Table 4.

Considerations for imported versus local supply a

	Fully Imported MNP	Locally Packaged MNP	Locally Mixed & Packaged MNP
Description	Procurement through a pre‐qualified international supplier, accredited by either UNICEF supply division, WFP, or a GAIN premix facility with international CoA and inspections built in	Internationally imported premix components (micronutrients / carrier / other components) and often packaging materials, locally packaged into sachets	Internationally imported premix components (micronutrients / carrier / other components) for mixing & then packaging into sachets, with either locally produced or imported packaging material
Advantages	Cost efficient due to scale, generally lower price per unit International companies have more resources to meet complex specification and quality requirements Consistent product quality (international standards as well as pre‐qualification of suppliers by UNICEF, WFP, GAIN) Comprehensive standardized quality control systems via internationally recognized laboratories and certificate of analysis (CoA) systems Large international suppliers may be better able to absorb fluctuations in demand (accurate forecasting challenges)	Flexible to tailor package design and marketing needs (local language, BMS code regulations in country) Local supplier may be better able to respond to program changes, providing uninterrupted, continuous supplies (Afsana et al., 2014; GAIN, 2015) Compared to local mixing option, premix supplier provides CoA, so quality control is limited to weight control and monitoring the seal/appearance May support local economic development No add‐on time from shipping and clearing	Flexible to tailor package design & marketing, as well as formulation Lower import barriers for raw material than pre‐packaged MNP or premix may reduce final price Simple equipment required for mixing May be more profitable than importing & packing premix for local companies (Guatemala) May support local economic development No add‐on time from shipping & clearing providing raw & packaging material stocks are correctly managed
Disadvantages	Time (6 months for production, shipping, clearing typical for re‐orders). First time procurement, registration and clearing, or non‐standard composition, packing or packaging add more time Can require large minimum orders High costs related to shipping and taxes, among other import barriers (regulations, logistics, and customs clearance at port of entry)	Required manufacturing standards and infrastructure may be hard to meet (HACCP, ISO) Local companies may not want to sell to government (often the main buyer) since they perceive government payment to be not very reliable. Has usually required significant capital investment for local company. Still likely to require importation of high‐barrier packaging materials for sachets.	In addition to the disadvantages of locally packaged MNP, also requires laboratories (internal or external) with the capacity to analyze premixes for all the relevant micronutrients and internal capacity to analyze final produce for key micronutrients on a routine basis. Introduces more complex and expensive quality control requirements and requires highly skilled laboratory personnel. Sudden significant changes in demand can only be handled by holding large stocks of raw and packing materials
Comparative advantage	Quality control, cost efficiency, ability to absorb large demand fluctuations	Tailored package design and marketing; shorter turnaround time for re‐orders	Potential increased profit margin for producer over packaging alone
Example countries	Majority of MNP‐implementing countries	Bangladesh (RENATA), Kenya, Bolivia (Laboratorios Drogueria INTI, Laboratorios Farmaceúticos LAFAR, and SIGMA Nutraceuticos)	El Salvador, Nigeria, Guatemala, China (Biomate)

^aBMS, breastmilk substitutes; CoA, certificate of analysis; MNP, Micronutrient Powders; GAIN, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition; HACCP, Hazard analysis and critical control points; ISO, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization; UNICEF, United Nations Children's Fund; WFP, World Food Programme.