Tag: IFPRI

Micronutrient Forum Conference: Vitamins and Minerals in the Changing Environment

October 8, 2026    Nutrition specialists gathering in Accra last week returned to a recurring challenge: how to translate evidence on preventing malnutrition into policies and programs that reach people at scale.   Several thousand nutrition and aid specialists participated in person and online in the Micronutrient Forum’s 7th Global Conference, held in Accra, Ghana, from September 28 to October 1.     With the theme “Nutrition at the Frontiers of a Changing Environment,” the conference brought together research, policy, and program experience across nutrition, food systems, climate, and development.

Presentations examined climate-resilient, nutrient-rich crop varieties; improvements in food storage and processing; and innovative financing. Across these topics, speakers emphasized the importance of political leadership, sustained investment, and coordination.

Presenter Ziauddin Hyder reflected on the event:

“Ending malnutrition requires more than isolated projects. It demands strong political leadership, sustainable domestic financing, and coordinated action across sectors. Bangladesh is committed to transforming this vision into action by integrating nutrition into primary health care and ensuring that multisectoral investments converge to improve maternal and child nutrition.”

Participants included Action Against Hunger, World Vision, Catholic Relief Services, the Hunger Project, GAIN, Population Action International, AGRA, iDE, UNICEF, IFPRI, FAO, WFP and the Ghanaian Government.  Private sector participants included BioAnalyt Gmbh, Hexagon Nutrition, and Particles for Humanity.  A number of presentations were by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) or IFPRI. The Government of Ghana, the African Union (AU), and the African Development Bank (AfDB) were major participants as well.

Dr. Saskia Osendarp, who is Executive Director of the Micronutrient Forum, called on the international community to not only take stock of progress but also translate evidence into actionable recommendations for research, policy, and programs, while building on and celebrating African leadership in nutrition.

Presentations covered a wide range of recent progress in battling malnutrition, spanning climate change, behavior change, processed foods, testing for deficiencies, fortification, nutrient supplements and funding.

FORTIFICATION

A widely echoed takeaway from the forum was the growing body of evidence on what works: across diverse contexts, food fortification emerged as one of the most cost-effective and impactful public health interventions, especially when implemented with mandatory legislation.

The Food Fortification Initiative presented a systematic review about the effectiveness of large-scale food fortification across 10 fortification vehicles, plus reviews on milk fortification, fortified soy/fish sauce, the impact of mandatory folic acid fortification on neural tube defects, congenital heart defects, and clefts, folate status, methods for estimating fortified-food coverage, integration of fortification into food systems, and a new rapid spot assay for zinc in fortified grains.

The ten-person CRS delegation concluded that: “We know what works. Now is the time to scale it,” supported by abstracts from their fortification work in Madagascar, Niger, and Ghana.  CRS highlighted how its fortification programming in West Africa,  built with governments, regional institutions, the private sector, and civil society, has strengthened policy frameworks, regulatory monitoring, quality assurance, and compliance, improving access to micronutrient-rich foods “for millions of vulnerable populations.”

Gaps in Compliance:  Research from countries like Bangladesh and Nigeria revealed significant compliance gaps, particularly highlighting the disparity between branded and unbranded staple foods (like edible oil and salt). Experts noted that markets frequently fail to deliver adequately fortified foods to consumers due to these blind spots.  From Cambodia, a 2023 cross-sectional assessment of vendors in about 150 public rural primary schools, related to unhealthy school foods found that 98% of vendors said they knew the directive, and most could identify sugary and energy drinks as prohibited.  Yet, that awareness did not change what was sold.

A rapid zinc test may make food-fortification monitoring much easier.  The Food Fortification Initiative featured an abstract about developing and validating a qualitative spot assay for zinc in fortified cereals. The associated method uses xylenol orange, which produces pink or purple spots when added zinc is present in refined wheat flour or fortified white rice. Testing takes only 10–15 minutes, excluding reagent preparation.  This gives millers and inspectors a relatively inexpensive screening tool for checking whether zinc was added. It detects presence, however, rather than establishing that the food contains the legally required concentration.

GAIN’s contributions included Svenja Jungjohann’s presentations on discrepancies between market assessments and household exposure in Bangladesh, and compliance gaps in branded and unbranded oil and salt in Bangladesh and Nigeria. Annette Mongina Nyangaresi presented implementation research about digital fortification-quality systems.

