This paper is relevant to the impact areas in the following areas:
| Crops | Not Crop-Specific |
| Traits | Biofortification |
| Countries | Not country-specific |
| Regions | Not region-specific |
| Tags | fortification, micronutrient, supplementation |
Genetic modification (GM) has been advocated as an alternative or complement to micronutrient interventions such as supplementation, fortification or dietary diversification. While proof-of-concept of various GM biofortified crops looks promising, the decision tree of policy makers is much more complex, and requires insight on their socio-economic impacts: Will it actually work? Is it financially sound? Will people accept it? Can it be implemented in a globalized world? This review shows that GM biofortification could effectively reduce the burden of micronutrient deficiencies, in an economically viable way, and is generally well received by target beneficiaries, despite some resistance and uncertainty. Practically, however, protectionist and/or unscientific regulations in some developed countries raise the (perceived) bar for implementation in target countries.
The social and economic impact of biofortification through genetic modification (held on an external server, and so may require additional authentication details)
CropLife International fully acknowledges the source and authors of the publication as detailed above.