agrosalud nutrition research in latin america and the caribbean
DESCRIPTION
Presentation by Helena Pachón for the CIAT KSW 2009TRANSCRIPT
AgroSalud Nutrition Research In Latin America and the Caribbean
Helena PachónAgroSalud Project
Knowledge-sharing WeekCIAT
21 May 2009
Why Nutrition Matters
10M child deaths/y, 50% due to malnutrition Reductions in health, school achievement,
work capacity, human capital
(Black et al., 2008)
Relevant MTPs
Beans with improved micronutrient concentration that have a positive impact on human health
Rice germplasm for improving human health and nutrition in Latin America and the Caribbean
Cassava, tropical fruits?
AgroSalud Project
Improve food and nutrition security
Develop, test, deploy, and promote biofortified staple crops† (nutritionally* and agronomically superior)
Geographically focused in Latin America and the Caribbean
Associated with HarvestPlus
Photo: Marlene Rosero† crops: sweet potato, rice, maize, beans* nutrients: iron, zinc, beta-carotene, tryptophan, lysine
Biofortification & Eco-efficient Agriculture
“Producing more with less or the same”
Biofortified crops’ impact on consumers
Social: improve food and nutrition security
Economic: improved work capacity
Images: www.gardenguides.com, www.hormel.com, www.cdc.gov, www.waynescomputerworld.com
Terminology
0102030405060708090
100
Nutrient Goal
Conventional NutritionallyImproved
Biofortified
Nutrient Concentration
2009: most crop-nutrient combinations
Have met nutrient goalHave a demonstrated nutrition impact
•Maize with >tryptophan/lysine (QPM)•Sweet potato with >β-carotene
Country Crops
Rice Swtpotato Beans Maize
Bolivia 2009 (1) - 2009 (1) -
Brasil 2009 (1) 2009 (2) - -
Colombia - 2009 (2) 2009 (1) 2008 (2)
Costa Rica - - 2009 (1) -
Cuba2009 (1)2010 (1)
- 2009 (1) -
El Salvador - - 2010 (1) 2008 (2)
Guatemala - - 2009 (1) 2009 (2)
Haití - - - 2008 (1)
Honduras - - 2009 (1) 2008 (2)
México - - - 2009 (1)
Nicaragua 2010 (1) 2009 (1) 2009 (1) 2007 (2)
Panamá - - - 2008 (2)
Perú - 2009 (2) - -
República Dominicana 2010 (1) 2009 (1) - -
Total 6 8 8 14
~36 Nutritionally Improved Crops to be Commercially Released in 2007-2010
Court
esy
: R
óg
er
Urb
ina, C
IAT
Strategy for Evaluating Nutrition Impact
Crop/Product
People
Nutrient concentrati
on
Nutrient bioavailabilit
y
SimulationAcceptabilit
y
Biofortified Conventional>
Efficacy
Nutrient retentio
nCost-
effectiveness
Site selection
Nutrient Concentration
Do biofortified crops and food products have higher levels of priority nutrients* compared to their non-biofortified equivalents? (Goal: higher)
*iron, zinc, beta-carotene, tryptophan, lysine
010
2030
4050
.
40 50 60 70 80 90Concentración de Hierro (ppm)
Concentración de Hierro en Líneas de Fríjol 2005
01
23
4.
