A systematic review of the impacts of post-harvest handling on provitamin A, iron and zinc retention in seven biofortified crops.

Post-harvest handling can affect micronutrient retention in biofortified crops through to the point of consumption. Here we conduct a systematic review identifying 67 articles examining the retention of micronutrients in conventionally bred biofortified maize, orange sweet potato, cassava, pearl millet, rice, beans and wheat. Provitamin A crops maintain high amounts compared with non-biofortified counterparts. Iron and zinc crops have more variability in micronutrient retention dependent on processing method; for maximum iron and zinc content, whole grain product consumption such as whole wheat flour or only slightly milled brown rice is beneficial. We offer preliminary suggestions for households, regulatory bodies and programme implementers to increase consumer awareness on best practices for preparing crops to maximize micronutrient content, while highlighting gaps in the literature. Our online, interactive Micronutrient Retention Dashboard ( https://www.cpnh.cornell.edu/mn-retention-db ) offers an at-a-glance view of the compiled minimum and maximum retention found, organized by processing method.

Sensory acceptability of biofortified foods and food products: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: It is important to understand the sensory acceptability of biofortified food products among target population groups if biofortification is to be realized as a sustainable strategy for mitigation of micronutrient deficiencies, able to be scaled up and applied through programs. OBJECTIVE: This systemic review aims to summarize and synthesize the sensory acceptability of conventionally bred iron-, zinc-, and provitamin A-biofortified food products. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (PubMed), AGRICOLA, AgEcon, CABI Abstracts (Web of Science), and organizational websites (eg, those of HarvestPlus and CGIAR and their partners) were searched for relevant articles. No access to any market research that may have been internally conducted for the commercial biofortified food products was available. DATA EXTRACTION: This review identified articles measuring the sensory acceptability of conventionally bred biofortified food products. Extraction of the hedonic ratings of food products was performed. DATA ANALYSIS: An "Acceptability Index %" was defined based on hedonic scoring to determine an overall rating, and used to categorize biofortified food products as "acceptable" (≥70%) or "not acceptable" (<70%). Additionally, this review narratively synthesized studies using methods other than hedonic scoring for assessing sensory acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: Forty-nine studies assessed the acceptability of 10 biofortified crops among children and adults, in mostly rural, low-income settings across Africa, Latin America, and India; food products made from mineral and provitamin A-biofortified food products were generally acceptable. Compared with studies on provitamin-A biofortified food products, few studies (1 to 2 each) on mineral-enhanced crops such as rice, cowpeas, lentils, and wheat were found, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Similarly, few studies examined stored biofortified food products. Few commercial food products have so far been developed, although new varieties of crops are being continuously tested and released globally. Certain crop varieties were found to be acceptable while others were not, suggesting that particular varieties should be prioritized for scale-up. Determining sensory acceptability of biofortified food products is important for informing programmatic scale-up and implementation across diverse populations and settings.

Global Coverage of Mandatory Large-Scale Food Fortification Programs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Food fortification with micronutrients is widely implemented to reduce micronutrient deficiencies and related outcomes. Although many factors affect the success of fortification programs, high population coverage is needed to have a public health impact. We aimed to provide recent global coverage estimates of salt, wheat flour, vegetable oil, maize flour, rice, and sugar among countries with mandatory fortification legislation. The indicators were the proportion of households consuming the: food, fortifiable food (that is, industrially processed), fortified food (to any extent), and adequately fortified food (according to national or international standards). We estimated the number of individuals reached with fortified foods. We systematically retrieved and reviewed all applicable evidence from: published reports and articles from January 2010 to August 2021, survey lists/databases from key organizations, and reports/literature received from key informants. We analyzed data with R statistical package using random-effects meta-analysis models. An estimated 94.4% of households consumed salt, 78.4% consumed fortified salt (4.2 billion people), and 48.6% consumed adequately fortified salt in 64, 84, and 31 countries, respectively. Additionally, 77.4% of households consumed wheat flour, 61.6% consumed fortifiable wheat flour, and 47.1% consumed fortified wheat flour (66.2 million people) in 15, 8, and 10 countries, respectively, and 87.0% consumed vegetable oil, 86.7% consumed fortifiable oil, and 40.1% consumed fortified oil (123.9 million people) in 10, 7, and 5 countries, respectively. Data on adequately fortified wheat flour and vegetable oil and coverage indicators for maize flour, rice, and sugar were limited. There are major data gaps on fortification coverage for most foods except salt. All countries with mandatory fortification programs should generate and use more coverage data to assess program performance and adjust programs as needed to realize their potential to reduce micronutrient deficiencies (PROSPERO CRD42021269364).

