Fortification of staple cereal flours with iron and other micronutrients: cost implications of following World Health Organization-endorsed recommendations

Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), P.O. Box 55, Geneva 1211, Switzerland.
Food and nutrition bulletin (Impact Factor: 1.15). 12/2012; 33(4 Suppl):S336-43.
Source: PubMed


Wheat and maize flours are widely used delivery vehicles for mass fortification. In lower-income countries, most, if not all, national-level cereal flour fortification programs routinely fortify with iron; however, cofortification with other micronutrients is common. Little information is available on the cost implications programs face when considering current fortification practices versus what the World Health Organization (WHO) interim consensus statement recommends.
The objectives of the present paper are to provide information on the costs of adding different chemical forms of iron and/or other micronutrients to premix formulations, and to discuss some of the issues that should be considered regarding which micronutrients to include in the premix.
Nine countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia (three countries per region) that currently cofortify with multiple micronutrients including iron were selected based on low (< 75 g/day), medium (75 to 149 g/day), and high (> or = 150 g/day) mean population flour consumption levels. Premix costs per metric ton of flour produced were estimated for improving iron formulations and for following WHO recommendations for other micronutrients.
For the selected programs to maintain current premix formulations and improve iron compounds, premix costs would increase by between 155% and 343% when the iron compound was switched from electrolytic iron to sodium iron ethylenediaminetetraacetate (NaFeEDTA), by 6% to 50% when it was switched from electrolytic iron to ferrous sulfate, and by 4% to 13 when iron addition rates were adjusted without switching the compound. To meet WHO recommendations for other micronutrients, premix costs would increase the most when the amounts of vitamins B12 and A were increased.
For programs that currently cofortify with iron and additional micronutrients, the quality of the iron fortificant should not be overlooked simply to be able to afford to add more micronutrients to the premix. Micronutrients should be selected according to population needs, costs, and potential beneficial synergistic reactions the added micronutrients may have.

Download full-text


Available from: Regina Moench-Pfanner, Sep 09, 2014
32 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Iron fortification of wheat flour is widely used as a strategy to combat iron deficiency. To review recent efficacy studies and update the guidelines for the iron fortification of wheat flour. Efficacy studies with a variety of iron-fortified foods were reviewed to determine the minimum daily amounts of additional iron that have been shown to meaningfully improve iron status in children, adolescents, and women of reproductive age. Recommendations were computed by determining the fortification levels needed to provide these additional quantities of iron each day in three different wheat flour consumption patterns. Current wheat flour iron fortification programs in 78 countries were evaluated. When average daily consumption of low-extraction (< or = 0.8% ash) wheat flour is 150 to 300 g, it is recommended to add 20 ppm iron as NaFeEDTA, or 30 ppm as dried ferrous sulfate or ferrous fumarate. If sensory changes or cost limits the use of these compounds, electrolytic iron at 60 ppm is the second choice. Corresponding fortification levels were calculated for wheat flour intakes of < 150 g/day and > 300 g/day. Electrolytic iron is not recommended for flour intakes of < 150 g/day. Encapsulated ferrous sulfate or fumarate can be added at the same concentrations as the non-encapsulated compounds. For high-extraction wheat flour (> 0.8% ash), NaFeEDTA is the only iron compound recommended. Only nine national programs (Argentina, Chile, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Turkmenistan, and Uruguay) were judged likely to have a significant positive impact on iron status if coverage is optimized. Most countries use non-recommended, low-bioavailability, atomized, reduced or hydrogen-reduced iron powders. Most current iron fortification programs are likely to be ineffective. Legislation needs updating in many countries so that flour is fortified with adequate levels of the recommended iron compounds.
    Food and nutrition bulletin 03/2010; 31(1 Suppl):S7-21. · 1.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Iron deficiency remains a major global health problem affecting an estimated 2 billion people. The World Health Organization ranked it as the seventh most important preventable risk for disease, disability, and death in 2002. Since an important factor in its causation is the poor bioavailability of iron in the cereal-based diets of many developing countries, SUSTAIN set up a Task Force, consisting of nutritional, medical, industry, and government experts to consider strategies for enhancing the absorption of fortification iron. This paper summarizes the findings of this Task Force. Detailed reviews of each strategy follow this overview. Highly soluble compounds of iron like ferrous sulfate are desirable food fortificants but cannot be used in many food vehicles because of sensory issues. Thus, potentially less well-absorbed forms of iron commonly are used in food fortification. The bioavailability of iron fortificants can, however, be enhanced with innovative ingredient technologies. Ascorbic acid, NaFeEDTA, ferrous bisglycinate, and dephytinization all enhance the absorption of fortification iron, but add to the overall costs of fortification. While all strategies cannot be recommended for all food fortification vehicles, individual strategies can be recommended for specific foods. For example, the addition of ascorbic acid is appropriate for dry blended foods such as infant foods and other dry products made for reconstitution that are packaged, stored, and prepared in a way that maximizes retention of this vitamin. NaFeEDTA can be recommended for fortification of fish sauce and soy sauce, whereas amino acid chelates may be more useful in milk products and beverages. With further development, dephytinization may be possible for low-cost, cereal-based complementary foods in developing countries. Encapsulation of iron salts in lipid coatings, while not an iron absorption-enhancing strategy per se, can prevent soluble forms of iron from interacting undesirably with some food vehicles and hence broaden the application of some fortificants. Research relevant to each of these strategies for enhancing the bioavailability or utility of iron food fortificants is reviewed. Individual strategies are evaluated in terms of enhancing effect and stability, organoleptic qualities, cost, and regulatory issues of interest to the nutrition community, industry, and consumers. Recommendations are made on potential usages and further research needs. Effective fortification depends on the selection of technically feasible and efficacious strategies. Once suitable strategies have been identified, cost becomes very important in selecting the best approach to implement. However it is essential to calculate cost in relation to the amount of bioavailable iron delivered. An approach to the calculation of cost using a conservative estimate of the enhancing effects of the innovative technologies discussed in the supplement is given in the final section.
    International Journal for Vitamin and Nutrition Research 12/2004; 74(6):387-401. · 0.85 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since the 1993 publication of Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries and World Development Report: Investing in Health, micronutrient fortification and supplementation interventions have been recognized as being among the most cost-effective public health interventions. This paper reviews nearly 100 studies of the cost of micronutrient interventions. The literature contains enormous variation in the estimated costs of these programs due to differences in program structure, delivery systems and a host of country-specific factors, differences in the studies' objectives, designs and costing methodologies. The most diverse estimates reported are those of vitamin A supplementation programs, where estimates vary by a factor of more than 1000. The costs of fortification programs, too, vary substantially from a factor of two for iodine, six for iron, and 15 for vitamin A fortification. As the magnitude of these variations suggests, the bulk of these studies are idiosyncratic, and their results are not directly comparable. The review highlights the need for greater specificity in discourse about these programs, and for greater transparency about cost estimation methods. The review provides several insights: (1) average costs are several-fold higher than has traditionally been maintained; (2) fortificants account for 80% of annual, incremental costs of vitamin A fortification; (3) whereas 70% of those of vitamin A supplementation programs are personnel; (4) the imprecision of food fortification coverage and impact estimates owes primarily to the paucity of food consumption data. Addressing the food consumption information gap is an essential next step to improving micronutrient program policies: to better targeting programs and to devising more cost-effective program portfolio mixes. Cost studies have a largely unrealized potential role to play in increasing program efficiency, coverage, and effectiveness.
    International Journal of Health Planning and Management 10/2008; 23(4):373-97. DOI:10.1002/hpm.928 · 0.97 Impact Factor