50 60 70 80 90Concentración de Hierro (ppm)
Concentración de Hierro en Líneas de Fríjol 2006
Nutrient Concentration
Courtesy: Steve Beebe
Iron in beansIron
concentration increased from 2005 to 2006
CIAT breeding lines
50 60 70 80 90 mg/kg
Nutrient Bioavailability
How well does the body absorb and utilize the nutrient? (Goal: same or higher)
www.nwave.com
Nutrient Bioavailability: Appropriateness of in vitro method for iron bioavailability
(Ingrid Aragón, Universidad del Valle, CIAT presentation 2009, KSW poster)
High correlation between in vivo and in vitro methods
Nutrient Bioavailability: Protein
(Pachón et al., Journal of Food Science, in press)
0
20
40
60
80
100
% Protein Digestibility
Biofortified Conventional
Maize Type
In vitro Protein Digestibility
P=0.19
Nutrient Bioavailability
Crop Nutrient
Bioavailability
Beans(Pachón et al., J Food Sci, in press)
Iron, Zinc Biofortified=conventional (1 recipe)
Maize(Paola Imbachí, CIAT presentation 2009)
Protein Biofortified<conventional (1 recipe) Biofortified=conventional (10 recipes) Biofortified>conventional (3 recipes)
Rice(Dayron Gutiérrez, Ingrid Aragón)
Iron, Zinc Underway (180 lines)
Other study carried out: Evaluating the in vitro iron, zinc, vitamin A and protein bioavailability of leaf extracts prepared from the foliage of different crops (Sayda Pico, CIAT presentation 2008)
Nutrient Retention
After cooking, processing and storage, how much of the nutrient is retained? (Goal:
same or more)
AfterBefore
Cooking / Processing /
Storage
Images: www.gardenguides.com, www.texascooking.com
Nutrient Retention
Tryptophan (g/100 g) in Maize: From Grain to Finished Product
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
Maíz en grano Maíz trillado Mazamorra
Conventional Biofortified
(Paola Imbachí, Universidad del Cauca, CIAT presentation 2009)
Tryptophan (g/100 g) in Maize: From Grain to Finished Product
0.0000.0200.0400.0600.0800.100
Maíz engrano
Maíztrillado
Masa Envueltoañejo
14 recipes
In finished product, tryptophan:
Biofortified>Conventional (n=10)
Biofortified=Conventional (n=4)
P<0.05P<0.05
P=0.50
P<0.05 P<0.05
P<0.05 P<0.05
Nutrient Retention
(Sonia Gallego, Alba Lucía Chávez, Moralba Domínguez, 2008)
B-carotene Retention (%) in Intermediate Products Prepared with 5 Orange-fleshed Sweet
Potato Varieties
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
440050 440016 440396 440286 440287
Producto cocido Harina cruda Harina precocida
Impact Simulation
What is the potential nutritional impact of consumers substituting non-biofortified crops/food products with biofortified ones? (Goal: greater)
Impact Simulation
*RDA Fe: 18,000 μg/d, Zn: 11,000 μg/d, Vitamin A: 900 μg/d (IOM, 2001)(Intake data: http://www.fao.org/faostat/foodsecurity/Files/FoodConsumptionFoodItems_en.xls)
Nutrient (μg/ d) Contribution of Biofortified Crops: Colombia
-500
500
1500
2500
3500
4500
Iron Zinc Vitamin A
Rice (85 g) Sweetpotato (0 g) Beans (9 g)
Maize (107 g) Cassava (94 g)
19% RDA
32% RDA
39% RDA
Additional nutrient
contribution compared with requirements
(RDAs)
Impact SimulationCountry % RDA Iron* % RDA Zinc* % RDA Vitamin A*
Bolivia 28.2 21.6 15.7
Brasil 45.4 38.3 14.8
Colombia 39.2 31.5 19.2
Costa Rica 15.9 17.1 1.7
Cuba 60.9 44.8 28.8
El Salvador 58.2 27.6 33.0
Guatemala 54.7 24.5 34.6
Haití 43.8 34.1 23.6
Honduras 50.0 23.5 30.6
México 77.1 34.0 48.7
Nicaragua 53.6 32.2 20.5
Panamá 18.3 16.2 8.3
Perú 27.0 26.5 12.7
República Dominicana 18.1 18.0 5.8
Mean (SD) 42.2 (18.5) 27.8 (8.4) 21.3 (12.9)*RDA Fe: 18,000 μg/d; Zn: 11,000 μg/d; Vitamin A: 900 μg/d (IOM, 2001)Intake data: http://www.fao.org/faostat/foodsecurity/Files/FoodConsumptionFoodItems_en.xls)
Consumer Acceptability
What is the consumer’s “sensory evaluation” of the biofortified crop/food product? (Goal: same or better)
Photo: Reyna Liria
Consumer Acceptability
Training Workshops
Nicaragua, 2007
Panama, 2008
31 people
11 countries
Photo: Reyna Liria
Consumer Acceptability
Biofortified Beans Conventional Beans
¿Do they discriminate between biofortified and conventional beans?
