Journal Pone 0297674

PLOS ONE
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Market assessment of fortified parboiled rice

in Burkina Faso
Alvaro Durand-Morat ID1*, Ya-Jane Wang2, Imael H. N. Bassole3, Lilian Nkengla-Asi4,
Wei Yang1
1 Department of Agricultural Economics & Agribusiness, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas,
United States of America, 2 Department of Food Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas,
United States of America, 3 Department of Biochemistry-Microbiology, Research and Training Unit/Life and
Earth Sciences, University Joseph KI-ZERBO, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 4 Department of Inclusive and
Resilient Food Systems, Oxfam America, Washington, DC, United States of America
* adurand@uark.edu
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111 Abstract
a1111111111
Micronutrient deficiency remains a daunting issue in many parts of the world. Effective inter-
ventions are needed to deal with the problem, which should consider production and con-
sumption traditions and trends to improve their success. Parboil rice is a growing staple in
Burkina Faso, where micronutrient deficiency remains high. This paper assesses the market
OPEN ACCESS
feasibility of fortified rice through parboiling using a limited-water soaking method. Our find-
Citation: Durand-Morat A, Wang Y-J, Bassole IHN,
Nkengla-Asi L, Yang W (2024) Market assessment
ings suggest that consumers are willing to pay a premium for fortified rice versus conven-
of fortified parboiled rice in Burkina Faso. PLoS tional parboiled rice after they are informed about the importance of the problem and the
ONE 19(3): e0297674. https://doi.org/10.1371/ potential benefits of fortified rice. A stylized cost analysis also reveals that the cost of pro-
journal.pone.0297674
ducing fortified rice using a limited-water soaking method could exceed the premiums con-
Editor: Muhammad Khalid Bashir, University of sumers are willing to pay, and therefore that public intervention may be needed to improve
Agriculture Faisalabad, PAKISTAN
the odds of adoption by consumers. The findings have implication beyond Burkina Faso,
Received: July 20, 2023 and could guide market development in other regions where production and consumption of
Accepted: January 11, 2024 parboiled rice is well established.
Published: March 13, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Durand-Morat et al. This is an

open access article distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and Introduction
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited. Micronutrient deficiencies are widespread affecting about 2 billion people worldwide, and
contribute to poor growth, intellectual impairments, perinatal complications, and increased
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the paper and its Supporting Information risk of mortality [1]. Iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), and vitamin A deficiencies are prominent in coun-
files. tries with cereal-based diets. Iron-Deficiency Anemia (IDA) is the most prevalent and wide-
spread nutritional disorder in the world. Zn deficiency is also prevalent and leads to adverse
Funding: This project has received funding from
Oxfam America under grant agreement No: R-3-
health consequences affecting the central nervous, gastrointestinal, immune, epidermal, repro-
22-2021 The funders help designing the data ductive, and skeletal systems [2]. Vitamin-A Deficiency (VAD) is also a major public health
collection strategy by identifying partners in problem, as it is a leading cause of blindness in children, and may increase the risk of maternal
Burkina Faso. mortality [3].
Competing interests: The authors have declared While the information on micronutrient deficiency in Burkina Faso is limited, findings
that no competing interests exist. from several studies suggest that the problem is still widespread. According to the 2019
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 1 / 20

PLOS ONE Market Assessment of Fortified Parboiled Rice in Burkina Faso
National Nutrition Survey, the prevalence of anemia among school-aged children was 67.7%,
and 83.4% among pre-school children [4]. Another study found a prevalence of anemia of
37.6% and 72.1% among women and children, respectively [5]. Globally, it is estimated that
around half of the anemia cases are associated with iron deficiency [6,7]. Regarding Zn defi-
ciency, different studies suggest a decreasing trend among the rural population in Burkina
Faso, from a prevalence of 72% among children 6–31 months of age in 1999 [8], 62.7% among
children 6–23 months old in 2009 [9], and 43.5% among children 6–18 months old in 2012
[10]. Another study found a prevalence of Zn deficiency of 63.7% among children, and 39.4%
among women [5]. Although a decreasing trend in Zn deficiency is good news, the actual levels
in Burkina Faso still remain very high. Vitamin A deficiency affects 12% of the women and
24.8% of the children in Burkina Faso [5], but its prevalence varies significantly across regions.
For instance, previous studies estimated a 35% and 85% prevalence among children in the
Centre-Ouest and the Centre Nord regions, respectively [11,12], a 13 to 17% prevalence
among adult men and women in urban Ouagadougou [13], and 64% prevalence among
women in the Centre Nord region [12].
Micronutrient deficiency is more prevalent in countries with poor dietary diversity, and
positively correlated with the share of starchy staples such as cereals, roots, and tubers [14].
Rice is a major food crop in the world, and micronutrient deficiency disorders such as anemia,
stunting and night blindness are widespread in most of the rice-consuming countries. Accord-
ing to the Food and Agriculture Organization, mass fortification is an efficient and cost-effec-
tive method to alleviate micronutrient deficiency. Being a staple crop in the world’s most
densely populated regions, rice is an excellent product for delivering micronutrients through
fortification [15]. Moreover, most rice produced worldwide is handled in a centralized way by
millers that use paddy rice as an input in the production of milled rice, which also presents a
unique opportunity for fortification interventions [16].
Rice is a growing staple in West Africa [17]. Rice consumption in Sub-Saharan Africa
grew 75 in the last decade [18], the fastest growing rate worldwide, and it is expected to
keep growing strongly in the coming years as population and per-capita consumption
improve [19]. Rice has already become the main staple in many Sub-Saharan countries such
as Mali and Senegal. In Burkina Faso, rice consumption more than double in the last decade
from 420 thousand metric tons in 2010 to 850 thousand metric tons in 2020, of which
roughly 1/3 is supplied domestically and 2/3 is imported [18]. Rice is a growing staple in
Burkina Faso, accounting for 11.6% of the average daily caloric intake in 2020 relative to
7.8% a decade earlier [20].
There is a growing literature looking at consumer preferences for fortified foods in
Africa [21–24], but to our knowledge no study to date has assessed consumer willingness to
pay for fortified rice in Africa. The goal of this study is to ascertain consumer preferences
for parboiled rice fortified with Fe, Zn, and vitamin A in Burkina Faso. The study is timely
because rice is a growing staple in Burkina Faso, a low-income developing country with
prevalence of malnutrition caused by undernourishment, and most of the rice already con-
sumed is parboiled and, thus, similar to the fortified rice product being tested in this study.
Given that fortified rice can have different appearance and culinary characteristics than
non-fortified rice, it is important to assess whether consumers will accept the new fortified
rice, and how much they will be willing to pay for it. Acceptance and adoption of fortified
rice is crucial for the fortification efforts to help ameliorate undernourishment problems,
while the willingness to pay for fortified rice has important policy implications as it will
help policymakers assess the potential cost and the type of interventions, if any, that will be
needed to develop a market for fortified rice.

