The First Global Conference on Biofortification drew attention to the substantial progress made in (i) breeding high-yielding, high-nutrient crops and (ii) establishing the bioavailability and efficacy of vitamins and minerals in high-nutrient lines.
However, key issues remain in establishing biofortification as a sustainable strategy to reduce malnutrition. In the following framework, eight broad categories for investment are proposed. Are these broad categories correct? What is the priority for investments across these categories over the next 3-5 years? What are priorities for investments in sub-activities within each of these categories?
This draft framework and key issues that emerged from the conference are being circulated for your comment. Please use the 'Leave a Reply' box below to share your thoughts by December 15. Note that comments left here will be visible to all and we hope to get a good discussion going. Based on comments received a paper will be prepared by HarvestPlus outlining the way forward over the next three to five years. We may also commission additional papers to review the available evidence and discuss specific issues within each category.
We value your input and look forward to productive interdisciplinary collaboration in our efforts to promote biofortification as sustainable cost-effective strategy to improve nutrition and public health.
Note: deadline extended..please continue to share comments on framework until further notice.
If you have any difficulty in downloading this document please try a different browser or a different computer. We have tested it and it does work. If you're still having difficulty then please send an email to biofortconf 'at' cgiar.org
The conference was great, an eye-opener, showing us the great interest there is in
good and healthy nutrition for all. Is there a priority for me? Not really.All these areas are important as the different crops are at different stages. From where I operate, it would be most unfortunate to leave out downstream and ownership issues to concentrate only on upstream research. Time and resources need to be skillfully apportioned to every pillar, and media and communications experts should also be involved; this needs to be applied as a marketing strategy. Far too often, scientists spend their brain power, money and time on developing technologies they believe to be beneficial to humanity, only for such technologies and innovations to be rejected or shunned in the end. Surely this can be avoided. Together, we can move forward and together we can find answers. Cheers
Understandably, most of the biofortification efforts (and hence funding) are directed to breeding. This is generally a protracted process and in some cases may not achieve the objectives of target levels of reasonably bioavailable micronutrients which are stable across various environments. When it does succeed, the strategy is valuable as the genetics are available in perpetuity. Thus it is important to continue these breeding efforts, but they must be focused on projects with a strong chance of success.
As noted in the draft Biofortification Framework for Action, convincing nutrition and public health decisionmakers to recognise biofortification is a valid strategy in improving nutrition is essential in moving biofortification forward. The consensus of the conference seemed to be that IMPACT needs to be demonstrated...sooner rather than later. However, this will not happen overnight, and needs to be achieved in stages: very simply, first proof of efficacy must be demonstrated...in trials that are applicable/generalisable to "the real world"; and second, promotion, marketing and uptake on a scale large enough to improve the nutrition (and hence health) to a measurable degree in a sizeable population sub-group deficient in the target micronutrient(s).
With this in mind, my suggestion for the next 5 years is twofold:
A. Focus on several key examples of biofortified crops which appear to be already well advanced. These include:
1) The high b-carotene orange maize, focused initially on Zambia. Ensure drought-resistant, high-yielding lines are bred; trialled in several agro-ecological zones and then a solid marketing campaign, working with existing seed suppliers.
2) OFSP. We are off to a "head start" with this crop as there was already plenty of high b-carotene germplasm around the world...but until recently a lack of knowledge of its health benefits. Jan Low and colleagues have done a sterling job promoting OFSP in Uganda, Mozambique and elsewhere. The momentum of this program needs to continue so it can be extended into more countries/regions.
3) The high-Fe (and possibly Zn?) bean currently under trial in East Africa. If these have 100ppm Fe (compared with the usual 50) when grown on important soil types in Africa, and the bioavailability is reasonable, this is exciting and valuable and must be worth promoting.
4) High Fe and Zn cowpea and pigeon pea cultivars. Several groups are working on these and appear to be well advanced. I think these crops per se need to be promoted more, especially in Africa, in an effort (which includes increased poultry and goat production) to increase protein intake...and if they have more Fe and Zn than usual cultivars this is a bonus.
