The Poor, Malnutrition, Biofortification, and Biotechnology - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 153

grown and consumed year after year and provide a continuous benefit stream (Nestel
et al. 2006; Pinstrup-Andersen 2006; Mayer et al. 2008; Bouis et al. 2011). Moreover,
the germplasm of biofortified crops can be shared between countries to incorporate it
into locally adapted varieties. Thus, after a largely one-time investment in the develop-
ment of biofortified crops, their benefits can not only spread across time, they can also
extend over space. The exploitation of such economies of scale can make genetic bio-
fortification a very cost-effective intervention (Nestel et al. 2006; Tanumihardjo et al.
2008; Qaim 2009; Bouis et al. 2011). Biofortification can also be more economic for very
practical reasons. For instance, breeding micronutrients into rice is less expensive than
fortifying rice grains industrially (Horton 2006). A reason advanced for agronomic bio-
fortification is the shorter time span needed to implement fertilizer programs (Broadley
et al. 2006; Cakmak 2009).
While biofortified crops are developed to provide nutrition benefits for the poor,
they may also offer agronomic benefits, since minerals help plants resist diseases and
other stress factors. Consequently, at least on mineral-deficient soils, biofortified crops
can even contribute to higher yields (Nestel et al. 2006; Pfeiffer and McClafferty 2007;
Khoshgoftarmanesh et al. 2010). This is a crucial point because yields—and agronomic
traits in general, such as drought tolerance, pest resistance, or ease of propagation—are
important for the adoption of biofortified crops through farmers. Their preferences
are specifically taken into account when farmers are, for example, given the possibility
to test and select biofortified varieties during crop trials (Tanumihardjo 2010). Other
factors that influence the adoption of biofortified crops by the farmers are seed prices,
availability of appropriate varieties, and their marketability.3
Marketability requires the existence of markets as well as acceptance of the crops by
consumers (whereby farmers themselves are also consumers). Mineral biofortification
through conventional breeding represents an “invisible” trait that neither requires con-
sumers to change their behavior nor induces sensory changes, so it is unlikely to cause
acceptance problems. However, biofortification with carotenes may result in changes
in crop color, taste, or dry matter content. In these cases, consumer acceptance hinges
on consumers' awareness of the nutritional properties of the crops and on the degree to
which they are affected by micronutrient deficiencies; that is, it depends on consumers'
awareness of the benefits the crops have for themselves and their families.4
Feasibility of Biofortifying Crops
Targeting, economic feasibility, adoption by farmers, and consumer acceptance are all
necessary conditions for the success of biofortification. However, the idea of putting
more micronutrients into crops and improving the nutrition status of the beneficia-
ries also needs to work in reality (Bouis and Welch 2010; Bouis et al. 2011). For different
micronutrients and various crops, studies have confirmed that biofortification is pos-
sible in principle: micronutrient-dense varieties can be bred, the micronutrient density