Consumer acceptance of biofortified foods
The economic feasibility of maize flour and maize meal fortification in Kenya, Uganda, and Zambia is assessed using information about the maize milling industry, households’ purchases and consumption levels of maize flour, and the incremental cost and estimated price impacts of fortification. Premix...
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Brief |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
International Food Policy Research Institute
2014
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/151271 |
| _version_ | 1855535284282720256 |
|---|---|
| author | Birol, Ekin Oparinde, Adewale Banerji, Abhijit Meenakshi, Jonnalagadda V. Chowdhury, Shyamal Tomlins, Keith De Groote, Hugo Manyong, Victor M. Perez, Salomon |
| author_browse | Banerji, Abhijit Birol, Ekin Chowdhury, Shyamal De Groote, Hugo Manyong, Victor M. Meenakshi, Jonnalagadda V. Oparinde, Adewale Perez, Salomon Tomlins, Keith |
| author_facet | Birol, Ekin Oparinde, Adewale Banerji, Abhijit Meenakshi, Jonnalagadda V. Chowdhury, Shyamal Tomlins, Keith De Groote, Hugo Manyong, Victor M. Perez, Salomon |
| author_sort | Birol, Ekin |
| collection | Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (CGSpace) |
| description | The economic feasibility of maize flour and maize meal fortification in Kenya, Uganda, and Zambia is assessed using information about the maize milling industry, households’ purchases and consumption levels of maize flour, and the incremental cost and estimated price impacts of fortification. Premix costs comprise the overwhelming share of incremental fortification costs and vary by 50% in Kenya and by more than 100% across the three countries. The estimated incremental cost of maize flour fortification per metric ton varies from $3.19 in Zambia to $4.41 in Uganda. Assuming all incremental costs are passed onto the consumer, fortification in Zambia would result in at most a 0.9% increase in the price of maize flour, and would increase annual outlays of the average maize flour–consuming household by 0.2%. The increases for Kenyans and Ugandans would be even less. Although the coverage of maize flour fortification is not likely to be as high as some advocates have predicted, fortification is economically feasible, and would reduce deficiencies of multiple micronutrients, which are significant public health problems in each of these countries. |
| format | Brief |
| id | CGSpace151271 |
| institution | CGIAR Consortium |
| language | Inglés |
| publishDate | 2014 |
| publishDateRange | 2014 |
| publishDateSort | 2014 |
| publisher | International Food Policy Research Institute |
| publisherStr | International Food Policy Research Institute |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | CGSpace1512712025-11-06T04:41:03Z Consumer acceptance of biofortified foods Birol, Ekin Oparinde, Adewale Banerji, Abhijit Meenakshi, Jonnalagadda V. Chowdhury, Shyamal Tomlins, Keith De Groote, Hugo Manyong, Victor M. Perez, Salomon biofortification malnutrition nutrition The economic feasibility of maize flour and maize meal fortification in Kenya, Uganda, and Zambia is assessed using information about the maize milling industry, households’ purchases and consumption levels of maize flour, and the incremental cost and estimated price impacts of fortification. Premix costs comprise the overwhelming share of incremental fortification costs and vary by 50% in Kenya and by more than 100% across the three countries. The estimated incremental cost of maize flour fortification per metric ton varies from $3.19 in Zambia to $4.41 in Uganda. Assuming all incremental costs are passed onto the consumer, fortification in Zambia would result in at most a 0.9% increase in the price of maize flour, and would increase annual outlays of the average maize flour–consuming household by 0.2%. The increases for Kenyans and Ugandans would be even less. Although the coverage of maize flour fortification is not likely to be as high as some advocates have predicted, fortification is economically feasible, and would reduce deficiencies of multiple micronutrients, which are significant public health problems in each of these countries. 2014 2024-08-01T02:56:20Z 2024-08-01T02:56:20Z Brief https://hdl.handle.net/10568/151271 en Open Access application/pdf International Food Policy Research Institute Birol, Ekin; Oparinde, Adewale; Banerji, Abhijit; Meenakshi, Jonnalagadda V.; Chowdhury, Shyamal; Tomlins, Keith; De Groote, Hugo; Manyong, Victor M. and Perez, Salomon. 2014. Consumer acceptance of biofortified foods. Biofortification Progress Brief 24. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). https://hdl.handle.net/10568/151271 |
| spellingShingle | biofortification malnutrition nutrition Birol, Ekin Oparinde, Adewale Banerji, Abhijit Meenakshi, Jonnalagadda V. Chowdhury, Shyamal Tomlins, Keith De Groote, Hugo Manyong, Victor M. Perez, Salomon Consumer acceptance of biofortified foods |
| title | Consumer acceptance of biofortified foods |
| title_full | Consumer acceptance of biofortified foods |
| title_fullStr | Consumer acceptance of biofortified foods |
| title_full_unstemmed | Consumer acceptance of biofortified foods |
| title_short | Consumer acceptance of biofortified foods |
| title_sort | consumer acceptance of biofortified foods |
| topic | biofortification malnutrition nutrition |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/151271 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT birolekin consumeracceptanceofbiofortifiedfoods AT oparindeadewale consumeracceptanceofbiofortifiedfoods AT banerjiabhijit consumeracceptanceofbiofortifiedfoods AT meenakshijonnalagaddav consumeracceptanceofbiofortifiedfoods AT chowdhuryshyamal consumeracceptanceofbiofortifiedfoods AT tomlinskeith consumeracceptanceofbiofortifiedfoods AT degrootehugo consumeracceptanceofbiofortifiedfoods AT manyongvictorm consumeracceptanceofbiofortifiedfoods AT perezsalomon consumeracceptanceofbiofortifiedfoods |