5) High b-carotene cassava, for areas that may not be suitable for OFSPs (cassava b-carotene is a lot lower than that in most OFSPs) or where consumers much prefer cassava to SP. This is do-able as plenty of genotypic variation exists. While mentioning cassava, I would like to see someone who knows what they are doing (I don't for this sort of study) investigate the bioavailability of Zn in cassava leaves, as they are the best Zn accumulator that I have found, as well as being high in protein and various carotenoids. For example, growing on the same soil, cassava leaves typically contain 80-110ppm Zn, compared to 45 in SP leaves and 10 in banana leaves. It seems to me that it is a lot easier to get Zn from eating some cassava leaves (provided they are "sweet" and the Zn bioavailability is reasonable) than trying to breed it into storage roots.
6) I hesitate to include this one as it involves an element of "barrow pushing" and the element is not targeted by HarvestPlus, but I will include it anyway. If we are looking for impact I can think of no better trial to conduct than a feeding trial with people with HIV/AIDS in a Se-deficient part of Africa, eg Malawi, Zambia. The intervention would be Se, niacin plus a high-quality protein supplement...as an adjuvant with antiretrovirals (or without). In fact I think it is better not to administer antiretrovirals in the absence of suitable nutritional backup where malnutrition is widespread. Only 6 months would be needed to demonstrate efficacy...just needs funding!
B. With a view to the long term: I suggest support for some promising GM/transgenic activities, such as:
1) improvement of protein (and carotenoids, Zn, Fe) in cassava storage roots
2) high b-carotene peanuts (widely consumed in India and Africa, and have plenty of oil to increase b-carotene bioavailability)
3) golden rice.
It is difficult to biofortify cereals with Fe and Zn (except in the case of agronomic biofortification with foliar Zn, as shown by Prof Cakmak): there are barriers to grain loading, a significant proportion of these (and other) micronutrients are lost during milling, and bioavailability is low. And in any case, the process is still dependent on some level of plant-vailable Zn and Fe in the soil.
This is my "two bob's worth" on biofortification over the next 5 years.
I didn't attend the Conference, but regardless, I want to make a comment as a scientist with responsibilities related to biodiversity and nutrition.
There is a model, promoted by the International Rice Commission, that could provide a simple guide for some biofortification activities. The 20th and 21st sessions of the International Rice Commission recommended that the existing biodiversity of rice be examined for nutrient content before undertaking biofortification through transgenic modification. They also recommended dietary diversification (e.g., with other aquatic animals in a rice-based aquatic ecosystem) and promotion of nutritionally superior forms of rice (e.g., whole grain) to improve micronutrient intakes. Here is an excerpt from this document
:
III.9.8 The evaluation of the composition and consumption of rice cultivars should
continue for the development of food biodiversity indicators to guide agrobiodiversity
conservation and human nutrition. Increasing the availability and
promoting the use of whole grain and moderately milled rice and rice products
will provide human nutrition benefits, particularly related to micronutrients.
Regretably, I could only stay for the first day of the conference. The cornerstone to all efforts is obviosly success in breeding staple crops with highest achievable levels of targeted micronutrients; even if not achieving ideallevels, increases can still make a useful contribution to intake of these nutrients. With respect to human nutrion, it is important for finders of HarvestPlus to fully appreciate how much work needs to be done that should have already been accomplished with separate resources. Reliable dietary surveys of populations at a national and regional level and at different seasons is one outstanding example. One specific practical comment: Though the global public health saignificance of zinc and its ubiquitous biological importance are now well recognized, there are no good biomarkers of status or specific health outcomes that can ensure against false negative outcomes of expensive efficacy studies. Quantitative data on the impact of zinc biofortification on zinc absorption----in relation to requirements---are both more useful and reliable.
There is so much that needs to be done simultaneously that perhaps the priority is to get a package with the right mix of things. This package must lead to demonstration of the value to the end user as soon as possible in more cases than at present.
My comments want to focus on what I think is a real problem in getting many on board with the practicalities of biofortification. To make the arguments against those who favor making and distributing supplements etc it is neccessary to get the improved nutrional status into "all" the varieties that are eaten. This will not happen until all the breeders have to include improved nutrition as a standard trait and the crops are grown under conditions where the trait is realised. There need to be routine checks that the crops are indeed biofortifed. For traits which cannot be seen execpt by chemical analysis the situation is difficult. I think therefore that much work needs to be put in place to build systems that overcome these difficulties. The big difference between fortification and biofortification is of course that supplementing nutrients can be done with certainty and be quantified and is not dependent on environments and sources of food. Biofortification is much more intangible, dependent on growing environments, and does not allow for changes in preferences for varieties or imports etc unless all are similarly biofortified. These sorts of factors create the big unease and rightly so until the problems are fixed.