Latin America has been a historic pioneer in large-scale food fortification (vitamin A–fortified sugar in Guatemala, near-universal salt iodization, wheat flour fortification in 18 countries.  Rice fortification (already mandatory in Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Panama, and being developed in the Dominican Republic, Brazil and Colombia) was flagged as an underused frontier.

see:  https://micronutrientforum.org/micronutrient-data-innovation-alliance/guidelines-on-large-scale-food-fortification-indicators-and-use/?ct=t(EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_3_12_2024_15_25_COPY_01)

SUPPLEMENTS FOR A WIDE RANGE OF VITAMINS AND MINERALS

There was a heavy push for expanding distribution of “multiple micronutrient supplements” (MMS) for pregnant women, with  48 countries now exploring or implementing it, noting that women prefer a full 180-day supply, which supports adherence.   Vitamin Angels, profiled earlier in Hunger Notes, presented about scaling up multiple micronutrient supplements, and Ghana’s phased rollout of Multiple Micronutrient Supplements (MMS) focused on evidence building and system preparedness.

Participants noted that supplement packaging is a sensitive part of nutritional efficacy: repackaging can reduce vitamin potency.

A poster looked at the effect of nutrition education on multiple micronutrient supplementation knowledge, attitudes, and practices among pregnant women in Abuja, Nigeria.  In selected antenatal clinics, structured nutrition education produced large gains: about 89% reached a good knowledge score and 81.6% a positive attitude toward use of multiple micronutrient inputs.

One session moderated by Jian Yan and Parul Christian of Johns Hopkins, addressed dose-response trials in undernourished women. A supplement’s nominal nutrient content does not by itself establish whether it corrects deficiency. Dose-response research seeks amounts that achieve adequate status without excessive exposure.

UNDERSTANDING MICRONUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES

UC Davis and Cambridge experts underscored that half the world has inadequate intake of at least one micronutrient, and biological stressors amplify these gaps.  Sight and Life  presented about anemia among women, noting that anemia is the #1 global cause of lost DALYs for adolescents 10–19,  University researchers emphasized that blood loss, infections, and genetic conditions are major contributors to anemia—often overshadowing simple iron deficiency narratives.  This has implications for screening, treatment protocols, and national anemia strategies.

Dr. Parmi Suchdev presented about “Micronutrients, inflammation, and life-course vulnerability,” explaining how systemic inflammation can change or obscure bio-markers of nutrient deficiencies.

CHILD NUTRITION

The Child Health and Mortality Prevention Surveillance (CHAMPS) team presented key research highlighting maternal health and life-course vulnerabilities: Malnutrition is the main underlying cause in older children. It was the most frequent underlying cause among infants and children (20.8%), with sepsis and pneumonia more often the final event. An earlier analysis found malnutrition causal or significant in 39.5% of these deaths, 89.1% of which also had an infectious cause.

World Vision presented about father-to-father support groups which helped exclusive breastfeeding increase from 64.8% to 94.7%, while women meeting minimum dietary diversity increased from 11.2% to 54.9%.  WV also presented about strengthening RUTF supply chains for continuity of care of child wasting, with West Africa as their example.

see:  https://micronutrientforum.org/micronutrient-data-innovation-alliance/nutrition-modeling-consortium/?ct=t(EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_3_12_2024_15_25_COPY_01)

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS

University scholars presented evidence that climate change is reducing the micronutrient content of staple crops.   Crop science experts showed that rising CO₂ levels and erratic rainfall patterns lower iron, zinc, and protein density in cereals.  At the same time, rapid dietary transitions in African cities are reducing micronutrient diversity, increasing reliance on processed foods, and stressing traditional food systems.

The AGRA Regional Director, Sunil Dahiya:  “Higher carbon dioxide levels reduce the zinc and iron in staples like rice and wheat. The bowl looks the same, but there is less nutrition in it.  ….The crop is changing.”

DATA AND LEARNING

Discussions emphasized the urgent need to improve the timeliness, availability, and sourcing of data feeding into the Global Fortification Data Exchange (GFDx) to help policymakers track scaling progress in real-time.

The Nutrition in City Ecosystems (NICE) Project emphasized south-south learning between Asian and African cities, showcasing how urban areas can lead in addressing micronutrient deficiencies.

