biofortification · rice is being developed for release in bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
BIOFORTIFICATION
J.V. Meenakshi
BEST PRACTICE PAPER: NEW ADVICE FROM CC08
![Page 2: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
![Page 3: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
C O P E N H A G E N C O N S E N S U S C E N T E R C O P E N H A G E N B U S I N E S S S C H O O L • S O L B J E R G P L A D S 3 • 2 0 0 0 F R E D E R I K S B E R G • D E N M A R K
+ 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 2 5 5 • I N F O . C C C @ C B S . D K • W W W . C O P E N H A G E N C O N S E N S U S . C O M
copenhagen consensus center best practice paper: new advice from cc08
BestPracticePaper
Cost‐EffectivenessofBiofortification
J.V.Meenakshi
ThispaperisbasedandbuildsonearlierworkbyHarvestPlusresearchcollaborators(seeMeenakshietal,2007).I
amgratefultoareviewerforhelpfulcommentsonanearlierdraft.Theusualdisclaimerapplies.Coverimagecredit:TheInternationalRiceResearchInstitute,2002.
![Page 4: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
![Page 5: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
3
PREFACEFortwoyearsbeforeCopenhagenConsensus2008,ateamofexpertswrotepapersidentifyingthebestwaystosolvetheworld’sbiggestproblems.Thosepapersshowedthatwehavetheknowledgetodotremendousamountsofgoodineachoftheseareas.Thatresearchwasutilizedbyapaneloftopeconomists,includingNobellaureates,whowerecommissionedbytheCopenhagenConsensusCentertoidentifythemosteffectiveinvestments.TheprioritizedlistproducedbyCopenhagenConsensus2008providesgovernments,donorsandphilanthropistswithaguidetotheareaswhererelativelysmallamountsofmoneycanproveextremelypowerful.Theresearchthatprovidedthebuildingblockstothisprocess–andafulldescriptionoftheoutcome–formthebook,‘GlobalIssues,GlobalSolutions,VolumeTwo’,publishedbyCambridgeUniversityPressin2009.Thisisanexcellentoverviewofglobalproblemsandthemostpromisingsolutions.GiventhelevelofinterestinCopenhagenConsensus2008,theCopenhagenConsensusCenterdecidedtocommissionaspecificsetofpapersthatdealwiththespendingoptionsgivenhighestprioritybytheexpertpanel.ThegoaloftheseBestPracticePapersistoprovideclearandfocusedempiricalrecommendationsonthecostsandbenefitsofimplementingthesolutions,andadviceonhowtodoso.TheproblemsdealtwithbyCopenhagenConsensus2008arevast.Thepracticalapproachesidentifiedhereproveincrediblypowerfulreading.TheCopenhagenConsensusCenterhopesthattheyshallproveaninvaluableresource,andfurtheradvancethegoalofpromotingthemostsoundinvestmentstohelphumanity.BjornLomborgCopenhagen,2009
![Page 6: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
4
INTRODUCTIONByanystandard,themagnitudeofmicronutrientundernutritionisimmense.Nearly2billionpeoplesufferfromirondeficiency,aquarteroftheworld’spopulationisatriskofinadequatezincintakes,andthemagnitudesforvitaminAdeficiencyaresimilarlyhigh.Unlikethecasewithinsufficientenergyintakes,micronutrientmalnutritionhasoftennoobviousmanifestationsexceptinextremecases,andisforthisreasonoftentermed“hiddenhunger”.Itisonlyappropriate,then,thatofthetoptensolutionsrankedbytheCopenhagenConsensus,fiveareaddressedtoreducingmalnutrition.Itisalsoanacknowledgementthataproblemsowidespreadneedsmorethanjustonesetofsolutionsorinterventionstohaveappreciableimpact(Horton,AldermanandRivera,2008a).Biofortificationisonesuchintervention,rankedfifthbytheConsensus(CopenhagenConsensus,Results,2008),alongwithsupplementation(ranked#1),fortification(ranked#2),dewormingandschoolnutritionprograms(ranked#6)andcommunity‐basednutritionpromotion(ranked#9).Thepremiseofbiofortificationisthatadiversedietrichinmicronutrientsisoutofreachofmanyoftheworld’spoor.Becausefoodsthatarehighinmicronutrientssuchasvegetables,fruits,dairy,andmeatsareexpensive,resource‐poorpeoplerelyprimarilyonafewstarchystaplesthatarerichinenergy,butnotinmicronutrients.Dietarydiversitytoachievemicronutrientintakeadequacyisaluxurythatthepoorcanoftennotafford.Byenhancingthemicronutrientcontentoftheseenergy‐richstaples,micronutrientintakesingeneral,andamongthepoorinparticular,canbeincreased,therebyleadingtoareductionintheprevalenceofmicronutrientundernutrition.TheobjectiveofbiofortificationistodevelopmicronutrientdensestaplecropstoachieveprovitaminsA,ironandzincconcentrationsthatcanhaveameasurableimpactonnutritionalstatus.Forthebiofortificationstrategytobesuccessfulandcost‐effective,threequestionsmustbeanswered:first,plantbreedersmustsucceedinfindinglineswithhighmicronutrientcontentthatcanbebredintolocalvarieties.Second,thenutritionalefficacyofabiofortifiedcropmustbeestablished,andthird,bothfarmersandconsumersmustacceptthenewvarietyandmakeitanimportantpartofwhattheyproduceandconsume,sothatitbecomesacost‐effectiveintervention.Thusfartheanswertothefirstquestionappearstobepositive,inthatitispossibletoincreasethecontentofsomemicronutrients(butnotothers)totheminimumtargetlevelsthathavebeensetbynutritionistsasnecessarytomeasurebiologicalimpact.Forexample,ahigh‐zincriceisbeingdevelopedforreleaseinBangladeshby2012;however,achievingtheirontargetinricemaytakelonger.IthasalsonotbeenpossibletoincreasetheprovitaminsAlevelsofriceusingconventionalbreedingtechniques;goldenriceisatransgeniccrop.Similarly,orangesweetpotatoesrichinprovitaminsAhavebeenreleasedinUganda,butitappearsnotfeasibletoappreciablyincreasethemineralcontentofthisstapleusingconventionalbreedingtechniques.Theevidenceonnutritionalefficacyisalsobuilding—thecasehasbeenmadefororangesweetpotatoes(vanJaarsveldetal,2005)andsimilarresearchisunderwayforother
![Page 7: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
5
crops.AneffectivenessstudyinMozambiquehasdemonstratedthattherewasanappreciableincreaseinserumretinollevelsamongyoungchildrenasaconsequenceofconsumingorangesweetpotatoeveninacommunitysetting(Lowetal,2007).Thispaperattemptstoanswerthethirdquestiononthecosteffectivenessofbiofortification,byreviewingtheevidenceonitscostsandpotentialhealthbenefits.Itisexanteinnature,sincewithfewexceptions,biofortifiedcropsareyettobereleased.Thepaperpresentsatypologyforanalyzingthecost‐effectivenessoftheinterventionandexaminesthesensitivityoftheresultstoalternativeassumptionsoncoverageandimpact.Likefortification,biofortificationisafood‐basedapproach.Itsnicheisthatittargetsruralareas,wherealargepartofcropproductionisconsumedeitheron‐farmorlocally,andrelianceonpurchasedfoodproductsthatareprocessedcentrallyissmall.Forexample,muchofthemaizeflourinruralZambiaismilledinhammermillswithrelativelysmallcapacities.Whilefortificationatthislevelhasbeenshowntobetechnicallyfeasible,itisalsorelativelyexpensive,becauseofthemonitoringcostsinvolved(OmarDary,personalcommunication).Similarly,inruralBangladesh,riceisusuallymilledinsmall‐capacitymobileandtraditionalmills.AsFiedler(2007)notes:“ifalargeproportionofthefooditemisproducedorprocessedbysmallscaleproducers,thefoodislikelytobelessattractiveasafortificationvehicle.Insuchinstances,compliancewiththefortificationstandardsorregulationsislikelytobemorevariable,andmoredifficultandexpensivetoensure.”ItisperhapsforthisreasonthattheMicronutrientInitiativeexpectsthatthecoverageoffortifiedfoodsinruralareasmaynotexceedone‐third.Becausebiofortificationworksatthelevelofeachindividualcropplant,itcanservetoreachruralpopulationsnoteasilyservedbyotherinterventions.Buthowcosteffectiveisthisintervention?Thisreviewexaminesthekeydriversofthecostsofbiofortification,andhowtheyinfluencecosteffectiveness.Thepaperisorganizedasfollows.Section2firstpresentssomesummaryevidenceoncostsperDALYsavedfrombiofortification,andpresentsasimpleframeworkthatisusefulforunderstandinghowcostsandcost‐effectivenessdependonspecificcontexts.Itthenpresentsamoredetailedanalysisforfourcountry‐crop‐nutrientcasescenarios,eachrepresentingatypologythatcategorizestheeasewithwhichabiofortifiedstaplefoodcouldtakerootinthetargetcountry.Threeofthesecasesareforcropsthatareconventionally‐bred;thefourthexaminestheevidencefortransgenicbiofortifiedcrops.InSection3,thepaperconsidersissuesrelatedforconsumeracceptanceofanewcrop,whenthebiofortificationtranslatesintoavisiblechangeinitsappearance.ThisisthecasewithcropsthatarehighinprovitaminsAwhichareorangeincolor,andthusdistinctfromthewhitevarietiesthatareconventionallyconsumed.Section4presentsconclusions.
