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.

Large-scale food fortification (LSFF) is a cost-effective intervention that is widely implemented, but there is scope to further increase its potential. To identify gaps and opportunities, we first accessed the Global Fortification Data Exchange (GFDx) to identify countries that could benefit from new fortification programs. Second, we aggregated Fortification Assessment Coverage Toolkit (FACT) survey data from 16 countries to ascertain LSFF coverage and gaps therein. Third, we extended our narrative review to assess current innovations. We identified 84 countries as good candidates for new LSFF programs. FACT data revealed that the potential of oil/ghee and salt fortification is not being met due mainly to low coverage of adequately fortified foods (quality). Wheat, rice and maize flour fortification have similar quality issues combined with lower coverage of the fortifiable food at population-level (<50%). A four-pronged strategy is needed to meet the unfinished agenda: first, establish new LSFF programs where warranted; second, systems innovations informed by implementation research to address coverage and quality gaps; third, advocacy to form new partnerships and resources, particularly with the private sector; and finally, exploration of new fortificants and vehicles (e.g. bouillon cubes; salt fortified with multiple nutrients) and other innovations that can address existing challenges.

Food fortification is a widely used approach to increase micronutrient intake in the diet. High coverage is essential for achieving impact. Data on coverage is limited in many countries, and tools to assess coverage of fortification programs have not been standardized. In 2013, the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition developed the Fortification Assessment Coverage Toolkit (FACT) to carry out coverage assessments in both population-based (i.e., staple foods and/or condiments) and targeted (e.g., infant and young child) fortification programs. The toolkit was designed to generate evidence on program coverage and the use of fortified foods to provide timely and programmatically relevant information for decision making. This supplement presents results from FACT surveys that assessed the coverage of population-based and targeted food fortification programs across 14 countries. It then discusses the policy and program implications of the findings for the potential for impact and program improvement.

Background Food fortification is implemented to increase intakes of specific nutrients in the diet, but contributions of fortified foods to nutrient intakes are rarely quantified. Objectives We quantified iron, vitamin A, and iodine intakes from fortified staple foods and condiments among women of reproductive age (WRA). Methods In subnational (Nigeria, South Africa) and national (Tanzania, Uganda) cross-sectional, clustered household surveys, we assessed fortifiable food consumption. We estimated daily nutrient intakes from fortified foods among WRA by multiplying the daily apparent fortifiable food consumption (by adult male equivalent method) by a fortification content for the food. Two fortification contents were used: measured, based on the median amount quantified from individual food samples collected from households; and potential, based on the targeted amount in national fortification standards. Results for both approaches are reported as percentages of the estimated average requirement (EAR) and recommended nutrient intake (RNI). Results Fortified foods made modest contributions to measured iron intakes (0%–13% RNI); potential intakes if standards are met were generally higher (0%–65% RNI). Fortified foods contributed substantially to measured vitamin A and iodine intakes (20%–125% and 88%–253% EAR, respectively); potential intakes were higher (53%–655% and 115%–377% EAR, respectively) and would exceed the tolerable upper intake level among 18%–56% of WRA for vitamin A in Nigeria and 1%–8% of WRA for iodine in Nigeria, Tanzania, and Uganda. Conclusions Fortified foods are major contributors to apparent intakes of vitamin A and iodine, but not iron, among WRA. Contributions to vitamin A and iodine are observed despite fortification standards not consistently being met and, if constraints to meeting standards are addressed, there is risk of excessive intakes in some countries. For all programs assessed, nutrient intakes from all dietary sources and fortification standards should be reviewed to inform adjustments where needed to avoid risk of low or excessive intakes.

The Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) is a Swiss-based foundation launched at the United Nations in 2002 to tackle the human suffering caused by malnutrition. Working with governments, businesses and civil society, we aim to transform food systems so that they deliver more nutritious food for all people, especially the most vulnerable.