Action Against Hunger, PAI, CORE Group, FP2030, HMHB, and SUN’s Civil Society Network co-convened an October 2 follow-up gathering on linking nutrition, family planning, and maternal and child health.

Overall, the conference reinforced the need for a unified, evidence-based agenda linking nutrition directly to improved child health outcomes and survival rates.

Overall, the conference reinforced the need for a unified, evidence-based agenda linking nutrition directly to improved child health outcomes and survival rates.

FURTHER INFORMATION

In the future, presentations will be available at:  https://mnfconference.org/

The program is seen at:  https://booklet.kenes.com/export/mnf26

See also:  https://www.myjoyonline.com/measure-food-systems-progress-not-only-by-productivity-but-also-ability-to-deliver-healthy-diets-agra/

GAIN’s poster presentations and side event about business:  https://www.gainhealth.org/events/micronutrient-forum-7th-global-conference-mnf#gain-participation

AGRA’s presentation:  https://youtu.be/4SjNVlZyjb8

Food Fortification Initiative:  https://ffinetwork.org/micronutrient-forum-7th-global-conference/

IFPRI:  https://www.ifpri.org/event/ifpri-micronutrient-forum-7th-global-conference/

– Edited by Steven Hansch of the World Hunger Education Service

AI for Food Security: New Insights

September 15, 2026    The use of artificial intelligence to improve food security is the focus of an increasing number of problem solvers.  On September 15, the International Food Policy Research Institute presented a series of speakers who gave examples of applications of AI, and emerging trends in their potential in a webinar, “AI Policy Considerations for Food, Land, and Water Systems.”

IFPRI argues that AI has significant potential to transform policy research in food, land, and water systems by enhancing accessibility, efficiency, and responsiveness in policy analysis, only if tools are rigorously tested, made transparent, and appropriately integrated into research and decision-making processes.  AI-enabled economic models can make complex policy analysis more accessible by allowing users to simulate shocks or investments conversationally and rapidly interpret effects on poverty, diets, production, and other outcomes, but their outputs still require expert scrutiny.  Speakers shared how:

  • AI offers important opportunities to improve food security, from modeling the consequences of price shocks and agricultural investments to supporting crop breeding, advisory services, and policy decisions.

  • Accessible AI interfaces can lower the technical barriers to using complex economy-wide models, enabling a wider range of users to explore policy scenarios and identify trade-offs among growth, poverty reduction, nutrition, and environmental goals.  These tools should not be treated as automatic policy engines: users need access to underlying assumptions, data, simulation files, uncertainty, and reproducible workflows, while human analysts remain responsible for validating conclusions.

  • Agricultural AI often fails when models trained on curated or internet-sourced data are deployed in real farming conditions involving low-cost devices, variable lighting, differing crop varieties, changing seasons, and diverse ecological zones.

  • Effective systems should therefore be co-designed and trained with farmers, local organizations, agronomists, and governments, using contextual data and delivering information in local languages and accessible formats such as voice.  Accurate advice alone is insufficient, because farmers can act on recommendations only when they can obtain affordable inputs, credit or vouchers, market access, follow-up support, and trusted channels for discussion and learning.

  • AI’s greatest value may be as part of an integrated delivery system—for example, combining fertilizer recommendations with government action to expand product availability and programs that enable farmers to afford the recommended inputs.

  • Governments and development partners have a crucial role in setting responsible-AI rules, interoperability and data-sharing arrangements, evaluation standards, connectivity and maintenance systems, and targeted support for groups the market is least likely to serve.  Ultimately, combating hunger with AI requires judging success by real changes in farmer decisions, livelihoods, equity, and food security.

See also:  https://www.ifpri.org/topic/artificial-intelligence-ai/

AI and EARLY WARNING

Separately, a new article in Nature Food journal, by Weston Anderson et al., “Responsible Use of Aritificial Intelligence and Machine Lerning for Food Security Early Warning Systems

Food-security early-warning systems such as FEWS NET and the IPC already guide billions of dollars in aid that can avert or shorten famines. The article argues that AI and machine learning can strengthen those systems and therefore reduce hunger, when they are used to speed up data collation, remote-sensing monitoring of crops and hazards, and short-term weather or yield forecasts. Faster, more complete information on prices, conflict events, and production shortfalls lets analysts issue earlier, more precise alerts so that limited humanitarian resources reach the populations most at risk before a crisis becomes a famine.

