# Assessment of Several Approaches to Biofortified Products: A Literature Review
## 4 Discussion, Limitations, and Future Research  
The first results of this review is that interest in pursuing research related to biofortified products has increased since 2016. It is also noticeable that most of the studies are concentrated in those countries that show an interest related to biofortified products; with India and the United States leading the way, a lot of research has been conducted in developing countries, followed by some European countries. As the current bias in the definition of biofortified products depends on regional political, socio-economic, and environmental characteristics, which are sometimes equated with GMO products, this may hinder the generalization of results [88]. Based on the results  
Figure 3: Biofortified crops harvested through the three different approaches: agronomic; traditional breeding; transgenic [2]. emerging from the collected data, it is therefore considered that further research targeted at biofortified products is needed. The heterogeneity of the papers, the diversity of the methodologies applied and the different fields of study made it very difficult to summarize and compare the results obtained. Of the various approaches to biofortification, the agronomic approach has certainly provided the best results in terms of quantity of papers, followed by GMOs and economic approaches. This review examines what the literature on biofortified has to say on these topics. It discusses in turn the role played in the development process and the interactions between this and other economic sectors. We therefore wanted to identify the main fields of application for biofortified products, also in relation to the authors' interests. This review has shown that interest in biofortified products and their effects on consumers in emerging countries is gradually growing [89; 90]. In fact, in several developing countries, biofortification is considered a valuable tool to counteract food insecurity issues, although in these countries biofortification requires increasing public investment in agricultural research and infrastructure to be successful [11; 12; 91]. In order to optimize biofortification research aimed at improving human health, it is extremely important to encourage collaboration between actors who can work closely together: growers, biotechnologists, chemists, nutritionists, doctors, epidemiologists [92]. Unfortunately, such collaboration is difficult to implement because researchers in the various categories not only speak different scientific languages but also often set different goals for their papers. Another limitation related to the difficulty of generalizing the results is that they do not refer to a single research field, but concern cross-sectional investigations covering a wider number of sectors. The complexity of the phenomenon and the need to conduct further investigations provide scholars with ample scope for new research or literature reviews. It is to be hoped that future research will deal with the various areas simultaneously, possibly using a uniform methodology, so that the results obtained can be adequately compared and an unambiguous interpretative model can be formulated. However, interdisciplinary research would be the ideal solution to lay the foundations for a new field of investigation based on biofortified products and thus promoting human health [32]. As already emphasized in other parts of the work, the greatest limitation to the spread of biofortification, which also emerges from the examination of the works covered by the literature review, is obviously represented by the absence of a single definition of biofortified products adopted at international level that can clarify the scope of work for the various stakeholders and thus promote unambiguousness of the objectives to be achieved.