1 ANALYZINGTHECOST‐EFFECTIVENESSOFBIOFORTIFICATION1
Inprinciple,biofortificationisanextremelyattractiveintervention,sinceaone‐timeinvestmentinbiofortifiedcropvarietiesyieldsabenefitstreamyearafteryear.Therearevirtuallynorecurringcosts,exceptthoseinvolvedinmaintenancebreeding.Theseofcoursevary,andare
1TheunitofcurrencyusedinthispaperistheUSdollar.
![Page 8: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
6
estimatedatabout$100,000peryearinBangladeshand$2millionperyearinIndia.Incomparison,bothfortificationandsupplementationinvolverecurringcosts:incrementalcostsoffortificationareestimatedat$20millionayearinBangladeshalone(Fiedler,2008).Thewell‐acceptedmetric—Disability‐AdjustedLifeYears(DALYs)—formsthebasisfordeterminingimpactandcosteffectiveness.BeforethepublicationoftheLancet(Blacketal.,2008)series,amodificationoftheDALYsframework,adaptedspecificallytoananalysisofmicronutrientmalnutrition,wasdevelopedbyHarvestPlus,andisthebasisofthefigurespresentedinthispaper.Incalculatingcost‐effectiveness,thefocusisonlyonthehealthbenefitsthataccrueasaconsequenceofbiofortification,andnotontheagronomic(yield)benefitsthatmayalsobeembodiedinabiofortifiedstaple.Whilethedetailsofthemethodologyaresetoutin(Steinetal,2005),thekeyassumptionsunderlyingtheassessmentoftheimpactandcost‐effectivenessofbiofortificationinreducingtheDALYburdeninvolvethefollowing(Meenakshietal,2007hasdetails):
• Theincrementalquantityofmicronutrientsinthegrain—asdeterminedbyplantbreeders,andbasedontheminimumtargetlevelssetbynutritionistsasnecessaryforameasurablehealthimpact.Thisisdeterminedbyexaminingthenaturalvariationinthegermplasmandistakenasfixedinthesimulationsthatfollow.
• Thequantityofthestaplefoodcropconsumedbytargetpopulations—thegreatertheconsumptionthegreatertheimpact.Anexamplemaybeillustrative:witha300gramperdayconsumption—notunreasonableforanadultwomaninmanydevelopingcountries—theadditionof4partspermillion(ppm)ofirontothestaplewouldtranslateintoanincreasedintakeof1.2mgperdayofthenutrient.Alowerlevelofconsumption,say100grams,wouldtranslateintoincreasedironintakesofonly0.4mgperday.Unfortunately,reliabledataonthequantityoffoodsconsumeddisaggregatedbygenderandagegroupisrarelyavailable;yetthisinformationiscriticaltoanalysesofpotentialimpact(Fiedleretal,2008).Forthisreason,thesimulationsbelowvarythelevelofconsumptionandexaminehowcost‐effectivenessresultschangeasaconsequence.
• Nutrientlossesinfoodpreparation—thisisaparticularconcernwithprovitaminsAwhichmaydegradequicklywhenexposedtosunlightortocertainformsofprocessing,suchasfermentation.Boilingforexample,translatesintoretentionlevelsofabout80%(Bengtssonetal,2008),butretentionlevelsforotherprocessingmethodscanbemuchlower(Nascimentoetal,2007).ThesimulationsforprovitaminsAexaminethesensitivityofresultstochangesinprocessinglosses.
• Coveragerates—thegreatertheshareofacountry’sfoodsupplythatisbiofortified,thehigherthemagnitudeofimpact.Butthisdependsbothonfarmers’andconsumers’acceptanceofbiofortifiedstaplesandtheavailabilityofinfrastructurefordissemination.Clearly,thisisakeyparameterforimpact,andthecostsimulationstaketheseintoaccount.
• Costs:Thecost‐effectivenessfigureshereincludecostsofresearchanddevelopmentofthenewvarietysincethesearesignificantup‐frontcosts.Theseareapportionedtothepotentialsetoftargetcountriesusingproductionshares.Whilethesecostsincludebreedingformultiplenutrients,thecost‐effectivenessfiguresattributetotalcoststo
![Page 9: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
7
eachindividualnutrient,sincethereisnoobviouswaytoapportioncostsbetweenzincandiron,forexample.Bothnutrientstendtobecorrelatedinmanycrops(PfeifferandMcClafferty,2007),sothatbreedingforhighzincoftentranslatesintohigherironlevelsinthegrainaswell.Alsoincludedarecountry‐specificcostsofadaptivebreeding,maintenancebreeding,anddisseminationandnutritioneducationcampaigns.
• Healthbenefitsandcostsarediscountedat3percentperyear,asisusualinthehealtheconomicsliterature.Thepaperalsoexaminesthesensitivityoftheresultstotheuseofahigherdiscountrateof6%.
• AlthoughthepaperfocusesonDALYs—whichareadirectmeasureofhealthbenefits—tofacilitatecomparisonswithotherinterventionsthroughthecalculationofabenefit‐costratio,DALYsaremonetizedat$1000perDALYsaved.Whilethisfigureissomewhatarbitrarilychosen,thisfigurehasbeensuggestedbyHortonetal(2008b)asbeingappropriateforlowincomecountriesinSouthAsiaandSub‐SaharanAfrica,whicharetheprimarytargetregionsformicronutrientinterventions.
