Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Access
    • Archive
    • Supplements
    • Special Collections
    • Topic Collections
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Tips for Writing About Programs in GHSP
      • Local Voices Webinar
      • Connecting Creators and Users of Knowledge
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Publish a Supplement
    • Promote Your Article
    • Resources for Writing Journal Articles
  • About
    • About GHSP
    • Editorial Team
    • Advisory Board
    • FAQs
    • Instructions for Reviewers

User menu

  • My Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Global Health: Science and Practice
  • My Alerts

Global Health: Science and Practice

Dedicated to what works in global health programs

Advanced Search

  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Access
    • Archive
    • Supplements
    • Special Collections
    • Topic Collections
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Tips for Writing About Programs in GHSP
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Publish a Supplement
    • Promote Your Article
    • Resources for Writing Journal Articles
  • About
    • About GHSP
    • Editorial Team
    • Advisory Board
    • FAQs
    • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Alerts
  • Find GHSP on LinkedIn
  • Visit GHSP on Facebook
  • RSS
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Open Access

Review of Grain Fortification Legislation, Standards, and Monitoring Documents

Kristin J. Marks, Corey L. Luthringer, Laird J. Ruth, Laura A. Rowe, Noor A. Khan, Luz María De-Regil, Ximena López and Helena Pachón
Global Health: Science and Practice June 2018, 6(2):356-371; https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00427
Kristin J. Marks
aFood Fortification Initiative, Atlanta, GA, USA.
bEmory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: kristin.marks@emory.edu
Corey L. Luthringer
cGlobal Alliance for Improved Nutrition, Geneva, Switzerland.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laird J. Ruth
aFood Fortification Initiative, Atlanta, GA, USA.
dU.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laura A. Rowe
eProject Healthy Children, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Noor A. Khan
fNutrition International, Ottawa, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Luz María De-Regil
fNutrition International, Ottawa, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ximena López
gGranotec, Santiago, Chile.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Helena Pachón
aFood Fortification Initiative, Atlanta, GA, USA.
bEmory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Supplements
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
  • PDF
Loading

Figures & Tables

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • FIGURE 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1

    Flowchart of Country-Grain Combinationa Exclusions

    a Country-grain combination refers to the unit of analysis; countries that mandate the fortification of multiple cereal grains will contribute more than one country-grain combination (e.g., Philippines-wheat and Philippines-rice).

    b Thirteen Caribbean countries follow the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) standard (Caribbean Community Secretariat, 1995): Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago.

  • FIGURE 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2

    Median Country-Grain Combination Scoresa by Cereal Grain in Countries With Mandatory Cereal-Grain Fortification

    Abbreviation: IQR, interquartile range.

    a Country-grain combination refers to the unit of analysis; countries that mandate the fortification of multiple cereal grains will contribute more than one country-grain combination (e.g. Philippines-wheat and Philippines-rice). Scores based on number of checklist items fully documented out of total applicable checklist items.

  • FIGURE 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3

    Median Country-Grain Combination Scoresa by Geographic Region in Countries With Mandatory Cereal-Grain Fortification

    Abbreviation: IQR, interquartile range.

    a Country-grain combination refers to the unit of analysis; countries that mandate the fortification of multiple cereal grains will contribute more than one country-grain combination (e.g. Philippines-wheat and Philippines-rice). Scores based on number of checklist items fully documented out of total applicable checklist items.

  • FIGURE 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 4

    Median Country-Grain Combination Scoresa by Income Level in Countries With Mandatory Cereal-Grain Fortification

    Abbreviation: IQR, interquartile range.

    a Country-grain combination refers to the unit of analysis; countries that mandate the fortification of multiple cereal grains will contribute more than one country-grain combination (e.g. Philippines-wheat and Philippines-rice). Scores based on number of checklist items fully documented out of total applicable checklist items.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    TABLE 1.