¿Do they prefer biofortified or conventional beans?
80 Consumers in Holguín, Cuba
(Orlando Chaveco, Unidad de Extensión, Investigación y Capacitación Agropecuaria de Holguín, Cuba)
Consumer Acceptability
After tasting a recipe prepared with both bean types, consumers discriminated between biofortified
and conventional beans
(Orlando Chaveco, Unidad de Extensión, Investigación y Capacitación Agropecuaria de Holguín, Cuba)
Biofortified Bean
Conventional Bean
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
%
Detected adifference
Did not detect adifference
Consumer Acceptability
After tasting a recipe prepared with both bean types, consumers expressed no preference for
biofortified or conventional beans
No preferenceBiofortifiedConventional
(Orlando Chaveco, Unidad de Extensión, Investigación y Capacitación Agropecuaria de Holguín, Cuba)
P=0.13
Acceptability
Country Crop ResultNicaragua (Karina Leticia García Montecinos, José Alberto Godoy Godoy, Patricia Carrillo)
Rice Conventional preferred/accepted over aromatic (biofortified)
Nicaragua (Aracelly Serrano, Ena Vilchez, Michelle Sandino, Patricia Carrillo)
Sweet potato
With leaves equally preferred than without leaves
Studies underway Bolivia: Rice Cuba: Rice Nicaragua: Beans Nicaragua: Maize
Efficacy
Under ideal conditions (very controlled), what nutrition impact does the biofortified crop/food product have? (Goal: greater)
Efficacy
0
5
10
15
Baseline Endline
Weight (kg)
Biofortified Conventional
0
20
40
60
80
100
Baseline Endline
Height (cm)
Biofortified Maize Offered 5 d/wk for 3.5 mo Improved the Weight and Height of Nicaraguan Pre-schoolers
who were Mild or Moderately Malnourished at Baseline
(Ortega et al., Archivos Latinoamericanos de Nutrición, 2008)
0.80 0.192.02 1.23
P<0.01
P<0.01
Efficacy
Guatemala maize study with pre-school children nutritional benefit unlikely, study cancelled
Support for HarvestPlus bean trial in Mexican school-age children Sep 2009 start date?
Colombia school-age children, impact of maize (and beans?) on school performance, physical activity and nutritional status June 2009
Cost-effectiveness
In programs currently being implemented (real-life situation), what nutrition impact do biofortified crops and food products have? (Goal: greater) At what cost are these benefits realized? (Goal: same or less)
Ex-ante Cost-effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness of Biofortification in Nicaragua (Cost in USD per DALY averted)
19.95 7.33 6.2460.68
202.4
66.7
050
100150200250
Rice Beans MaizeIron Zinc
Compared with WHO estimates of the cost-effectiveness of supplementation and fortification in Latin America, the biofortification of rice, beans and maize with (1) iron is more favorable, (2) zinc (rice, maize) is more favorable than
supplementation and (3) zinc is less favorable than fortification.