Rice fortification
Fortification is the practice of deliberately increasing the content of essential micronutrients in
food to improve the nutritional quality of the food supply and provide a public health benefit
with minimal risks to health [25]. Rice fortification involves deliberately increasing the content
of micronutrients and vitamins, such as Zn, iron, and vitamin A, to make rice more nutritious.
The first trial of rice fortification was conducted in the mid-1940s in the Philippines as a way
to ameliorate the impact of beriberi caused by vitamin B1 deficiency [26], and continued in
the 1950s with the development of coated and extruded fortified rice blends. Rice fortification
can be broadly categorized into (1) bio-fortification (genetic fortification), and (2) post-harvest
fortification (Fig 1). Biofortification is a process of increasing the bioavailability of micronutri-
ents concentrations (e.g., vitamins and minerals) in a crop through agronomic practices (e.g.,
foliar spray) or genetic selection (e.g., plant breeding and transgenic techniques) [27–30]. Sim-
ilar to parboiled rice, micronutrients and vitamins in bio-fortified rice are embedded in all ker-
nels and therefore less prone to losses during post-processing, cleaning, and cooking. Bio-
fortified rice has the advantage of offering high levels of micronutrients even in a non-par-
boiled form, thus making it appealing for a broader segment of the market that already prefer
and consume non-parboiled rice. Indeed, bio-fortification seeks to take advantage of the con-
sistent daily consumption of large amounts of food staples by all family members [31].
Post-harvest fortification approaches include dusting, coating, extrusion, and parboiling
techniques. Dusting consists of adding the nutrients of interest to the milled rice as a powder
that sticks to the grain surface by electrostatic forces. Because of the weak bondage between
the nutrient mix and the rice kernels, dusted rice is subject to significant nutrient losses when
washed and/or cooked with excess water [32].
Coating involves treating rice kernels with the nutrient additive (usually powder) plus
ingredients such as edible waxes and gums to improve the adherence of the mix. The coated
rice kernels are then mixed with milled rice to achieve the desired level of fortification. The
amount of nutrient that remains after washing and cooking the rice varies with the coating
technology, but in general, coating yields better results (in terms of the amount of fortificant
left available to consumers) than dusting. Some issues with coating are related to changes in
color. Because the fortificant is concentrated in the surface of the kernel, coated kernels are
easily distinguishable and likely discarded by consumers in the cleaning process. Moreover, if
the coating film is not resistant to cooking, then the fortificant may be damaged by the expo-
sure, and/or drained after cooking [33].
Extrusion consists of forming grain-like structures that resemble rice from a dough made of
rice flour, a fortificant mix, and water. Extruded rice is then mixed with milled rice in the
Fig 1. Alternative rice fortification approaches.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674.g001

proportion needed to achieve the desired level of fortification. Hot extrusion uses high temper-
atures in the process and results in pre-cooked extruded rice with a similar appearance (e.g.,
transparency) to milled rice. Cold extrusion is a low-temperature process that does not use
external thermal energy and results in uncooked extruded kernels that are usually more
opaque and therefore easier to differentiate from regular milled rice [33]. In both hot and cold
extrusion, the added nutrients are embedded in the kernel matrix, and thus largely protected
from possible losses during storage, washing, and cooking. Extrusion has a high capital invest-
ment [32], which can limit its adoption in regions where fortified rice may be most needed.
Parboiling involves partial boiling of paddy (or brown) rice before milling in order to
increase its nutritional value by promoting the migration of nutrients from the bran to the
endosperm, to change the texture of cooked rice, and reduce the breakage in milling. Parboil-
ing usually entails three steps, namely, soaking, steaming, and drying [34]. Adding fortificants
to the soaking solution is another way to improve the nutritional value of parboiled rice [35–
37]. Similar to extruded rice, the added nutrients are embedded in the endosperm, and there-
fore less subject to losses. Since all rice kernels are parboiled and have the same appearance,
losses due to cleaning/discarding abnormal kernels are reduced. This is a viable approach for
consumers that already have a habit of consuming parboiled rice.
Fortified parboiled rice

Rice parboiling originated in India and has been used for centuries as a way to improve the
physical and nutritional attributes of rice [38]. It is estimated that around 25 percent of the
global rice production is parboiled every year [39]. While parboiled rice enhances the nutri-
tional value of milled rice vis-à-vis non-parboiled rice, the nutritional improvement is con-
strained by the availability of nutrients in the rice bran. For instance, 100 grams of cooked
long-grain brown rice, which consists of the bran and the endosperm, provides 2 percent of
the daily value of iron (Fe) and no vitamin A, while 100 grams of cooked long-grain milled
parboiled rice provide 1% of the daily value of iron and no vitamin A [18].
Since parboiling subjects rice to further processing before milling, different approaches
have been proposed to modify the process and make parboiled rice more nutritious. Previous
studies assessed the fortification of parboiled rice with (Fe) through the addition of the fortifi-
cant to the soaking solution, and found that the concentration of Fe increased between 20 to
50 times relative to that of unfortified milled rice [40]. However, the fortification process is
inefficient in the sense that less than 0.10% of the fortificant added to the soaking solution
actually reaches the endosperm. Such low efficiency is troublesome from an economic per-
spective (high production costs), and from an environmental perspective given that a large vol-
ume of fortificant is disposed together with the soaking solution and the husk [41,42]. Another
studytesting the appearance and consumer acceptance of Fe-fortified rice found that the forti-
fication with 250 mg Fe/kg of paddy rice increased the concentration of Fe up to 19.1 mg Fe/
kilogram of milled rice, and had no adverse impact on consumer acceptance [37]. However,
fortification with higher concentration (450 mg Fe/ kilogram paddy rice) altered the physical
and culinary attributes of rice, which resulted in low acceptability. Fortification of low-amylose
rice with Zn by parboiling is a cost-effective method [43], and can help fighting Zn deficiency
in Bangladesh [44]. Previous studies show the feasibility of fortifying rice with Fe through par-
boiling using brown rice as a feedstock [45], and the benefits of using dehusked (brown) rice
rather than paddy rice as a feedstock in terms of energy savings during processing and cooking
[39], and also in terms of efficiency of rice fortification [36]. In an attempt to improve the
water-efficiency of parboiling and reduce wastewater, a limited-water soaking method for rice
fortification with calcium and Fe was found to reduced water use by 89% and the amount of

solids in wastewater by 85% relative to conventional parboiling, and significantly increased the
concentration of calcium and Fe in milled rice relative to conventional parboiled rice [46].
Methodology
We used experimental auctions to assess consumer’s preferences for fortified parboiled rice in
Burkina Faso. Experimental auctions are defined as a market institution for determining prices
and assigning goods. Auctions have a set of rules that determine, according to the bids pre-
sented by the participating bidders, who the winner of the auctioned good is and what is the
price to be paid [47]. Experimental auctions try to simulate a real market situation in which
the consumer makes the decision to buy and makes the purchase, thus offering to participants
real products and allowing for exchange of real money. In this way, the participant may incur
real costs if he or she deviates from their equilibrium strategy, which incentivizes the partici-
pant to reveal his/her true willingness to pay (WTP) [48]. Hence, experimental auctions tend
to provide more accurate WTP values than hypothetical elicitation methods [49]. We used a
random nth price auction as the elicitation method. With this method, the bids from each of
the m participants are ranked in descending order, and a number n between 2 and m is
selected randomly. The number n help determine the number of participants who receive the
binding product. For example, if n is equal to 5, then the top 4 bidders win the auction (get the
binding product) and each pay the 5th highest bid. In the random nth price auction, even off-
margin bidders are motivated to bid their true value because it is likely that their bid is close to
the market clearing price. The disadvantage of this method is that it is impossible to know the
true cost of the experiment since the number of units sold in each auction increases propor-
tionally with n, which is in itself unknown before each auction [50].
The research protocol was approved by the University of Arkansas’s Institutional Research
Board. Participants expressed their consent to participate verbally. A team of enumerators
from Ouaga University conducted 40 non-hypothetical experimental auctions between the
11th and 21th of May 2022 to assess consumers’ WTP for fortified rice in Burkina Faso. We
used a between-individual design to compare consumer WTP by location (urban and rural)
and product type (cooked versus raw rice), and a within-individual design to account for the
impact of information. We split the sample between rural and urban consumers to account for
potential differences in preferences between consumers from both areas. Previous studies
found significant differences in preferences for rice quality attributes between rural and urban
consumers. For instance, urban consumers in Cote d’Ivoire prefer rice with very low brokens,
while rural consumers choose rice with a higher broken percentage [51]. Urban consumers in
Guinea prefer imported rice, while rural consumers prefer domestic parboiled rice [51].
Regarding country of origin, urban consumers in West Africa prefer imported to domestic
rice [52]. Each experimental auction consisted of 10 participants, for a total of 400 participants.
Half (20) of the auctions were conducted in Kienfangué (rural area), and the other half in the
Zogona and Dassasgho neighborhoods in the capital city of Ouagadougou (urban area). Each
auction included the following three milled rice products: (1) conventional parboiled rice,
which uses paddy rice as a feedstock and is the traditional way of producing parboiled rice in
Burkina Faso; (2) alternative parboiled rice, which uses brown rice as a feedstock; and (3) forti-
fied parboiled rice, fortified with Fe, Zn, and vitamin A following the limited-water soaking
method using brown rice as a feedstock as described by [46].
Furthermore, half of the auctions were for raw milled rice (no tasting) and the other half for
cooked milled rice (including tasting). The physical/visual aspect of raw rice is an important
search attribute that affects consumers’ purchasing decisions, while the culinary characteristics
of rice are important experience attributes that can affect consumers’ repeat purchasing

