Anemia remains a widespread public health problem. Although iron deficiency is considered the leading cause of anemia globally, the cause of anemia varies considerably by country. To achieve global targets to reduce anemia, reliable estimates of the contribution of nutritional and non-nutritional causes of anemia are needed to guide interventions. Inflammation is known to affect many biomarkers used to assess micronutrient status and can thus lead to incorrect diagnosis of individuals and to overestimation or underestimation of the prevalence of deficiency in a population. Reliable assessment of iron status is particularly needed in settings with high infectious disease burden, given the call to screen for iron deficiency to mitigate potential adverse effects of iron supplementation. To address these information gaps, in 2012 the CDC, National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, and Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition formed a collaborative research group called Biomarkers Reflecting Inflammation and Nutrition Determinants of Anemia (BRINDA). Data from nationally and regionally representative nutrition surveys conducted in the past 10 y that included preschool children and/or women of childbearing age were pooled. Of 25 data sets considered for inclusion, 17 were included, representing ∼30,000 preschool children, 26,000 women of reproductive age, and 21,000 school-aged children from all 6 WHO geographic regions. This article provides an overview of the BRINDA project and describes key research questions and programmatic and research implications. Findings from this project will inform global guidelines on the assessment of anemia and micronutrient status and will guide the development of a research agenda for future longitudinal studies.

Background: Large-scale food fortification (LSFF) of commonly consumed food vehicles is widely implemented in low- and middle-income countries. Many programs have monitoring information gaps and most countries fail to assess program coverage.Objective: The aim of this work was to present LSFF coverage survey findings (overall and in vulnerable populations) from 18 programs (7 wheat flour, 4 maize flour, and 7 edible oil programs) conducted in 8 countries between 2013 and 2015.Methods: A Fortification Assessment Coverage Toolkit (FACT) was developed to standardize the assessments. Three indicators were used to assess the relations between coverage and vulnerability: 1) poverty, 2) poor dietary diversity, and 3) rural residence. Three measures of coverage were assessed: 1) consumption of the vehicle, 2) consumption of a fortifiable vehicle, and 3) consumption of a fortified vehicle. Individual program performance was assessed based on the following: 1) achieving overall coverage ≥50%, 2) achieving coverage of ≥75% in ≥1 vulnerable group, and 3) achieving equity in coverage for ≥1 vulnerable group.Results: Coverage varied widely by food vehicle and country. Only 2 of the 18 LSFF programs assessed met all 3 program performance criteria. The 2 main program bottlenecks were a poor choice of vehicle and failure to fortify a fortifiable vehicle (i.e., absence of fortification).Conclusions: The results highlight the importance of sound program design and routine monitoring and evaluation. There is strong evidence of the impact and cost-effectiveness of LSFF; however, impact can only be achieved when the necessary activities and processes during program design and implementation are followed. The FACT approach fills an important gap in the availability of standardized tools. The LSFF programs assessed here need to be re-evaluated to determine whether to further invest in the programs, whether other vehicles are appropriate, and whether other approaches are needed.

The finding that higher quality diets were more costly for these low-income women has implications for the food assistance and education programs of the US Department of Agriculture. Policy interventions may be required to allow low-income families in the United States to improve the quality of their diets given their food budget constraints.

No abstract

Background: Household coverage with iodized salt was assessed in 10 countries that implemented Universal Salt Iodization (USI).Objective: The objective of this paper was to summarize household coverage data for iodized salt, including the relation between coverage and residence type and socioeconomic status (SES).Methods: A review was conducted of results from cross-sectional multistage household cluster surveys with the use of stratified probability proportional to size design in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Niger, the Philippines, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda. Salt iodine content was assessed with quantitative methods in all cases. The primary indicator of coverage was percentage of households that used adequately iodized salt, with an additional indicator for salt with some added iodine. Indicators of risk were SES and residence type. We used 95% CIs to determine significant differences in coverage.Results: National household coverage of adequately iodized salt varied from 6.2% in Niger to 97.0% in Uganda. For salt with some added iodine, coverage varied from 52.4% in the Philippines to 99.5% in Uganda. Coverage with adequately iodized salt was significantly higher in urban than in rural households in Bangladesh (68.9% compared with 44.3%, respectively), India (86.4% compared with 69.8%, respectively), Indonesia (59.3% compared with 51.4%, respectively), the Philippines (31.5% compared with 20.2%, respectively), Senegal (53.3% compared with 19.0%, respectively), and Tanzania (89.2% compared with 57.6%, respectively). In 7 of 8 countries with data, household coverage of adequately iodized salt was significantly higher in high- than in low-SES households in Bangladesh (58.8% compared with 39.7%, respectively), Ghana (36.2% compared with 21.5%, respectively), India (80.6% compared with 70.5%, respectively), Indonesia (59.9% compared with 45.6%, respectively), the Philippines (39.4% compared with 17.3%, respectively), Senegal (50.7% compared with 27.6%, respectively) and Tanzania (80.9% compared with 51.3%, respectively).Conclusions: Uganda has achieved USI. In other countries, access to iodized salt is inequitable. Quality control and regulatory enforcement of salt iodization remain challenging. Notable progress toward USI has been made in Ethiopia and India. Assessing progress toward USI only through household salt does not account for potentially iodized salt consumed through processed foods.