Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26374804›Full record

ArticleGlobal health, science and practice2015

Regulatory Monitoring of Fortified Foods: Identifying Barriers and Good Practices.

Corey L Luthringer, Laura A Rowe, Marieke Vossenaar, Greg S Garrett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global health, science and practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Global strategies for the prevention of neural tube defects through the improvement of folate status in women of reproductive age.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Corey L LuthringerGlobal Alliance for Improved Nutrition, Large Scale Food Fortification, Geneva, Switzerland cluthringer@gainhealth.org.
Laura A RoweProject Healthy Children, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Marieke VossenaarGlobal Alliance for Improved Nutrition, Large Scale Food Fortification, Geneva, Switzerland.
Greg S GarrettGlobal Alliance for Improved Nutrition, Large Scale Food Fortification, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While fortification of staple foods and condiments has gained enormous global traction, poor performance persists throughout many aspects of implementation, most notably around the critical element of regulatory monitoring, which is essential for ensuring foods meet national fortification standards. Where coverage of fortified foods is high, limited nutritional impact of fortification programs largely exists due to regulatory monitoring that insufficiently identifies and holds producers accountable for underfortified products. Based on quality assurance data from 20 national fortification programs in 12 countries, we estimate that less than half of the samples are adequately fortified against relevant national standards. In this paper, we outline key findings from a literature review, key informant interviews with 11 fortification experts, and semi-quantitative surveys with 39 individuals from regulatory agencies and the food fortification industry in 17 countries on the perceived effectiveness of regulatory monitoring systems and barriers to compliance against national fortification standards. Findings highlight that regulatory agencies and industry disagree on the value that enforcement mechanisms have in ensuring compliance against standards. Perceived political risk of enforcement and poorly resourced inspectorate capacity appear to adversely reinforce each other within an environment of unclear legislation to create a major hurdle for improving overall compliance of fortification programs against national standards. Budget constraints affect the ability of regulatory agencies to create a well-trained inspector cadre and improve the detection and enforcement of non-compliant and underfortified products. Recommendations to improve fortification compliance include improving technical capacity; ensuring sustained leadership, accountability, and funding in both the private and the public sectors; and removing political barriers to ensure consistent detection of underfortified products and enforcement of applicable fortification standards. Only by taking concrete steps to improve the entire regulatory system that is built on a cooperative working relationship between regulatory agencies and food producers will a nutrition strategy that uses fortification see its intended health effects.

Indexed as

Nutrition PolicyNutritive ValueFood, FortifiedGuidelines as TopicHumansProgram EvaluationQuality Assurance, Health CareWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID26374804
PMCPMC4570017

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.