MuchnikE., Vial 1. Analysis of complementary feeding programme participation: a milk-cereal mix for preschoolers. Food Nutr Bull1991; 13(3): 179–89.
2.
KennedyE., KnudsenO.A review of supplementary feeding programmes and recommendations on their design. In: BiswasM., Pinstrup-AndersenP., eds. Nutrition and development.London: Oxford University Press, 1985: 77–196.
3.
Vial 1., MuchnikE., KainJ.The evolution of Chile's main nutrition intervention programmes. Food Nutr Bull1991; 13(3): 170–78.
4.
SampaioY., CampinoA.C.Food and nutrition interventions in Brazil. Food Nutr Bull1991; 13(3): 190–201.
5.
SampaioY.PROAB-a food-price subsidy programme in low-income urban areas of Recife, Brazil: its impact on food consumption, nutrition status, and low birth weight. Food Nutr Bull1991; 13(3): 220–29.
6.
CampinoA.C.The feasibility of a food-coupon programme in Brazil. Food Nutr Bull1991; 13(3): 210–19.
7.
KennedyE., AldermanH.H.Comparative analysis of nutritional effectiveness of selected interventions.Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, 1985.
8.
KennedyE., CogillB.Income and nutritional effects of the commercialization of agriculture in southwestern Kenya. IFPRI Research Report no. 63. Washington.DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, 1987.
9.
von BraunJ., HotchkissD., ImminkM.Nontraditional export crops in Guatemala: effects on production, income, and nutrition. IFPRI Research Report no. 73.Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, 1989.
10.
von BraunJ., PuetzD., WebbP.Irrigation technology and commercialization of rice in the Gambia: effects on income and nutrition. IFPRI Research Report no. 75.Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, 1989.
11.
von BraunJ., de HaenH., BlankenJ.Commercialization of agriculture under population pressure: effects on production, consumption, and nutrition in Rwanda. IFPRI Research Report no. 85.Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, 1991.
12.
BouisH., HaddadL.Effects of agricultural commercialization on land tenure, household resource allocation, and nutrition in the Philippines. IFPRI Research Report no. 79.Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, 1990.
13.
GarciaM., Pinstrup-AndersenP.The pilot food price subsidy scheme in the Philippines: its impact on income, food consumption, and nutritional status. IFPRI Research Report no. 61.Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, 1987.
14.
HornikR.C.Nutrition education: a state-of-the-art review. Nutrition Policy Discussion Paper no 1.United Nations: ACC/SCN, 1985.
LampteyP., SaiF.Integrated health/nutrition/population programmes. In: BiswasM., Pinstrup-AndersenP., eds. Nutrition and development.London: Oxford University Press, 1985: 120–41.
17.
ParillonC., HarrellM., FranklinR.Nutritional functional classification study of Peru: who and where are the poor? Paper prepared for Office of Health, Nutrition and Education, USAID/Peru, Agency for International Development. Raleigh, NC.USA: Sigma One, 1987.
18.
Pinstrup-AndersenP. ed. Food subsidies in developing countries: costs, benefits, and policy options. Baltimore.Md, USA, and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988.
19.
BapnaS.Reaching the rural poor: India's experience with the public distribution of food grains. Food Nutr Bull1991; 13(3): 230–40.
20.
Dall'AcquaF.M.Economic adjustment and nutrition policies: evaluation of a school-lunch programme in Brazil. Food Nutr Bull1991; 13(3): 202–09.