Our findings suggest that optimizing the use of local foods in diets of children aged 6 to 23 months can improve nutrient intakes; however, additional cost-effective strategies are needed to ensure adequate intakes of iron and zinc.

Adding amylase to fortified blended foods can improve energy density, and increase child's energy and nutrient intake. The efficacy of this strategy is unknown for the World Food Programme's Super Cereal Plus (SC+) and Super Cereal (SC) blends. The primary goal of this study was to investigate the increased energy intake from amylase‐containing SC+ and SC compared to control porridges in Burkinabe children. Secondly, energy intake from amylase‐containing porridges compared to CERELAC®, Vitazom, and eeZeeBAR™ was studied. Thirdly, caregivers' (n = 100) porridge acceptability was investigated. The design was a randomized double‐blind controlled cross‐over trial studying the effect of amylase addition to SC+ and SC flours on porridge energy and nutrient intake in healthy Burkinabe children aged 12–23 (n = 80) and 24–35 months (n = 40). Amylase added to porridges increased energy density from 0.68 to 1.16 kcal/g for SC+ and from 0.66 to 1.03 kcal/g for SC porridges. Among children aged 12–23 months, mean energy intake from all porridges with amylase (135–164 kcal/meal) was significantly higher compared to control SC+ porridges (84–98 kcal/meal; model‐based average). Among children aged 24–35 months, mean energy intakes were also significantly higher from all porridges with amylase added (245–288 kcal/meal) compared to control SC porridges (175–183 kcal/meal). Acceptability of the porridges among caregivers was rated neutral to good, both for amylase‐added and non‐amylase‐containing porridges. These findings suggest that, among 12–35‐month‐old, adding amylase to fortified blended foods significantly increased energy and consequently nutrient intake per meal by 67% for SC+ and 47% for SC. Moreover, amylase‐containing porridges were well accepted by the caregivers.

No abstract

Objectives Compare national wheat and maize flour standards to World Health Organization (WHO) fortification guidelines in countries with mandatory fortification. Methods Seventy-three countries’ grain availability, flour extraction rate, flour standards (with fortification compounds and nutrient levels) and mass fortification of other foods were obtained from databases and country contacts. For each nutrient, standards were compared with recommendations, specifically, presence of a compound that is in guidelines was noted (yes/no), and nutrient levels in standards were classified as lower than, equal to, or higher than those suggested by WHO. When a nutrient in flour was categorized as “lower than” in a particular standard and if another food (e.g., rice, oil, milk) was mass fortified with the same nutrient, the classification was changed to “less than recommendation and included in other mass fortified food”. Results At least 63% of standards included one or more recommended compounds for all nutrients in standards for wheat flour alone (iron, folic acid, vitamin A, zinc, vitamin B12, ), wheat and maize flour together (iron, folic acid, vitamin A, zinc, vitamin B12) and maize flour alone (thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, pyridoxine); no country included pantothenic acid in its maize flour standard. For folic acid, vitamin A, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin and pyridoxine, >50% of standards (1) met or exceeded WHO suggested levels, or (2) were lower than suggested levels and another food was mass fortified with the specific nutrient in the country. For iron, zinc and vitamin B12, <50% of standards met (1) or (2). Conclusions Iron, zinc and vitamin B12 may require the most attention in national wheat and maize flour fortification standards. Funding Sources No external funding received for conduct of this study.