• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
AgroSalud Nutrition Research in Latin America and the Caribbean
 

AgroSalud Nutrition Research in Latin America and the Caribbean

on

  • 2,470 views

Presentation by Helena Pachón for the CIAT KSW 2009

Presentation by Helena Pachón for the CIAT KSW 2009

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,470
Views on SlideShare
2,464
Embed Views
6

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0

2 Embeds 6

http://www.slideshare.net 5
http://unjobs.org 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

AgroSalud Nutrition Research in Latin America and the Caribbean AgroSalud Nutrition Research in Latin America and the Caribbean Presentation Transcript

  • AgroSalud Nutrition Research In Latin America and the Caribbean Helena Pachón AgroSalud Project Knowledge-sharing Week CIAT 21 May 2009
  • Why Nutrition Matters (Black et al., 2008)  10M child deaths/y, 50% due to malnutrition  Reductions in health, school achievement, work capacity, human capital
  • Relevant MTPs  Beans with improved micronutrient concentration that have a positive impact on human health  Rice germplasm for improving human health and nutrition in Latin America and the Caribbean  Cassava, tropical fruits?
  • AgroSalud Project  Improve food and nutrition security  Develop, test, deploy, and promote biofortified staple crops† (nutritionally* and agronomically superior)  Geographically focused in Latin America and the Caribbean  Associated with HarvestPlus † crops: sweet potato, rice, maize, beans Photo: Marlene Rosero * nutrients: iron, zinc, beta-carotene, tryptophan, lysine
  • Biofortification & Eco-efficient Agriculture “Producing more with less or the same” Biofortified crops’ impact on consumers  Social: improve food and nutrition security  Economic: improved work capacity Images: www.gardenguides.com, www.hormel.com, www.cdc.gov, www.waynescomputerworld.com
  • Terminology 100 Nutrient Concentration 90 80 70 Nutrient 60 50 Goal 40 30 20 10 0 Conventional Nutritionally Biofortified Improved Have met nutrient goal Have a demonstrated nutrition impact 2009: most crop-nutrient •Maize with >tryptophan/lysine (QPM) combinations •Sweet potato with >β-carotene
  • ~36 Nutritionally Improved Crops to be Commercially Released in 2007-2010 Crops Country Rice Swtpotato Beans Maize Bolivia 2009 (1) - 2009 (1) - Brasil 2009 (1) 2009 (2) - - Colombia - 2009 (2) 2009 (1) 2008 (2) Costa Rica - - 2009 (1) - 2009 (1) Cuba - 2009 (1) - 2010 (1) El Salvador - - 2010 (1) 2008 (2) Guatemala - - 2009 (1) 2009 (2) Haití - - - 2008 (1) Courtesy: Róger Urbina, CIAT Honduras - - 2009 (1) 2008 (2) México - - - 2009 (1) Nicaragua 2010 (1) 2009 (1) 2009 (1) 2007 (2) Panamá - - - 2008 (2) Perú - 2009 (2) - - República Dominicana 2010 (1) 2009 (1) - - Total 6 8 8 14
  • Strategy for Evaluating Nutrition Impact Crop/Product People Nutrient Nutrient concentration bioavailability Nutrient Biofortified > Conventional retention Cost- effectiveness Simulation Site Efficacy selection Acceptability
  • Nutrient Concentration Do biofortified crops and food products have higher levels of priority nutrients* compared to their non- biofortified equivalents? (Goal: higher) *iron, zinc, beta-carotene, tryptophan, lysine
  • Nutrient Concentration Concentración de Hierro en Líneas de Fríjol 2005 50 40 30 . Iron in beans 20 10 Iron concentration 0 increased from 40 50 60 70 80 90 Concentración de Hierro (ppm) Concentración de Hierro en Líneas de Fríjol 2006 2005 to 2006 24 3 . 1 0 50 60 70 80 90 CIAT breeding lines Concentración de Hierro (ppm) Courtesy: Steve Beebe 50 60 70 80 90 mg/kg
