User:Raeganloheide/sandboxannotatedbib

Biofortification as a Sustainable Strategy
This article outlines the scope of malnutrition as a consequence of dysfunctioning food systems that put vulnerable populations in unsustainable situations to maintain all the nutrients required. People who are in vulnerable, and often rural and disadvantaged situations face complex factors that create an inadequate supply of nutrients, and solutions thus far have focused on supplementation and other nutrition programs. The authors present biofortification as a complementary solution to those already in place as one that permeates urban boundaries to serve rural areas that currently don’t have total accessibility to other markets.

The strengths of this study are that in its exploration and promotion of biofortification, it also clearly outlines the culturally, socially, and economically specific conditions that biofortification requires to be truly successful. This identifies that increasing the concentrations of micronutrients in staple food crops is only the first step in bringing richer food sources to people, and the process can be riddled with complications. However, weaknesses of the study also come with the recognition of these issues, because as food systems are largely dependent on agricultural products they are not the only contributor to the problem and biofortification fails to reconcile this. The promotion of this study and biofortification as a solution is also complicated by the fact that it’s drawing evidence from the company HarvestPlus, which is a large stakeholder in the matter thus a conflict of interest.

The article provides a good scope of where biofortification is headed, but seems to fail to present itself as a viable solution to malnutrition as all of its advances have further complications for local economics and livelihoods.

Modifying Crops and Practices
The article promptly highlights how not just the success but the proper development of biofortified crops would depend on consumer acceptance, cost, regulations, and bureaucratic interventions. The importance of the article comes with its recognition of the vast socioeconomic consequences that malnutrition places on children, and how a focus on yields to feed the growing population doesn’t lend any progress. They point out how micronutrient deficiency is best fought with diet diversification rather than fortification and supplementation programs that require national infrastructures and economic agency and access. It’s concluded that although biofortification is an important and more accessible tool than other modification practices, it can also have consequential dietary and farming practice impacts. It is only briefly mentioned at the end of the article that fertilizers are needed to maintain biofortification and that this can be a barrier for resource-poor communities. This statement in itself refutes most of the findings by lending that fertilizer costs may be outweighed by higher crop yield; however, this feeds directly into the aforementioned mentality of feeding the world that the biofortification tries to refute and will ultimately only ending up benefitting more privileged farmers and areas if the biofortification development and dissemination continues as is.

Solving Hidden Hunger
The chapters open with skepticism around the fact that governments and organizations see supplementation and dietary diversification education combined with fortification as a possible intervention for micronutrient deficiency, when the problem instead lies outside of technology. The author highlights how fortification boasts its accessibility to rural and vulnerable populations like women and children when in reality it is a scapegoat to avoid direct engagement with these communities. The chapters show how the development and dissemination of fortified foods impose expert instruction and behavioral changes through neoliberal industries, policies, and implementation strategies. A weakness in this claim is that it does not go into detail to support the technology of how fortifying foods does have potential to directly resolve deficiencies, and instead comprehensively outlines the multitude of damages that the technology has perpetuated.

Integrated Approaches to Stunting
This article approaches malnutrition with a focus on increasing intake of diverse micronutrient-rich foods in conjunction with promoting substantial hygiene practices. Consideration of empowerment, income generation, and advocacy is integral to building the nutrient-positive environments. As opposed to other studies, this article doesn’t just mention that biofortification is complementary to other practices, but instead actively integrates it along with other breastfeeding, empowerment, planning, and sanitation services. It also clearly outlines the participatory methods for which this is achieved and has been analyzed. This article takes a comprehensive look at many of the factors outside of biofortification and supplementation that contribute to improved micronutrient intake, but doesn’t explicitly explore the implications of supplementation itself. The article is also the product of a large corporation, and much of the work is funded by other organizations that have act as key players in this nutritional realm.

Big Food, Nutritionism, and Corporate Power
Big food companies use fortification as an enhancement strategy so that their processed food products officially serve specific nutritional functions. Companies use these fabricated nutritional claims to advertise their efforts as part of a social responsibility and use it as a marketing strategy; however, this nutritional positioning instead just advances the power of big food companies to work within the regulatory and capitalist system that perpetually disadvantages people. This speaks to the fact that fortification as a processing strategy or as a biological one to increase nutritional value is an overly simplistic approach. The strengths of this article come with detailing how big food companies and the market dominate our view and consumption of nutritional products through political activities and they are not biased towards any one company. There are also no conflicts of interest. The article focuses a lot on diet-related conditions and the role of companies in creating these but does not talk about personal choice or other factors that could relate to the scope of these issues. Ultimately, the authors don’t see focusing on nutrients and enhancement as a solution to hunger and its related deficiencies and see that corporate strategies to do so do more harm than good.

Creating a prototype for the dissemination of genetically modified crops
The article outlines how the initial social successes of many modified and fortified crops that are disseminated to address malnourishment issues have increased yields for farmers, reduced costly pesticide applications, saved time, and allowed for increased childcare and schooling. These results have lead to a longstanding myth that modified crops can indeed help the poor and is historically framed as a revolutionary technology. However, this is not the reality that many farmers experience today as modification has spread to many different kinds of crops that require more monetary and pesticide inputs. Studies that showed otherwise ignored deeper methodological issues and had sampling bias, as opposed to the strengths of this article having a larger sample size and taking more influences into consideration. Although it takes these into account, it fails to look at a broader scope of crops and the other strategies involved in farming. The authors argue that the correct institutional infrastructure must be in place for farmers to benefit from any technological innovation.

No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety
A lot of the conversation around biofortified crops revolves around their safety and enhanced nutritional value, but there are many risks that aren't identified or are left out of the conversation. Many crops have unexplored environmental risks, and there is no global protocol for methodologies that should be applied to crops or standardized testing procedures. The article also highlights how socioeconomic consideration of these crops goes beyond the scope of the scientific analyzation and research agendas, but as of now these conversations are not currently involving the broader society. The authors strongly show that the decisions on the future of our food system shouldn't be based off misleading claims by corporate stakeholders. The strong stance against any form of genetic modification limits examining all factors of the issue, but the depth of the research that states the facts and calls out corporate interests is strong.

Lessons and Emerging Challenges
Biofortified foods do not reach the poorest consumers in remote rural areas, but when they do reach households it is in the form of staples that are consumed daily to constitute a large portion of diets in poor households. The authors mainly focus on how saturated adoption could benefit areas by eliminating a need for other supplementary nutrition programs. However, the authors fail to recognize that eliminating programs would also eliminate a focus on the social dimensions of nutrition. They also point out how if high rates of adoption are not achieved, that could lead to a need for complex and overlapping supplementation programs which would be hard to target and administer. Recognizing this complication is an important strength in the study. A weakness in this article is that it mentions many points about the benefits and potential of biofortification on a large scale that have been refuted by other studies.