Table 1. Contribution of fortified milled rice using brown rice as a feedstock and following the limited-water soaking method to the recommended daily allowance
of iron (Fe), Zinc (Zn), and Vitamin A.
Recommended Daily Allowance (mg/day)† Contribution per serving (150 grams) of fortified rice (mg) % Contribution to the RDA
Zinc 8 5.63 70.38%
Iron 18 5.48 30.44%
Vitamin A 0.7 0.07 9.32%
†
. National Institute of Health. https://ods.od.nih.gov/HealthInformation/nutrientrecommendations.aspx.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674.t001
behavior [53]. Thus, the goal of testing both the raw and cooked rice was to ascertain if con-
sumers’ preferences and WTP for fortified rice varies depending on whether they assess only
the physical attributes via the raw milled rice, or if they also assess the culinary attributes via
the cooked milled rice. The rice was cooked following the traditional method of cooking one
part of rice with two parts of water. The cooking time varied from 20 to 25 minutes.
The three rice products were produced by Uneriz (National Union of Rice Parboilers of
Burkina Faso). The rice parboilers at Uneriz were trained in the production of fortified rice
using the limited-water soaking method, and the efficiency of the fortification process was
assessed [54]. The micronutrients included in the fortification process were selected by local
experts and food scientists from the University of Arkansas. The level of fortification was
defined based on several factors: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) definition of
enriched rice with respect to iron, the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of these nutrients,
and the physical and sensory characteristics of fortified rice. The goal was to maximize the
level of micronutrients while keeping the physical and sensory characteristics of rice within
reasonable levels to avoid consumer rejection due to the visual or culinary characteristics of
fortified rice. The domestic rice variety TS2 was selected because of its popularity and good
milling yield. With that said, the laboratory results highlight that using brown rice instead of
paddy rice as a feedstock results in a lower milling yield head rice yield of 45 percent for brown
rice relative to 86 percent for paddy rice). Thus, we included two controls (conventional par-
boiled and alternative parboiled) in an attempt to disaggregate the impact of differences in
milling yields and nutritional values. The laboratory results show that the content of Zn, Fe,
and vitamin A in one serving (150 grams) of uncooked milled rice of variety TS2 fortified
using brown rice as a feedstock and following the limited-water soaking method amounted to
70%, 30%, and 9% of the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of adult females (Table 1).
Each auction consisted of two rounds (within-individual design). In the first round, the
three rice products were presented and identified, and consumers were asked to place a bid for
each of the three rice products. After the first round, participants receive the following infor-
mation about fortified rice:
“Rice is a good source of calories/energy, but lacks essential nutrients and vitamins. So, if
not balanced correctly, a diet heavily dependent on rice may lead to malnutrition due to
insufficient minerals and vitamins. Deficiencies of Iron, zinc and vitamin A are among the
leading causes of undernourishment.
Based on sound scientific information, we estimate that parboiled rice, which is the most
common rice consumed in Burkina Faso, provides very little nutrients and vitamins. For
example, it provides no vitamin A, around 3% of the amount of iron, and around 10% of
the amount of zinc required daily by adult females.

The fortified rice used in this study has been fortified with vitamin A, iron, and zinc, and
thus has higher nutritional value. For example, it provides around 9% of the vitamin A,
30% of the iron, and 70% of the zinc needed daily by adult females.”
After receiving information about fortified rice, consumers were asked to place a second
bid for each rice product. Differences in WTP between the two rounds can be understood as
the impact of information on consumers’ WTP.
Consumers were sampled from nearby markets following a convenience approach. Pro-
spective participants were approached by enumerators, who briefly introduce the objectives of
the research, the risks associated with participating, the expected duration, and the compensa-
tion available for completing the activity. Consumers that accepted to participate were taken to
the site nearby were the auctions were performed, and signed an informed consent form
acknowledging they understood the risks involved and their voluntary participation.
The auctions were performed in three steps. In step 1, each participant received an envelope
containing $5 as compensation for their participation, his or her identification number, and
two bidding cards. One of the main determinants of success in experimental auctions is a good
and clear understanding by participants of the incentive compatibility of the auction mecha-
nism. The survey team explained the nature of the experimental auction, including the binding
nature of their bids, the importance of considering the budget constraints and own preferences
when bidding for the different rice products, and the nature of the random nth price auction.
During the explanation, participants were encouraged to ask questions to clear any doubts
about the process.
Step 2 entailed conducting the two auction rounds as described above. Finally, step 3
entailed completing the socioeconomic questionnaire and debriefing participants (S1 Table).
Inclusivity in global research

Additional information regarding the ethical, cultural, and scientific considerations specific to
inclusivity in global research is included in the (S2 Table).
Econometric modelling
Because all bids were positive and non-censored (all bids were within a reasonable price
range), we estimate a separate linear regression model to analyze the determinants of WTP for
each rice product (conventional parboiled rice, alternative parboiled rice, and fortified par-
boiled rice) and auctioned form (raw and cooked), for a total of 6 regression models. The
socioeconomic independent variables selected include 3 categories of household income,
namely, (1) low-income, defined as 1 for households reporting earning less than CFA Franc
2000/month and zero otherwise, (2) middle-income, defined as 1 for households reporting
earning between CFA Franc 2000 and 5000/month and zero otherwise, and (3) high-income,
defined as 1 for households reporting earning more than CFA Franc 5000/month and zero
otherwise. Education is defined as a binary variable equal to 1 if the participant completed any
level of formal education, and zero otherwise. The share of income spent on food is repre-
sented with a binary variable equal to 1 if the share is above 50% of the monthly income, and
zero otherwise. Finally, urban is a binary variable equal to 1 if the participant lives in an urban
area, and zero otherwise, and household size is treated as a continuous variable. The treatment
variable round (binary) represents the auction round (1 if round 2, zero otherwise), and thus is
a proxy for the impact of the information treatment. Finally, we tested different interactions
between socioeconomic variables and auction round to ascertain how, if any, household char-
acteristics impact their reaction to the information treatment. For each rice product and

auctioned form, the linear model is defined as:

WTPi ¼ a þ bi ∗Xi þ gi ∗roundi þ di ∗ðXi ∗roundi Þ þ εi ð1Þ
where WTPi is the bid value for participant i; Xi is a vector of socioeconomic variables, roundi
is a binary variable representing the auction round, α, βi, and δi are parameters to be estimated,
and εi is the residual.
Results
Descriptive statistics of the sample
S3 Table shows the full experimental auction dataset. Table 2 shows the frequency of a selected
group of socioeconomic variables disaggregated by location, where rural represents the surveys
conducted in Kienfangué, and urban the surveys conducted in Zogona and Dassasgho.
Around 80% of the participants were women, 37% were under 30 years of age, and around a
third of the participants were from low-income households (earning less than CFA 2000 per
month) and spent over half of their income on food. Seventy seven percent of the participants
had not completed any type of formal education, compared to 51% for the population accord-
ing to the Harmonized Survey on Household Living Conditions 2018–2019 [55]. Table 3 pres-
ents frequency of selected variables associated with the rice-consumption habits and
preferences of participants. Around 50% of the participants report that their household con-
sumes over 20 kg of rice per month, which divided by the average household size of 8.77 mem-
bers yields over 2.3 kg per person per month or 27.4 kg per year, slightly over the 25 kg per
Table 2. Frequency for some selected socioeconomic variables.