  • Nutrient Bioavailability How well does the body absorb and utilize the nutrient? (Goal: same or higher) www.nwave.com
  • Nutrient Bioavailability: Appropriateness of in vitro method for iron bioavailability High correlation between in vivo and in vitro methods (Ingrid Aragón, Universidad del Valle, CIAT presentation 2009, KSW poster)
  • Nutrient Bioavailability: Protein In vitro Protein Digestibility 100 80 P=0.19 % Protein 60 Digestibility 40 20 0 Biofortified Conventional Maize Type (Pachón et al., Journal of Food Science, in press)
  • Nutrient Bioavailability Crop Nutrient Bioavailability Beans Iron, Zinc Biofortified=conventional (1 recipe) (Pachón et al., J Food Sci, in press) Maize Protein Biofortified<conventional (1 recipe) (Paola Imbachí, CIAT Biofortified=conventional (10 recipes) presentation 2009) Biofortified>conventional (3 recipes) Rice Iron, Zinc Underway (180 lines) (Dayron Gutiérrez, Ingrid Aragón) Other study carried out: Evaluating the in vitro iron, zinc, vitamin A and protein bioavailability of leaf extracts prepared from the foliage of different crops (Sayda Pico, CIAT presentation 2008)
  • Nutrient Retention After cooking, processing and storage, how much of the nutrient is retained? (Goal: same or more) Cooking / Processing / Storage Before After Images: www.gardenguides.com, www.texascooking.com
  • Nutrient Retention Tryptophan (g/100 g) in Maize: From Grain to Finished Product 14 recipes 0.100 P<0.05 In finished product, tryptophan: P<0.05 0.080 Biofortified>Conventional (n=10) 0.060 0.040 P=0.50 Biofortified=Conventional (n=4) 0.020 0.000 Maíz en grano Maíz trillado Mazamorra Tryptophan (g/100 g) in Maize: From Grain to Finished Product Conventional Biofortified 0.100 P<0.05 P<0.05 0.080 0.060 P<0.05 P<0.05 0.040 0.020 0.000 Maíz en Maíz Masa Envuelto (Paola Imbachí, Universidad del Cauca, CIAT grano trillado añejo presentation 2009)
  • Nutrient Retention B-carotene Retention (% ) in Intermediate Products Prepared with 5 Orange-fleshed Sweet Potato Varieties 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 440050 440016 440396 440286 440287 Producto cocido Harina cruda Harina precocida (Sonia Gallego, Alba Lucía Chávez, Moralba Domínguez, 2008)
  • Impact Simulation What is the potential nutritional impact of consumers substituting non-biofortified crops/food products with biofortified ones? (Goal: greater)
  • Impact Simulation Nutrient (μg/d) Contribution of Biofortified Crops: Colombia 39% RDA 4500 3500 Additional 32% RDA nutrient 2500 contribution 19% RDA compared with 1500 requirements (RDAs) 500 -500 Iron Zinc Vitamin A Rice (85 g) Sweetpotato (0 g) Beans (9 g) Maize (107 g) Cassava (94 g) *RDA Fe: 18,000 μg/d, Zn: 11,000 μg/d, Vitamin A: 900 μg/d (IOM, 2001) (Intake data: http://www.fao.org/faostat/foodsecurity/Files/FoodConsumptionFoodItems_en.xls)
  • Impact Simulation Country % RDA Iron* % RDA Zinc* % RDA Vitamin A* Bolivia 28.2 21.6 15.7 Brasil 45.4 38.3 14.8 Colombia 39.2 31.5 19.2 Costa Rica 15.9 17.1 1.7 Cuba 60.9 44.8 28.8 El Salvador 58.2 27.6 33.0 Guatemala 54.7 24.5 34.6 Haití 43.8 34.1 23.6 Honduras 50.0 23.5 30.6 México 77.1 34.0 48.7 Nicaragua 53.6 32.2 20.5 Panamá 18.3 16.2 8.3 Perú 27.0 26.5 12.7 República Dominicana 18.1 18.0 5.8 Mean (SD) 42.2 (18.5) 27.8 (8.4) 21.3 (12.9) *RDA Fe: 18,000 μg/d; Zn: 11,000 μg/d; Vitamin A: 900 μg/d (IOM, 2001) Intake data: http://www.fao.org/faostat/foodsecurity/Files/FoodConsumptionFoodItems_en.xls)
