be effective at improving food security, and using more of these adaptation strategies has been found to lead to greater food security (Ahmad, Mustafa, and Iqbal 2016; Ali and Erenstein 2017).

Another concern is the potential trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation, and between adaptation and nutrition sensitivity. Some adaptation strategies may further stress the environment. In Bangladesh, for example, shifting into horticulture crops and tobacco cultivation improved food security, but cultivation of cash crops, such as tobacco, had negative environmental effects (Bala and Hossain 2012). Some adaptation strategies may be more nutrition-sensitive than others. Millet offers a promising, suitable option for India. The grain is genetically diverse and better able to adapt to a changing environment compared with other cereals; at the same time, it is high in protein and micronutrients, ideal for the government’s goal to improve nutrition (Padulosi et al. 2015). In implementing adaptation strategies, governments should consider not only their potential for sustained productivity and their effect on food security and nutrition, but also their potential effect on the environment.

# **Conclusion**

This paper presents findings from a systematic review of the relationship of food and agriculture with nutrition in South Asia. The evidence linking food and agriculture with nutrition is broad, though highly variable in quality. Several food and agricultural interventions have been shown to improve dietary diversity and nutrition in South Asia. These include programs to enhance the nutritional value of cereals and staple crops through mass fortification and biofortification, and home production of naturally nutritious food through small-scale home gardens, animal husbandry, or aquaculture.

Indeed, the literature on biofortification of crops and fortification of food is extensive, with several studies establishing the effectiveness of fortification interventions. But this work is often conducted in a highly controlled environment or as simulations or ex ante studies. Additional research in field settings is needed to better understand the broader effects of fortification (Berry, Mukherjee, and Shastry 2012). Gaps also exist in the literature with respect to implementing fortification, distributing fortified seeds, and generating demand for fortified food and seeds among consumers.

<mark>Studies on these topics are emerging, including a broad examination of Bangladesh’s rice biofortification intervention (Hossain, Husain, and Datta 2004). But much remains to be considered. For example, little evidence connects</mark> fortification interventions with specific, measurable nutrition outcomes, such as micronutrient intake or an individual’s status as underweight, stunted, or wasted. Thus, while these interventions show promise, few have demonstrated rigorous and quantitatively established relationships with nutrition.

With a few exceptions, results in the overall body of literature on food and agricultural interventions are best described as correlative or suggestive. Much of the evidence is based on small case studies, ex ante simulations, or crude analyses with little external validity. Strengthening the quality of the evidence around much of the work we have reviewed is a priority.

17