Aggregate Urban Rural
Gender
Female 322 172 150
Male 78 28 50
Age
<30 148 74 74
31–40 120 60 60
41–50 60 31 29
>50 72 35 37
HH size 9.78 10.54 9.01
Education completed
None 308 158 150
Elementary 70 23 47
High school 20 17 3
University 2 2 0
Income (average per HH per month)
< CFA 2000 137 67 70
CFA 2000–3000 94 33 61
CFA 3000–5000 56 20 36
> CFA 5000 113 80 33
Income share on food
<25% 119 50 69
26–50% 134 64 70
51–75% 82 42 40
>75% 65 44 21

Table 3. Frequency of selected variables associated with rice-consumption habits and preferences.
Rice consumption/HH/month
<5 kg 39 9 30
6–10 kg 48 16 32
11–15 kg 57 32 25
16–20 kg 54 29 25
>20 kg 202 114 88
Packaging
Bagged 122 60 62
Loose 215 111 104
Both 63 29 34
Type of rice consumed
Parboiled 274 142 132
Non-parboiled 81 36 45
Do not know 45 22 23
Type of store
Supermarket 136 65 71
Rice wholesaler 87 57 30
Neighborhood markets 168 77 91
Other 9 1 8
Wash rice before cooking
Always 398 200 198
Often 2 0 2
Never 0 0 0
Main reason for washing rice
Remove abnormal kernels 52 17 35
remove impurities 315 173 142
Reduce starch in rice 9 6 3
Other 24 4 20
Ranking of characteristics of raw rice (1 = most preferred; 5 = least preferred) †
Cleanliness 1.61a 1.69a 1.53a
Color 2.08b 2.01ab 2.16b
Size 2.23b 2.07b 2.39b*
Shape 2.35bc 2.36bc 2.34b
Broken 2.60cd 2.33bc 2.88c***
Chalk 2.84d 2.53c 3.14c***
†
Ranking of characteristics of milled rice (1 = most preferred; 5 = least preferred)
Taste 1.53a 1.57a 1.48a
Swelling 1.83b 1.84ab 1.82b
Texture 2.06bc 1.91b 2.20c
Color 2.26cd 2.13bc 2.40cd
Aroma 2.53de 2.33c 2.73de
Stickiness 2.72e 2.51c 2.94e
Knowledge about nutritional value of rice
Have previous knowledge 162 86 76
Have knowledge after experiment 386 192 194
Knowledge check
Incorrect 136 67 69
(Continued )

Table 3. (Continued)

Some answers correct 175 93 82
All answers correct 88 40 48
†
.
*, **, ***, statistically significant difference between urban and rural at 5%, 1%, and 0.1%, respectively.
ANOVA. For each location, different letters indicate statistically significant differences across attributes at the 5% level.
capita per year estimated for Burkina Faso as a whole [56]. Around 2/3 of the participants
report consuming parboiled rice, 20% report consuming non-parboiled rice, and 11% report
not knowing which type of rice they consume. Most participants (65%) state that they closely
assess the quality of the rice before buying it, while 20% of them state they trust the vendor,
and 13% state they do not care about rice quality. Almost all participants report washing the
rice before cooking primarily to remove impurities. Cleanliness is the main attribute of raw
milled rice consumers care about, followed by color, size, and shape. The content of broken
and chalk rice are the two least important attributes. For cooked rice, taste is the most impor-
tant attribute, followed by swelling and texture, while aroma and stickiness are the least impor-
tant. Finally, 59% (41%) of the respondents say they had (did not have) knowledge about the
nutritional value of rice before the experiment, and 97% (3%) state they have (do not have)
knowledge about it after the experiment. Still, when asked specific basic facts about the nutri-
tional value of rice after the experiment, around 22% of the respondents answered it
incorrectly.
All bids were positive and different from zero (Table 4).
Willingness to pay
Table 5 and Fig 2 show the estimated mean WTP and the results of the inference analysis to
ascertain whether the differences in mean WTP are statistically significant. In aggregate, the
mean WTP for 1 kg of rice varied from CFA 391.7 (US$0.63 at the average 2022 exchange rate
of CFA 623.8/US$ published by the United Nations) to CFA 538.2 (US$0.86), a range deemed
reasonable considering that FAO reports wholesale prices in May 2022 varying from CFA 400
to 440 per kg [57]. The results from the first round (no information about benefits of fortified
rice) in the rural location suggest that consumers are WTP 15.2% (p<0.05) more for fortified
rice (CFA 481.2 or US$0.77 per kg) than for traditional parboiled rice (CFA 417.6 or US$0.67
per kg) when assessing rice in its raw form, but 6.9% less (p<0.05) (CFA 397.3 or US$0.64 per
kg versus CFA 426.8 or US$0.68 per kg for fortified and traditional parboiled rice, respectively)
Table 4. Mean, minimum, and maximum bid values (CFA/kg) by location, auction form, and auction round.
Location Auction Form Round Min Mean Max
Rural Raw 1 200 430.16 1050
Rural Raw 2 100 458.98 1000
Rural Cooked 1 200 420.00 750
Rural Cooked 2 200 447.00 1000
Urban Raw 1 200 433.83 800
Urban Raw 2 200 435.33 750
Urban Cooked 1 250 420.08 600
Urban Cooked 2 225 436.25 1250

Table 5. Statistical analysis of differences in mean WTP† in CFA per kilogram (standard deviations in parenthesis).
Rice Product Location Auction Form Round 1 Round 2
Traditional parboiled rice Rural Raw 417.6a 443.3a
(93.8) (118.4)
Alternative parboiled rice‡ Rural Raw 391.7b 395.5b
(77.5) (96.9)
Fortified parboiled rice Rural Raw 481.2c 538.2c*
(137.0) (188.8)
Traditional parboiled rice Rural Cooked 426.8a 418.3a
(75.6) (101.5)
Alternative parboiled rice Rural Cooked 436.0a 445.3b
(74.7) (105.8)
Fortified parboiled rice Rural Cooked 397.3b 477.5c***
(97.6) (143.9)
Traditional parboiled rice Urban Raw 431.0a 405.5a*
(86.6) (80.8)
Alternative parboiled rice Urban Raw 411.5b 398.0a
(83.2) (78.2)
Fortified parboiled rice Urban Raw 459.0a 502.5b***
(104.4) (104.1)
Traditional parboiled rice Urban Cooked 419.8a 403.5a
(61.7) (73.8)
Alternative parboiled rice Urban Cooked 424.0a 416.3a*
(53.6) (90.1)
Fortified parboiled rice Urban Cooked 416.5a 489.0b***
(79.8) (123.5)
†
. Due to the fact that the distribution of WTP is not normal, we use Wilcoxon’s rank-sum test to test differences between distributions.
‡. alternative parboiled rice is parboiled rice produced using brown rice as a feedstock.
*, **, *** indicate 5%, 1%, and 0.1% statistically significant differences between rounds for each rice product, location, and auction form.
when assessing it cooked. These results may reflect that the appearance of raw fortified rice is
more appealing than that of traditional parboiled rice, and consequently, consumers are will-
ing to pay a premium for fortified rice, but that after trying the rice products, consumers may
have reservations about buying fortified rice (e.g., because of some undesirable culinary
aspect), and be willing to do so only at a discount. For urban consumers, the results from the
first round suggest no statistical differences between consumers’ WTP for traditional parboiled
and fortified rice in either the raw or cooked form, but a lower WTP for the alternative par-
boiled rice when tested in raw. Thus, the results suggest that, without any marketing campaign
highlighting the benefits of fortified rice, consumers in urban and rural areas are willing to pay
at least the same amount for fortified rice as the currently available traditional parboiled rice,
but that discounts may be needed for rural households to repeat the purchase of fortified rice
after trying it.
Different letters indicate 5% statistically significant differences across rice products for each
auction form in each location and in the same round.
A sensory analysis conducted as part of this research project found that urban and rural
consumers perceived differences between fortified rice and the two controls (conventional and
alternative parboiled) [58]. The sensory analysis of the raw samples found that fortified rice
was ranked lower than the two controls. For cooked rice, the sensory analysis revealed a lower
willingness to purchase fortified rice than the two control products, with significant differences
in all quality attributes (general appearance, aroma, flavor intensity, overall flavor, hardness,
stickiness, and texture). Counter to what we found in this study before participants received