  • Consumer Acceptability What is the consumer’s “sensory evaluation” of the biofortified crop/food product? (Goal: same or better) Photo: Reyna Liria
  • Consumer Acceptability Training Workshops Nicaragua, 2007 31 people 11 countries Photo: Reyna Liria Panama, 2008
  • Consumer Acceptability Biofortified Beans Conventional Beans 80 Consumers in Holguín, Cuba ¿Do they discriminate between biofortified and conventional beans? ¿Do they prefer biofortified or conventional beans? (Orlando Chaveco, Unidad de Extensión, Investigación y Capacitación Agropecuaria de Holguín, Cuba)
  • Consumer Acceptability After tasting a recipe prepared with both bean types, consumers discriminated between biofortified and conventional beans 70 60 50 40 % 30 20 10 0 Detected a Did not detect a Biofortified Conventional difference difference Bean Bean (Orlando Chaveco, Unidad de Extensión, Investigación y Capacitación Agropecuaria de Holguín, Cuba)
  • Consumer Acceptability After tasting a recipe prepared with both bean types, consumers expressed no preference for biofortified or conventional beans No preference Biofortified Conventional P=0.13 (Orlando Chaveco, Unidad de Extensión, Investigación y Capacitación Agropecuaria de Holguín, Cuba)
  • Acceptability Country Crop Result Nicaragua (Karina Leticia Rice Conventional García Montecinos, José Alberto Godoy Godoy, Patricia Carrillo) preferred/accepted over aromatic (biofortified) Nicaragua (Aracelly Sweet With leaves equally preferred Serrano, Ena Vilchez, Michelle Sandino, Patricia Carrillo) potato than without leaves  Studies underway  Bolivia: Rice  Cuba: Rice  Nicaragua: Beans  Nicaragua: Maize
  • Efficacy Under ideal conditions (very controlled), what nutrition impact does the biofortified crop/food product have? (Goal: greater)
  • Efficacy Biofortified Maize Offered 5 d/wk for 3.5 mo Improved the Weight and Height of Nicaraguan Pre-schoolers who were Mild or Moderately Malnourished at Baseline Weight (kg) Height (cm) P<0.01 P<0.01 2.02 1.23 0.80 0.19 100 15 80 10 60 40 5 20 0 0 Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Biofortified Conventional (Ortega et al., Archivos Latinoamericanos de Nutrición, 2008)
  • Efficacy  Guatemala maize study with pre-school children  nutritional benefit unlikely, study cancelled  Support for HarvestPlus bean trial in Mexican school-age children  Sep 2009 start date?  Colombia school-age children, impact of maize (and beans?) on school performance, physical activity and nutritional status  June 2009
  • Cost-effectiveness In programs currently being implemented (real-life situation), what nutrition impact do biofortified crops and food products have? (Goal: greater) At what cost are these benefits realized? (Goal: same or less)
  • Ex-ante Cost-effectiveness Courtesy: Salomón Pérez, CIAT 600 Cost-effectiveness of Biofortification in 500 487 Nicaragua (Cost in USD per DALY averted)* 400 300 250 202.4 215 200 200 150 100 60.68 66.7 100 79 50 19.95 7.33 6.24 27 0 0 Rice Beans Maize Supplementation (WHO) Fortification (WHO) Iron Zinc Compared with WHO estimates of the cost-effectiveness of supplementation and fortification in Latin America, the biofortification of rice, beans and maize with (1) iron is more favorable, (2) zinc (rice, maize) is more favorable than supplementation and (3) zinc is less favorable than fortification. * DALY = Disability-adjusted Life Years; WHO CHOICE for AMR B www.who.int/choice/results/en/ for Zn; Baltussen et al., 2004 for AMR B for Fe; WHO estimates assume 50% coverage
