Breakout Session 2 – New Products and Nutrition Update on USAID’s Food Aid Quality Review...
-
Upload
primrose-bell -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Breakout Session 2 – New Products and Nutrition Update on USAID’s Food Aid Quality Review...
Breakout Session 2 – New Products and Nutrition
Update on USAID’s Food Aid Quality Review
Patrick WebbTufts University
IFADC, Kansas City August 2010
Food & beverage processors pledged to lower the calories of current products to reduce customer consumption by 1.5 trillion calories by 2015, compared with 2008.
Bumble Bee Foods, Campbell Soup Co., Coca-Cola, ConAgra Foods, General Mills, Hershey, J.M. Smucker Co., Kellogg, Kraft Foods, Mars, McCormick & Co., Nestle USA, PepsiCo, Post Foods/Ralston Foods LLC, Sara Lee Corp. and Unilever USA.
16 companies join first lady's efforts to combat obesity. May 2010Processors Pledge to Cut 1.5 Trillion Calories by 2015
i
Currently, just over half-way through 2-year contract
Broad-based consultation underpins the process
Preliminary recommendations now emerging
Draft reports/recommendations posted Fall 2010
Final report due March 2011
ii
This review of ‘quality’ in Title II food aid is not just aboutnutrient composition. It requires attention to:
Products (formulation of products, food safety)
Practices (how programs use food aid, what goals)
Processes (how products are reviewed, quality assurance)
Nutrition programming addresses many goals: Preventing undernutrition in at-risk populations Treating severe and/or moderate wasting Treating (or protecting against) micronutrient deficiencies Facilitating recovery during/after medical treatment (e.g. HIV) Promoting growth in young children
No one food product can meet all nutrient needs, all goals.
iii
Preliminary recommendations on products:
1. FBFs more effective than often portrayed. Keep in tool-boxwith upgraded formulations.
2.Lipid products offer value-added (more effectiveness despite higher unit cost). Add to tool-box, consider home fortificants, shipped premix, further new products.
1. More attention needed to quality of overall food basket; (i.e. cereal fortification. Don’t use FBFs as the only meansof delivering ‘quality’). Upgrade basic tools in tool-box.
iv
xiii
Preliminary recommendations on practices:
4. Where nutrition intent explicit, more precision needed in product selection and usage (no one-size-fits-all, generic approaches to ‘malnutrition’).
5. Higher value products should be used with defined nutrition intent (guidance to be formulated).
6. More focus needed on cost-effectiveness of programming alternatives, not just price per ton.
Vitamin A
US$1 of polished rice delivers no (zero) Vitamin A.
US$1 pulses delivers 500ug Vitamin A.
US$1 WSB delivers 6,600ug Vitamin A.
US$1 of home fortificant powder=44,000ug Vitamin A
Iron
To deliver 100% RDA, 1 sachet powder = US$0.21/child
To deliver 100% RDA using rice = US$7.00/child
To deliver 100% RDA using pulses = US$3.50/child
To deliver 100% RDA using WSB = US$1.50/child
Preliminary recommendations on processes:
8. New products should be responsive to field needs/intent.
9. Field testing of new products should be required, and notbased only on acceptability.
10.Many questions around optimal packaging, ‘where to put’nutrients in a ration, food safety standards.
xiv
Broad Conclusions
xv
Products: Enhanced products have higher cost, but also higher impact $/outcome matters, not just $/ton A single product can’t meet all needs; combinations required
Practices: Enhanced programming means better tailoring of foods to intent Feasibility of programming new products needs testing
Processes: More convergence internationally on product formulation US ‘whole of government’ approach includes nutrition Coordination can be enhanced across food aid agenda to improve not just products, but review of new foods, quality control, etc.