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

Photo credit: M. Farrell

vi

Photo credit: P. Webb

vii

Photo credit: P. Webb

viii

Photo credit: P. Webb

ix

Haiti Emergency Operations Plan (2010)

x

US CSB – development

US CSB – emergencies

Source: INTERFAIS v

Photo credit: P. Webb

CORN SOY BLEND

xi

Photo credit: P. Webb

Nut butter – animal protein product revolution

xii

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.