  • Ex-ante Cost-effectiveness The economic impact of introducing pro-vitamin A biofortified cassava Health burden Internal Rate of Monetary gain Country Scenario reduction (%) Return (%) (million US$) Optimistic 1.40% 42.7 0.5 Colombia Pessimistic 0.10% -1.1 -0.2 Optimistic 7.20% 45.5 0.3 Honduras Pessimistic 0.40% 1.0 -0.2 Optimistic 0.20% 71.1 0.9 Mexico Pessimistic 0.00% 14.9 -0.1 Optimistic 40.00% 74.4 1.6 Nicaragua Pessimistic 5.60% 33.7 0.0 http://edge.rit.edu/content/P07403/public/cassava.jpg Monetary gains are corrected for the costs (Anne Jacobsen, University of Copenhagen, CIAT presentation 2008)
  • Cost-effectiveness Site Selection Candidate Sites for Iron- biofortified Crops in Colombia National (Fredy Monserrate, Andrea Liliana Vesga, Emmanuel Zapata, Glenn Hyman; Local Zapata et al., International Journal of Health Graphics, in press; KSW poster)
  • Enabling a Policy Environment for Biofortification Integration of Biofortification into National Nutrition Plans in Panama and Cuba -Analysis of Colombian Food & Nutrition Policies (Salomón Pérez, KSW poster) -Food & Nutrition Security Committee, Cali
  • Support from Central American Ministers of Agriculture
  • Opening of CIAT’s Nutrition Quality Laboratory (2009) Visit El Tiempo, 2 agosto 2008
  • Looking Forward  Identification, characterization & quantification of essential nutrients, and phytochemicals with potential health benefits (anti-oxidant activity (Hiroko Kunori, Tokyo U of Agriculture 2009))  In vitro bioavailability of nutrients and phytochemicals  Evaluating impact of CIAT activities on food and nutrition security (food security scales, KSW posters)  Training: lab and field, internships, professional exchanges
  • Students Mentored  Paola Imbachí, Universidad del Cauca (Colombia). 2008-2009.  *Ingrid Aragón, Universidad del Valle (Colombia). 2008-2009.  Hiroko Kunori, Tokyo University of Agriculture (Japan). 2008-2009.  Michelle Sandino, Aracelly Serrano, Ena Vílchez, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Nicaragua (Nicaragua). 2008.  Karina Leticia García Montecinos, José Alberto Godoy Godoy, Universidad Centroamericana (Nicaragua). 2008.  Sayda Pico. Universidad Industrial de Santander (Colombia). 2008-2009.  Anne Jacobsen, University of Copenhagen (Denmark). 2008.  Emmanuel Zapata, Universidad del Valle (Colombia). 2007-2009.  Yalina Disla, Yale University (USA). 2007-2008.  *Michael Dessalines, University of Connecticut (USA). 2008.  Fredy Monserrate, Universidad Nacional de Colombia (Colombia). 2007.  Andrea Liliana Vesga, Universidad Industrial de Santander (Colombia). 2007.  Martha Cecilia Revelo, Universidad del Cauca (Colombia). 2006-2007.  María del Mar Muñóz, Universidad del Cauca (Colombia). 2006-2007.
  • Collaborators in Nutrition Research  Ingrid Aragón  CIAT-Forrajes  Patricia Carrillo  CIAT-Laboratorio de Calidad Nutricional  María Luisa Cortés  CIAT-Laboratorio de Calidad de Yuca  Olga Lucía Cruz  CIAT-Servicios Analíticos  Sonia Gallego  Clayuca  Dayron Gutiérrez  Embrapa  Glenn Hyman  Paola Imbachí  CIAT  Darling Moncada  CIDA  Darwin Ortiz  HarvestPlus  Salomón Pérez  Monsanto Fund  Sayda Pico  Marlene Rosero  Teresa Sánchez  Emmanuel Zapata  Claudia Zúñiga
  • For More Information www.AgroSalud.org Helena Pachón h.pachon@cgiar.org