    Checklist of Key Itemsa and All Possible Scoring Options in Fortification Legislation, Standards, and Monitoring Documents

    ItemScoring OptionsReferences
    General
    1. States that legislation applies to at least one food vehicle fit for human consumption (types/grades to be fortified)(2) States at least one type fit for human consumption
    (0) Does not state
    10, 12, 17, 22
    2. States the public health objective; purpose and scope of legislation(2) States the public health objective or general purpose of legislation
    (0) Does not state
    10, 13, 17, 22
    3. References latest available science or accepted international norms and recommendations, particularly for items that may not be covered in the country's documents(2) States the documents referenced
    (0) Does not state
    12, 17, 21
    4. Provides definitions that include terms that are specific to fortification (e.g., fortified food, premix, fortificant, food vehicle)(2) States at least one term related to fortification
    (0) Does not state
    17, 22
    5. Provides repeals (if there is at least one prior document about fortification)(2) States repeals
    (0) Does not state
    (N/A) No prior documents about fortification
    12, 17
    6. Provides effective date or gives grace period for when fortification is to begin (e.g., effective 6 months from signing)(2) States effective date or grace period for when fortification is to begin (e.g., effective 6 months from signing)
    (0) Does not state
    12, 17
    Micronutrients/Premix
    7. States nutrients required(2) States nutrients
    (0) Does not state
    8, 10, 12, 13, 21
    8. States fortificants (chemical compounds) to be used (including fortificants that are allowable as options)(2) States fortificants for at least one nutrient
    (0) Does not state
    8, 10, 12, 13, 21
    9. States fortification levels(2) States a range or number with +/-
    (1) States one number only
    (0) Does not state
    8, 10, 13, 21
    10. States consideration of bioavailability/biological activity of fortificants(2) States some consideration of bioavailability (mentions these or related terms)
    (0) Does not state any consideration
    9
    11. States consideration of nutrient stability(2) States consideration of nutrient stability
    (0) Does not state any consideration
    11
    Costing
    12. States that the cost of fortification is regulated through cost-sharing schemes (between government, industry, consumers) or tax measures (to assist industry)(2) States consideration of either cost regulation method
    (0) Does not state any consideration
    10, 12, 13
    13. States consideration of the financial responsibility (of the government) of monitoring and enforcing fortification (schedule of fees, budget)(2) Shows consideration that monitoring costs money
    (0) Does not state any consideration
    10, 13, 19, 21, 22
    Labeling
    14. Includes some sort of statement/label/logo that makes it clear that the product is fortified(2) Includes a statement, label, or logo
    (0) Does not include statement, label, or logo
    8, 10, 12, 13, 18
    15. Provides guidance on health claims that can be made for this product (specific to micronutrients added through fortification)(2) Provides guidance on health claims specific to micronutrients added through fortification
    (0) Does not provide
    12, 15, 20
    Internal Monitoring (Conducted by Industry)
    16. States requirement for sampling as part of internal monitoring (e.g., describing number of samples, amount, frequency, individual vs. composite, where samples are taken in the process, and percent considered passing)(2) States that samples should be taken as part of internal monitoring
    (1) States that samples should be taken (generally)
    (0) States that samples should not be taken
    (N/A) Does not describe the sampling process
    1, 8, 12, 22, 23
    17. States that industry is required to follow quality assurance/quality control in regards to fortification(2) States requirement of quality assurance/quality control for fortification
    (0) Does not state requirement
    1, 8, 12, 22, 23
    18. States applicability of using qualitative testing (e.g., spot tests, iChecks) to determine the presence or absence of a vitamin or mineral(2) States applicability of spot test to determine presence/absence of vitamin or mineral specific to internal monitoring
    (1) States applicability of spot test to determine presence/absence of vitamin or mineral generally
    (0) Does not state
    11, 21
    External Monitoring (Conducted by Government)
    19. States requirement for external monitoring at the production site to assure compliance with standards and regulations(2) States requirement for external monitoring or the need for audits/inspections
    (0) Does not state requirement
    1, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23
    20. Describes protocols and systems for regulatory monitoring(2) Includes checklists or provides detailed description of regulatory monitoring procedures
    (1) Does not explicitly describe, but references protocols and systems for regulatory monitoring
    (0) Does not describe
    1, 13, 21
    21. If there are two or more government agencies involved in external monitoring, clarifies the roles and responsibilities between different government agencies in external monitoring(2) Clarifies roles and responsibilities for more than one agency
    (1) Clarifies roles and responsibilities for one agency
    (0) Clarifies roles and responsibilities for no agencies
    (N/A) Only one government agency involved
    12, 21, 23
    22. Allows for monitoring to be conducted often enough that problems can be identified and addressed on a timely basis; specifies a timeline for inspections (e.g., once every 6 months, increasing to once every 2 months if a discrepancy is found)(2) Describes frequency and how it is responsive to the needs of industry or the stage of fortification implementation
    (1) Makes mention of a timeline
    (0) Does not state
    1, 16, 18, 23
    23. States requirement for sampling as part of external monitoring (e.g., describing number of samples, amount, frequency, individual vs. composite, where samples are taken in the process, and percent considered passing)(2) States that samples should be taken as part of external monitoring
    (1) States that samples should be taken (generally)