Comparing two simplified questionnaire-based methods with 24-h recalls for estimating fortifiable wheat flour and oil consumption in Mandaluyong City, Philippines.

Information on fortifiable food consumption is essential to design, monitor and evaluate fortification programmes, yet detailed methods like 24-h recalls (24HRs) that provide such data are rarely conducted. Simplified questionnaire-based methods exist but their validity compared with 24HRs has not been shown. We compared two simplified methods (i.e., a household food acquisition and purchase questionnaire [FAPQ] and a 7-day semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire [SQ-FFQ]) against 24HRs for estimating fortifiable food consumption. We assessed the consumption of fortifiable wheat flour and oil using a FAPQ and, for wheat flour only, a 7-day SQ-FFQ and compared the results against 24HRs. The participants included children 12-18 months (n = 123) and their mothers 18-49 years selected for a study assessing child vitamin A intake and status in Mandaluyong City, Philippines. For fortifiable wheat flour, the FAPQ estimated considerably lower mean intakes compared to 24HRs for children and mothers (2.2 vs. 14.1 g/day and 5.1 vs. 42.3 g/day, respectively), while the SQ-FFQ estimated slightly higher mean intakes (15.7 vs. 14.1 g/day and 51.5 vs. 42.3 g/day, respectively). For fortifiable oil, the FAPQ estimated considerably higher mean intakes compared to 24HRs for children and mothers (4.6 vs. 1.8 g/day and 12.5 vs. 6.1 g/day, respectively). The SQ-FFQ, but not the FAPQ, generated useful information on fortifiable food consumption that can inform fortification programme design and monitoring decisions in the absence of more detailed individual-level data. Potential adaptations to improve the FAPQ, such as additional questions on foods prepared away from home and usage patterns, merit further research.

Bioaccessibility and bioavailability of biofortified food and food products: Current evidence.

Biofortification increases micronutrient content in staple crops through conventional breeding, agronomic methods, or genetic engineering. Bioaccessibility is a prerequisite for a nutrient to fulfill a biological function, e.g., to be bioavailable. The objective of this systematic review is to examine the bioavailability (and bioaccessibility as a proxy via in vitro and animal models) of the target micronutrients enriched in conventionally biofortified crops that have undergone post-harvest storage and/or processing, which has not been systematically reviewed previously, to our knowledge. We searched for articles indexed in MEDLINE, Agricola, AgEcon, and Center for Agriculture and Biosciences International databases, organizational websites, and hand-searched studies' reference lists to identify 18 studies reporting on bioaccessibility and 58 studies on bioavailability. Conventionally bred biofortified crops overall had higher bioaccessibility and bioavailability than their conventional counterparts, which generally provide more absorbed micronutrient on a fixed ration basis. However, these estimates depended on exact cultivar, processing method, context (crop measured alone or as part of a composite meal), and experimental method used. Measuring bioaccessibility and bioavailability of target micronutrients in biofortified and conventional foods is critical to optimize nutrient availability and absorption, ultimately to improve programs targeting micronutrient deficiency.

Update on Analytical Methods and Research Gaps in the Use of Household Consumption and Expenditure Survey Data to Inform the Design of Food-Fortification Programs.

The lack of nationally representative, individual-level dietary intake data has led researchers to increasingly turn to household-level data on food acquisitions and/or consumption to inform the design of food-fortification programs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). These nationally representative, household-level data come from household consumption and expenditure surveys (HCESs), which are collected regularly in many LMICs and are often made publicly available. Our objectives were to examine the utility of HCES data to inform the design of food-fortification programs and to identify best-practice methods for analyzing HCES data for this purpose. To this end, we summarized information needed to design fortification programs and assessed the extent to which HCES data can provide corresponding indicators. We concluded that HCES data are well suited to guide the selection of appropriate food vehicles, but because individual-level estimates of apparent nutrient intakes rely on assumptions about the intrahousehold distribution of food, more caution is advised when using HCES data to select the target micronutrient content of fortified foods. We also developed a checklist to guide analysts through the use of HCES data and, where possible, identified research-based, best-practice analytical methods for analyzing HCES data, including selecting the number of days of recall data to include in the analysis and converting reported units to standard units. More research is needed on how best to deal with composite foods, foods consumed away from home, and extreme values, as well as the best methods for assessing the adequacy of apparent intakes. Ultimately, we recommend sensitivity analyses around key model parameters, and the continual triangulation of HCES-based results with other national and subnational data on food availability, dietary intake, and nutritional status when designing food-fortification programs.