I think we now have enough data to make the arguments about getting the levels of micronutrients as standard in breeding programs and some chemical checks in place but it will not be an easy sell and wil need to be supported financially.
My interest is to invest more on midstream and downstream research for 3-5 years, which will really benefit millions of malnourished resource poor people in the developing world. For example in wheat, many untapped genetic resources with high micronutrients not fully exploited, as it involves pre-breeding and takes time to bring them to adapted genetic background. We also need to understand genetic mechanism behind the enhanced mineral concentration in these lines and synthesize more coherent knowledge on influence of these mineral nutrients with other agronomic traits and quality traits. For example, in Wheat some of the T. taushii based synthetic wheat derived lines having soft to medium hard grain type, which is not preferred in South Asia region where hard grain type is needed. Also transgenic wheat for enhanced iron is underway, which can be introgressed into the adapted improved wheat germplasm, to make it work lot of efforts needed in policy level rather in research. Also we need to develop efficient mechanism to deliver biofortified crops, instead of following regular variety release procedures alternate channels to be identified, which should be much faster in delivery. We should not forget that enhanced micronutrients also should combine with other farmer preferred traits like high yield, disease resistance, end-use quality etc., In my understanding some of the major staples like wheat, several biotic and abiotic constraints are keep emerging like Ug99 and heat-stress in Indo-gangetic plains, so we need to foresee these challenges and develop products accordingly, will have more impact for long run.
Thank you for considering my comments.
I suggest more emphasis on two areas -
1. More intensified research on bioavailability, especially for Fe and Zn - developing high throughput and low cost phenotyping assays is the key; Genetic variability (induced or spontaneous) is generally less for enhancers of nutrient absorption and hence 'reducing anti-nutrient' approach should also be considered.
2. Emphasis on protein quality is not to be over-looked. Recent WHO report rightly highlighted the significance of protein quality and its implications to balanced health. The biggest advantage with protein quality is that a number of large-effect genes are already identified and are amenable for easy manipulation in the breeding programs. For instance, a wide array of "Quality Protein Maize" germplasm has been developed at CIMMYT, which also happens to be rich in Zn content. opaque-2 has been demonstarted to have positive influence on number of micronutrient concentrations, which is underexplored in Harvest Plus. Besides, 'opaque-2 mediated' Zn concentration may also prove to be relatively free from environmental influences as against quantitative, polygenes-mediated Zn concentration. QPM germplasm that is on par with normal maize interms of grian yield and other agronomic traits should be considered for stacking additional nutritional traits such as provitaminA, Fe and Zn. This will ensure that we have consolidated the nutritional gains made so far in maize and move further.
Just a few brief comments!
It was clear from what was presented at the conference that we have made huge advances in breeding for nutrient-dense crops. One has to remember that biofortification is a relatively new initiative. Donors want impact within a very short time-frame and if there are good indications that targets will be met, they need to be more flexible in their time-lines for having impact.
In the next 5 years you will see more varieties released and there is need for good monitoring of the biofortified crops in farmers fields. How will the biofortified crops stand up over time? This needs to be known as it will impact on future strategies.
As I move around in developing countries and see the huge variation in the financial status of farms, I see that some may be able to afford some fertiliser but in other cases, this is simply not possible. We need the macro and micro elements to be optimal to maintain good plant growth, yield and to make sure our biofortified crops reach their potential in supplying extra Zn and Fe. There is a good case for going into your target region where you will be releasing the biofortified crops and to better understand the constraints (biotic and abiotic) to optimal crop production. From there, one can better advise farmers. In the more poorer communities, this may simply mean that we show farmers how to improve their fertiliser inputs from animal manures and composting to improve soil health/fertility etc. So, my feeling is that in the next 5 years one needs to have a technical team in place with good experience in plant nutrition and farm systems research to assist the local farmers.