TheseassumptionsarethebasisofcalculationssummarizedinTable1.Becausetheanalysisisexanteinnature,pessimisticandoptimisticscenariosareusedtocapturethesensitivityofresultstochangesinassumptions.Allthebest‐caseassumptionsareusedfortheoptimisticscenario,whilealltheworst‐caseassumptionsconstitutethepessimisticscenario.Itisclearthatnearlyalltheinterventionsareextremelycost‐effectiveeveninthepessimisticscenario,withmostcostsperDALYsavedlowerthanthe$200cut‐offoftenusedtocategorizeinterventionsas“highly”costeffective.Notunexpectedly,impactandcost‐effectivenessestimatesvarynotonlybycropandnutrient,butalsoacrosscountries.Table1.Impactandcost‐effectivenessofbiofortification(rangeofestimates)Micronutrient PercentreductioninDALYburden CostperDALYsavedCrop Pessimistic Optimistic Pessimistic OptimisticZinc: Rice 13‐20 33‐56 6‐55 1‐12Wheat 5‐9 33‐48 11‐18 1‐2Iron: Rice 4‐8 11‐21 17‐234 3‐55Beans 3‐9 16‐36 134‐439 20‐65VitaminA: Cassava 3‐5 19‐32 124‐1000 8‐127Maize 1‐8 17‐32 113‐289 11‐18Source:Meenakshi,J.V.,NancyJohnson,VictorManyong,HugoDeGroote,JoyJavelosa,DavidYanggen,FirdousiNaher,JamesGarcia,CarolinaGonzalesandErikaMeng,“Howcost‐effectiveisbiofortificationincombatingmicronutrientmalnutrition?Anexanteassessment”2007:HarvestPlusWorkingPaper2.
![Page 10: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
8
Figure1.Atypologyforanalyzingcost‐effectivenessofbiofortification
Source:HarvestPlus,http://www.harvestplus.org/endusers.html,“ReachingEndUsers”RetrievedDecember9,2008.
Whatfactorshelpexplainthisvariationincost‐effectiveness?Figure1presentsasimpleframeworkforanalyzinghowcostsmayvary.Clearly,thepotentialcoverageofbiofortifiedvarieties—bothintermsoftheshareofthecropareadevotedtobiofortifiedvarieties,aswellasthepercentageofconsumerswhowouldconsumebiofortifiedstaplefoods—iskey.Thisinturndependsonwhetherthereisawell‐developeddisseminationinfrastructureforthenewcrops(onthehorizontalaxis)andwhetherconsumeracceptanceislikelytoposeahurdle(ontheverticalaxis).QuadrantAdepictsasituationwherethereisgooddisseminationinfrastructureandwherethetraitisinvisible;biofortificationislikelytobehighlycosteffectiveinthisscenario.Incontrast,costsarelikelytobehigherwheredisseminationinfrastructureisnotaswelldeveloped,andwherethetraitisinvisible(QuadrantB)andhigherstillinsituationswheretheinfrastructureisrelativelypoor,andthebiofortifiedtraitisvisible(QuadrantC).Mineral‐densecerealcropsinSouthAsiabestexemplifyQuadrantA.CerealareainSouthAsiatendstodominatedbyafewmegavarieties.ForexampleinBangladesh,thetopfivevarietiesaccountforoverhalfthericeareaintheAmanseasonandnearlytwo‐thirdsofthericecroppedareaintheBoroseason.Maximaladoptionratesforthesuccessfulvarietieswereachievedinaslittleasfiveyearsfromintroduction(JaimandHossain,2007).Byensuringthatthehigh‐zinclinesareback‐crossedintothepopularmegavarieties,andbyalsointroducingthehigh‐zinctraitintonewgenerationofvarietiesthataretobereleased,highcoverageratesmaybefeasiblewithinarelativelyshortperiodoftime.CropsinSub‐SaharanAfricaexemplify
![Page 11: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
9
QuadrantsBandC,sincemostAfricancountrieshaverelativelypoorextensionandseedsystemsinfrastructure.Forthisreason,thepercentageofareaofmajorstaplesinSub‐SaharanAfricathatisdevotedtomodernvarietiesdoesnotapproachthelevelsfoundinSouthAsia(EvensonandGollin,2003).Farmer‐to‐farmerexchangeiscommon,andwherethevarietyishybrid,subsidiesmayoftenbenecessary.Forexample,Zambiawasabletoachieve75%coverageofmodernvarietiesaslongasseedwassubsidized,thisfigureplummetedtoaboutone‐thirdcoveragewhenthesubsidieswereremoved(Mungoma,personalcommunication).MineraldensecropsinthiscontinentthereforeareanexampleofQuadrantB.ProvitaminsAisavisibletraitthatimpartsadistinctorangecolortothegrainorroot.Becauseofthis,theremaybelowacceptancebyconsumers,evenifhighcoverageratesarefeasiblethroughagronomicsuperiority.Thecostsnecessarytoachievesubstantialimpactforcountries‐crops‐nutrientsinthesequadrants(CandD)arelikelytobemuchhigherthaninQuadrantB.Costsforatransgeniccropwithavisibletraitmayalsobehigh,evenifsuchbiofortifiedcropsaredeployedincountrieswithwelldevelopedinfrastructure(QuadrantD).Thecost‐effectivenessofbiofortificationmaybeexaminedusingthisframework,usingatypicalexamplefromeachofthequadrants.Alsohighlightedishowresultsmayvarydependingontheassumptionsused.Table2.Impactandcost‐effectivenessofzinc‐densericeinBangladesh:sensitivitytoassumptionsoncoverageandconsumptionlevels(quadrantA) PercentreductioninDALY
burdenofzincdeficiencyCostperDALYsaved(USD)
Coveragevariesfrom10to60%10 5 2620 10 1330 14 940 18 750 22 660 25 570 29 4
Consumptionlevelsamongyoungchildrenvariesfrom50to150gramspercapita
50 10 13100 18 7125 20 6150 25 5
Source:Author’scalculations,basedonMeenakshietal(2007).
![Page 12: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
10
1.1 Well‐developeddisseminationinfrastructure, invisibletrait:thecaseofzinc‐densericeinBangladesh(QuadrantA)
Table2presentschangesinimpactandcost‐effectivenessresultsbasedonalternativeassumptionsoncoverageandthequantityofstaplefoodconsumed.Themaintainedassumptionsare:
• Anincrementof10ppmofzincisaddedtopolishedrice(asconsumed)atargetthatplantbreedersexpecttoachieveby2012.Becausethenutrientcontentismeasuredinpolishedrice,processinglossesarenotrelevant,sincethereisonlyaninsignificantlossofmineralduringtheboilingofrice.
• Consumptionofriceaveragesapproximately150gramseverydayamongyoungchildren,andbiofortifiedricevarietieswillaccountfor60%ofthetotalricesupplyinthecountryovera20‐yearperiod.
• Researchanddevelopmentcostsaverage$300,000peryear;adaptivebreedingcostsareapproximately$100,000peryearandlastforfiveyears;andmaintenancebreedinganddisseminationcosts(andminimalsocialmarketingcosts)addup$100,000peryearandareincurredforthelast20ofthe30yearstimeframeconsideredintheanalysis.