Fig 2. Mean and 95% confidence internal for WTP by rice product, auction form, location, and round.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674.g002
the information treatment (round 1), the sensory analysis results would suggest a lower WTP
for fortified raw and cooked rice relative to the controls. One possible explanation for this
counterintuitive finding is that the rice products in the sensory analysis were not identified,
while they were identified as fortified, traditional parboiled, and alternative parboiled in the
experimental auction. Consumers may attach a positive value to fortified rice even before
receiving the information treatment (round 2).
The impact of information about the nutritional value of fortified rice can be assessed by
looking at the difference in mean WTP between rounds for each product. As can be inferred
from Table 5 and Fig 2, the information treatment has a positive impact on the mean WTP for
fortified rice across locations and auction forms. For example, the mean WTP for fortified rice
among rural consumers that auctioned cooked rice increases from CFA 397.3/kg (US$0.64/kg)
to CFA 477.5/kg (US$0.77/kg) (p<0.01). This means that, as a result of the information treat-
ment, these consumers go from being willing to pay a discount of 6.9% to a premium of 14.1%
for fortified rice relative to traditional parboiled rice. The results suggest that creating a market-
ing campaign that highlights the benefits of fortified rice can actually increase consumers’ WTP
for it above what they are WTP for other rice products, including traditional parboiled rice.
Determinants of WTP for fortified rice

Table 6 shows the results from the OLS regression of the determinants of WTP. The Breusch-
Pagan/Cook-Weisberg test revealed heteroscedasticity in one of the models, so we report and

use robust standard errors for inference analysis. There is no concern of multicollinearity as
the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values of all explanatory variables are less than 4.
Overall, only four of the six models are significant, and those that are significant have a very
low goodness of fit. The overall fitness of the models reveals that the set of independent vari-
ables used offers a very limited explanation of the WTP for the three different rice products
and locations. This finding can be seen as positive in the sense that it supports the creation of
general marketing and policy approach for the population at large, instead of tailored strategies
for different segments. This could lead to more cost-effective approaches to advance the adop-
tion of fortified rice.
There are some differences in the determinants of WTP worth discussing. Looking at forti-
fied rice, the results suggest that WTP is significantly (p < 0.10) and negatively affected by edu-
cation when auctioned in raw form, which may impact first-time purchases, but it has no
impact when auctioned as cooked rice, which is important as this may determine the repeated-
purchasing behavior. The share of income spent on food has a significant (p < 0.10) negative
impact on WTP in raw form, and no significant impact on WTP for the cooked rice. Urban
households have a significant (p < 0.01) negative impact on WTP for raw fortified rice, but sig-
nificantly (p < 0.10) positive impact on the WTP for cooked fortified rice.
The auction round, which is a proxy for the value of information, is significant (p < 0.01)
and positive for fortified cooked rice, but insignificant for raw fortified rice. Looking at the
interaction terms, the results show that the WTP of middle-income households increases sig-
nificantly (p < 0.10) as a result of the information treatment, while income level does affect the
impact of the information treatment on the WTP for fortified cooked rice. The auction round
and its interactions with income do not have any significant impact on the WTP for the other
two rice products (traditional and alternative parboiled rice).
Discussion and policy implications

Most of the domestic rice in Burkina Faso is parboiled using paddy rice as a feedstock, which
corresponds to the conventional parboiled rice used in this study as one of the control prod-
ucts. Thus, when addressing the question of whether there is market potential for the fortified
parboiled rice analyzed in this study, we focus the analysis on the results for traditional par-
boiled rice and fortified rice.
As discussed in the results section, without information about the benefits of fortified rice,
rural consumers stated they are willing to pay a premium of 15.2 percent for raw fortified rice,
but a discount of 6.9 percent after trying it (cooked). On the other hand, urban consumers
stated the same WTP for both rice products in raw and cooked form. Urban and rural con-
sumers alike stated they would be WTP a premium for fortified rice after receiving informa-
tion about the benefits of fortified rice. Thus, the first recommendation for policymakers and
industry stakeholders is that any attempt to market fortified rice produced using the limited-
water soaking method must be accompanied by a clear marketing campaign highlighting the
nutritional benefits of fortified rice and the prevalence of undernourishment in Burkina Faso.
The economic benefit of a marketing campaign can be estimated as the difference in WTP
before and after the information treatment as reported in Table 5. We estimate the benefits of
a marketing campaign to vary between US$69.7 to US$128.6 per metric ton of fortified milled
rice, or between US$1.74 and US$3.22 per person considering that a metric ton of rice is
enough to feed 40 people per year in Burkina Faso at the per-capita consumption rate of 25 kg
per year [56]. These benefit estimates can be used by the industry and policymakers to assess,
for instance, the cost-benefit ratio of creating a marketing campaign under different assump-
tions of effectiveness (e.g., share of consumers reached by the marketing campaign that start

Table 6. Results of the regression of the determinants of WTP (CFA/kg) for the three rice products auctioned.
Traditional Alternative Fortified
Cooked Raw Cooked Raw Cooked Raw
Middle income household 2.561 -10.685 5.456 -2.538 3.587 -4.015
(11.565) (11.565) (11.025) (11.025) (15.074) (15.074)
High income household 18.507 4.16 31.365** 13.546 9.718 21.68
(13.395) (13.395) (12.238) (12.238) (17.3) (17.3)
Education 23.949*** -4.177 18.224** 9.291 18.996 -21.816*
(8.165) (8.165) (7.966) (7.966) (12.287) (12.287)
Share income on food -11.261 -3.118 -10.119 -11.888 -4.659 -20.473*
(8.424) (8.424) (8.869) (8.869) (11.829) (11.829)
Household size 0.681 1.309*** -0.830* 0.389 -0.888 0.449
(0.48) (0.48) (0.502) (0.502) (0.677) (0.677)
Urban -10.129 -12.018 -16.549* 8.03 21.042* -39.339***
(8.461) (8.461) (8.75) (8.75) (12.706) (12.706)
Auction round -12.295 10.421 9.836 -15.395 80.328*** 23.684
(13.424) (13.424) (15.778) (15.778) (21.084) (21.084)
Auction round x -0.815 -8.95 -13.799 27.895 -10.206 47.272*
middle income (18.441) (18.441) (20.244) (20.244) (27.138) (27.138)
Auction round x 0.892 -26.046 -12.029 3.788 0.812 37.477
high income (20.112) (20.112) (21.652) (21.652) (30.579) (30.579)
Constant 402.726*** 425.466*** 427.175*** 391.359*** 389.487*** 508.085***
(13.358) (13.358) (11.759) (11.759) (18.419) (18.419)
Observations 400 400 400 400 400 400
R2 0.046 0.019 0.052 0.022 0.115 0.069
Adjusted R2 0.024 -0.003 0.03 -0.0003 0.095 0.047
F Statistic 2.100** 0.849 2.374** 0.988 5.633*** 3.197***
(df = 9; 390)
*, **, *** indicate significance at 10%, 5%, and 1.0%.

