About 800 million people suffer from hunger, but even more suffer from micronutrient malnutrition, also

called hidden hunger. Iodine, vitamin A, iron, and zinc malnutrition are major concerns. An estimated 250,000 to 500,000 vitamin Adeficient children become blind every year; half of them die within one year of losing their eyesight. Particularly vulnerable to iron deficiency are pregnant, menstruating, and lactating women and growing children. Ageneral aggravating factor is blood loss caused by malaria, intestinal worms, lice, and ticks (Stoltzfus et al. 1997; Stephenson et al. 2000; Mller et al. 2001). In 2001 the Micronutrient Initiative (Mason et al. 2001) reported anemia prevalence of 56 percent for pregnant and 42 percent for nonpregnant women in developing countries. Many school-aged children may also suffer from iron deficiency anemia, but data are scarce. The demand for iron by the unborn child is so high that even in industrial countries well-nourished women usually require iron supplements during part of their pregnancy. Micronutrient malnutrition is recognized as the worlds most prevalent nutritional disorder, and fortification of common foods offers an effective, inexpensive, and sustainable solution. Thus the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) was created to support countries in implementing and strengthening food fortification and other effective nutrition strategies. GAIN was launched at the UN General Assembly Special Session on Children in New York in May 2002, with an initial establishment grant provided by the Gates Foundation and supplementary funding from the U.S. and Canadian development agencies and other partners. Biofortification is the process of producing food crops that are rich in bioavailable micronutrients (Graham et al. 2001; Bouis 2003). It may involve adding a nutrient that does not originally exist in the crop (as is the case with golden rice), increasing the content of an existing nutrient (such as iron and zinc in maize), or making an existing nutrient more bioavailable (bioavailability is defined as the amount of a nutrient in a food that is absorbable from a typical diet and utilizable within the body to perform metabolic functions). Biofortification implies the fortification of vegetable foods with bioavailable micronutrients through conventional breeding (Graham et al. 2001) or with the use of GMO techniques. Breeding goals can be increased micronutrient content, decreased content of antinutritional factors that affect micronutrient bioavailability, or both. Examples are golden rice (rich in pro-vitamin A), high-quality protein maize (increased lysine), lowphytic acid barley, and orange-fleshed sweet potato (rich in pro-vitamin A) (Bouis 2000). Additional care must be given to genotypeenvironment interactions to assure that the crop can perform well (produces tubers or seeds) and expresses its value under different field conditions.

Advantages to food fortification include the following (adapted from Allen et al. 2006): Fortified foods that are consumed on a regular and frequent basis will maintain body stores of nutrients more efficiently and more effectively than intermittent supplements and can lower the risk of the multiple deficiencies that can result from seasonal deficits in the food supply or a poor-quality diet. Fortified staple foods will likely contain levels of micronutrients that approximate the supply from a good regular diet. Fortification of widely distributed and widely consumed foods has the potential to improve the nutritional status of a large proportion of the general population. Fortification of common staple foods does not require changes in existing food patterns nor individual compliance In many cases it is technologically feasible to fortify foods with several micronutrients simultaneously. One or more micronutrients can usually be added without adding much to the total cost of the food at the point of manufacture. With the appropriate food system and technology in place, fortification is often more costeffective than other public health strategies (Horton 1999; World Bank 1994). Biofortification has many advantages as a nutritional intervention: 1. It does not require a change in behavioral by farmers or consumers where the crops are already widely produced and consumed by poor households in the developing world. The introduction of the orange fleshed sweet potato in regions where the white-fleshed sweet potato is traditionally consumed, however, may pose a challenge or an opportunity, depending on the perceptions of the target population. 2. Biofortification capitalizes on the regular dietary intake of a consistent and large amount of food staples by all family members, ensuring an increase in nutritional status of the household 3. The multiplier aspect of biofortification across time and distance makes it cost effective. After the initial investment to develop seeds that produce plants that fortify themselves, recurrent costs are low and germplasm can be shared internationally. In addition, since propagation of sweet potatoes is through vines, farmers can (and do) informally disperse the varieties to neighbors and friends. 4. Biofortification provides a feasible means of reaching undernourished populations in Relatively remote rural areas. It delivers naturally fortified foods to people with limited access to commercially marketed fortified foods. It is this aspect of biofortification that makes it a suitable intervention for Kenya. As with any model, assumptions made must hold true to achieve success. The following assumptions are made with regard to biofortification: 1. The target population already consumes a non-biofortified variety of the crop to be introduced. 2. The vulnerable target group has both economic and physical access to the biofortified crop.

3. The target group will continue to consume the staple in sufficient quantities after biofortification. 4. Preparation of the biofortified crop as food will not reduce the amount or bioavailability of the micronutrient in the food. 5. The added or increased micronutrient will have synergistic rather than negative interactions with other micronutrients already in the food matrix. 6. Biofortification will not worsen the flavor of the food crop. 7. The farm yield of the biofortified crop will be equal to or better than that of the nonbiofortified crop being replaced. 8. The tools used for biofortification, such as classical plant breeding and genetic engineering, are legally acceptable in the countries where the target population lives. 9. It is economically feasible for farmers and markets to deal in biofortified crops.

But sustaining food fortification also imposes costs related to collaboration, regulation, monitoring and evaluation, communication, and education. And to the extent that implementing and sustaining the food fortification program requires resources, it must be determined whether the program is contributing to existing resources, maximizing under- or unutilized resources, or extracting resources from one area to another.