities (45%) were frequently not described. CONCLUSIONS: Most country-grain combinations have systems in place for internal, external, and import monitoring. However, documentation of other important items that would influence product compliance to national standard, such as roles and responsibilities between agencies, the cost of regulating fortification, and enforcement strategies, are often lacking. Countries with existing mandatory fortification can improve upon these items in revisions to their documentation while countries that are beginning fortification can use the checklist to assist in developing new policies and programs.