Robust standard errors in parenthesis.
consuming fortified rice). The regression results support the idea of developing a broad mar-
keting and policy strategy since the models have very low explanatory power. Broad marketing
and policy strategies have the appeal of being easier and likely less costly to implement than
targeted approaches, which could lead to a higher cost-effectiveness and likelihood of success
in the adoption of fortified rice. However, despite the lack of significant explanatory power of
the selected socioeconomic variables, the problem of undernourishment in Burkina Faso is
more severe among low-income households [59], and therefore promoters must ensure they
reach the most vulnerable segments where the problem is more acute.
An important question that remains is whether the stated price premiums consumers are
willing to pay is enough to cover the cost of fortifying rice. While the limited-water soaking
method results in less water and energy use relative to conventional parboiling [46], the
method of fortification assessed in this study could be expected to cost more than producing
conventional parboiled rice, primarily because it requires the use of fortificants, vacuum plastic
bags, and also more labor and an extra round of drying. In Burkina Faso, conventional sun
drying on tarpaulin is the most common drying method used due to its low investment costs
and easy handling [60], which implies that an extra drying round should not be costly. How-
ever, it is difficult to assess the cost of one extra round of drying. Also, vacuum plastic bags can
be recycled and used multiple times, which should result in a marginal cost per metric ton.
Thus, we expect the highest cost would come from fortificants and labor.

Table 7. Cost (US$/metric ton of rice) of producing fortified parboiled rice using the limited-water soaking method, and its relationship with the estimated price
premiums (US$/metric ton of rice).
Cost Items† ‡ Cost Location and auction form Premium Cost–Premium Premium/Cost
Ferrous sulfate 20.0 Rural Cooked 95 118.5 44%
Zinc sulfate 7.5 Rural Raw 152.2 61.3 71%
Dry Vitamin A 42.0 Urban Cooked 85.5 128.0 40%
Labor cost 144.0 Urban Raw 155.5 58.0 73%
Total 213.5
†
. Ferrous sulfate (FeSO4.7H2O): Molecular weight 277.9; Fe content 20.1%. Zinc sulfate monohydrate (ZnSO4.H2O): Molecular weight 179.5; Zn content 36.4%.
Vitamin A (C20H30O): Nutrient content 100%.
‡
. Prices for the fortificants were collected in September 2022.
Table 7 below shows a simple estimation of the cost of production of fortified rice using the
limited-water soaking method. At the concentrations of fortificants in the soaking solution
recommended by [54], the total cost of fortificants is US$69.5 per metric ton of fortified rice.
Regarding labor, anecdotal references from the Uneriz parboilers themselves suggest that,
without counting soaking time (which is the same with both methods), parboiling 100 kg of
rice using the traditional method takes around 6 hours of labor, while parboiling using the lim-
ited-water soaking method takes around 10.5 hours of labor, that is, an increase in labor use of
75%, or 45 more hours of labor per metric ton. Assuming an average wage of US$3.2/hour
[61], we estimate the extra labor cost to be US$144 per metric ton. Hence, considering the esti-
mated cost of fortificants (US$69.5/mt rice) and labor (US$144/mt rice), the extra cost of forti-
fication amounts to US$213.5 per metric ton of fortified rice.
The nominal value of the stated price premiums for fortified rice after receiving informa-
tion about the benefits of fortified rice amounts to US$147.1/mt for raw rice and US$91.8/mt
for cooked rice among rural consumers, respectively, and US$150.4/mt for raw rice and US
$132.6/mt for cooked rice among urban consumers, respectively. Thus, the stated premiums
are enough to cover the cost of fortificants, but not sufficient to cover the total cost of produc-
tion of fortified rice using the limited-water soaking method, and that therefore external sup-
port will be needed to increase the likelihood of adoption.
The support needed, estimated as the difference between the premiums and the additional
cost of production, varies between US$58 and US$128 per metric ton. To put this value in per-
spective, a metric ton of rice is enough to feed 40 people per year in Burkina Faso at the per-
capita consumption rate of 25 kg per year [56], which amounts to between US$1.45 and US
$3.20 per person per year in external support. These costs of external support can be used to
estimate the total cost of external support needed to implement a rice fortification program
using the limited-water soaking method. Thus, a program targeting 100% of the consumers of
parboiled rice in Burkina Faso (68.5 percent of the population according to Table 3, which
amounts to 15.5 million people) would require between US$22.5 and US$ 49.6 million.
While estimating the energy savings resulting from the use of the limited-water soaking
method relative to conventional parboiling is beyond the scope of this study, it is important to
mention its potential relevance in the context of improving energy use efficiency and sustain-
ability. The process of parboiling as practiced in rural areas is time-consuming, laborious and
energy intensive [62]. Wood is the main source of fuel used in parboiling in Sub-Saharan
Africa, which usually entails long transportation distances to processing centers, and its burn-
ing contributes to lower air quality and respiratory illness [63].

Conclusion
Rice is a great vehicle in the fight against undernourishment in Burkina Faso because of its
growing importance as a staple food. Moreover, fortification programs based on the parboiling
process are likely to be more easily accepted by producers given the long tradition of parboil-
ing rice in Burkina Faso. However, the feasibility of a new product depends on whether or not
consumers will accept it and adopt it.
Fortified rice using the limited-water soaking method has the potential of helping fight
micronutrient deficiencies in Burkina Faso. The results from the experimental auctions sug-
gest that consumers are WTP the same price for fortified rice than for traditional parboiled
rice, except for rural consumers that assessed the cooked rice. Overall, these findings are trou-
blesome in the sense that the increased cost of producing fortified rice cannot be passed to
consumers via price premiums, and would rather need to be covered by other means, which
could include government support (e.g., production subsidy). The results also highlight the
significant and positive impact of information on the mean WTP for fortified rice. After
receiving information about the benefits of fortified rice, consumers’ WTP increased signifi-
cantly, leading to sizable price premiums over traditional parboiled rice. These findings are
encouraging and speak of the importance of developing and deploying effective information
campaigns, which can result in consumers bearing at least part and potentially all the increase
in production cost through rice price premiums.
The adoption of the limited-water soaking method for rice fortification could increase pro-
duction costs beyond the value of the price premiums. While production costs may decrease
with time as rice parboilers gain experience with the new method, our findings indicate that
external financial support may be needed to improve the marketability of fortified rice.
Whether this approach is cost-effective compared to other types of interventions used in Bur-
kina Faso to ameliorate undernourishment is something policymakers and health officials
should evaluate before committing to support the production of fortified rice using the method
assessed in this study.
The findings of this study have implications for other countries and regions where con-
sumption of parboiled rice is well established, such as in rural areas in Benin, Guinea, and
northern Ghana where domestic parboiled rice dominates, in urban settings in southern
Nigeria where imported parboiled rice dominates, and in general among consumers in
Liberia and Niger where low-quality domestic parboiled rice is commonly consumed [51].
Consumption of parboiled rice is also prominent in South Asia given that over 50% of the
rice produced in South Asia is parboiled [64]. A more recent study revealed that farming
households in Bangladesh prefer parboiled rice [65]. A potential advantage of trying the
limited-water soaking method in other regions with commercial, large-scale parboiling
plants is the potential cost savings due to scale, which can improve the economic feasibility
of fortified rice.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Socioeconomic questionnaire.
(PDF)
S2 Table. Inclusivity in global research.
(DOCX)
S3 Table. Experimental auction dataset.
(XLSX)

