Biofortification, a Solution to Malnutrition
“Over half of the world’s population suffers from micronutrient malnutrition” (Bouis et al. 1). In order to solve micronutrient malnutrition new methods of delivering adequate nutrients must be created, such as biofortification or the use of nutrient dense crops to decrease malnutrition. A biofortification program requires extensive funding to implement, but is cost effective over the long term. According to the United Nations Standing Committee on Nutrition, “Malnutrition is the largest single contributor to disease in the world” (What is Malnutrition 1). Deficiencies of iron, vitamin A, iodine and zinc are the most common causes of disease in developing countries. Some diseases include stunting, blindness, anemia, and Biofortification could assist nutrient deficient populations to utilize nutrient enhanced staple crops to assist in achieving a person’s daily nutrient intake. By utilizing staple crops that have been fortified, public acceptance of the new varieties is easier and does not require additional education in relation to preparation.
The idea of biofortification is a relatively new solution to gain traction to find a solution to limit malnutrition. According to “HungerPlus History”, Howarth Bouis, an economist from the International Food Policy Research Institute, is credited with creating the idea of biofortification. In the 1990’s, Howarth was interested in if plants could help support nutrient supplement programs by providing higher quantities of specific nutrients” (Our History 1). Howarth Bouis played a pivotal role in founding the method of biofortification and the evolution beyond a concept. The article “HungerPlus History” states Howarth Bouis approached the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) to verify if plant breeders would be interested in pursuing the idea. The breeders were reluctant to try to breed for a new set of traits due to the limited funding available and breeders assumed there would be a trade off in yield. The idea was kept in its infancy until proper funding could be acquired. In the early years of the 2000’s, aided with new evidence and interest, the early periods of plant breeding and proof of concepts began. Through the years of 2009 to 2013, varieties were approved and trials began. As of today, biofortification programs are working on scaling the concept throughout countries such as China, India and Brazil (Our History 1). People interested in biofortification eventually created HarvestPlus, an organization that provides research and invests in biofortification projects. Harvest Plus has also been a leader in funding biofortification projects and work to improve the effectiveness of the method.
Biofortification is a relatively new method to combat malnutrition. In the article “Biofortification of Staple Food Crops: Six Questions” it writes that “Biofortification is the development of micronutrient dense staple crops using traditional breeding practices and modern biotechnology” (Bouis et al. 1). The use of traditional breeding methods such as hybridization and cross breeding require a longer period of development compared to transgenic approaches. Traditional breeding methods involve screening many accessions in order to find traits that influence the wanted outcome. Once located, the varieties are crossed and the first generation crosses are grown out and evaluated until the genetic variability is stable. The article “Biofortification of Staple Crops: Six Questions” explains “Transgenic approaches are in some cases necessary or potentially advantageous” (Bouis et al. 1). If a gene that increases the desired nutrient in a crop is not present in current germplasm populations, genes from unrelated species will be placed into the crop’s genome to display the wanted trait. By using transgenic techniques, crops such as rice, can receive traits that create vitamin A, as in the case of Golden Rice, potentially decreasing the amount of people affected with vitamin deficiency from losing their eyesight. In the scientific community, the consensus is that genetically modified organisms created through transgenic techniques, also called GMO’s, are safe for human consumption, but there are many misconceptions that limit transgenic research and the introduction of GMO’s to the marketplace. The benefit of biofortification is that it can be applied to a large population. The authors of “HarvestPlus Statement on the Potential Benefits of Biofortification on the Nutritional Status of Populations” write “Biofortified staple foods can contribute to body stores of iron, zinc, and provitamin A throughout the lifecycle, including those of children, adolescents, adult women, men and the elderly” (HarvestPlus Statement 2). Since biofortification can target many nutritional issues throughout a person’s lifetime it provides stable access to nutrients. Biofortified crops can be created through various ways and can affect humans throughout their lifetime.
Biofortification is a cost-effective method to lower malnutrition rates. According to Gina Kennedy and Mourad Moursi, scientists who work at the HarvestPlus Organization, state: “Because food staples are consumed regularly in large quantities, biofortification is an efficient and cost-effective way of bringing more micronutrients to the diets of the poor. It contributes to improving the diet quality of populations, and can be viewed as integral to dietary diversity. Biofortification is not promoted to increase the consumption of staples. Rather, it is used to substitute some or all of the non-biofortified equivalent staples from the diet with better and more micronutrient varieties.” (2)
By targeting commonly eaten foods, biofortification helps the poor receive vital nutrients and also begins the process of diversifying the diet of poor populations. The replacement of non-biofortified crops with biofortified crops is easier to adopt, compared to a new food crop not common in the cuisine. The largest hurdle to biofortification is the cost to begin a breeding program. In order to start a breeding program, germplasm must be identified and accessions of varieties requested and obtained from international plant gene banks. If the trait has not been screened or plants not trialed for a specific trait, then large trials will need to be conducted. Once a genetically diverse population is located then initial cross breeding can begin. The authors of “Biofortification: Six Questions” explain:
The largest cost in biofortification is the research to develop biofortified varieties at the outset. However, because an international agricultural research system is in place to develop modern varieties of staple foodstuffs, research cost are essentially the incremental cost of enhancing micronutrient density (Bouis et al. 1).
The international research centers such as CGIAR provide an important role in beginning to breed biofortified cultivars that are able to yield as well or better than current varieties currently used in the targeted area of implementation. It is important that the biofortified variety performs well so that farmers are able to continue to feed themselves and/or can make a reasonable profit. Once the biofortified variety is released, the cost-effectiveness of the crop improves due to the farmers being able to save seed stock and plant from year to year without relying on seed dealers. Authors of Biofortification: Six Questions suggest “Routine maintenance breeding will ensure the trait remains stable” (Bouis et al. 1). After the variety has been released, plant breeders will continue to monitor the variety and will look for any newly developing susceptibility to disease and to monitor nutrient densities. With the help from international agricultural research centers, biofortification can be cost effective in its implementation and plant breeding and outweighs the cost of artificial supplements.