At the start of biofortification there was up-stream research that fed results into the plant breeders. This was very successful and there are good examples of this research providing valuable information to help drive the development of nutrient-dense crops. A lot of this up-stream research has been cut in recent years and this needs to be addressed so plant breeders are further assisted.
First of all, I wish to congratulate everyone involved with the Bio-fortification project. I sincerely thank the HQ staff for preparing this outstanding frame work for future work plan based on the outcomes from the first bio-fortification conference. I fully agree and endorse the suggested framework. However, I notice omission of an obvious activity – exploiting the complementarity of biofortified legumes with biofortified cereals and root crops in feeding trials. Even a small amount of legumes in the daily diet combined with cereals and root crops would complement in providing all the necessary nutrients, vitamins and minerals. Therefore, in addition to the ongoing efforts on the biofortification of cereals, legumes and root crops, the project should also include an activity in the frame work to promote increased production and consumption of food legumes where ever opportunities exist.
First of all, I wish to congratulate everyone involved with the Bio-fortification project. I sincerely thank the HQ staff for preparing this outstanding frame work for future work plan based on the outcomes from the first bio-fortification conference. I fully agree and endorse the suggested framework. However, I notice omission of an obvious activity – exploiting the complementarity of biofortified legumes with biofortified cereals and root crops in feeding trials. Even a small amount of legumes in the daily diet combined with cereals and root crops would complement in providing all the necessary nutrients, vitamins and minerals. Therefore, in addition to the ongoing efforts on the biofortification of cereals, legumes and root crops, the project should also include an activity in the frame work to promote increased production and consumption of food legumes where ever opportunities exist.
It was a prevelege for me to attend the First Gobal Conference on Biofortification in Washington last month. Although I couldonly attend partly of the conference, I have learned much from the keynotes, presentation and discussion. My interest in biofortification started in 2004 when Dr.Howard Bouise was invited to be one of he keynote speakers in the VIIth National Workshop of Nutrition in Jakarta, Indonesia on 17-19 May 2004, and I was the co cahirman of the workshop. Howdy presented a novel concept of biofortification and controversial issues of GMO. Axcept from the scientific aspect, GMO particpants were not so much interested in the development of GMO. They were more interested in the development of Biofortification which was according to them, more natural and low or even free health hazard risk. Since Indonesian, as other Asian, are rice eaters, and iron deficiency is one of most prevalence among the poor childen and regnant women, rice biofortification gave a high expectation to prevent and combating iron deficiency anemia in a natural way (food based).I myself expecting the outcome of the rice biofortification in increasing iron content and bioavailability of rice. I at first day somewhat disapponted that most presentation and papers and panels were on Orange Sweet Potatoes, Maize and Millet. My dissappoinment was enlightened knowing that, as a participant told me in a conversation, rice biofortion succesful for Zink in India and Banglades, and he suggested me to search in the web. When I asked about the Iron, several people I met told me still have some problems, and IRRI still workng on it. In other words, I told my colleagues, that we could not, in a short time, to expect rice biofortification, could be adopted as an alternative to traditional rice fortification with iron folate premix in dealing with iron dificiency. With sucess in Zink, we have hope that Iron Biofortification wih Rice would come.
I tried to learn more about the success in orange sweet potatoes and maize in Africa. . In the Eatern part of Indonesia, people stiil consume maize , and in Papua sweet otatoes. Common varieties in Indonesia are yellow and white maize and sweet potatoes. Nutritionists in nutrition education told them to consume more yellow maize and or sweet potatoes, because it has higher caroten content. Unfortunately we do not have statistic to know the proportion of the white and the yellow ones. With experinece in Africa, I think we should dissimenate this to Indonesian nutritionists and policy makers, espaecially in agriculture. It would be ideal the future generation of people especially in the Eastern part Indonesia, only grow and eat yellow or orange corn and sweet potatoes taht rich in pro vitamin A. Indonesia children still need protection from vitamin A deficiency, despite severe vitamin A deficiency in the form of Xeroptalmia and blidness is not a public health problem anymore in Indonesia.
Last comment, biofortification forum such in this congress witness the strong lankage between agriculture and nutrition . As a public nutritionist I was happy meeting so many nutrition friends and communicating with so many food and agriculturists from various countries. To me biofortification ferum is not only multidisciplines, but also a real forum where food security and nutrition nexus is a reality. Therefore we should recommend in the UN system to change Food Security which is more commodity oriented, to Food and Nutrition Security which is more human face.