TheseassumptionstranslateintoreductionintheDALYburdenofzincinBangladeshofnearlyaquarter,atacostof$5perDALYsaved.Evenwitharelativelylowcoverageof10%,itisclearthathigh‐zincriceinBangladeshwillbehighlycost‐effectiveeventhoughtheimpactontheDALYburdenofzincundernutritionisarelativelymodest5%;withcoverageratescloserto70%,nearly30%oftheDALYburdenwouldbesaved,atacostof$4perDALYsaved.Thetablealsopresentsevidenceonthesensitivityoftheresultstochangesinthelevelsofconsumptionofrice,keepingcoveragefixedat60%.Inareaswhereonly50gramsofriceareeateneverydaybychildreninthisagegroup(one‐thirdofthe150gramsassumedabove),a10%reductionintheburdenofzincdeficiencycouldbeachieved.Itwouldneverthelesscontinuetobeahighlycost‐effectiveinterventionatalittleover$13perDALYsaved.Theuseofahigherdiscountratedoeslittletoaltertheconclusion:ata6%rateofdiscount,underthemaintainedassumptionsoutlinedinthebulletsabove,costswouldincreaseto$11.30perDALYsaved(Table5).Thesetranslateintoextremelyhighbenefit‐costratios:ifDALYssavedarevaluedat$1000each,thiswouldtranslateintoabenefitcostratioof198whencostsandbenefitsarediscountedat3%.Ata6%discountrate,thebenefitcostratiowoulddropto89.Towhatextentmightsimilarresultsobtainforothercrops/countriesinthisquadrant?ResultsarecomparableforEasternIndia,notsurprisinggivensimilarprevalenceofmicronutrientmalnutrition,anddietsthatarealsobasedonrice.Forotherrice‐basedeconomiesinSouthEastAsiaaswell,benefit‐costratiosarelikelytobehigh(seeforexampleJavelosa,2006).
1.2 Under‐developedinfrastructure,invisibletrait:thecaseofiron‐densebeansinRwanda(QuadrantB)
Rwandaisrepresentativeofthistypology,withhighlevelsofanemia(56%amongchildren),andwithpercapitaconsumptionofbeansbeingamongthehighestinthecontinent.Thereisnoformalseedsystemperse,andinformalseedmarketsandfarmer‐to‐farmerexchange
![Page 13: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
11
predominateasthesourceofseed.Iron‐densebeansareexpectedtobereleasedinlate2010.Table3demonstratestheexpectedcosteffectivenessofbiofortificationinRwanda,anditssensitivitytochangesincoverageandconsumption.Theunderlyingassumptionsare:
• Anincrementof40ppmisaddedtobeans,atargetthatplantbreedershavealreadyachieved
• Consumptionamongchildrenisabout30gramspercapitaperday,andcoveragereaches20%over20years;therearenoprocessinglosses
• Researchanddevelopmentcostsaverage$200,000peryear;afigurearrivedatbyapportioningglobalresearchanddevelopmentcoststopotentialtargetcountriesusingproductionshares;adaptivebreedingcostsareabout$100,000peryearandlastforfiveyears,whilemaintenancebreedinganddisseminationcostsare$50,000peryearandareincurredforthelast20ofthe30yearstimeframeconsideredintheanalysis.
Table3.Impactandcost‐effectivenessofiron‐densebeansinRwanda:sensitivitytoassumptionsoncoverageandconsumptionlevels(quadrantB) PercentreductioninDALY
burdenofirondeficiencyCostperDALYsaved(USD)
Coveragevariesfrom10to60%10 2 2520 4 1330 6 940 8 750 10 560 12 470 14 4
Consumptionlevelsamongyoungchildrenvariesfrom30to70gramspercapita
30 4 1350 7 870 10 5
Source:Author’scalculations,basedonMeenakshietal(2007)TheseassumptionstranslateintoafourpercentreductioninDALYssavedannually,atacostofabout$13perDALYsaved,whichisextremelycosteffective,evenwithalowcoveragerateof20%.Ifcoverageweretoexpandto50%,Rwandacouldseea10%reductionintheburdenofirondeficiency,atacostof$5perDALYsaved.Theassumptiononthelevelofconsumptionofbeans,relativetotheotherstaplesbeingconsideredinthispaper,isrelativelyconservative.Thetablealsoexaminestheimpactofusingahigherconsumptionlevelforbeans—whichisaco‐stapleintheaverageRwandandiet.DoublingtheconsumptiontranslatesintoamorethandoublingofthereductionintheDALYburdenofirondeficiencyinRwanda,andasaconsequence,morethanhalvingthecostperDALYsaved.Nomattertheassumptionused,theinterventionappearshighlycost‐effective.
![Page 14: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
12
Onceagain,thisconclusionisrelativelyrobusttothechoiceofdiscountrateused:increasingthediscountratefor3to6%translatesintoanincreaseincostperDALYsavedfrom$13to$18(Table5)underthemaintainedassumptionsofamaximumcoverageof20%,andconsumptionlevelsamongchildrenofabout30grams.Evaluatedat$1000perDALYsaved,thesetranslateintoextremelyhighbenefit‐costratiosof78(at3%)and56(at6%).Similarcost‐effectivenessfiguresarelikelytoobtaininneighboringregionsinBurundi,andtheKivuprovincesoftheDemocraticRepublicofCongo,allofwhichhaverelativelyhighconsumptionofbeans.IncountriessuchasKenyaandTanzaniaaswell,biofortifiedbeansarelikelytobecosteffective.
1.3 Underdeveloped infrastructure,visibletrait:thecaseofprovitaminsAmaize inKenya(QuadrantC)
Table4considersasimilarsetofcalculations,presentedthistimeformaize,andtakingintoaccountchangesinassumptionsregardingcoverage,consumptionlevels,andprocessinglosses.BecausethecoverageofmodernvarietiesinmostAfricancountriesisnotashighasthelevelsthathavebeendemonstratedinSouthAsia,thecostcalculationsassumeamaximumcoverageof50%,lowerthanthe60%consideredinBangladesh.NotethatseedsystemsinKenyaare,relativelyspeaking,betterthaninmuchofSub‐SaharanAfrica.Onceagain,themaintainedassumptionsare:
• Anincrementof15ppmisaddedtomaize,atargetthatplantbreedersexpecttoachieveby2012.