Decisions to Start, Strengthen, and Sustain Food Fortification Programs: An Application of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision (EtD) Framework in Nigeria.

Background: Although the potential impact of food fortification to improve the micronutrient status of populations has been demonstrated beyond a doubt, it is constrained in practice by critical gaps in program design and implementation. These are partly linked to suboptimal decision making. Objectives: We aimed to demonstrate how the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions can be applied to formulate recommendations and make decisions in national food fortification programming. Methods: Following a program impact pathway, we reviewed the literature to define the key decision types and identify the corresponding decision makers necessary for designing and implementing effective food fortification programs. We then applied the GRADE EtD framework to the Nigerian fortification program to illustrate how evidence-informed assessments and conclusions can be made. Results: Fortification program decisions were classified into 5 types: 1) program initiation; 2) program design; 3) program delivery; 4) program impact; and 5) program continuation. Policymakers, food processors, and (in cases dependent on or considering external funding) development partners are the main decision makers in a fortification program, whereas technical partners play important roles in translating evidence into contextualized recommendations. The availability and certainty of evidence for fortification programs are often low (e.g., quality and coverage data are not routinely collected and there are challenges evaluating impact in such population-based programs using randomized controlled trials) yet decisions must still be made, underscoring the importance of using available evidence. Furthermore, when making program initiation and continuation decisions, coordination with overlapping micronutrient interventions is needed where they coexist. Conclusions: This framework is a practical tool to strengthen decision-making processes in fortification programs. Using evidence in a systematic and transparent way for decision making can improve fortification program design, delivery, and ultimately health impacts.

Review of the Impact Pathways of Biofortified Foods and Food Products.

Biofortification is the process of increasing the concentrations and/or bioavailability of micronutrients in staple crops and has the potential to mitigate micronutrient deficiencies globally. Efficacy trials have demonstrated benefits of consuming biofortified crops (BFCs); and in this paper, we report on the results of a systematic review of biofortified crops effectiveness in real-world settings. We synthesized the evidence on biofortified crops consumption through four Impact Pathways: (1) purchased directly; (2) in informal settings; (3) in formal settings; or (4) in farmer households, from their own production. Twenty-five studies, covering Impact Pathway 1 (five studies), Impact Pathway 2 (three), Impact Pathway 3 (three), Impact Pathway 4 (21) were included. The review found evidence of an improvement in micronutrient status via Impact Pathway 4 (mainly in terms of vitamin A from orange sweet potato) in controlled interventions that involved the creation of demand, the extension of agriculture and promotion of marketing. In summary, evidence supports that biofortified crops can be part of food systems interventions to reduce micronutrient deficiencies in farmer households; ongoing and future research will help fully inform their potential along the other three Impact Pathways for scaling up.

Vitamin A Fortification Quality Is High for Packaged and Branded Edible Oil but Low for Oil Sold in Unbranded, Loose Form: Findings from a Market Assessment in Bangladesh.

Although mandatory fortification of oil with vitamin A is efficacious, its effectiveness can be compromised by suboptimal compliance to standards. In this study, we assessed (1) the availability of oil brands across the eight divisions of Bangladesh, (2) fortification quality (the extent to which vitamin A content is aligned with fortification standards) of oil brands and producers and (3) the market volume represented by available edible oil types. We visited different retail outlets in rural and urban market hubs to ascertain available oil brands and bulk oil types and collected samples. We used high-performance liquid chromatography to quantify average vitamin A content and compared them to the national oil fortification standards. Among the 66 packaged brands analyzed, 26 (39%) were not fortified, and 40 (61%) were fortified, with 28 (42%) fortified above the standard vitamin A minimum. Among the 41 bulk oil type composites analyzed, 24 (59%) were not fortified, and 17 (41%) were fortified, with 14 (34%) fortified below and 3 (7%) fortified above the standard minimum. Vitamin A fortification is high for packaged and branded edible oil but low for oil sold in unbranded, loose form. As bulk oil makes up a large proportion of the oil market volume, this means the majority of the oil volume available to the population is either not (25%) or fortified below the standard requirement (39%). Regulatory inspections of producers selling bulk oil should be prioritized to support and incentivize the industry to make all oil traceable and fortified to standard.