Thank you Howdy for inviting me in this Great and Successful Conference
Soekirman
Prof.(Em) in Nutririon, Bogor Agricultural University (IPB), Bogor, Indonesia
Chairman, the Indonesian Foundation of Food Fortification forImproving Nutrition (KFI)
Downstream delivery is very important area for investment. Considering the importance of subject and pivotal role played by private sector in the delivery, its very essential to use the private secotr chaneels for delivery than the NGO channels. NGO may be given the responsibility of promotions, limiting to open polinated varities and not the hybrids.. Crop such as pearl millet should be given very high priority because its very important staple food of poors in Africa and Asia too. However, Pearl Millet is not included in present government food subsidy schemes for which Harvest Plus should do special efforts.
In addition to above aspects very focussed work for branding of Biofortified food will have to be done by Harvest plus programme and accordingly donars intrest in suporting Branding activity shall be created.!!!!!!!
Biofortifficfation is a noble objective and the proposed framework for action points in the right direction. HarvestPlus must strive for a balance between research that can become "indeterminate" in providing the evidence needed, and implementing solutions based on common sense.
One area that was hardly mentioned is the postharvest system in developing countries. Hartmann of IITA presented a paper in 2008 in which he described postharvest as Africa's Achilles heel and noted that postharvest losses range from 18-40%. The potential impact of biofortification will be greatly diminshed if investments are not made to improve the postharvest systems of target crops.
This note focuses on three big issues that arise from comparing the conference discussions with the Framework for Action: economic incentives, measuring nutritional impact and measuring final health outcomes.
Economic Incentives: presentations at the conference were full of evidence that biofortification can/does bring economic benefits to those involved. To cite just one example, both the boxes in the orange-fleshed sweet potato report describe people on the frontline who made money from biofortification.
But these benefits are not converted systematically into a set of economic incentives for people to plant, distribute, or consume biofortified crops.
On p5, the Framework asks the right question: “how to earn money with biofortification”. This is the challenge for HarvestPlus economists – develop a set of economic incentives and incorporate them into HP’s future action programmes.
This is not an optional extra, but crucial to answering the really big question you pose, also on p5: ‘how to expand from successful pilots that reach hundreds of thousands of households to large scale interventions that reach hundreds of millions of households?”
IF you build in incentives and IF the bioforitified crops deliver what they promise, THEN informal networks will accelerate distribution. The OFSP assessment has already documented farmer-to-farmer seed spreading.
This, and other informal types of entrepreneurship, have been the basic mechanisms for the adoption of Bt cotton in both India and China and for the spread of GM soybeans in Brazil. They can work for HP too.
Nutritional Measures: a major dilemma for HP became obvious at the conference that is not adequately resolved in the Framework: you need to prove nutritional benefits. but will not have the resources to do so by traditional means.
You had a special $4-million grant to assess OFSP. The work was exemplary. But it concluded by recognising the HP needs lower cost forms of evaluation. This point appeared many times throughout the conference, most vividly in Pam Adnerson’s injunction that what HP needs is “Impact Assessment Lite!”
First of all, HP needs to act on this recognition itself. While you do aspire to “low cost, sensitive indicators of micronutrient status”, the Framework also still hankers after randomised controlled trials --- as in acquiring evidence “under controlled conditions” (p2) or “rigorous methodologies for measuring effectiveness” (p6) or “more robust study design” (p7). Nice work if you can get it. But you will not receive $4-million grants for every project.
Second, your nutritional friends need to recognise it too. HP was not well served by many nutritionists at the conference. Time and again, they proclaimed support for HP in principle, but would not back it publicly until they had “hard evidence” of efficacy. Most played hard to get. One even tried blackmail: “I will withhold my support unless you….”. There are two weaknesses in this posturing.
First it is too abstract. No nutritionist (in my hearing) specified what evidence they would actually accept. They did not operationalise their demand. Would they only accept evidence from RCTs? If not, what evidence would be acceptable instead?
Second, they did not recognise the financial constraints under which HP must operate. Being realistic, HP will never be able to do RCTs on the nutritional impact of any remaining projects. So, what can be achieved with less money?