• Processinglossesaverage50%percent,consumptionamongchildrenis150gramspercapitaperday,andcoveragereaches50%over20years
• Researchanddevelopmentcostsaverage$300,000peryear;thisfigureisarrivedatbyapportioningglobalresearchanddevelopmentcoststotargetcountriesaccordingtoproductionshares;adaptivebreedingcostsapproximately$200,000peryearandlastforfiveyears;maintenancebreedinganddisseminationcostsare$100,000peryearandareincurredforthelast20ofthe30yearstimeframeconsideredintheanalysis.RelativetothecostsinBangladesh,thecostsinKenyaarehigherbothinpercapitaandperacreterms
Undertheseassumptions,Kenyacouldseea30%reductioninitsburdenofVitaminAdeficiencyatacostofunder$30perDALYsaved.Thistranslatesinto36,000DALYssavedannually.Withcoverageratesat70%,a40%reductioncouldbeachieved,withacostof$23perDALYsaved.Shouldconsumeracceptanceposeanobstacle,however,andcoverageratesdon’texceed10%evenafter10years,a7%reductionintheDALYburdencouldbeachieved,atacostof$125perDALYsaved.Turningtothesensitivityofthesefigurestochangesinconsumptionlevels,ifconsumptionlevelsamongyoungchildrenwereonlyone‐thirdthoseassumedhere,thecostsperDALYsavedwouldbecloserto$80,sincethiswouldtranslateintoonlya11percentreductionintheburdenofVitaminAdeficiency.Finally,thetablealsosetsouthowcost‐effectivenessvariesdependingonprocessinglosses.Ifprocessingmethodsinvolveprolongedexposuretosunlight,itislikelythatmuchoftheadditionalbetacaroteneinthemaizewillbelost.Inthiscase,lossesofupto70%arepossible.Thecostsinthissituationwould
![Page 15: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
13
bemorethandoublethatofthescenarioconsidered,at$65perDALYsaved.Iflosseswereaslowas30%,provitaminsAmaizewouldcost$23perDALYsaved.Table4.Impactandcost‐effectivenessofprovitaminAmaizeinKenya:sensitivitytoassumptionsoncoverage,consumptionlevels,andretention(quadrantC) PercentreductioninDALY
burdenofvitaminAdeficiencyCostperDALYsaved(USD)
Coveragevariesfrom10to60%10 7 12520 14 6530 20 4540 25 3550 30 2960 35 2570 39 23
Consumptionlevelsamongyoungchildrenvariesfrom50to150gramspercapita
50 11 77100 22 41150 30 29
RetentionofprovitaminAvariesfrom30to70%30 20 2350 30 2970 39 40
Source:Author’scalculations,basedonMeenakshietal(2007).Table5showshowthecost‐effectivenessresultschangewithahigherdiscountrate:theinterventioncontinuestobehighlycost‐effectiveata6%rateofdiscountwithacostperDALYsavedof$41,andabenefitcostratioof24.HighprovitaminsAmaizeissimilarlylikelytobecost‐effectiveinothereasternandsouthernAfricancountries,whichhavepredominantlymaize‐baseddiets.Forcountrieswithlowerlevelsofmaizeconsumption,suchasthosefoundinwesternAfrica,targetincrementsnecessarytoachievebiologicalimpactwillneedtobecommensuratelygreater.ThecomparisonofBangladeshandKenyahighlightstherelativelyhighercosts—andagreatersensitivityofthecost‐effectivenessresultstounderlyingassumptions—inKenyathanisthecaseinBangladesh.Twomainfactorsdrivethis:first,thepopulationbase—andhencetheburdenofmicronutrientdeficiencyismuchhigherinBangladeshthaninKenya.440,000DALYsarelosttozincdeficiencyinBangladesheachyear,whileDALYslosttovitaminAdeficiencyinKenyaare120,000.Second,costsperperson(andperacreofcrop)arelikelytobemuchhigherinKenyathaninBangladesh.ThisisonaccountofthehighercostsofdisseminationinAfricaingeneral,andthefactthatagreatermultiplicityofvarieties—both
![Page 16: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
14
Table5.Sensitivityofresultstomagnitudeofdiscountrateused;undermaintainedassumptions Zinc‐densericein
BangladeshIron‐densebeansin
RwandaProvitamin‐Amaize
inKenyaCost/DALYsaved(USD)Discountrateof3%
5 13 30
Discountrateof6%
11 18 41
Benefit‐CostRatio(Benefitsvaluedat$1000perDALYsaved)Discountrateof3%
198 78 34
Discountrateof6%
89 56 24
Source:Author’scalculations,basedonMeenakshietal(2007).openpollinatedandhybrid—arecultivatedinKenyaascomparedtoBangladesh.Also,becauseofthevisibletrait,amoreelaborateandperhapsprolongednutritioninformationcampaignislikelytobenecessaryinKenyaascomparedtothelevelofintensity(andcost)ofanutritioncampaignthatwillbenecessarywiththeinvisiblezinctraitinriceinBangladesh.
1.4 Well‐developed dissemination infrastructure, visible trait and transgenic: the case ofgoldenriceinAsia(QuadrantD)
Whilethepaperthusfarhasfocusedexclusivelyonconventionally‐bredcrops,afewwordsontransgeniccropsareinorder,asthepotentialforabiofortifiedmaize,forexample,thathasgenesthatimpartdroughttolerance,oraprovitaminsAricethathassubmergencetolerancegenescanbeimmense.Biofortificationcouldthenrideonamuch‐prizedagronomictraittohighlevelsofcoverage.Transgeniccropsalsoofferthepotentialforsignificantlyincreasingtheamountofthemicronutrientthatisavailable,andofferthepossibilitythatmorethanonemicronutrientcanbeincorporatedintothestaplefood.Buttotheextentthattransgeniccropsalsofaceobstaclesintermsofpublicconcernsastotheirsafety,achievingwidecoveragemaynotbefeasible,placingsuchcropsintheupperleftquadrantoftheschematicdepictedinFigure1.Underthegrandchallengesinhealthprograms,researchiscurrentlyunderwaytoexaminethefeasibilityofintroducingmicroandmacronutrientsintocassava,sorghum,bananaandrice.Withtheexceptionofgoldenrice,therearerelativelyfewstudiesthatexaminethecost‐effectivenessoftransgenicbiofortifiedcrops.Steinetal’s(2008)resultsareparticularlyinstructive,sincetheyarebasedonthesamemethodologythatunderliestheothercostestimatespresentedinthispaper,thisenablesdirectcomparisons.Steinetal’sresultssuggestthatgoldenriceishighlycosteffectiveinIndia,atalittleunder$20perDALYsaved,evenunderalowimpactscenario.Thelowimpactscenarioassumesacoveragerateofbetween15to20percent,andincludesregulatorycostsofover$2million,totalresearchanddevelopmentcostsof$8.5million,andsocialmarketingcostsofapproximately$15million.Theyfindthatthis
![Page 17: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
15
resultisrobusttochangesinassumptionaboutcoverageratesandcosts,ineachcasebeinglowerthanthecostperDALYsavedofthenextcheapestintervention.EarlierworkbyDaweetal(2002)andZimmermanandQaim(2004)inthecontextofotherAsiancountrieshasqualitativelysimilarresults.Sinceregulatorymechanismsfortheintroductionoftransgeniccropsarestilltobeinputinplaceinmanydevelopingcountries,thepotentialreachofatransgenicbiofortifiedcropinthenextfivetotenyearsappearslimitedtoafewcountries,includingthePhilippines,India,andSouthAfrica.
2 HOWWILLCONSUMERSREACTTOAVISIBLY‐DIFFERENTSTAPLEFOODCROP?
Thecoverageratesthatbiofortifiedcropsreachdependnotonlyonproduceracceptance,butalsoonacceptancebyconsumerswhomayresistastaplefoodthatisvisiblydifferentinappearanceandperhapstaste.Whatarethegroundsforoptimismaboutconsumeracceptanceofanorangecoloredmaize,oragoldenrice?InafascinatingaccountoftheintroductionofmaizevarietiesintotheAfricancontinent,anditsspreadtodisplacethetraditionallycultivatedsorghumandmillets,JamesMcCann(2005)devotesanentirechaptertitled“HowAfrica’sMaizeturnedWhite”.Henotesthat:
“DespitetherecentevidencethatAfricanconsumersarenowratherfirmlyentrenchedintheirpreferenceforwhitemaize,earlierAfricans’aestheticsensibilitiesregardingfoodandsymbolcausedconsumerstoselectcoloredmaize,rangingfromcrimsontoblue,tocolorfulmosaicsofred,blue,yellowandorange,eitherondifferentears,orallmixedonasingleear.Historically,manylocalconsumersinAfricaexpressedstrongpreferencesforredorblueororangeoryellowkernels,orforvariegatedmixesofalloftheabove.Intheearly1960s,thepresencecoloredmaizeonAfricanmarketsbegantorecede,asnationaltrendsfavoringwhitemaizeovertookolderlocaltraditions.”(McCann,2005,pp.113‐114).
