Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Role of Biofortification as Part of a More Diverse Diet in Africa: Progress, Challenges and Opportunities

441 views

Published on

Bho Mudyahoto, Senior Monitoring, Learning and Evaluation Specialist, Harvest Plus, Uganda

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Role of Biofortification as Part of a More Diverse Diet in Africa: Progress, Challenges and Opportunities

  1. 1. HarvestPlus c/o IFPRI 2033 K Street, NW • Washington, DC 20006-1002 USA Tel: 202-862-5600 • Fax: 202-467-4439 HarvestPlus@cgiar.org • www.HarvestPlus.org The Role Of Biofortification As Part Of More Diverse Diets In Africa Progress, Challenges, And Opportunities Bho Mudyahoto Senior Monitoring, Learning and Evaluation Specialist, HarvestPlus ReSAKSS 2016 Conference | October 20, 2016 | Accra
  2. 2. Presentation Outline • Introduction • Current Evidence • Challenges • Opportunities • Key Messages
  3. 3. Micronutrient Deficiency  Affects 2 billion people worldwide (i.e. 1 in 3) (FAO 2013)  Contributes to the global disease burden  Poor quality diets is one of the major causes – High intake of starchy staple foods (e.g. rice, maize, cassava) – Low intake of micronutrient-rich foods (e.g. vegetables, legumes, animal source foods)  High prevalence of micronutrient deficiency Africa
  4. 4. Global Micronutrient Deficiency
  5. 5. Fighting Micronutrient Deficiency Supplementation Fortification Biofortification Dietary diversity
  6. 6. is a process of increasing the density of nutrients e.g. vitamins and minerals in a crop through plant breeding or agronomic practices, so that the biofortified crops, when consumed regularly, will generate measurable improvement in vitamin and mineral nutritional status.
  7. 7. 3 1 2 Dr. Howarth Bouis 2016 World Food Prize Laureate Are farmers willing to grow and are consumers willing to eat biofortified crops? Can conventional breeding add extra nutrients in the crops without reducing yields? When consumed, can the increase in nutrient levels make a measurable and significant impact on human nutrition?
  8. 8. After several years of research & delivery….. Yes, we now know that biofortification is feasible & effective! Extra micronutrients in biofortified crops can significantly improve micronutrient status of consumers Conventional breeding can add extra nutrients in crops without reducing yields Farmers are willing to grow and consumers are willing to eat biofortified crops and their products
  9. 9. Current Evidence: Breeding of Biofortified Crops
  10. 10. Sweet Potato Uganda (2007) Biofortified Crops in Africa Maize Zambia (2012) Beans Rwanda & DRC (2012) Cassava Nigeria & DRC (2011)
  11. 11. Breeding, Testing & Release of Varieties • HarvestPlus/CG/NARS  develop, test & release • NARS release and keep improving nutrient levels and other production traits • Biofortified germplasm  public goods to governments • Over 20 African countries are now developing, testing & releasing several biofortified crop varieties
  12. 12. Status of biofortified varieties in Africa Status of biofortified crop varieties Iron beans Yellow cassava Orange maize Orange sweet potatoes Number of countries tested in 6 8 10 > 14 Number of countries released in 6 5 7 > 14 Number of varieties released 28 10 31 > 90 Source: HarvestPlus (2016)
  13. 13. Current Evidence: Nutrition • When consumed regularly and in sufficient quantities biofortified crops can deliver significant % of EAR for iron, zinc, or vitamin A (Li et al. 2010; La Frano et al. 2013; Rosado et al. 2009; Cercamondi et al. 2013) • Efficacy trials for vitamin A crops and iron beans provide good evidence that biofortification improves micronutrient status among target populations • 9.5% reduction in prevalence of low serum retinol in women and children due to significant intake of OSP (Hotz et al., 2012) • OSP accounted for more than half of total vitamin A intake – 53% in Uganda and 78% in Mozambique (Hotz et al., 2012)
  14. 14. Current Evidence: Reach, Adoption & Consumption
  15. 15. Number of households reached in Africa (‘000) Crop/country 2012 2013 2014 2015 Vit A cassava, Nigeria 0 106 360 528 Vit A SP, Uganda 33 76 107 132 Iron beans, Uganda 29 69 43 37 Iron beans, Rwanda 105 609 332 453 Iron beans, DR Congo 60 241 128 175 Vit A cassava, DRC 0 25 75 180 Vit A maize, Zambia 0 11 104 110 Total 227 1,137 1,149 1,634
  16. 16. Adoption: Socio-Economic Evidence (1) • Orange-Fleshed Sweet potato (OSP) Effectiveness Study in Uganda and Mozambique (de Brauw et al., 2010) – 61% (Uganda) and 68% (Mozambique) adoption rate of OSP – Farmers increased % share of OSP in total sweet potato cultivated area and consumers substituted non-OSP varieties for OSP varieties – Intervention cost about US$15–20 per DALY saved  highly cost- effective • Vit A Cassava Consumer Acceptance in Nigeria (Oparinde et al., 2014) – Information on nutritional benefits positivehas an effect on level of acceptance; farmers preferred gari made with vitamin A cassava versus local white gari
  17. 17. High Iron Beans (HIBs) Impact Assessment Study in Rwanda • 28% HIB adoption since 2010 ≈ Half a million HHs • 54% continuous or intermittent adopters • Increase in area under HIB over time • 12% of total bean output in SB 2015 was HIB • Social networks play a major role in diffusion – 41% received first planting material from friend or neighbor (Asare-Marfo et al., 2016) Adoption: Socio-Economic Evidence (2)
  18. 18. • High phytate content in crops being developed for high iron or zinc  interfere with their absorption • β-carotene levels vs DM content in OSP & VAC • Invisible trait crops  iron and zinc: – Adulteration/falsification along the value chain • Barriers to scale-up • Seed production is a constraint in many countries – Low access by the poor – Seed companies not interested in root & tuber crops – Seed quality control Challenges
  19. 19. • Wide range of varieties available • Success of the 2nd Global Conference on Biofortification Kigali Declaration • Increased stakeholder interest in Biofortification • HarvestPlus developed an online, interactive BPI tool  a global map • Biofortification Priority Index (BPI) assisting investors Opportunities for Scaling Up Biofortification
  20. 20. BPI for Vit A Maize & HIB Source: Asare-Marfo et al. (2013)
  21. 21. • Integration of biofortification – Crop development programs – National regional & international policies & strategies – International standards  Codex Alimentarius • Mainstreaming of biofortification by CG & NARS • License seed companies to produce & market • A critical mass of partners  WVI, WFP • Engaging partners to ensure enabling environment  CAADP, SUN • Facilitate and strengthen international trade Opportunities for Mainstreaming Biofortification
  22. 22. • Evidence demonstrates that Biofortification is feasible & effective – Conventional breeding can add extra nutrients – Farmers are willing to grow, consumers willing to eat – Added micronutrients can improve nutritional status of consumers • Varietal development, dissemination and utilization challenges exist but are surmountable • PPP at national, regional & global level are key to scaling up biofortification • BPI  useful tool to guide investment in biofortification • Mainstreaming biofortification at institutional, program, policy, regional and global level crucial for sustainability Key Messages
  23. 23. Thank you!

×