IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cesifo/v58y2012i2p405-421.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biofortification, Agricultural Technology Adoption, and Nutrition Policy: Some Lessons and Emerging Challenges

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel O. Gilligan

Abstract

Biofortification is a rapidly emerging strategy to address micronutrient malnutrition, but as an agricultural strategy with health objectives, it faces unique challenges. This article identifies three challenges to agricultural technology adoption that biofortification must meet to become a successful component of national nutrition strategies: (i) biofortification will need to achieve high rates of adoption and consumption in geographically distinct areas; (ii) strategies for delivery of biofortified crops must be tailored to the local context for each crop--nutrient pair; and (iii) biofortification needs to identify more cost-effective delivery strategies in order to offer an alternative to supplementation and commercial fortification. Evidence to support these arguments is provided from recent biofortification experiments in Uganda and Mozambique. (JEL codes: I12, O33, Q16) Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Ifo Institute, Munich. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel O. Gilligan, 2012. "Biofortification, Agricultural Technology Adoption, and Nutrition Policy: Some Lessons and Emerging Challenges ," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 58(2), pages 405-421, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cesifo:v:58:y:2012:i:2:p:405-421
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cesifo/ifs020
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Rubin, Deborah & Manfre, Cristina & Waithanji, Elizabeth & van den Bold, Mara & Olney, Deanna K. & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth Suseela, 2014. "Closing the gender asset gap: Learning from value chain development in Africa and Asia:," IFPRI discussion papers 1321, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Hugo De Groote & Nilupa S. Gunaratna & Monica Fisher & E. G. Kebebe & Frank Mmbando & Dennis Friesen, 2016. "The effectiveness of extension strategies for increasing the adoption of biofortified crops: the case of quality protein maize in East Africa," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(6), pages 1101-1121, December.
    3. Rute M. Caeiro & Pedro C. Vicente, 2020. "Knowledge of vitamin A deficiency and crop adoption: Evidence from a field experiment in Mozambique," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(2), pages 175-190, March.
    4. Mosquera-Vásquez, Teresa & Combariza-González, Juliana & Cuéllar-Gálvez, David & Melgar-Quiñonez, Hugo, 2022. "Differential elements of a successful agricultural innovation scaling-up model," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    5. Gilligan, Daniel O. & Kumar, Neha & McNiven, Scott & Meenakshi, J.V. & Quisumbing, Agnes, 2020. "Bargaining power, decision making, and biofortification: The role of gender in adoption of orange sweet potato in Uganda," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    6. David Cuéllar-Gálvez & Yesid Aranda-Camacho & Teresa Mosquera-Vásquez, 2018. "A Model to Promote Sustainable Social Change Based on the Scaling up of a High-Impact Technical Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, December.
    7. Sylvester Ochieng Ogutu & Andrea Fongar & Theda Gödecke & Lisa Jäckering & Henry Mwololo & Michael Njuguna & Meike Wollni & Matin Qaim, 2020. "How to make farming and agricultural extension more nutrition-sensitive: evidence from a randomised controlled trial in Kenya [Agricultural extension: good intentions and hard realities]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(1), pages 95-118.
    8. Lividini, Keith & Fiedler, John L., 2015. "Assessing the promise of biofortification: A case study of high provitamin A maize in Zambia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 65-77.
    9. Gerhard Flachowsky & Ulrich Meyer, 2015. "Challenges for Plant Breeders from the View of Animal Nutrition," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-25, December.
    10. Valera, Harold Glenn & Yamano, Takashi & Pede, Valerien & Puskur, Ranjitha & Habib, Muhammad Ashraful & Bashar, Khairul, 2021. "Impact of Nutrition Training on Long-Term Adoption of High Zinc Rice: A Randomized Control Trial Study Among Female Farmers in Bangladesh," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315165, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Gilligan, Daniel O. & Kumar, Neha & McNiven, Scott & Meenakshi, J.V. & Quisumbing, Agnes R., 2012. "Bargaining-Power and Biofortification: The Role of Gender in Adoption of Orange Sweet Potato in Uganda," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 125017, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Chrispin Sunganani Kaphaika & Samson Pilanazo Katengeza & Innocent Pangapanga-Phiri & Madalitso Happy Chambukira, 2023. "More Interventions, Low Adoption: To What Extent Are the Existing Seed Sources to Blame? The Case of Orange Fleshed Sweet Potato in Central and Northern Malawi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-20, September.
    13. Jones, Kelly M. & de Brauw, Alan, 2015. "Using Agriculture to Improve Child Health: Promoting Orange Sweet Potatoes Reduces Diarrhea," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 15-24.
    14. Agnes Quisumbing & Deborah Rubin & Cristina Manfre & Elizabeth Waithanji & Mara van den Bold & Deanna Olney & Nancy Johnson & Ruth Meinzen-Dick, 2015. "Gender, assets, and market-oriented agriculture: learning from high-value crop and livestock projects in Africa and Asia," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(4), pages 705-725, December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cesifo:v:58:y:2012:i:2:p:405-421. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.