Theswitchtowhitemaize,then,appearstohavestartedlessthanfiftyyearsago,dictatedlargelybycommercialcompulsionsandtrade.Ofcourse,thedistributionofyellowmaizebredprimarilyforfeedasfoodaidhasimpartedanegativeconnotation,bothonaccountofpoorsensorycharacteristicssuchasaromaandtaste,andtheassociationwithtimesofhardship.Inmorerecentyears,economistshavefocusedattentiononwhetherabiofortifiedmaizewillbeacceptedinAfrica.DeGrooteandKimenju(2008)comparingwhiteandyellowmaizes(butnotanorangebiofortifiedmaize),notethatonaverage,consumersneededasubstantial37%discounttoswitchfromwhitetoyellowmaize.Whiletherewasapremiumforcommercially‐fortifiedmaize,itwasonlyabout6to7%inmagnitude.However,themagnitudeofthediscounttoinduceaswitchwasmuchlowerforpoorerconsumers.AstudyconductedinZimbabweaboutconsumers’perceptionsaboutyellowmaizesuggestedthatnutritioneducationwasthesinglemostimportantfactorininfluencingacceptanceofyellowmaize,andthatpoorerconsumersweremorelikelytoacceptyellowmaizethanricherconsumers(Muzhingietal,2008).
![Page 18: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
16
Iforangemaizeisbelievedequivalenttoyellowmaize,thesestudiesindicatethatthetaskofexpandingcoverageunderapro‐VitaminsAmaizeisindeedanuphillone.However,astudyconductedbyStevensandWinter‐Nelson(2008)inurbanMaputo,Mozambique,focusedonadeeporangebiofortifiedmaize,andcomparedittoanisogenicwhitemaize.Theirresultssuggestthat“existingpreferencesforwhitemaizemaynotprecludeacceptanceoforangebiofortifiedmaize.”Also,amorerecentsurveyinZambiathatincludedbothsensoryevaluationandwillingnesstopaycomponents,andcomparedwhite,yellowandorangevarieties,concludedthatconsumersdidnotconfuseorangeforyellowvarieties,andfoundorangemaizetobeasacceptableormoreacceptablethanwhitemaize;whileyellowmaizehad,onaverage,thelowestacceptabilityscores.Infact,orangemaizeappearedtosellatapremiumrelativetowhitemaize(HarvestPlus,ongoingresearch).ThisisalsocorroboratedbyasimilarstudyoforangesweetpotatoesinUganda(Chowdhuryetal,2008).Clearlymoreresearchisneededtoaddresswhetherinfacttheorangenessofthebiofortifiedvarietieswillproveasellingpoint,orwhetherthenegativeperceptionsaboutyellowmaizewillcarryovertothesevarieties.Whatifanorangecoloredbiofortifiedcropisalsotransgenic?If,inadditiontobeinganunfamiliarcolor,thecropisalsogeneticallymodified(GM),thismayposeanadditionalhurdletoovercomeforachievingwidecoverage.Therehavealsobeensomestudiesontheconsumeracceptanceofabiofortifiedtransgeniccrop,allofthemusingmethodsofelicitationthatrelyonhypothetical(butincentive‐compatible)scenarios,sinceatransgenicbiofortifiedcrophasnotyetbeenreleased.TheresultssuggestthatincontrasttoEuropewheretheoppositiontotransgenicfoodsappearsentrenched,inthedevelopingcountriesthatarethetargetofbiofortification,consumerattitudesarenotsonegative,especiallywhengiveninformationaboutthenutritivevalueofthefoods.Afewexamplesareillustrative:acomprehensivesurveyoffarmers,urbanconsumersandruralconsumerswasundertakeninthePhilippinestoassesstheacceptabilityofa3‐in‐1GMrice,withenhancedprovitaminsA,resistancetotungro,andresistancetobacterialleafblight.Morethantwo‐thirdsoftherespondentsindicatedthattheywouldacceptabiofortified(golden)GMrice,anequalnumberindicatedthattheywouldplantit,orbuyandconsumeit.Aquarterwouldplant/consumeitundercertainconditions,thatrelatedlargelytoconcernsabouttheperceivedadverseeffectsofGMfoodsonhealth.AskediftheywouldbewillingtopayhigherpriceforaGMricethatmet50%oftherecommendeddietaryallowanceforvitaminA,about30%indicatedthattheywouldnotdoso,whileabouthalftheconsumersindicatetheirwillingnesstopaybetween1and10percentmore.Thesemagnitudeswerecomparabletothosefortheagronomictraitofpestandinsectresistance(Gonzalesetal,2008a).ResultssuggestingthataGMbiofortifiedcropmayfindacceptancealsoappearfromBrazil,fromthePhDresearchofCarolinaGonzales,whofocusedonabiofortifiedcassavainthepoorerNorth‐EastregionofBrazilwitharelativelyhighprevalenceofVitaminAdeficiency.Herresults(Gonzalesetal,2008b)suggestthatconsumersmightbewillingtopayahighpremiumforabiofortifiedcassavathatcouldhelpalleviateVAD,implyingthepotentialforimprovementsinhealthfaroutweighanynegativeperceptionsthatBrazilianconsumershaveaboutGMfoods.Finally,astudyconductedbytheIndianInstituteofManagementalsofindssupportforthelackofwidespreadconsumeroppositiongoldenriceinIndia(Deodharetal,2007).
![Page 19: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
17
Studiesaboutpublicperceptionsdonot,ofcourse,translateintoasmoothsailingregulatoryprocess.Indiahasseenalargenumberof“publicinterestlitigations”seekingtoblockalltransgenicfoodsbeingarguedintheSupremeCourt.TheapprovalofanyonecropmayenablethequickerreleaseofbiofortifiedGMfoodsthatappeartobewaitingontheshelf(ahighironricebackcrossedintoapopularmegavarietyinBangladeshisagoodexample).
3 DISCUSSIONANDCONCLUSIONS
Thepaperhasreviewedthecost‐effectivenessofbiofortificationforfourcasestudiesthatrepresentarangeofscenariosthatarelikelytoberealizedasbiofortifiedcropsaredeployed.Theabilityofbiofortificationtomakeasubstantialimpactonthemagnitudeofmicronutrientmalnutritionvariesconsiderably,dependingoncoverage,whichinturndependsonwhetherthereiswell‐developedinfrastructuretosupportseeddissemination,andwhetherthetraitisvisibleornot.Aswithanyexanteanalysis,examiningthesensitivityoftheresultstochangesinassumptionsusedtoderivecost‐effectivenessfiguresandbenefit‐costratiosisnecessary.Tables2to4highlightthecontext‐specificityoftheimpactofbiofortificationandofitscost‐effectiveness;mineral‐densecropsinSouthAsiaenjoyaconsiderablecostadvantageoverprovitaminsAcropsinSub‐SaharanAfrica,eventhoughintermsofpercentagereductioninDALYsthecaseforaprovitaminsAmaizeisstrongerthanfortheothercrop‐nutrients.Inmostcases,biofortificationcontinuestobehighlycost‐effectiveevenwithrelativelylowcoveragelevelsandcorrespondingimpactonthemagnitudeofmalnutrition.Theseconclusionsremainlargelyrobusttothechoiceofahigherdiscountrateof6%,eventhoughasexpected,withahigherdiscountrate,costsarehigher(andbenefit‐costratioslower)ascomparedtothecasewherea3%discountrateisused.TheimplicationsofusingdifferentdiscountratesarenicelyillustratedandsummarizedintheChallengepaperbyHorton,AldermanandRivera(2008a).Atfirstglance,thesebenefit‐costratiosmayseemtoohightobecredible,particularlyinQuadrantAforcountriessuchasBangladesh.Notehoweverthatbenefit‐costratiosof100:1havebeenreportedforvitaminAsupplementsinEthiopia,attributedtothehighmortalityratesthere(Hortonetal,2008b).However,thereareseveralreasonsfortheseapparently‘high’benefit‐costratios.First,SouthAsiancountrieshavelargepopulations,implyingthatforagivenprevalenceratemoreDALYsarelost—andcanbesavedthroughbiofortification—inSouthAsiancountriesthaninmostAfricancountries.Second,theinvisibletraitmakesforeasieracceptancebyfarmersandconsumers.Third,thepredominanceofafewmegavarietiesincroppingpatternsmeansthatlargenumberscanbereachedwiththesameinvestment.Fourth,relativelymodestcoverageratesthathavebeenassumedof60%inSouthAsia,20%isSub‐SaharanAfrica.Ascoverageexpands,thebenefit‐costratioislikelytofall.Butingeneral,benefit‐costratiosforbiofortificationareintrinsicallyhigh,becausethelargeresearchanddevelopmentcostsareincurredup‐frontandtherearerelativelysmallrecurringcosts,especiallyinQuadrantsAandB.Thereforealargeone‐timeinvestmentyieldsacontinuousstreamofbenefits,unlikethecase,say,withsupplementation,whererecurringcostsofdistributionmustbeincurredyearafteryear.