Assessing the Coverage of Biofortified Foods: Development and Testing of Methods and Indicators in Musanze, Rwanda.

BACKGROUND: Biofortification of staple crops has the potential to increase nutrient intakes and improve health outcomes. Despite program data on the number of farming households reached with and growing biofortified crops, information on the coverage of biofortified foods in the general population is often lacking. Such information is needed to ascertain potential for impact and identify bottlenecks to parts of the impact pathway. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop and test methods and indicators for assessing household coverage of biofortified foods. METHODS: To assess biofortification programs, 5 indicators of population-wide household coverage were developed, building on approaches previously used to assess large-scale food fortification programs. These were 1) consumption of the food; 2) awareness of the biofortified food; 3) availability of the biofortified food; 4) consumption of the biofortified food (ever); and 5) consumption of the biofortified food (current). To ensure that the indicators are applicable to different settings they were tested in a cross-sectional household-based cluster survey in rural and peri-urban areas in Musanze District, Rwanda where planting materials for iron-biofortified beans (IBs) and orange-fleshed sweet potatoes (OFSPs) were delivered. RESULTS: Among the 242 households surveyed, consumption of beans and sweet potatoes was 99.2% and 96.3%, respectively. Awareness of IBs or OFSPs was 65.7% and 48.8%, and availability was 23.6% and 10.7%, respectively. Overall, 15.3% and 10.7% of households reported ever consuming IBs and OFSPs, and 10.4% and 2.1% of households were currently consuming these foods, respectively. The major bottlenecks to coverage of biofortified foods were awareness and availability. CONCLUSIONS: These methods and indicators fill a gap in the availability of tools to assess coverage of biofortified foods, and the results of the survey highlight their utility for identifying bottlenecks. Further testing is warranted to confirm the generalizability of the coverage indicators and inform their operationalization when deployed in different settings.

Fortified Foods Are Major Contributors to Apparent Intakes of Vitamin A and Iodine, but Not Iron, in Diets of Women of Reproductive Age in 4 African Countries.

BACKGROUND: Food fortification is implemented to increase intakes of specific nutrients in the diet, but contributions of fortified foods to nutrient intakes are rarely quantified. OBJECTIVES: We quantified iron, vitamin A, and iodine intakes from fortified staple foods and condiments among women of reproductive age (WRA). METHODS: In subnational (Nigeria, South Africa) and national (Tanzania, Uganda) cross-sectional, clustered household surveys, we assessed fortifiable food consumption. We estimated daily nutrient intakes from fortified foods among WRA by multiplying the daily apparent fortifiable food consumption (by adult male equivalent method) by a fortification content for the food. Two fortification contents were used: measured, based on the median amount quantified from individual food samples collected from households; and potential, based on the targeted amount in national fortification standards. Results for both approaches are reported as percentages of the estimated average requirement (EAR) and recommended nutrient intake (RNI). RESULTS: Fortified foods made modest contributions to measured iron intakes (0%-13% RNI); potential intakes if standards are met were generally higher (0%-65% RNI). Fortified foods contributed substantially to measured vitamin A and iodine intakes (20%-125% and 88%-253% EAR, respectively); potential intakes were higher (53%-655% and 115%-377% EAR, respectively) and would exceed the tolerable upper intake level among 18%-56% of WRA for vitamin A in Nigeria and 1%-8% of WRA for iodine in Nigeria, Tanzania, and Uganda. CONCLUSIONS: Fortified foods are major contributors to apparent intakes of vitamin A and iodine, but not iron, among WRA. Contributions to vitamin A and iodine are observed despite fortification standards not consistently being met and, if constraints to meeting standards are addressed, there is risk of excessive intakes in some countries. For all programs assessed, nutrient intakes from all dietary sources and fortification standards should be reviewed to inform adjustments where needed to avoid risk of low or excessive intakes.

