Cargando…

Review of Grain Fortification Legislation, Standards, and Monitoring Documents

OBJECTIVE: Analyze the content of documents used to guide mandatory fortification programs for cereal grains. METHODS: Legislation, standards, and monitoring documents, which are used to mandate, provide specifications for, and confirm fortification, respectively, were collected from countries with...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Marks, Kristin J., Luthringer, Corey L., Ruth, Laird J., Rowe, Laura A., Khan, Noor A., María De-Regil, Luz, López, Ximena, Pachón, Helena
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Global Health: Science and Practice 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024620/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29959275
http://dx.doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00427
_version_ 1783336096070893568
author Marks, Kristin J.
Luthringer, Corey L.
Ruth, Laird J.
Rowe, Laura A.
Khan, Noor A.
María De-Regil, Luz
López, Ximena
Pachón, Helena
author_facet Marks, Kristin J.
Luthringer, Corey L.
Ruth, Laird J.
Rowe, Laura A.
Khan, Noor A.
María De-Regil, Luz
López, Ximena
Pachón, Helena
author_sort Marks, Kristin J.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Analyze the content of documents used to guide mandatory fortification programs for cereal grains. METHODS: Legislation, standards, and monitoring documents, which are used to mandate, provide specifications for, and confirm fortification, respectively, were collected from countries with mandatory wheat flour (n=80), maize flour (n=11), and/or rice (n=6) fortification as of January 31, 2015, yielding 97 possible country-grain combinations (e.g., Philippines-wheat flour, Philippines-rice) for the analysis. After excluding countries with limited or no documentation, 72 reviews were completed, representing 84 country-grain combinations. Based on best practices, a criteria checklist was created with 44 items that should be included in fortification documents. Two reviewers independently scored each available document set for a given country and food vehicle (a country-grain combination) using the checklist, and then reached consensus on the scoring. We calculated the percentage of country-grain combinations containing each checklist item and examined differences in scores by grain, region, and income level. RESULTS: Of the 72 country-grain combinations, the majority of documentation came from countries in the Americas (46%) and Africa (32%), and most were from upper and lower middle-income countries (73%). The majority of country-grain combinations had documentation stating the food vehicle(s) to be fortified (97%) and the micronutrients (e.g., iron) (100%), fortificants (e.g., ferrous fumarate) (88%), and fortification levels required (96%). Most (78%) stated that labeling is required to indicate a product is fortified. Many country-grain combinations described systems for external (64%) monitoring, and stated that industry is required to follow quality assurance/quality control (64%), though detailed protocols (33%) and roles and responsibilities (45%) were frequently not described. CONCLUSIONS: Most country-grain combinations have systems in place for internal, external, and import monitoring. However, documentation of other important items that would influence product compliance to national standard, such as roles and responsibilities between agencies, the cost of regulating fortification, and enforcement strategies, are often lacking. Countries with existing mandatory fortification can improve upon these items in revisions to their documentation while countries that are beginning fortification can use the checklist to assist in developing new policies and programs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6024620
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Global Health: Science and Practice
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60246202018-06-29 Review of Grain Fortification Legislation, Standards, and Monitoring Documents Marks, Kristin J. Luthringer, Corey L. Ruth, Laird J. Rowe, Laura A. Khan, Noor A. María De-Regil, Luz López, Ximena Pachón, Helena Glob Health Sci Pract Original Articles OBJECTIVE: Analyze the content of documents used to guide mandatory fortification programs for cereal grains. METHODS: Legislation, standards, and monitoring documents, which are used to mandate, provide specifications for, and confirm fortification, respectively, were collected from countries with mandatory wheat flour (n=80), maize flour (n=11), and/or rice (n=6) fortification as of January 31, 2015, yielding 97 possible country-grain combinations (e.g., Philippines-wheat flour, Philippines-rice) for the analysis. After excluding countries with limited or no documentation, 72 reviews were completed, representing 84 country-grain combinations. Based on best practices, a criteria checklist was created with 44 items that should be included in fortification documents. Two reviewers independently scored each available document set for a given country and food vehicle (a country-grain combination) using the checklist, and then reached consensus on the scoring. We calculated the percentage of country-grain combinations containing each checklist item and examined differences in scores by grain, region, and income level. RESULTS: Of the 72 country-grain combinations, the majority of documentation came from countries in the Americas (46%) and Africa (32%), and most were from upper and lower middle-income countries (73%). The majority of country-grain combinations had documentation stating the food vehicle(s) to be fortified (97%) and the micronutrients (e.g., iron) (100%), fortificants (e.g., ferrous fumarate) (88%), and fortification levels required (96%). Most (78%) stated that labeling is required to indicate a product is fortified. Many country-grain combinations described systems for external (64%) monitoring, and stated that industry is required to follow quality assurance/quality control (64%), though detailed protocols (33%) and roles and responsibilities (45%) were frequently not described. CONCLUSIONS: Most country-grain combinations have systems in place for internal, external, and import monitoring. However, documentation of other important items that would influence product compliance to national standard, such as roles and responsibilities between agencies, the cost of regulating fortification, and enforcement strategies, are often lacking. Countries with existing mandatory fortification can improve upon these items in revisions to their documentation while countries that are beginning fortification can use the checklist to assist in developing new policies and programs. Global Health: Science and Practice 2018-06-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6024620/ /pubmed/29959275 http://dx.doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00427 Text en © Marks et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly cited. To view a copy of the license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. When linking to this article, please use the following permanent link: https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00427
spellingShingle Original Articles
Marks, Kristin J.
Luthringer, Corey L.
Ruth, Laird J.
Rowe, Laura A.
Khan, Noor A.
María De-Regil, Luz
López, Ximena
Pachón, Helena
Review of Grain Fortification Legislation, Standards, and Monitoring Documents
title Review of Grain Fortification Legislation, Standards, and Monitoring Documents
title_full Review of Grain Fortification Legislation, Standards, and Monitoring Documents
title_fullStr Review of Grain Fortification Legislation, Standards, and Monitoring Documents
title_full_unstemmed Review of Grain Fortification Legislation, Standards, and Monitoring Documents
title_short Review of Grain Fortification Legislation, Standards, and Monitoring Documents
title_sort review of grain fortification legislation, standards, and monitoring documents
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024620/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29959275
http://dx.doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00427
work_keys_str_mv AT markskristinj reviewofgrainfortificationlegislationstandardsandmonitoringdocuments
AT luthringercoreyl reviewofgrainfortificationlegislationstandardsandmonitoringdocuments
AT ruthlairdj reviewofgrainfortificationlegislationstandardsandmonitoringdocuments
AT rowelauraa reviewofgrainfortificationlegislationstandardsandmonitoringdocuments
AT khannoora reviewofgrainfortificationlegislationstandardsandmonitoringdocuments
AT mariaderegilluz reviewofgrainfortificationlegislationstandardsandmonitoringdocuments
AT lopezximena reviewofgrainfortificationlegislationstandardsandmonitoringdocuments
AT pachonhelena reviewofgrainfortificationlegislationstandardsandmonitoringdocuments