    (0) States that samples should not be taken
    (N/A) Does not describe the sampling process
    1, 8, 12, 22, 23
    24. States applicability of using qualitative testing (e.g., spot tests, iChecks) to determine the presence or absence of a vitamin or mineral(2) States applicability of spot test to determine presence/absence of vitamin or mineral specific to external monitoring
    (1) States applicability of spot test to determine presence/absence of vitamin or mineral generally
    (0) Does not state
    21
    25. States registration is required in order to use a logo/be licensed to produce fortified foods(2) Describes some type of registration or licensing
    (0) Does not state that registration or licensing is required
    17, 18
    Commercial Monitoring (Conducted by Government)
    26. Provides justification for commercial monitoring at retail stores(2) Provides justification for commercial monitoring
    (0) Does not provide justification for commercial monitoring
    21
    27. Describes protocols and systems for commercial monitoring(2) Includes checklists or provides detailed description of commercial monitoring procedures
    (1) Does not explicitly describe, but references protocols and systems for commercial monitoring
    (0) Does not describe
    1, 13, 21
    28. If there are two or more government agencies involved in commercial monitoring, clarifies the roles and responsibilities between different government agencies in commercial monitoring(2) Clarifies roles and responsibilities for more than one agency
    (1) Clarifies roles and responsibilities for one agency
    (0) Clarifies roles and responsibilities for no agencies
    (N/A) Only one government agency involved
    12, 21, 23
    29. Allows for monitoring to be conducted often enough that problems at the production site or import companies can be identified and addressed on a timely basis; specifies a timeline for inspections (e.g., once every 6 months) or works with production companies to correct noncompliance(2) Describes frequency and how it is responsive to the needs of industry or the stage of fortification implementation
    (1) Makes mention of a timeline
    (0) Does not state
    (N/A) No commercial monitoring occurs
    1, 16, 18, 23
    30. States requirement for sampling as part of commercial monitoring (e.g., describing number of samples, amount, frequency, individual vs. composite, where samples are taken in the process, and percent considered passing)(2) States that samples should be taken as part of commercial monitoring
    (1) States that samples should be taken (generally)
    (0) States that samples should not be taken
    (N/A) Does not describe the sampling process
    1, 8, 12, 22, 23
    Import Monitoring (Conducted by Government)
    31. Provides justification for import monitoring at points of entry(2) Provides justification for import monitoring
    (0) Does not provide justification for import monitoring
    21
    32. Describes protocols and systems for import monitoring(2) Includes checklists or detailed description of import monitoring procedures
    (1) Does not explicitly state, but references protocols and systems for import monitoring
    (0) Does not state
    1, 13, 21
    33. If there are two or more government agencies involved in import monitoring, clarifies the roles and responsibilities between different government agencies in import monitoring(2) Clarifies roles and responsibilities for more than one agency
    (1) Clarifies roles and responsibilities for one agency
    (0) Clarifies roles and responsibilities for no agencies
    (N/A) Only one government agency involved
    12, 21, 23
    34. States requirement for sampling as part of import monitoring (e.g., describing number of samples, amount, frequency, individual vs. composite, where samples are taken in the process, and percent considered passing)(2) States that samples should be taken as part of import monitoring
    (1) States that samples should be taken (generally)
    (0) States that samples should not be taken
    (N/A) Does not describe the sampling process
    1, 8, 12, 22, 23
    Enforcement/Penalties
    35. Indicates roles and responsibilities in enforcing the legislation(2) States the role and responsibilities of government in enforcement
    (0) Does not state
    14, 17, 22
    36. States incentives to start fortification(2) States any incentives to encourage fortification initiation (e.g., tax incentives for new equipment or premix)
    (0) Does not state
    13, 17, 22
    37. States incentives to continue fortification, including ensuring compliance(2) States any incentives to encourage the continuation of fortification (e.g., transport priority, favorable tax or tariff treatment, or patent rights)
    (0) Does not state
    13, 17, 22
    38. States penalties to compel compliance(2) States any penalties
    (0) Does not state
    12, 13, 14, 17, 22
    39. Penalties are objectively defined (e.g., first penalty=$100, second penalty=$300)(2) Penalties are objectively laid out in the document (e.g., first penalty=$100, second penalty=$300)
    (0) Penalties are not objectively laid out
    (N/A) No penalties are stated (answered 0 to previous question)
    10
    40. States that enforcement is required to include feedback and support to improve performance and correct noncompliance(2) Requires any feedback/support to improve performance
    (0) Does not require
    1, 10, 17, 18, 21, 23
    Laboratory
    41. References required analytical assays for nutrients (e.g., liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry for folic acid, atomic absorption for iron and zinc)(2) References required assays
    (0) Does not state requirements
    8
    42. States recognition that laboratory results are subject to several sources of variation and do not provide conclusive evidence of compliance or noncompliance(2) States recognition that lab results are subject to variation
    (0) Does not state recognition
    21
    43. Focuses on the quantitative analysis of "marker" micronutrients such as iron(2) Focuses on quantitative analysis of marker micronutrient such as iron
    (0) Does not state
    12, 21, 23
    Reporting
    44. States how government monitoring results are shared with stakeholders(2) States how results are shared with stakeholders
    (0) Does not state how results are shared
    17
    • ↵a As identified in the literature and by content experts.