In order for biofortified crops to be grown, farmers and consumers need to become aware of their benefits. Understanding the target population’s culture will help predict the public’s reaction to the biofortified crops. The report “Accessing the Adoption of Improved Bean Varieties in Rwanda and the Role of Varietal Attributes in Adoption Decisions” the authors refer to “As argued in Gillian (2012), high adoption and consumption rates are needed for biofortified crops to successfully reduce malnutrition.” (Larochelle et al. 18). Without high acceptance of biofortified crops, they cannot improve malnutrition rates. The resources and time allocated to the creation of the crop could have been spent on a different crop so it is important to predict how a population will react to biofortified crops. The authors of “Accessing the Adoption of Improved Bean Varieties in Rwanda and the Role of Varietal Attributes in Adoption Decisions” concluded in their results:
Working with local farmers associations at the initial phase of the diffusion process can stimulate adoption by informing households about the existence of HIB varieties, their benefits, and management practices. The role of informal channels in gaining information and access to the new varieties should also be considered. (Larochelle et al. 18)
By working with local farmers the process of distributing biofortified varieties will help the public accept these new varieties. Instructions to prepare food for optimum nutrient density can be given to the families. Farmers can also encourage neighbors to try the new varieties by sharing some of their seed.
Some biofortified crops will have a more difficult time being accepted. The authors of “Biofortification of Staple Crops: Six Questions” write “Biofortified crops with visible traits will require producers and consumers accept this change in addition to equivalent productivity and end-use features” (Bouis et al. 2). Golden Rice was a victim in this regard, many of the public would not accept the yellow grains compared to the “normal” white rice and refused its adoption. Today, Golden Rice is still growing in research plots but has not been commercially released due to no market for the product. Biofortification has large upfront costs, but is cost-effective over the long term.
Biofortification has seen some great successes in crops such as sweet potatoes. In Africa, sweet potatoes are wildly grown due to their reliability as a food source. The varieties commonly grown in Africa have white flesh with limited vitamin A nutrients. Sweet potatoes with orange flesh could not adapt to the climate of Africa and the yields were negligible. In order to provide Africans with a larger source of vitamin A, researchers began to cross breed sweet potato varieties better adapted to the African climate to orange flesh sweet potatoes that were high in vitamin A. This was one of the first biofortification programs with phenomenal results. The authors of “How Cost-Effective is Biofortification in Combating Micronutrient Malnutrition” state “The percentage reduction in the burden of vitamin A was greatest in sweet potato varieties (between 38% and 64%)” (Degroote et al. 2). The biofortified sweet potato was an amazing success and shows the potential for other crops that provide essential nutrients. Sweet potatoes are not the only crop which has impacted malnourished people. Beans have also been biofortified to increase the iron content in the seeds. Beans traditionally are used throughout the world as a protein source so by improving iron content assists in populations that suffer from iron-deficiencies. The authors of “How Cost-Effective is Biofortification in Combating Micronutrient Malnutrition” explain “The expected decrease in the burden of iron deficiency ranges between 16–38% for beans” (Degroote et al. 2). By simply adding fortified beans to a person’s diet helps to alleviate the need in obtaining iron from more expensive food sources or supplements. The decrease in iron deficiencies demonstrates the promise biofortified crops have to offer.
The use of biofortification is costly to implement, but it becomes more cost-effective after the commercial release of a successful cultivar. Once a cultivar has been released, little funding is needed after introduction. Biofortification has been a recent tool in the arsenal of combating malnutrition. There are many ways biofortified crops are created through traditional and transgenic plant breeding. Public perception and adoption of biofortified crops are determined through a population’s cultural background. As demonstrated in Africa, sweet potatoes and beans are some of the crops which has seen extraordinary success in its implementation. Genetic engineering is an important asset in biofortification. Education programs to inform the public of the benefits is essential so the public is more informed of the advantages of the process. Biofortification is an important tool to utilize in combating nutrient deficiencies throughout the world.
Works Cited:
Bouis, Howarth E et al.
“Biofortification of Staple Food Crops: Six Questions” HarvestPlus. 2006: A. HarvestPlus Abstract. Web. 28 Oct 2016.
Degroote, Hugo et al.
“How Cost-Effective is Biofortification in Combating Micronutrient Malnutrition? An Ex ante Assessment” HarvestPlus and Breeding Crops for Better Nutrition. 2010: A. HarvestPlus Abstract. Web. 31 Oct 2016.
“HarvestPlus Statement on the Potential Benefits of Biofortification on the
Nutritional Status of Populations” HarvestPlus. 17 Aug 2010: Statement Web. 1 Nov 2016.
Kennedy, Gina and Mourad Moursi. “Dietary Diversity and Biofortification: Closer Than You
Think” HarvestPlus and Biodiversity International. Oct 2015: A. At Issue. Web. 31 Oct 2016.
Larochelle, Catherine, Dorene Asare-Marafo, Ekin Birol, Jeffery Alwang. “Assessing
the Adoption of Improved Bean Varieties in Rwanda and the Role of Varietal Attributes in Adoption Decisions” HarvestPlus. Sept 2016: A. Working Paper. Web. 31 Oct 2016.
“Our History.” HarvestPlus. n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.
World Food Program, “What Is Malnutrition? United Nations World Food Programme –
Fighting Hunger Worldwide.” United Nations World Food Programme, Web. 1 Nov. 2016.