Acknowledgments
Special thanks to UNERIZ and the Oxfam Burkina Faso team for their support in conducting
the field experiments.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Alvaro Durand-Morat, Ya-Jane Wang.
Formal analysis: Alvaro Durand-Morat, Wei Yang.
Funding acquisition: Lilian Nkengla-Asi.
Methodology: Alvaro Durand-Morat, Imael H. N. Bassole.
Project administration: Alvaro Durand-Morat, Lilian Nkengla-Asi.
Software: Wei Yang.
Supervision: Alvaro Durand-Morat.
Writing – original draft: Alvaro Durand-Morat.
Writing – review & editing: Alvaro Durand-Morat, Ya-Jane Wang, Imael H. N. Bassole, Lilian
Nkengla-Asi, Wei Yang.
References
1. World Food Program. Scaling up Rice Fortification in West Africa. Sight and Life, Basel, Switzerland.
2018.
2. Shahzad Z, Rouached H, Rakha A. Combating mineral malnutrition through iron and zinc biofortification
of cereals. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 2014 May; 13(3):329–46.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12063 PMID: 33412655
3. World Health Organization. Global prevalence of vitamin A deficiency. Micronutrient Deficiency Informa-
tion System Working Paper No. 2. 1995. Available from https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-
NUT-95.3.
4. Ouedraogo M, Ouedraogo O, Zongo U, Kabore S, Bambara EA, Sanou D. Nutrition situation of Burkina
Faso: A narrative review. The North African Journal of Food and Nutrition Research. 2020 Nov 27; 4(9):
S36–45.
5. Martin-Prevel Y, Allemand P, Nikiema L, Ayassou KA, Ouedraogo HG, Moursi M, et al. Biological status
and dietary intakes of iron, zinc and vitamin A among women and preschool children in rural Burkina
Faso. PloS one. 2016 Mar 18; 11(3):e0146810. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146810 PMID:
26991908
6. World Health Organization. Iron Deficiency Anaemia Assessment, Prevention, and Control. 2021.
WHO/NHD/01.3.
7. World Health Organization. Worldwide prevalence of anaemia 1993–2005: WHO global database on
anemia.
8. Muller O, Becher H, van Zweeden AB, Ye Y, Diallo DA, Konate AT, et al. Effect of zinc supplementation
on malaria and other causes of morbidity in west African children: randomised double blind placebo con-
trolled trial. Bmj. 2001; 322(7302):1567. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7302.1567 PMID: 11431296
9. Wessells KR, Ouédraogo ZP, Rouamba N, Hess SY, Ouédraogo JB, Brown KH. Short-term zinc sup-
plementation with dispersible tablets or zinc sulfate solution yields similar positive effects on plasma
zinc concentration of young children in Burkina Faso: a randomized controlled trial. The Journal of pedi-
atrics. 2012 Jan 1; 160(1):129–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.06.051 PMID: 21871635
10. Ouedraogo C, Becquey E, Hess S, Prince L, Rouamba N, Ouedraogo JB, et al. Prevalence of and Risk
Factors for Zinc Deficiency among Young Children in Rural Burkina Faso. European Journal of Nutrition
& Food Safety. 2015; 5(5): 824–825. https://doi.org/10.9734/EJNFS/2015/21110
11. Nana CP, Brouwer ID, Zagré NM, Kok FJ, Traoré AS. Community assessment of availability, consump-
tion, and cultural acceptability of food sources of (pro) vitamin A: toward the development of a dietary
intervention among preschool children in rural Burkina Faso. Food and Nutrition Bulletin. 2005 Dec; 26
(4):356–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/156482650502600405 PMID: 16465982

12. Zagré NM, Delisle H, Tarini A, Delpeuch F. Changes in vitamin A intake following the social marketing
of red palm oil among children and women in Burkina Faso. Cahiers d’études et de recherches franco-
phones/Santé. 2002 Apr 9; 12(1):38–44.
13. Zeba AN, Delisle HF, Renier G, Savadogo B, Baya B. The double burden of malnutrition and cardiome-
tabolic risk widens the gender and socio-economic health gap: a study among adults in Burkina Faso
(West Africa). Public health nutrition. 2012 Dec; 15(12):2210–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1368980012000729 PMID: 22463806
14. Chakona G., and Shackleton C. Minimum Dietary Diversity Scores for Women Indicate Micronutrient
Adequacy and Food Insecurity Status in South African Towns. Nutrients 9 (2017). https://doi.org/10.
3390/nu9080812 PMID: 28788057
15. Junaid-ur-Rahman S, Chughtai MFJ, Khaliq A, Liaqat A, Pasha I, Ahsan S, et al. Rice: a potential vehi-
cle for micronutrient fortification. Clinical Phytoscience 8, 14 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40816-
022-00342-3.
16. Muthayya S, Hall J, Bagriansky J, Sugimoto J, Gundry D, Matthias D, et al. Rice fortification: an emerg-
ing opportunity to contribute to the elimination of vitamin and mineral deficiency worldwide. Food and
nutrition bulletin. 2012 Dec; 33(4):296–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/156482651203300410 PMID:
23424896
17. Nigatu G, Hansen J, Childs N, Seeley R. Sub-Saharan Africa is projected to be the leader in global rice
imports. 2017 Oct 2.
18. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food Data Central. Accessed 07/12/2022. At https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/.
19. Durand-Morat A, Bairagi S. International Rice Outlook: International Rice Baseline Projections 2021–
2031. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Arkansas. Available from https://
scholarworks.uark.edu/aaesrb/53/.
20. Food and Agriculture Organization (2022a). FAOSTAT database. Available at https://www.fao.org/
faostat/en/.
21. Wanyama R, Gödecke T, Jager M, Qaim M. Poor consumers’ preferences for nutritionally enhanced
foods. British Food Journal. 2019 May 17.
22. De Groote H, Munyua B, Traore D, Taylor JR, Ferruzzi M, Ndiaye C, et al. Measuring consumer accep-
tance of instant fortified millet products using affective tests and auctions in Dakar, Senegal. Interna-
tional Food and Agribusiness Management Review. 2021 Apr 13; 24(3):499–522.
23. De Groote H, Kariuki SW, Traore D, Taylor JR, Ferruzzi MG, Hamaker BR. Measuring consumers’ inter-
est in instant fortified pearl millet products: a field experiment in Touba, Senegal. Journal of the Science
of Food and Agriculture. 2018 Apr; 98(6):2320–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8722 PMID: 28990670
24. Bechoff A, Chijioke U, Westby A, Tomlins KI. ‘Yellow is good for you’: Consumer perception and accept-
ability of fortified and biofortified cassava products. PLoS One. 2018 Sep 14; 13(9):e0203421. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203421 PMID: 30216344
25. WHO, 2022. Food Fortification. Accessed 07/13/2022. At https://www.who.int/health-topics/food-
fortification#tab=tab_1.
26. Furter MF, Lauter WM, Ritter ED, Rubin SH. Enrichment of rice with synthetic vitamins and iron. Indus-
trial & Engineering Chemistry. 1946 May; 38(5):486–93.
27. Saha S, Roy A. Whole grain rice fortification as a solution to micronutrient deficiency: Technologies and
need for more viable alternatives. Food Chemistry. 2020 Oct 1; 326:127049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodchem.2020.127049 PMID: 32428853
28. Bouis HE, Saltzman A. Improving nutrition through biofortification: a review of evidence from Harvest-
Plus, 2003 through 2016. Global food security. 2017 Mar 1; 12:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.
2017.01.009 PMID: 28580239
29. Saltzman A, Birol E, Bouis HE, Boy E, De Moura FF, Islam Y, et al. Biofortification: progress toward a
more nourishing future. Global food security. 2013 Mar 1; 2(1):9–17.
30. White PJ, Broadley MR. Biofortification of crops with seven mineral elements often lacking in human
diets–iron, zinc, copper, calcium, magnesium, selenium and iodine. New Phytologist. 2009 Apr; 182
(1):49–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02738.x PMID: 19192191
31. Bouis HE. Micronutrient fortification of plants through plant breeding: can it improve nutrition in man at
low cost?. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 2003 May; 62(2):403–11. https://doi.org/10.1079/
pns2003262 PMID: 14506888
32. Atungulu GG, Pan Z. Rice industrial processing worldwide and impact on macro-and micronutrient con-
tent, stability, and retention. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2014 Sep; 1324(1):15–28.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12492 PMID: 25091587