The same article, however, warns that replacing expert judgment with unvetted AI models would undermine rather than advance famine prevention. Direct machine-learning predictions of food-insecurity phases still show only modest skill, struggle with data-scarce or rapidly changing settings, and lack the accountability mechanisms (such as famine-review committees) that currently prevent erroneous public declarations. Mis-targeted or delayed aid that results from such errors could leave people without food at critical moments or waste scarce funds, thereby increasing rather than reducing the risk of famine.

The practical implication is therefore selective, analyst-in-the-loop adoption: use AI to free experts from repetitive digitization and search tasks so they can concentrate on reconciling conflicting evidence and issuing accountable forecasts. Combined with continued investment in the underlying data infrastructure, this approach offers the best chance of making early-warning systems more timely and cost-effective without sacrificing the human oversight that remains essential for life-saving decisions.

See:  https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-026-01400-6

FUNDING

Also this week, the Gates Foundation committed $1 billion to expanding access to AI.  Their announcement notes:  “Doctors, farmers, teachers, and developers need opportunities to learn how to evaluate AI tools and adapt what works to their own contexts. They also need affordable access to the technology, which will require action from technology companies as well as investment from governments and philanthropy.”

See:  https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/2026/09/goalkeepers-report-equitable-ai

-contributed by WHES board member, Steven Hansch

Book Review: “Food Fight” by Stuart Gillespie

August 14, 2026     Agribusiness is out of control, according to  “From Plunder and Profit to People and Planet”, Stuart Gillespie’s 2025 book, “Food Fight” which argues for a new, common vision of human and planetary health in where power over food systems is better balanced.  He writes building on a tradition, which he cites, from Susan George’s “How the Other Half Dies.“

Gillespie argues that the modern food system, as shaped after World War II to mass-produce cheap calories and avert famine (with geopolitical aims), has become a major driver of harm.

His main criticism is aimed at the concentration of food companies on a global scale:  “Five companies – ADM, Bunge, Cargill, Cofco and Louis Dreyfus – control 70-90% of the global grain trade… Never before have we seen such a hyper-concentration of power at all points from farm to fork… Another four companies – ChemChina, Corteva, Bayer and BASF – control 66% of the world’s agricultural chemicals market, while a similar cluster… owns 53% of the global seed market.”   Gillespie details corporate political tactics (analogous to those historically used by the tobacco industry) and policy inertia, while highlighting citizen movements, local successes (e.g., city-level strategies), and practical levers for change such as public procurement, taxes with revenue recycling, marketing restrictions, conflict-of-interest rules, and broader mobilization.  The book mixes exposé with a call for structural transformation toward a system that prioritizes people and planet.  He concludes:  “The large-scale damage done to people and planet is a feature of our food system, not a bug.”

He particularly criticizes global trends in the consumption of ultra-processed foods.

“Governments need to act because malnutrition represents what economists call a market failure, a negative externality – and what the rest of us call an injustice.”    He adds that “malnutrition is multi-causal in nature,” requiring a whole of government response, and “Economic growth won’t fix it.  nor will technology.”

He criticizes nutritionists who promote national food fortification schemes or other efforts to provide vitamin and mineral supplements for involving the private sector (corporations).  Yet he explains the importance of micronutrients:  “micronutrient malnutrition also travels through generations.  A lack of essential vitamins and minerals can be devestating for a pregnant woman and her unborn child.  The micronutrient-deficient mother is more likely to have complications in pregnancy and more likely to die giving birth.  Iron-deficiency anemia causes one in four maternal deaths around the world.”

Some of his history is confusing, such as when he writes about the Bay of Bengal famine “starting” in 1943, when the conditions leading to it began in 1942, and he refers to the United Nations in the same breath, though the U.N. was not founded until 1945.  Yet, he is critical of the donors and aid agencies helping, referring to “white saviourism.”

He correctly critiques an obsession in the 1950s and 1960 with a “protein gamp” and notes how in 1974, Donald McLaren “blew the protein obsession out of the water.”

His recommendations span all of society to take more responsibility and he addresses NGOs like Save the Children, and repeatedly UNICEF.  He seeks a revolution in the governance of for-profit corporations.  Though citing examples in a few countries, his book is generic, about the world.  Though a preponderance of his interviews, analyses and criticisms are targeted to one country, the United Kingdom.

