Leveraging Biofortified Crops and Foods: R4D Perspective

Birol, Ekin; Bouis, Howarth E.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-100596-5.22450-5

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies of consumer acceptance of food-to-food fortification products have gained increasing attention, not only in the food sciences but also in the economics literature. In food sciences, these studies take the form of sensory evaluation, captured usually through hedonic rating, while in economics, they take the form of consumer valuation captured as willingness-to-pay for a product or its attributes (Birol and Bouis, 2019). In Africa, consumer studies on food made from biofortified crops include acceptance of bio-fortified maize in South Africa (Amod et al, 2016), orange-fleshed sweet potatoes in Tanzania (Tomlins et al, 2007), and quality protein maize in East Africa (De Groote et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring consumer acceptance of instant fortified millet products using affective tests and auctions in Dakar, Senegal

Groote

Munyua

Traoré

et al. 2021

IFAM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Small-scale affordable extruders create new opportunities for small enterprise food processors to manufacture nutritionally enhanced products. Still, consumer interest in these products needs to be assessed first. Affective tests with 296 consumers in Dakar, Senegal, evaluated five pearl millet flours: (a) conventional, compared to four instant-porridge flour products; (b) sifted; (c) wholegrain; (d) sifted with premix; (e) wholegrain with micronutrient premix and food-to-food fortified (FtFF). Willingness-to-pay (WTP) was elicited through experimental auctions under two treatments: firstly without information, then with information. Consumers liked FtFF (taste, aroma, appearance) but were indifferent to instant. They did not appreciate wholegrain flour (appearance) or premix (appearance, aroma and taste). Without information, consumers showed no differences in WTP. With information, consumers paid premiums for FtFF (27-30%) (both treatments), and premix (17%), instant (9%), and wholegrain (-10%) (one treatment). Costs of instant, wholegrain and premix products were lower than consumers’ WTP, indicating potential profits, but not those of FtFF. There is a market for instant cereals in Senegal. Consumers require product information in order to compromise on some attributes to benefit from instant, fortified and wholegrain pearl millet products. Manufacture would be cost-effective, but FtFF costs need to be reduced.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring consumer acceptance of instant fortified millet products using affective tests and auctions in Dakar, Senegal

Groote

Munyua

Traoré

et al. 2021

IFAM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The technology of increasing the specific nutrient content of the crops through standard plant breeding or genetic engineering is termed as biological fortification or biofortification. It largely refers to the increase in the concentration of vitamins or provitamins or minerals in crops to improve nutritional status and has emerged to cure micronutrient deficiency or hidden hunger of the population of the developing world (Birol and Bouis 2019). Initially, three nutrients, vitamin A, iron, and zinc were at the forefront of concern.…”

Section: The Game-changer -Biofortificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2012), the potential of natural biodiversity in various capacities to enrich dietary diversity in general and to reduce micronutrient deficiency specifically is essentially ignored in food security policies and implementation. It is an issue of global concern when the world has gradually stepped in the realms of the biofortified crops that often portrayed as a panacea to eradicate hidden hunger, thus investing in the production of biofortified cereals, promoting, and spearheading the dissemination and molding the acceptance process at various levels (Birol and Bouis 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Biofortification - Associated Costs and Finding Alternatives?

Ray¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biofortification refers to the increase in the amount of essential vitamins or provitamins or minerals in crops to improve the nutritional status of the people, which is largely intended to alleviate the problem of micronutrient malnutrition. I argue that biofortification may not be an effective weapon to fight against the hidden hunger since it demonstrates limited capacity on nutritional enhancement and can negatively impact the socio-economic fabric of the society in many different ways. Finally, I suggest a couple of alternatives that might meet the challenge more efficiently than biofortified crops.

show abstract

“…Evidence on Indian farmers’ willingness to grow Fe biofortified pearl millet varieties are encouraging 126 . Studies revealed that a large number (>80%) of pearl millet farmers have switched from traditional types to ones that are biofortified with Fe 126,127 . Customers in Maharashtra, India are prepared to pay a little extra for pearl millet that has been biofortified with high Fe.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breeding and adoption of biofortified crops and their nutritional impact on human health

DePauw¹,

Kumar

et al. 2022

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Micronutrient malnutrition has affected over two billion people worldwide and continues to be a health risk. A growing human population, poverty, and the prevalence of low dietary diversity are jointly responsible for malnutrition, particularly in developing nations. Inadequate bioavailability of key micronutrients, such as iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), and vitamin A, can be improved through agronomic and/or genetic interventions.The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research prioritizes developing biofortified food crops that are rich in minerals and vitamins through the HarvestPlus initiative on biofortification. The objective of this review is to provide an overview of biofortified food crops along with evidence supporting their acceptability and adoption. Between 2004 and 2019, 242 biofortified varieties belonging to 11 major crops were released in 30 countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. These conventionally bred biofortified crops include Fe-enriched beans, pearl millet, and cowpea; Zn-enriched rice, wheat, and maize; both Fe-and Zn-enriched lentil and sorghum; and varieties with improved vitamin A in orange-fleshed sweet potato, maize, cassava, and banana/plantain. In addition to ongoing efforts, breeding innovations, such as speed breeding and CRISPR-based gene editing technologies, will be necessary for the next decade to reach two billion people with biofortified crops.

show abstract

Leveraging Biofortified Crops and Foods: R4D Perspective

Cited by 7 publications

References 40 publications

Measuring consumer acceptance of instant fortified millet products using affective tests and auctions in Dakar, Senegal

Measuring consumer acceptance of instant fortified millet products using affective tests and auctions in Dakar, Senegal

Biofortification - Associated Costs and Finding Alternatives?

Breeding and adoption of biofortified crops and their nutritional impact on human health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About