33. Steiger G, Müller-Fischer N, Cori H, Conde-Petit B. Fortification of rice: technologies and nutrients.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2014 Sep; 1324(1):29–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.
12418 PMID: 24913257
34. Behera G, Sutar PP. A comprehensive review of mathematical modeling of paddy parboiling and drying:
Effects of modern techniques on process kinetics and rice quality. Trends in Food Science & Technol-
ogy. 2018 May 1; 75:206–30.
35. Kam K, Arcot J, Ward R. Fortification of rice with folic acid using parboiling technique: Effect of parboil-
ing conditions on nutrient uptake and physical characteristics of milled rice. Journal of Cereal Science.
2012 Nov 1; 56(3):587–94.
36. Patindol J, Fragallo L, Wang YJ, Durand-Morat A. Impact of Feedstock, Parboiling Condition, and Nutri-
ent Concentration on Simultaneous Fortification of Two US Long-Grain Rice Cultivars with Iron and
Zinc. Cereal Chemistry. 2017 Nov; 94(6):984–90.
37. Prom-u-thai C, Rerkasem B, Fukai S, Huang L. Iron fortification and parboiled rice quality: appearance,
cooking quality and sensory attributes. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2009 Dec; 89
(15):2565–71.
38. Arendt EK, Zannini E. Cereal grains for the food and beverage industries. Elsevier; 2013 Apr 9.
39. Kar N, Jain RK, Srivastav PP. Parboiling of dehusked rice. Journal of food Engineering. 1999 Jan 1; 39
(1):17–22.
40. Prom-u-thai C, Fukai S, Godwin ID, Rerkasem B, Huang L. Iron-fortified parboiled rice- A novel solution
to high iron density in rice-based diets. Food Chemistry 110, 390–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodchem.2008.02.043 PMID: 26049231
41. Kim SM, Im SJ, Park SW, Lee JJ, Benham BL, Jang TI. Assessment of wastewater reuse effects on
nutrient loads from paddy field using field-scale water quality model. Environmental Modeling & Assess-
ment. 2008 May; 13:305–13.
42. Alderson MP, dos Santos AB, Mota Filho CR. Reliability analysis of low-cost, full-scale domestic waste-
water treatment plants for reuse in aquaculture and agriculture. Ecological Engineering. 2015 Sep 1;
82:6–14.
43. Wahengbam ED, Green BD, Hazarika MK. Fortification of zinc in a parboiled low-amylose rice: effects
of milling and cooking. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2019 May; 99(7):3434–42.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.9561 PMID: 30609045
44. Hotz C, Kabir KA, Dipti SS, Arsenault JE, Bipul M. Rice fortification with zinc during parboiling may
improve the adequacy of zinc intakes in Bangladesh. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture.
2015 Jan; 95(2):379–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6730 PMID: 24807630
45. Thiruselvam N, Cheong S, Mohan J, Paterson J, Arcot J. Micronutrients fortification of rice by parboiling:
lab scale and pilot scale studies. J Nutr Food Sci. 2014; 4(281):2.
46. Jannasch A, Wang YJ. Development of a limited-water soaking method on the fortification of rice with
calcium and iron by parboiling. Journal of Cereal Science. 2020 Jul 1; 94:103014.
47. McAfee RP, McMillan J. Auctions and bidding. Journal of economic literature. 1987 Jun 1; 25(2):699–
738.
48. Lusk JL, Hudson D. Willingness-to-pay estimates and their relevance to agribusiness decision making.
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. 2004 Jun; 26(2):152–69.
49. Lusk JL, Shogren JF. Experimental Auctions: Methods and Applications in Economic and Marketing
Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
50. Canavari M, Drichoutis A, Lusk JL, Nayga RM. 2019. How to run an experimental auction: a review of
recent advances. European Review of Agricultural Economics 46 (5), pp. 862–922.
51. Rutsaert P, Demont M, Verbeke W. Consumer preferences for rice in Africa. In Realizing Africa’s rice
promise 2013 (pp. 294–302). Wallingford UK: CABI.
52. Demont M. Reversing urban bias in African rice markets: A review of 19 National Rice Development
Strategies. Global Food Security. 2013 Sep 1; 2(3):172–81.
53. Cuevas RP, Pede VO, McKinley J, Velarde O, Demont M. Rice grain quality and consumer preferences:
a case study of two rural towns in the Philippines. PloS one. 2016 Mar 16; 11(3):e0150345. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150345 PMID: 26982587
54. Wang Y., and Durand-Morat A. Market Analysis of Pilot Run Fortified Parboiled Rice in Burkina Faso.
Oxfam Research Backgrounder. Forthcoming.
55. World Bank. 2022. Harmonized Survey on Households Living Standards, Burkina Faso 2018/19.
https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/4290/study-description.
56. Van Oort PA, Saito K, Tanaka A, Amovin-Assagba E, Van Bussel LG, Van Wart J, et al. Assessment of
rice self-sufficiency in 2025 in eight African countries. Global Food Security. 2015 Jun 1; 5:39–49.

57. Food and Agriculture Organization (2022b). FAO Food Price Monitoring and Analysis. Available at
https://www.fao.org/giews/food-prices/home/en/.
58. Wang YJ, Durand-Morat A, Nestor BI, Nkengla-Asi L. Market Analysis of Pilot Run Fortified Parboiled
Rice in Burkina Faso. 2023. Oxfam Research Backgrounder. Boston: Oxfam: https://www.
oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/market-analysis-ofpilot-run-fortified-parboiled-rice-in-
burkina-faso/.
59. Adebowale AS, Palamuleni ME, Odimegwu CO. Wealth and under-nourishment among married
women in two impoverished nations: evidence from Burkina Faso and Congo Democratic Republic.
BMC Research Notes. 2015 Dec; 8:1–0.
60. Romuli S, Schock S, Somda MK, Müller J. Drying performance and aflatoxin content of paddy rice
applying an inflatable solar dryer in Burkina Faso. Applied Sciences. 2020 May 21; 10(10):3533.
61. World Salaries. Average Salary in Burkina Faso for 2023. Accessed on February 2, 2023. https://
worldsalaries.com/average-salary-in-burkina-faso/.
62. Kwofie EM, Ngadi M. A review of rice parboiling systems, energy supply, and consumption. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2017 May 1; 72:465–72.
63. Johnson NG, Bryden KM. Factors affecting fuelwood consumption in household cookstoves in an iso-
lated rural West African village. Energy. 2012 Oct 1; 46(1):310–21.
64. Choudhury NH. Parboiling and consumer demand for parboiled rice in South Asia. Rice grain marketing
and quality issues. 1991:47–54.
65. Jaim WM, Hossain M. Rice milling processes, consumers’ preferences and cooking practices in Bangla-
desh: Implications for nutritional value. Adoption and diffusion of modern rice varieties in Bangladesh
and Eastern India. 2012:77–92.

Journal Pone 0297674

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal Pone 0297674

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal Pone 0297674

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLOS ONE

Market assessment of fortified parboiled rice

Copyright: © 2024 Durand-Morat et al. This is an

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 1 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 2 / 20

Fig 1. Alternative rice fortification approaches.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 3 / 20

Fortified parboiled rice

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 4 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 5 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 6 / 20

Inclusivity in global research

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 7 / 20

auctioned form, the linear model is defined as:

Table 2. Frequency for some selected socioeconomic variables.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 8 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 9 / 20

Aggregate Urban Rural

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 10 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 11 / 20

Determinants of WTP for fortified rice

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 12 / 20

Discussion and policy implications

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 13 / 20

*, **, *** indicate significance at 10%, 5%, and 1.0%.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 14 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 15 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 16 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 17 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 18 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 19 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297674 March 13, 2024 20 / 20

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

, , indicate significance at 10%, 5%, and 1.0%.