Courtesy: Salomón Pérez, CIAT
487
215
7927
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Supplementation (WHO) Fortification (WHO)
* DALY = Disability-adjusted Life Years; WHO CHOICE for AMR B www.who.int/choice/results/en/ for Zn; Baltussen et al., 2004 for AMR B for Fe; WHO estimates assume 50% coverage
*
The economic impact of introducing pro-vitamin A biofortified cassava
Country ScenarioHealth burden reduction (%)
Internal Rate of Return (%)
Monetary gain (million US$)
ColombiaOptimistic 1.40% 42.7 0.5
Pessimistic 0.10% -1.1 -0.2
HondurasOptimistic 7.20% 45.5 0.3
Pessimistic 0.40% 1.0 -0.2
MexicoOptimistic 0.20% 71.1 0.9
Pessimistic 0.00% 14.9 -0.1
NicaraguaOptimistic 40.00% 74.4 1.6
Pessimistic 5.60% 33.7 0.0http://edge.rit.edu/content/P07403/public/cassava.jpg Monetary gains are corrected for the costs
Ex-ante Cost-effectiveness
(Anne Jacobsen, University of Copenhagen, CIAT presentation 2008)
Cost-effectiveness Site Selection
National
Local(Fredy Monserrate, Andrea Liliana Vesga, Emmanuel Zapata, Glenn Hyman; Zapata et al., International Journal of Health Graphics, in press; KSW poster)
Candidate Sites for Iron-
biofortified Crops in Colombia
Enabling a Policy Environment for Biofortification
Integration of Biofortification into National Nutrition Plans
in Panama and Cuba
-Analysis of Colombian Food & Nutrition Policies (Salomón Pérez, KSW poster)
-Food & Nutrition Security Committee, Cali
Support from Central American Ministers of Agriculture
Opening of CIAT’s Nutrition Quality Laboratory (2009)
El Tiempo, 2 agosto 2008
Visit
Looking Forward
Identification, characterization & quantification of essential nutrients, and phytochemicals with potential health benefits (anti-oxidant activity (Hiroko Kunori, Tokyo U
of Agriculture 2009)) In vitro bioavailability of nutrients and
phytochemicals Evaluating impact of CIAT activities on
food and nutrition security (food security scales, KSW
posters) Training: lab and field, internships,
professional exchanges
Students Mentored Paola Imbachí, Universidad del Cauca (Colombia). 2008-2009. *Ingrid Aragón, Universidad del Valle (Colombia). 2008-2009. Hiroko Kunori, Tokyo University of Agriculture (Japan). 2008-2009. Michelle Sandino, Aracelly Serrano, Ena Vílchez, Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de Nicaragua (Nicaragua). 2008. Karina Leticia García Montecinos, José Alberto Godoy Godoy,
Universidad Centroamericana (Nicaragua). 2008. Sayda Pico. Universidad Industrial de Santander (Colombia). 2008-
2009. Anne Jacobsen, University of Copenhagen (Denmark). 2008. Emmanuel Zapata, Universidad del Valle (Colombia). 2007-2009. Yalina Disla, Yale University (USA). 2007-2008. *Michael Dessalines, University of Connecticut (USA). 2008. Fredy Monserrate, Universidad Nacional de Colombia (Colombia).
2007. Andrea Liliana Vesga, Universidad Industrial de Santander (Colombia).
2007. Martha Cecilia Revelo, Universidad del Cauca (Colombia). 2006-2007. María del Mar Muñóz, Universidad del Cauca (Colombia). 2006-2007. *Distinguished theses
Collaborators in Nutrition Research
Ingrid Aragón Patricia Carrillo María Luisa Cortés Olga Lucía Cruz Sonia Gallego Dayron Gutiérrez Glenn Hyman Paola Imbachí Darling Moncada Darwin Ortiz Salomón Pérez Sayda Pico Marlene Rosero Teresa Sánchez Emmanuel Zapata Claudia Zúñiga
CIAT-Forrajes CIAT-Laboratorio de Calidad
Nutricional CIAT-Laboratorio de Calidad de
Yuca CIAT-Servicios Analíticos Clayuca Embrapa
CIAT CIDA HarvestPlus Monsanto Fund
