No abstract

Micronutrient deficiencies (MNDs) occur as a result of insufficient intake of minerals and vitamins that are critical for body growth, physical/mental development, and activity. These deficiencies are particularly prevalent in lower-and middle-income countries (LMICs), falling disproportionately on the poorest and most vulnerable segments of the society. Dietary diversity is considered the most effective method in reducing this deficiency but is often a major constraint as most foods rich in micronutrients are also expensive and thereby inaccessible to poorer members of society. In recent years, affordable commodities such as staple foods (e.g., cereals, roots, and tubers) and condiments (e.g., salt and oil) have been targeted as “vehicles” for fortification and biofortification. Despite efforts by many countries to support such initiatives, there have been mixed experiences with delivery and coverage. An important but little understood driver of success and failure for food fortification has been the range of business models and approaches adopted to promote uptake. This review examines the different models used in the delivery of fortified food including complementary foods and biofortified crops. Using a keyword search and pearl growing techniques, the review located 11,897 texts of which 106 were considered relevant. Evidence was found of a range of business forms and models that attempt to optimise uptake, use, and impact of food fortification which are specific to the ‘food vehicle’ and environment. We characterise the current business models and business parameters that drive successful food fortification and we propose an initial structure for understanding different fortification business cases that will offer assistance to future designers and implementors of food fortification programmes.

Highlights  CA can be profitable without the use of external inputs.  Labour and weeding time is reduced under CA without the use of herbicides.  NPV analysis shows CA can have short-term and longer term benefits dependent on crop mix and opportunity cost of labour assumed.  CA cropping options for the poorest farmers are preferred under risk neutral and extremely risk-averse scenarios.  Probability of CA breaking even under the same crop mix is higher than under conventional for the poorest farmers.