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.

Background: Large-scale food fortification (LSFF) of commonly consumed food vehicles is widely implemented in low- and middle-income countries. Many

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.

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.

Food fortification is a widely used approach to increase micronutrient intake in the diet. High coverage is essential for achieving impact. Data on c

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.