Methods matter: a meta-regression on the determinants of willingness-to-pay studies on biofortified foods

Following the growing evidence on biofortification as a cost-effective micronutrient strategy, various researchers have elicited consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for biofortified crops in an effort to justify and determine their adoption. This review presents a meta-analysis of WTP studies on biofortified foods, either developed through conventional breeding or using genetic modification technology. On the basis of 122 estimates from 23 studies (9507 respondents), consumers are generally willing to pay 21.3% more for biofortified crops. Because WTP estimates are often determined through different valuation methods and procedures, a meta-regression was carried out to examine the role of potential determinants. Aside from contextual factors, such as type of food crop, target nutrient, and region(but not breeding technique), various methodological factors significantly influence premiums, including the type of respondent, nature of the study, study environment, participation fee, and provided information. The findings allow researchers to better anticipate potential methodological biases when examining WTP for (biofortified) foods,while it gives policy makers a broad understanding of the potential demand for different biofortified crops in various settings

Household consumption of orange-fleshed sweet potato and its associated factors in Chipata District, Eastern Province Zambia

BACKGROUND: The Integrating Orange Project promotes production and consumption of orange-fleshed sweet potato (OFSP) to address vitamin A deficiency among rural populations of Zambia since 2011. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed household production and consumption of OFSP and identified factors associated with consumption thereof in Integrating Orange Project areas in Chipata district, Zambia. METHODS: Respondents of 295 randomly selected households were interviewed using a structured questionnaire during the sweet potato harvest season. Associations between OFSP consumption and household factors were assessed using w2 tests. RESULTS: Frequency of OFSP consumption was categorized as 4 days during the last 7 days (30.2%), 1 to 3 days during the last 7 days (49.5%), eats OFSP but not during the last 7 days (7.1%), and never (13.2%). In total, 60.3% of households planted OFSP, and 40.0% bought OFSP, mostly from farmers within the community. Orange-fleshed sweet potato consumption was associated with the presence of children aged less than 5 years in the household (P ¼ .018), production of OFSP (P < .001), purchasing of OFSP (P < .001), and respondent having knowledge on health benefits of OFSP (P ¼ .014). Age and sex of the household head and household size had no association with OFSP consumption (P > .05). CONCLUSION: A high percentage of households consumed OFSP during the harvesting season in Integrating Orange Project areas. Programs promoting OFSP consumption should thus focus on OFSP production and sensitizing households on nutritional benefits of OFSP and target households with children aged less than 5 years as entry point.IS

Developing country consumers’ acceptance of biofortified foods: a synthesis

The success of biofortified staple crops depends on whether they are accepted and consumed by target populations. In the past 8 years, several studies were undertaken to understand consumers’ acceptance of foods made with biofortified staple crops. Consumer acceptance is measured in terms of their sensory evaluation and economic valuation of biofortified varieties vis-à-vis conventional ones. These studies apply expert sensory panel and hedonic trait analyses methods adopted from food sciences literature, as well as various preference elicitation methods (including experimental auctions, revealed choice experiments, and stated choice experiments) adopted from experimental economics literature. These studies also test the impact of various levers on consumers’ evaluation and valuation for biofortified foods. These levers include (i) nutrition information and the media through which such information is conveyed; (ii) the length and content of nutrition information; (iii) different branding options; (iv) the nature (national or international) of the branding/certification agency that is endorsing the biofortified staple food; and (v) the nature (national or international) of the agency that is delivering the biofortified staple food. This paper brings together evidence on consumer acceptance of biofortified crops on 5 crops across 7 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The results of these studies are expected to aid in the development of biofortified crops that consumers like, as well as in the development of appropriate marketing and consumer awareness or information campaigns to encourage the switch in consumption from traditional staples to biofortified ones

The socioeconomics of genetically modified biofortified crops: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Building upon the growing interest and research on genetically modified (GM) biofortification, its socioeconomic potential has been increasingly examined. We conducted two systematic reviews and meta-analyses to provide comprehensive evidence of consumers' willingness to pay (11 economic valuation studies, 64 estimates) and cost-effectiveness/benefits (five economic evaluation studies, 30 estimates). Worldwide, consumers were willing to pay 23.9% more for GM biofortified food crops. Aside from crop and design-related differences, information provision was deemed crucial. Positive information (nutrition and GM benefits) is associated with the highest consumer willingness to pay, compared with negative, objective, and conflicting GM information, especially when negative information was mentioned last. This health intervention would reduce the aggregated micronutrient deficiency burden in Asia (15.6 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)) by 12.5-51.4%, at a low cost of USD 7.9-27.8 per DALY in a pessimistic and optimistic scenario, respectively. Given that GM biofortified crops could tackle hidden hunger in a cost-effective and well-accepted way, its implementation is worth pursuing. A case study on folate biofortification further elaborates on the importance of socioeconomic research and the determinants of their market potential

Biofortification progress briefs

The following briefs were solicited by HarvestPlus for the Second Global Conference on Biofortification, “Getting Nutritious Foods to People,” which took place in Kigali, Rwanda from March 31 to April 2, 2014. The conference, an interactive global consultation attended by more than 300 leaders in agriculture, food, nutrition, and health, was officially hosted by the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and organized by HarvestPlus. The conference culminated in a series of commitments to tackle hunger and micronutrient deficiency through nutrition-sensitive agriculture, captured in the Kigali Declaration on Biofortified Nutritious Foods. The briefs were developed as background information for the conference and are intended to present existing evidence onbiofortification, identify knowledge gaps, and stimulate discussion on how to leverage biofortification to improve nutritionand health.Non-PRIFPRI1; CRP4; HarvestPlusHarvestPlus; A4NHCGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH

Rwanda: Country brief

HarvestPlus improves nutrition and public health in Rwanda by promoting beans that provide more iron in the diet. We work with more than 30 partners drawn from government, business, and civil societyNon-PRIFPRI1; CRP4; HarvestPlusHarvestPlus; A4NHCGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH

India: Country brief

HarvestPlus improves nutrition and public health in India by promoting pearl millet that provides more iron and wheat that provides more zinc in the diet. We work with more than 70 partners drawn from government, business, and civil society.Non-PRIFPRI1; CRP4; HarvestPlusHarvestPlus; A4NHCGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH

HarvestPlus Crop Strategies

Non-PRIFPRI1; CRP4; HarvestPlusHarvestPlus; A4NHCGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH