Breakout Session 2 – New Products and Nutrition Update on USAID’s Food Aid Quality Review Patrick Webb Tufts 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 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 2010 Processors 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 about nutrient 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-box with 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. 3. More attention needed to quality of overall food basket; (i.e. cereal fortification. Don’t use FBFs as the only means of 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: INTERFAISv

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 not based 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.