![Page 20: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
18
Byandlarge,theassumptionsonthecostsareconservative:forexampleasmentionedearlier,whereanincreaseinthecontentofmorethanonemicronutrientiseffective,thecostsarenotapportionedbymicronutrient(andarethereforedoublethosethatwouldhaveobtainedhadtheybeenapportioned).Totheextenthoweverthatthevisibletraitprovestobeabarriertoacceptance,leadingtolowercoverageratesthanthoseusedhere,actualcostsmaybehigher.Asnotedintheintroductorysection,thepaperissilentonvaluingthenon‐healthbenefitsthatmayaccruefromtheadoptionofabiofortifiedcrop.Thisisonlyappropriategiventhatitisthemarginalcostsandbenefitsfrombiofortificationthatarethefocusofthispaper.Buttotheextentthatthebiofortifiedtraitistobepiggy‐backedonagronomicallysuperiorlines,thebenefitstothefarmerfromabiofortifiedvarietyareclearlyhigher.Whilequantificationoftheagronomicbenefitsofvarietiesintowhichthebiofortifiedtraitwillbemainstreamedisbeyondthescopeofthepaper,EvensonandGollin(2003)provideacomprehensivereviewofthebenefitsandcostsofmodernvarietydevelopmentindevelopingcountries.Forexample,Johnsonetal(2003)estimatethattherateofreturntogeneticimprovementincassavawasintherangeof9to22%withaboutone‐fifthofthecassavaareainAfricabeingplantedtomaterialdevelopedintheinternationalagriculturalresearchsystem.EstimatesforSub‐SaharanAfricatendtobelowerthanthoseinAsia.Theagronomicbenefitsfromtransgeniccropsalsoappearsubstantial:inthePhilippines,thestudyreferredtoaboveestimatesthattheinternalratesofreturnforthe3‐in‐1GMricerangefrom31to42percent,evenunderconservativescenarios(Gonzalesetal,2008a).Withmorewidespreadadoptionofmodernvarieties,theseratesofreturnandbenefit‐costratiosarelikelytofallasyieldgrowthtapersoff,ashashappenedwiththemajorcerealsinIndia.Nevertheless,independentofanyagronomicbenefitsthatbiofortifiedvarietiesmayconfer,thehealthbenefitsaresubstantial.Whatisalsoimportantisthatbiofortificationfitsaruralniche,inawaythatisnoteasilymetbyotherinterventions.Thenextstepistodocumentcostsandcost‐effectivenessusingexpostcostfigurestoreplacetheexantenumbersdiscussedhere.Thiswillhappenasbiofortifiedvarietiesaredisseminated;thereareongoingeffortstodocumentcostswithorangesweetpotatoinUgandaandMozambiquesothattheassumptionscanbevalidatedusingfielddata.Itisimportanttoguardagainsttheriskofoverinterpretationoftheresultsfromtheexantecostanalysis.TheschematicpresentedinFigure1isusefulforunderstandingthepotentialrangeincost‐effectivenessandtheprimarydriversofeffectiveness.Itsuggeststhatthelargestbenefitsatlowestcostsareobtainedincountriesandcrops‐nutrientsthatfallinQuadrantA.However,ifthisargumentistakentoitslogicalconclusion,itwouldbeverydifficulttojustifyinvestmentsoutsideSouthAsia,andinparticularSub‐SaharanAfricawherepopulationdensitiesarelower,andtheavailabilityinfrastructurepoorerthaninAsia;clearlythiswouldbeaninappropriateinference.Whatiskeyisthatallthebenefit‐costratiosexceedunitybyasubstantialmargin.Forthemostpart,thesecost‐effectivenessfigurescomparefavorablytothoseoffortification(Horton,AldermanandRivera,2008a)andarerobusttochangesinkeyassumptions,althoughthereareexceptions.AsnotedinMeenakshietal(2007),therearesomecaseswhere
![Page 21: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
19
biofortificationdoesnotenjoyacomparativeadvantagerelativetofortification,notablyinLatinAmerica.Moreresearchisnecessary,however,beforesuchcomparisonscanbemadedefinitively.First,thereisneedforcountry‐specificitytothefortificationcostsaswell,sincethereisawidevariationacrosscountriesinthesecosts(asdocumentedinFiedler,2007,whoreviewssomereasonsforthese).Second,comparisonsmustbemadeonacommonmethodologicalbase,whichisnotpossibleatpresent.Takingintoaccountboththesefactorswillenablethedevelopmentofacountry‐specificplanforanoptimalmixofinterventions—thatincludesbiofortification,fortificationandsupplementation,forexample—thatwillachievethegreatestreductioninmicronutrientmalnutritionforagivenlevelofresources.
