Next Article in Journal
A Prospective Study on Changes in Nutritional Status and Growth Following Two Years of Ketogenic Diet (KD) Therapy in Children with Refractory Epilepsy
Previous Article in Journal
Dietary Intake of Selenium in Relation to Pubertal Development in Mexican Children
Previous Article in Special Issue
Iodine Biofortification of Four Brassica Genotypes is Effective Already at Low Rates of Potassium Iodate
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessReview

Which Choice of Delivery Model(s) Works Best to Deliver Fortified Foods?

Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich. Medway Campus, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, Kent ME4 4TB, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2019, 11(7), 1594; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11071594
Received: 1 June 2019 / Revised: 9 July 2019 / Accepted: 10 July 2019 / Published: 14 July 2019
  |  
PDF [1735 KB, uploaded 14 July 2019]
  |  

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. View Full-Text
Keywords: fortification; biofortification; complementary food; business model; cost effectiveness; micronutrient deficiency fortification; biofortification; complementary food; business model; cost effectiveness; micronutrient deficiency
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).

Supplementary material

SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Lalani, B.; Bechoff, A.; Bennett, B. Which Choice of Delivery Model(s) Works Best to Deliver Fortified Foods? Nutrients 2019, 11, 1594.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Nutrients EISSN 2072-6643 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top