It would, in my view, be a vain pursuit for HP to try to placate nutritionists with this absolutist, unworldly cast of mind. So, an alternative proposal:
Convene a committee of nutritionist supporters and set them the task of specifying what evidence they would accept as proof of biofortified crops’ efficacy. And set them a realistic budget under which this evidence must be acquired. Then do not let them evade or fudge the question: lock them in a room and do not let them out until they come up with a solution they would put their names to.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I posed the question, so you may reasonably ask of me, how would I answer it?
Final Health Outcomes: one of the desiderata in the Framework is “Ownership by Nutrition/Public Health Decisionmakers”. Box 6B is the shortest, least detailed of all your objectives, but it captures what you need in one pithy phrase: “cost-effectiveness for meeting public health objectives” (p7).
To engage public health specialists, you will have to meet criteria that they value, not what HP economists, agronomists, nutritionists or others would like. And what public health decisionmakers value above all is (1) declines in disease rates and (2) declines in the cost of treating diseases.
Their acceptance is critical to the public support for and subsequent spread of HarvestPlus’ work. Politicians, even Ministers of Health, will never understand the complexities of plant breeding or nutritional requirements. They will ask HP some simple but pertinent questions: will biofortification make people healthier? will it save the government money? If you really want to give public health specialists ownership of the programme, then HP had better have answers ready.
At one stage (p6), you recognise this point; “Preferable but harder to show the health benefits of consuming biofortified crops”. But the idea is never mentioned anywhere else in the Framework.
In fact, it is not harder, but easier, to show health benefits. Relevant evidence is available and relatively inexpensive too.
We already have epidemiological evidence on the extent of micronutrient deficiencies and at least some of their health consequences. Governments, health services, international aid agencies and NGOs already gather data on the extent of deficiencies and relevant health outcomes. It is incomplete data, imperfect data, a kind of “rough-and-ready” epidemiology. But it is widely accepted, used and repeated --- as in generalisations like "two billion people suffer from iron deficiency".
Others use this data; so can HarvestPlus. Others already gather this data, so adapting it for HP’s purposes it would be a relatively low cost option. And it meets the criterion that matters most to public health specialists --- it measures final health outcomes.
It also follows advice that Meera Shekar gave HP in one of the plenaries: don’t develop new outcome measures; apply existing ones, then amplify the results.
Within the spectrum of possibilities I would nominate one final health outcome that HP should measure on all its projects --- child mortality rates.
All the micronutrients on which HP focuses --- vitamin A, iron and zinc --- affect child mortality by diverse mechanisms. For vitamin A, it is the best single outcome measure for deficiency. All societies in which HP operates attempt to measure child mortality. You could adapt the information for the areas in which your crops have extensive distribution.
And, of course, you have some accounting of what HP projects cost in specific areas. So you could develop cost-effectiveness measures relatively easily. Your preliminary work suggests they would be impressive.
This is the proposal of a non-specialist. To incorporate it into your work, you would need specialist epidemiological advice. That would give some measure of how much of any decline in child mortality rates could reasonably attributed to the improved diet provided by biofortified crops.
The best connection HP could make to obtain this assistance would be to establish a partnership with the Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group (CHERG), jointly run by WHO and UNICEF.
These have been three concrete suggestions for your Framework for Action. Whether you accept them or not, good luck in what lies ahead.
HarvesrPlus biofortification program looks very good for global perspective. However for South Asian region particularly, India ,Bangladesh etc., either need staple food crops with biofortification of micronutrients or reduction of antinutrients by Genetic Engineering and Marker Assisted Selection(MAS).Improved biofortification should be incorporated in the commercial popular food crops.
It is mind bugging the proportion of the world's population that suffer hidden hunger. This hidden hunger or micronutrients malnutrition is largely a phenominon of the developing and poor nations, yet these same people are slow or reluctant to accept GM foods, and/or slow in putting biosafety laws in place to legalise the production/importation of GM foods.
A lot of effort is still needed to disabuse the minds of the anti GMO governments/individuals to to reap the full benefits of the technology which is the answer to the world's micronutrient malnutrition to the poor nations.
Pingback: Help plan the future of biofortification « Genetic Maize
Pingback: Alexander1
Pingback: Alexander7