Search

Context It is important to understand the sensory acceptability of biofortified food products among target population groups if biofortification is to be realized as a sustainable strategy for mitigation of micronutrient deficiencies, able to be scaled up and applied through programs. Objective This systemic review aims to summarize and synthesize the sensory acceptability of conventionally bred iron-, zinc-, and provitamin A–biofortified food products. Data Sources MEDLINE (PubMed), AGRICOLA, AgEcon, CABI Abstracts (Web of Science), and organizational websites (eg, those of HarvestPlus and CGIAR and their partners) were searched for relevant articles. No access to any market research that may have been internally conducted for the commercial biofortified food products was available. Data Extraction This review identified articles measuring the sensory acceptability of conventionally bred biofortified food products. Extraction of the hedonic ratings of food products was performed. Data Analysis An "Acceptability Index %" was defined based on hedonic scoring to determine an overall rating, and used to categorize biofortified food products as "acceptable" (≥70%) or "not acceptable" (<70%). Additionally, this review narratively synthesized studies using methods other than hedonic scoring for assessing sensory acceptability. Conclusions Forty-nine studies assessed the acceptability of 10 biofortified crops among children and adults, in mostly rural, low-income settings across Africa, Latin America, and India; food products made from mineral and provitamin A–biofortified food products were generally acceptable. Compared with studies on provitamin–A biofortified food products, few studies (1 to 2 each) on mineral-enhanced crops such as rice, cowpeas, lentils, and wheat were found, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Similarly, few studies examined stored biofortified food products. Few commercial food products have so far been developed, although new varieties of crops are being continuously tested and released globally. Certain crop varieties were found to be acceptable while others were not, suggesting that particular varieties should be prioritized for scale-up. Determining sensory acceptability of biofortified food products is important for informing programmatic scale-up and implementation across diverse populations and settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biofortification increases micronutrient content in staple crops through conventional breeding, agronomic methods, or genetic engineering. Bioaccessibility is a prerequisite for a nutrient to fulfill a biological function, e.g., to be bioavailable. The objective of this systematic review is to examine the bioavailability (and bioaccessibility as a proxy via in vitro and animal models) of the target micronutrients enriched in conventionally biofortified crops that have undergone post-harvest storage and/or processing, which has not been systematically reviewed previously, to our knowledge. We searched for articles indexed in MEDLINE, Agricola, AgEcon, and Center for Agriculture and Biosciences International databases, organizational websites, and hand-searched studies' reference lists to identify 18 studies reporting on bioaccessibility and 58 studies on bioavailability. Conventionally bred biofortified crops overall had higher bioaccessibility and bioavailability than their conventional counterparts, which generally provide more absorbed micronutrient on a fixed ration basis. However, these estimates depended on exact cultivar, processing method, context (crop measured alone or as part of a composite meal), and experimental method used. Measuring bioaccessibility and bioavailability of target micronutrients in biofortified and conventional foods is critical to optimize nutrient availability and absorption, ultimately to improve programs targeting micronutrient deficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Processed complementary foods (PCF) might mitigate several complementary feeding barriers in developing countries. Efficacy trials, however, have not shown substantial improvements in child growth, possibly due to inadequate formative research to assess acceptability and identify pitfalls. Milk powder might improve palatability of PCF but incurs a higher cost. We compared the acceptability of an instant soy-rice PCF without (SR) and with (SRM) milk powder. Best practices for formative evaluation of PCF are not established. We therefore compared findings from randomized trials of SR vs. SRM in 1-d sensory tests (n = 71 mother-infant dyads) vs. Trials of Improved Practices (TIPs), a 2-wk in-home mixed methods evaluation (n = 54 dyads). TIPs included interviews, disappearance rates, observations, and 24-h dietary recalls to assess acceptance, consumption of the 50 g/d ration, and impact on diet. Although mothers preferred SRM to SR in the sensory tests, children in the TIPs consumed > 50 g/d of SR (87 [+ or -] 9 g/d) and SRM (89 [+ or -] 8 g/d) with no difference between the foods (P = 0.55). Despite some replacement of family food, energy (574 kJ/d; P < 0.001) and protein (19 g protein/d; P < 0.001) increased in both groups. Mothers' preferences for milk, more sugar in SR, and preparation with hot water were concerns raised in the sensory tests that proved insignificant in TIPs. However, TIPs uncovered new concerns of overconsumption and food safety. We found milk did not improve the acceptability of the soy-rice PCF and recommend TIPs as a useful tool for formative research of PCF interventions.

Iron deficiency (ID) is prevalent among infants world-wide and may be more likely among infants born to women living in disadvantaged environments. A strategy to address ID in this context is to feed iron-fortified formula, but this may create risk for gastrointestinal (GI) infection. Our objective was to investigate the relationship between infant feeding practices, iron status, and likelihood of a GI infection in the first 6 mo of life. We conducted a prospective study at a public hospital in Guadalajara, Mexico. Healthy women who gave birth to a healthy term infant were eligible to participate. Each month, mothers (n = 154) provided information on infant feeding methods and symptoms of GI infection. At 6 mo of age, infants' iron status was assessed [hemoglobin (Hb) and serum ferritin concentration]. When compared with nonpredominantly breast-fed [partially breast-feeding (PBF) and formula feeding (FF) combined], predominantly breast-fed (PRBF) infants to 6 mo had a lower incidence of GI infection from 0-6 mo [18 vs. 33%; P= 0.04; adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.4; 95% CI = 0.2, 1.0] but a higher risk for I D (serum ferritin < 12 [micro]g/L) at 6 mo (22 vs. 4%; P = 0.001; adjusted OR = 9.2; 95% CI = 2.3, 37.0). Anemia (Hb < 110 g/L) prevalence did not differ among feeding groups (13% for PRBF, 19% for PBF, and 4% for FF; P = 0.09). In this low-income population, our results suggest that PRBF should be promoted and the risk for ID managed using public health and nutrition strategies.