    • View popup
    TABLE 2.

    Percentage of Country-Grain Combinationsa With Documented Items in Fortification Legislation, Standards, and Monitoring Documents (N=72)

    ItemEligible (N)% (n) Fully Meeting% (n) Partly Meeting% (n) Not Meeting
    General
    1. Food vehicle stated in legislation7297% (70)–3% (2)
    2. Public health objective/purpose7269% (50)–31% (22)
    3. Accepted international norms7254% (39)–46% (33)
    4. Definitions specific to fortification7276% (55)–24% (17)
    5. Repeals of prior documentationb5971% (42)–29% (17)
    6. Effective date/grace period7272% (52)–28% (20)
    Micronutrients/Premix
    7. Nutrients required72100% (72)–0% (0)
    8. Fortificants (chemical compounds)7288% (63)–13% (9)
    9. Fortification levels7242% (30)54% (39)4% (3)
    10. Bioavailability of fortificants7231% (22)–69% (50)
    11. Nutrient stability7254% (39)–46% (33)
    Costing
    12. Cost sharing of fortification7219% (14)–81% (58)
    13. Financial responsibility of monitoring and enforcement7235% (25)–65% (47)
    Labeling
    14. Labeling required7278% (56)–22% (16)
    15. Guidance on health claims7250% (36)–50% (36)
    Internal Monitoring (conducted by industry during production)
    16. Sampling process outlinedb3171% (22)29% (9)0% (0)
    17. Industry QA/QC justified/required7264% (46)–36% (26)
    18. Applicability of qualitative tests7229% (21)1% (1)69% (50)
    External Monitoring (conducted by government at production sites)
    19. External monitoring justified7264% (46)–36% (26)
    20. Protocols and systems described7233% (24)28% (20)39% (28)
    21. Roles and responsibilities clarifiedb5645% (25)7% (4)48% (27)
    22. Timeline for inspections outlined7226% (19)13% (9)61% (44)
    23. Sampling process outlinedb4567% (30)33% (15)0% (0)
    24. Applicability of qualitative tests7219% (14)1% (1)79% (57)
    25. Registration requirements7238% (27)–63% (45)
    Commercial Monitoring (conducted by government at market or distribution sites)
    26. Commercial monitoring justified7247% (34)–53% (38)
    27. Protocols and systems described7219% (14)21% (15)60% (43)
    28. Roles and responsibilities clarifiedb6332% (20)0% (0)68% (43)
    29. Timeline for inspections outlinedb4414% (6)25% (11)61% (27)
    30. Sampling process outlinedb2871% (20)29% (8)0% (0)
    Import Monitoring (conducted by government at ports/points of entry)
    31. Import monitoring justified7264% (46)–36% (26)
    32. Protocols and systems described7235% (25)26% (19)39% (28)
    33. Roles and responsibilities clarifiedb5942% (25)2% (1)56% (33)
    34. Sampling process outlinedb2962% (18)38% (11)0% (0)
    Enforcement/Penalties
    35. Enforcement roles and responsibilities clarified7269% (50)–31% (22)
    36. Incentives to start fortification7214% (10)–86% (62)
    37. Incentives to continue fortification7210% (7)–90% (65)
    38. Penalties to compel compliance7268% (49)–32% (23)
    39. Penalties objectively definedb4931% (15)–69% (34)
    40. Enforcement includes feedback7218% (13)–82% (59)
    Laboratory
    41. Analytical methods identified7260% (43)–40% (29)
    42. Recognition of laboratory variation7211% (8)–89% (64)
    43. Quantitative analysis of "marker" micronutrients such as iron7236% (26)–64% (46)
    Reporting
    44. Dissemination of monitoring results described7231% (22)–69% (50)
    • Abbreviations: QA/QC, quality assurance/quality control.