The Unfinished Agenda for Food Fortification in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Quantifying Progress, Gaps and Potential Opportunities.

Large-scale food fortification (LSFF) is a cost-effective intervention that is widely implemented, but there is scope to further increase its potential. To identify gaps and opportunities, we first accessed the Global Fortification Data Exchange (GFDx) to identify countries that could benefit from new fortification programs. Second, we aggregated Fortification Assessment Coverage Toolkit (FACT) survey data from 16 countries to ascertain LSFF coverage and gaps therein. Third, we extended our narrative review to assess current innovations. We identified 84 countries as good candidates for new LSFF programs. FACT data revealed that the potential of oil/ghee and salt fortification is not being met due mainly to low coverage of adequately fortified foods (quality). Wheat, rice and maize flour fortification have similar quality issues combined with lower coverage of the fortifiable food at population-level (< 50%). A four-pronged strategy is needed to meet the unfinished agenda: first, establish new LSFF programs where warranted; second, systems innovations informed by implementation research to address coverage and quality gaps; third, advocacy to form new partnerships and resources, particularly with the private sector; and finally, exploration of new fortificants and vehicles (e.g. bouillon cubes; salt fortified with multiple nutrients) and other innovations that can address existing challenges.

Coverage of Large-Scale Food Fortification of Edible Oil, Wheat Flour, and Maize Flour Varies Greatly by Vehicle and Country but Is Consistently Lower among the Most Vulnerable: Results from Coverage Surveys in 8 Countries.

Background: Large-scale food fortification (LSFF) of commonly consumed food vehicles is widely implemented in low- and middle-income countries. Many programs have monitoring information gaps and most countries fail to assess program coverage.Objective: The aim of this work was to present LSFF coverage survey findings (overall and in vulnerable populations) from 18 programs (7 wheat flour, 4 maize flour, and 7 edible oil programs) conducted in 8 countries between 2013 and 2015.Methods: A Fortification Assessment Coverage Toolkit (FACT) was developed to standardize the assessments. Three indicators were used to assess the relations between coverage and vulnerability: 1) poverty, 2) poor dietary diversity, and 3) rural residence. Three measures of coverage were assessed: 1) consumption of the vehicle, 2) consumption of a fortifiable vehicle, and 3) consumption of a fortified vehicle. Individual program performance was assessed based on the following: 1) achieving overall coverage ≥50%, 2) achieving coverage of ≥75% in ≥1 vulnerable group, and 3) achieving equity in coverage for ≥1 vulnerable group.Results: Coverage varied widely by food vehicle and country. Only 2 of the 18 LSFF programs assessed met all 3 program performance criteria. The 2 main program bottlenecks were a poor choice of vehicle and failure to fortify a fortifiable vehicle (i.e., absence of fortification).Conclusions: The results highlight the importance of sound program design and routine monitoring and evaluation. There is strong evidence of the impact and cost-effectiveness of LSFF; however, impact can only be achieved when the necessary activities and processes during program design and implementation are followed. The FACT approach fills an important gap in the availability of standardized tools. The LSFF programs assessed here need to be re-evaluated to determine whether to further invest in the programs, whether other vehicles are appropriate, and whether other approaches are needed.

Assessing Coverage of Population-Based and Targeted Fortification Programs with the Use of the Fortification Assessment Coverage Toolkit (FACT): Background, Toolkit Development, and Supplement Overview.

Food fortification is a widely used approach to increase micronutrient intake in the diet. High coverage is essential for achieving impact. Data on coverage is limited in many countries, and tools to assess coverage of fortification programs have not been standardized. In 2013, the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition developed the Fortification Assessment Coverage Toolkit (FACT) to carry out coverage assessments in both population-based (i.e., staple foods and/or condiments) and targeted (e.g., infant and young child) fortification programs. The toolkit was designed to generate evidence on program coverage and the use of fortified foods to provide timely and programmatically relevant information for decision making. This supplement presents results from FACT surveys that assessed the coverage of population-based and targeted food fortification programs across 14 countries. It then discusses the policy and program implications of the findings for the potential for impact and program improvement.