Biofortification is the process of increasing the concentrations and/or bioavailability of micronutrients in staple crops and has the potential to mitigate micronutrient deficiencies globally. Efficacy trials have demonstrated benefits of consuming biofortified crops (BFCs); and in this paper, we report on the results of a systematic review of biofortified crops effectiveness in real-world settings. We synthesized the evidence on biofortified crops consumption through four Impact Pathways: (1) purchased directly; (2) in informal settings; (3) in formal settings; or (4) in farmer households, from their own production. Twenty-five studies, covering Impact Pathway 1 (five studies), Impact Pathway 2 (three), Impact Pathway 3 (three), Impact Pathway 4 (21) were included. The review found evidence of an improvement in micronutrient status via Impact Pathway 4 (mainly in terms of vitamin A from orange sweet potato) in controlled interventions that involved the creation of demand, the extension of agriculture and promotion of marketing. In summary, evidence supports that biofortified crops can be part of food systems interventions to reduce micronutrient deficiencies in farmer households; ongoing and future research will help fully inform their potential along the other three Impact Pathways for scaling up.

The lack of nationally representative, individual-level dietary intake data has led researchers to increasingly turn to household-level data on food acquisitions and/or consumption to inform the design of food fortification programs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). These nationally-representative, household-level data come from Household Consumption and Expenditure Surveys (HCESs), which are collected regularly in many LMICs and are often made publicly available. Our objectives were to examine the utility of HCES data to inform the design of food fortification programs and to identify best-practice methods for analyzing HCES data for this purpose. To this end, we summarized information needed to design fortification programs and assessed the extent to which HCES data can provide corresponding indicators. We concluded that HCES data are well-suited to guide the selection of appropriate food vehicles, but because individual-level estimates of apparent nutrient intakes rely on assumptions about the intrahousehold distribution of food, more caution is advised when using HCES data to select the target micronutrient content of fortified foods. We also developed a checklist to guide analysts through the use of HCES data, and, where possible, identified research-based, best-practice analytical methods for analyzing HCES data, including selecting the number of days of recall data to include in the analysis and converting reported units to standard units. More research is needed on how best to deal with composite foods, foods consumed away from home, and extreme values, as well as the best methods for assessing the adequacy of apparent intakes. Ultimately, we recommend sensitivity analyses around key model parameters, and the continual triangulation of HCES-based results with other national and subnational data on food availability, dietary intake, and nutritional status when designing food fortification programs.

Background Biofortification of staple crops has the potential to increase nutrient intakes and improve health outcomes. Despite program data on the number of farming households reached with and growing biofortified crops, information on the coverage of biofortified foods in the general population is often lacking. Such information is needed to ascertain potential for impact and identify bottlenecks to parts of the impact pathway. Objective To develop and test methods and indicators for assessing household coverage of biofortified foods. Methods To assess biofortification programs, 5 indicators of population-wide household coverage were developed, building on approaches previously used to assess large-scale food fortification programs. These were: 1) consumption of the food; 2) awareness of the biofortified food; 3) availability of the biofortified food; 4) consumption of the biofortified food (ever); and 5) consumption of the biofortified food (current). To ensure that the indicators are applicable to different settings they were tested in a cross-sectional household-based cluster survey in rural and peri-urban areas in Musanze District, Rwanda where planting material for iron-biofortified beans (IB) and orange fleshed sweet potatoes (OFSP) were delivered. Results Among the 242 households surveyed, consumption of beans and sweet potatoes was 99.2% and 96.3%, respectively. Awareness of IB or OFSP was 65.7% and 48.8%, and availability was 23.6% and 10.7%, respectively. Overall, 15.3% and 10.7% of households reported ever consuming IB and OFSP, and 10.4% and 2.1% of households were currently consuming these foods, respectively. The major bottlenecks to coverage of biofortified foods were awareness and availability. Conclusions These methods and indicators fill a gap in the availability of tools to assess coverage of biofortified foods, and the results of the survey highlight their utility for identifying bottlenecks. Further testing is warranted to confirm the generalizability of the coverage indicators and inform their operationalization when deployed in different settings.