Vitamin and mineral deficiencies are ranked among the top causes of poor health and disability in the world. These deficiencies damage developing brains, impair learning ability, increase susceptibility to infections, and reduce the work productivity of nations. Food fortification is a sustainable, cost-effective approach to reducing vitamin and mineral deficiency. As the staple food for an estimated 3 billion people, rice has the potential to fill an obvious gap in current fortification programs. In recent years, new technologies have produced fortified rice kernels that are efficacious in reducing vitamin and mineral deficiency. There are opportunities to fortify a significant share of rice that comes from large mills supplying centralized markets and national welfare programs in major rice-growing countries. The rice export markets, which handle 30 million MT of rice annually, also present a key fortification opportunity. The cost of fortifying rice is only 1.5% to 3% of the current retail price of rice. Countries that mandate rice fortification have the strongest evidence for achieving wide coverage and impact. The Rice Fortification Resource Group (RiFoRG), a global network of public and private partners that offers technical and advocacy support for rice fortification, has a vision of promoting rice fortification worldwide. It has a targeted approach, engaging multisector partners in key countries where the opportunities are greatest and there is receptivity to early adoption of large-scale rice fortification. The challenges are real, the imperative to address them is powerful, and the opportunities to deliver the promise of rice fortification are clear.

Background: There has been tremendous progress over the past 25 years to control iodine deficiency disorders (IDDs) through universal salt iodization (USI). In 2019, using the median urinary iodine concentration (MUIC), only 19 countries in the world are classified as iodine deficient; in contrast in 1993, using the total goiter rate (TGR), 113 countries were classified as iodine deficient. However, few analyses have tried to quantify the global health and economic benefits of USI programs, and the shift from TGR to MUIC as the main indicator of IDDs complicates assessment of progress. Methods: We used a novel approach to estimate the impact of USI on IDDs, applying a regression model derived from observational data on the relationship between the TGR and the MUIC from 24 countries. The model was used to generate hypothetical national TGR values for 2019 based on current MUIC data. TGR in 1993 and modeled TGR in 2019 were then compared for 139 countries, and using consequence modeling, the potential health and economic benefits realized between 1993 and 2019 were estimated. Results: Based on this approach, the global prevalence of clinical IDDs (as assessed by the TGR) fell from 13.1% to 3.2%, and 720 million cases of clinical IDDs have been prevented by USI (a reduction of 75.9%). USI has significantly reduced the number of newborns affected by IDDs, with 20.5 million cases prevented annually. The resulting improvement in cognitive development and future earnings suggest a potential global economic benefit of nearly $33 billion. However, 4.8 million newborns will be affected by IDDs in 2019, who will experience lifelong productivity losses totaling a net present value of $12.5 billion. Conclusions: The global improvements in iodine status over the past 25 years have resulted in major health and economic benefits, mainly in low-and middle-income countries. Efforts should now focus on sustaining this achievement and expanding USI to reach the continuing large number of infants who remain unprotected from IDDs.

Malnutrition is locked in a vicious cycle of increased mortality, poor health, impaired cognitive development, slow physical growth, reduced learning capacity, inferior performance, and ultimately lower adult work performance and productivity. The consensus of global scientific evidence indicates that lowering the rates of malnutrition will be an indispensable component of any successful program to raise the quality of human capital and resources. This study used a “consequence model” to apply the coefficient risk-deficit on economic losses, established in the global scientific literature, to Cambodian health, demographic, and economic data to develop a national estimate of the value of economic losses due to malnutrition. The impact of the indicators of malnutrition analyzed represent a burden to the national economy of Cambodia estimated at 266 million USD annually (1.7% of GDP). Stunting is reducing the Cambodian economic output by more than 120 million USD, and iodine deficiency disorders alone by 57 million USD. This economic burden is too high in view of Cambodia’s efforts to drive economic development. The government should rapidly expand a range of low-cost effective nutrition interventions to break the current cycle of increased mortality, poor health and ultimately lower work performance, productivity, and earnings.

The findings of this research led to the following broad areas of improvement in US Title II food aid products: 1) Improve the formulation of existing FBF products used in Title II programming. This includes the addition of a dairy source of protein to products targeted to children 6 to 24 months of age, pregnant and lactating women, wasted children, and wasted individuals undergoing HIV/AIDS treatment. 2) Upgrade the vitamin and mineral mixes used and diversify approaches to addressing micronutrient needs. Enhance the composition of premixes used to fortify blended foods as well as milled grains and vegetable oil; facilitate shipping offortificant premix with bulk cereals for in-country fortification; and develop micronutrient powders (sachets) and other point-of-use fortification options. 3) Develop or adopt non-cereal-based (e.g., lipid-based) products for the management of nutritional deficiencies. This is an argument for more choice among appropriate tools, not for discarding products that have already shown their value over many years. It also does not reduce the need to maintain a focus on supplying high volumes of quality grains as the main staple in food aid baskets.

No abstract