![Page 22: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
20
REFERENCESBengtsson,A.,A.Namutebi,M.LarssonAlminger,U.Svanberg(2008),“Effectsofvarioustraditionalprocessingmethodsontheall‐trans‐β‐carotenecontentoforange‐fleshedsweetpotato,”JournalofFoodCompositionandAnalysis,vol.21,pp.134‐143.Black,R.E.,L.Allen,Z.Bhutta,L.Caulfield,M.deOnis,M.Ezzati,C.MathersandJ.Rivera(2008),“MaternalandChildUndernutrition:GlobalandRegionalExposuresandHealthConsequences”Lancet.CopenhagenConsensusCenter,2008.“CopenhagenConsensus2008‐Results.”Chowdhury,Shyamal,J.V.Meenakshi,ConstanceOworiandKeithTomlins(2008),”AreConsumersWilling‐to‐PayMoreforBiofortifiedFoods?EvidencefromaFieldExperiment”HarvestPlusWorkingPaper3.Dawe,David,R.RobertsonandL.Unnevehr(2002):GoldenRice:WhatRolecoulditplayinalleviationofVitaminADeficiency?”FoodPolicy27:541‐560.DeGroote,HugoandSimonChegeKimenju(2008)“Comparingconsumerpreferencesforcolorandnutritionalqualityinmaize:Applicationofasemi‐double‐boundlogisticmodelonurbanconsumersinKenya”FoodPolicy,vol.33,pp.362‐70.Deodhar,Satish,SankarGaneshandWenChern(2007),“EmergingMarketsforIndianFoods:AnIndianPerspectiveonConsumerUnderstandingandWillingnesstoPay”(IndianInstituteofManagementWorkingPaper2007‐06‐08),Evenson,RobertandD.Gollin(2003),CropVarietyImprovementanditseffectonProductivity:TheImpactofInternationalAgriculturalResearch(CabiPublishers).Fiedler,JohnL,TinaG.SanghviandMaureenSaunders(2008),“Areviewofthemicronutrientinterventioncostliterature:programdesignandpolicylessons”InternationalJournalofHealthPlanningandManagement.Fiedler,JohnL(2007),“EstimatingtheGlobalCostsofCombatingMalnutrition:AJointWorldBank‐USAID/A2ZProjectStudy,”mimeo.Gonzales,Leonardo,FlordelizaBordley,VidaAlpuerto,AlphonsusGonzales,CenonElca,RoniloBeronia(2008),“ExAnteImpactAssessmentof3‐in‐1rice”(DepartmentofAgriculture,BiotechnologyProgram,PhilRiceandSTRIVEfoundation).Gonzales,Carolina,MatinQaimandNancyJohnson(2008),“ConsumerAcceptanceofSecondGenerationGMFoods:ThecaseofBiofortifiedCassavainNorth‐EastBrazil”mimeo.HortonSue,HaroldAldermanandJuanRivera(2008a),“HungerandMalnutrition:CopenhagenConsensusChallengePaper2008.”Draft,May11.Horton,Sue,FranceBegin,AlisonGreigandAnandLakshman(2008b),“BestPracticePaper:MicronutrientSupplementsforChildSurvival(VitaminAandZinc)”CopenhagenConsensusCenterWorkingPaperOctober2008.Javelosa,Joy(2006),MeasuringthePotentialPayoffsfromBiofortification:TheCaseofHigh‐IronRiceinthePhilippines(unpublishedPhDdissertation,UniversityofFlorida).Jaim,W.M.H.andMahabubHossain(2007),“VarietalDiversificationofRiceandtheProcessofAdoptionofModernRiceVarietiesinBangladesh:SummaryPaper”mimeo.
![Page 23: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
21
Johnson,N.,V.M.Manyong,A.G.O.DixonandD.Pachico(2003),“TheImpactofIARCGeneticImprovementProgrammesonCassava”inEvensonandGollin,op.cit.Low,J.,M.Arimond,N.Ousman,B.Cunguara,F.ZanoandD.Tschirley(2007),“AFood‐BasedApproachIntroducingOrangeSweetPotatoesIncreasedVitaminAIntakeandSerumRetinolConcentrationsinYoungChildreninRuralMozambique”JournalofNutrition,vol.137,pp.1320‐1327.McCann,JamesC(2005),MaizeandGrace:Africa’sEncounterwithaNewWorldCrop1500‐2000(HarvardUniversityPress).Meenakshi,J.V.,NancyJohnson,VictorManyong,HugoDeGroote,JoyJavelosa,DavidYanggen,FirdousiNaher,JamesGarcia,CarolinaGonzalesandErikaMeng(2007),“Howcost‐effectiveisbiofortificationincombatingmicronutrientmalnutrition?Anexanteassessment”HarvestPlusWorkingPaper2.Muzhingi,Tawanda,AugustineLangyintuo,LucieMalabaandMarianneBanzinger(2008),“ConsumerAcceptabilityofYellowMaizeProductsinZimbabwe”FoodPolicy,vol.33,pp.352‐361.Nascimento,P.,N.S.Fernades,M.A.Mauro,andM.Kimura(2006),“Effectofdryingonthebeta‐carotenecontentofcassavaandsweetpotato”In BookofAbstractsofVIBrazilianMeetingonChemistryofFoodandBeverage,November. Pfeiffer,WolfgangandBonnieMcClafferty,“Biofortification:BreedingMicronutrient‐DenseCrops”Chapter3inManjitKangandP.M.Priyadarshan,BreedingMajorFoodStables(Blackwell,2007).Stein,AlexanderJ,MatinQaimandH.P.S.Sachdev(2008),“GeneticEngineeringforthePoor:GoldenRiceandPublicHealthinIndia”WorldDevelopment,vol.36,pp.144‐158.Stein,A.,J.V.Meenakshi,M.Qaim,P.Nestel,H.P.S.SachdevandZ.Bhutta(2005),“AnalyzingthehealthbenefitsofbiofortifiedstaplecropsbymeansoftheDisability‐AdjustedLifeYearsApproach:AHandbookFocusingonIron,ZincandVitaminA,”HarvestPlusTechnicalMonograph4.Stevens,RobinandAlexWinter‐Nelson(2008),“ConsumerAcceptanceofProvitamin‐ABiofortifiedMaizeinMaputo,MozambiqueFoodPolicy,vol33,pp.341‐351.VanJaarsveld,P.,D.Marais,E.Hamse,P.Nestel,D.B.Rodriguez‐Amaya(2006),“Retentionofβ‐caroteneinboiled,mashedorange‐fleshedsweetpotato”JournalofFoodCompositionAnalysis,vo.19,pp.321‐329.VanJaarsveld,P.J.,F.Mieke,S.A.Tanumihardjo,P.Nestel,C.J.Lombard,andA.J.S.Benade(2005).“β‐carotene‐richOrangeSweetpotatoImprovestheVitaminAStatusofPrimarySchoolChildrenAssessedwithModified‐relative‐dose‐responseTest.”AmericanJournalofClinicalNutrition81:1080‐1087Zimmerman,RandMatinQaim(2004):“PotentialHealthBenefitsofGoldenRice:APhilippineCaseStudy”FoodPolicy,29,147‐168.
![Page 24: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
![Page 25: BIOFORTIFICATION · rice is being developed for release in Bangladesh by 2012; however, achieving the iron target in rice may take longer. It has also not been possible to increase](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041615/5e3ac328aca5b245ce7b36cd/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Copenhagen Consensus 2008Each day, decisions are made about global political priorities. Unfortunately, political decisions seldom take into account a comprehensive view of the costs and benefits of implementing one solution and not the other or solv-ing one problem instead of another.
In the Copenhagen Consensus 2008, an expert panel of eight outstand-ing economists, including 5 Nobel Laureates, delivered a ranked list of the most promising solutions to the ten of the most pressing challenges facing the world today: Global Warming, Terrorism, Hunger and Malnutrition, Water and Sanitation, Air Pollution, Women and Development, Conflicts, Subsidies and Trade Barriers, Education and Diseases. Around 55 of the world’s lead-ing economists and specialists in the ten challenges compiled up-to-date analysis of the best solutions to ensure the best possible foundation for the prioritization of the solutions.
An overview of how to implement the top solutions from the Copenhagen Consensus 2008Five best practice papers have now been written on the top-solutions on the economists’ list from the Copenhagen Consensus 2008. These papers provide clear and focused empirical recommendations on the best practice and the costs and benefits of the solutions helpful for governments, inter-national organizations, NGO’s and philanthropists in both developed and developing countries.
The Copenhagen Consensus Center analyzes the world’s greatest chal-lenges and identifies cost efficient solutions to meeting these challenges. The Center works with multilateral organizations, governments and other entities concerned with mitigating the consequences of the challenges which the world is facing. With the process of prioritization, the center aims to establish a framework in which solutions to problems are prioritized according to efficiency based upon economic and scientific analysis of distinct subjects.
The Copenhagen Consensus Center is headed by Bjørn Lomborg
Copenhagen Consensus Center Copenhagen Business School • Solbjerg Plads 3 • DK-2000 Frederiksberg • Denmark
Phone +45 3815 2254 • [email protected] • www.copenhagenconsensus.com