He recommends four “Ins” incentives, institutions, information and interests.  He recommends the use of taxes and subsidies to reshape the food environment.  Governments should tax products and practices that damage health or the environment, especially ultra-processed foods and sugary drinks, and earmark the proceeds to make nutritious foods more affordable for low-income households.

–  Contributed by WHES board member, Steven Hansch

On Resilience: What is Resilience in Anti-Hunger Aid?

July 1, 2026     This ongoing column in Hunger Notes was created to explore the fascination aid agencies have with the term “resilience,” which to some degree has replaced other broad, aspirational buzzwords like “development”, “sustainability,” and “empowerment.”  Like those other terms, resilience has become a goal of many aid programs, both development and humanitarian.  Yet, there has never been concensus about how to measure if and when resilience is achieved.  This is because resilience means as many different things as there are programs addressing it.

Food, nutrition and other anti-hunger aid programs have been under the banner of resilience for most of the last decade.  Today, the US Department of Agriculture is seeking inputs about its Food for Peace programming including lessons about the large “Resilience Food Security Activities”, or RFSAs whereby diverse NGOs aimed to foster resilience with food aid.  So, sharpening and clarifying the relationship between resilience and hunger is timely.

Key donors, including the European Union and US Government, as well as the Red Cross, tend to view resilience as “capacity under stress.”  The International Food Policy Research Institute and key advisors to the former USAID posited resilience as the ability of households, communities or systems to “withstand, adapt to, and recover from shocks.”

In practice, for any given program, what does this mean?  The EU representative in Juba, South Sudan, was very clear in defining resilience as the rate of acute malnutrition among children.  Other programs measure resilience as essentially being the same thing as sustainability (do the program’s outcomes or systems persist after the end of funding?).

When USAID had an office of resilience, it promoted resilience primarily in terms of household livelihoods, community cohesion and food security throughout cycles of drought and floods, measuring:

  • ♦  Resilience capacities (absorptive, adaptive, transformative)
  • ♦  Well‑being outcomes (food security, nutrition, income stability)
  • ♦  Shock severity and frequency
  • ♦  Longitudinal household surveys to observe recovery patterns.

The Rockefeller Foundation has defined resilience as the capacity of cities, communities, and systems to survive, adapt, and grow despite chronic stresses and acute shocks, and in this includes good, inclusive governance, leadership, and urban planning.

The Red Cross has been piloting resilience measures for many years, focusing on “risk” assessment.  It has developed a dashboard which measures resilience across 11 dimensions: disaster/risk management, health, water and sanitation, shelter, food and nutrition security, social cohesion, inclusion, economic opportunities, infrastructure and services, natural resource management, and connectedness. It allows resilience comparisons by community and by demographic categories such as gender and education.

These approaches to resilience are oriented largely toward relief-to-development programming, assuming recurring disasters at the population level.

“Resilience” is widely used but used differently for measuring ecological and environmental change as well as human psychology.  Meanwhile, engineers and architects measure resilience in precise ways such as structural integrity.

A decade ago, a large roundtable, or symposium, of 100 experts from government agencies, NGOs, and academia was held to share progress in measuring resilience.  The summary can be found here.  Among its conclusions:  “There are no single metrics. There is a need for evaluations to tell us what resilience is and what works. So far — “Resilience has been episodic and serendipitous through extraordinary people in missions.” (The symposium was hosted by American University, World Vision, Mercy Corps, Catholic Relief Services, the American Red Cross, IBTCI, the Wilson Center, and Management Systems International.)

USAID’s last resilience policy update, building on a legacy focused on disaster risk reduction, was updated in 2024, here  It covers a wide range of sectors and topics:  “USAID long ago recognized that resilience is not simply a food security issue; it is essential for managing risks across a range of goals across the areas of climate, health, peace, education, democracy and governance, poverty alleviation, and economic growth. While earlier resilience efforts focused on community-level programming, this policy emphasizes that we are also now investing more in host-country and local systems, with an eye toward development, diplomacy and policy solutions such as expanding social protection systems, enabling displaced persons to access jobs, and reforming national policies to better serve marginalized groups. So, what resilience means in practice will continue to evolve and will be revisited in this column.”

As the USG reboots its foreign aid, it will be challenged to define resilience more cleanly and usefully, or it will fall out of use.