    • ↵a Country-grain combination refers to the unit of analysis; countries that mandate the fortification of multiple cereal grains will contribute more than one country-grain combination (e.g., Philippines-wheat and Philippines-rice).

    • ↵b The number eligible differs for these items due to a “not applicable” option on the scoring checklist.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental material

    • Text s01, PDF - Text s01, PDF
    • Text s02, PDF - Text s02, PDF
    • Text s03, PDF - Text s03, PDF
    • Text s04, PDF - Text s04, PDF
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Global Health: Science and Practice: 6 (2)
Global Health: Science and Practice
Vol. 6, No. 2
June 27, 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Global Health: Science and Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Review of Grain Fortification Legislation, Standards, and Monitoring Documents
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Global Health: Science and Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Global Health: Science and Practice web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Review of Grain Fortification Legislation, Standards, and Monitoring Documents
Kristin J. Marks, Corey L. Luthringer, Laird J. Ruth, Laura A. Rowe, Noor A. Khan, Luz María De-Regil, Ximena López, Helena Pachón
Global Health: Science and Practice Jun 2018, 6 (2) 356-371; DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00427

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Review of Grain Fortification Legislation, Standards, and Monitoring Documents
Kristin J. Marks, Corey L. Luthringer, Laird J. Ruth, Laura A. Rowe, Noor A. Khan, Luz María De-Regil, Ximena López, Helena Pachón
Global Health: Science and Practice Jun 2018, 6 (2) 356-371; DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00427
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Jump to section

  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Tables
  • Supplements
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Update of: Marks et al., Review of Grain Fortification Legislation, Standards, and Monitoring Documents
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Cost of Delivering Tetanus Toxoid and Tetanus-Diphtheria Vaccination in Vietnam and the Budget Impact of Proposed Changes to the Schedule
  • Uganda Public Health Fellowship Program's Contributions to the National HIV and TB Programs, 2015–2020
  • A Comprehensive Approach to Improving Emergency Obstetric and Newborn Care in Kigoma, Tanzania
Show more Original Articles

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Health Topics
    • Nutrition
Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs

Follow Us On

  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • RSS

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Advance Access Articles
  • Past Issues
  • Topic Collections
  • Most Read Articles
  • Supplements

More Information

  • Submit a Paper
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Instructions for Reviewers

About

  • About GHSP
  • Advisory Board
  • FAQs
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. ISSN: 2169-575X

Powered by HighWire