session 4. roy - reducing adulteration in milk in india

Reducing Adulteration in Milk in India- The role of consumer awareness Devesh Roy

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) On behalf of Laurian Unnevehr, Alexander Saak and Vinay Sonkar

Snapshot of dairy supply chains in India

Some background

India became the largest milk producer in 2001 followed closely by the US-Production increased from 17 million tons in 1950-51 to 116.2 million tons in 2010-11 and per capita availability increased from 124 grams per day to 263 grams.

Milk products’ share in MPCE up from 11.5% in 1983 to 14.9% in 2007-08 in rural areas and 15.7% to 18.4% in urban areas.

Yet, by western standards, dairy is largely a small farmer activity- small, marginal farmers, landless laborers.

With an overwhelming share of small farmers system of dairy cooperatives largely credited with India’s white revolution

Until 1991, the dairy was subject to licensing so very few private integrators were there. It was progressively de-canalized’ after 1991 and private sector including MNCs were allowed.

Background: continued

Still earlier estimates by Rajendran and Mohanty (2004) show only 20% milk distributed through organized/coordinated channels.

In the last decade or so the share of organized retail has increased but only marginally.

Kumar et al (2010) estimate one-third of the milk produced is retained on the farm and the remaining two-third enters the market.

Across regions the share of marketed milk was estimated to be 49% in Bihar, 67% in Punjab and 75% in Western Uttar Pradesh.

Out of the total marketed milk, 75% is handled by the informal or traditional milk marketing chains and the remaining 25% (up from 20 percent estimated in Rajendran and Mohanty 2004) by formal channels.

Motivation for the study Apart from low productivity, undesirable outcomes of the dualistic dairy

sector is lack of delivery of adequate food safety and nutrition. Largely a missing market for these attributes in the dairy sector Given institutional weakness and lack of enforcement capital – need demand

pull forces to improve outcomes for food safety and nutrition. One of the main sources of adulteration is mixing of water- results in

significant attrition of nutritional traits. The use of contaminated water in milk could thus be a significant threat to both nutrition as well as safety. In case of milk the two clearly intersect.

Health burden of poor water quality is high in India-important public health concern especially when milk consumption is rising and rising prices raise incentives to adulterate.

Most parasital infection in India associated with water. Consumption practices such as boiling could mitigate concerns about food safety (by addressing microbial contamination) to some extent but mixing of water lessens the nutritional quality of milk, a very important source of micro-nutrients especially for the poor.

Motivation for the study: Continued

The contamination goes much beyond water. The first mass survey of quality of milk supplied to consumers

across India by FSSI- 69% of the samples failed the test of purity. At least 14%- traces of detergents.

Not a single sample collected in 7 states of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Daman and Diu, Jharkhand, Orissa, West Bengal and Mizoram conformed to quality standards of milk.

Presence of sodium chloride was detected in a milk sample taken in Assam.

Pessimists on India and optimists

Objectives of the study

2 main objectives of this -constitute the elements of a demand pull system: Assess the awareness and valuation of food safety and nutrition

attributes among dairy consumers consumer awareness about food safety and nutrition in general

and for dairy products in particular. Use the recent episode of findings of adulteration and lack of

safety in milk as an information shock to assess the ex post “food safety and nutrition consciousness” (FSCN).

Identify information gaps Assess notional and practical contexts of food safety and nutrition Households’ KAPP regarding dairy consumption (example -what

containers they use, do they boil milk). Elements of behavioral response would include switching across

products, moving across outlets, changes across brands or alteration in practices related to consumption of milk.

Objectives of the study: continued

Identifying the sources of information gaps, the study will conduct experiments with information treatments to assess their impacts in terms of consumer choices (in terms of both products as well as practices). Different information sources as well as different types (for

example positive versus negative Experiment with choice of third party certification

based on credibility, adulteration clearance certification (when it becomes operational) to assess their impacts on demand by the consumers-

Proposed methodologies

Summary of some initial findings Respondents profile

Male 42% Occupation Education

Female 58% Wage Labor

11.4% Below primary

12.6%

Caste Salaried Worker

52.6% Below high school

11.7%

SC/ST 18.3% Self Employed

20.2% 10th pass 23.2%

OBC 39% Non-earning occupation

5.69% 12th pass 21.8%

Higher caste

55% Graduate 23.4%

Post graduate

7.1%

Avg. age 39.06 10

Household profile: Continued Education level of the eldest woman Below primary 30.7 Average share of

food in monthly exp. 31.4%

Below high school 14.6 Share of households with monthly incomes >400 $

40%

10th pass 21.9

12th pass 15.8

Graduate 13.6

Post graduate 3.4 11

Milk related practices- water is a big issue

12

Source of water

Water: continued- big share do not purify

What about milk consumption with information shock from FSSI

What was the behavioral response then?

Moved to branded Adjusted childrenís consumption

Consumer’s perceptions related to effects of adulteration in milk (multiple options possible)

Long term health hazards for all

51.4%

Share of consumers boiling milk

98.2% Last 1-3 years could associate health issue to milk

Long term health hazards for children in particular

55.3% Boiling branded milk

Always -84.5%

Never -84.8%

Nutrition depletion

35.8% Never-2.5% 1 times- 8%

Short term health hazards such as Diarrhoea

< 1% Rarely -4.7% Sometimes -9.4%

2 times -1% Greater than 2 times – 0.7%

Others < 0.5%

Often – 15.4%

Cannot attribute -6%

Sources of health hazard in milk (perceived) Adulteration- 63% Lack of hygiene – 24.7% Mishandling at home – 18.7%

generation before you milk provided more nutrition

Reasons for better in past No Adulteration -71% Cattle breed better -38% Buffalo main source now cow- 31% Transaction was local -10.3% Ownership of cattle -17%

Safety and nutrition awareness On packaged milk do you look out for

nutrition label?

sources of adulteration in milk known

20

What can adulteration or unhygienic conditions of dairy practices result in? what animal diseases aware of. Multiple answers if applicable

Knowledge of the consumers: About tuberculosis

Striking facts- on pasteurization Knowledge about pasteurization Look for pasteurized milk

Snapshot of perceptions regarding different milk suppliers (about unorganized)

Mobile dairy (MD) products are as safe as branded milk products.

MD provide better quality because milking is done right in front of my eyes.

I see no reason why govt. should ban MD as courts have done

They provide milk cheap & convenient

MD cannot mix water because happens in front of my eyes

MD -Lack of hygiene and some adulteration but do not see them as major hazards

should be disallowed because they are a food safety threat

D -16% 7% 11% 13% 7% 37% 27%

SD- 9% 7% 13% 9% 5% 14% 25%

SA -29%

23% 34% 34% 22% 28% 30%

A -39% 48% 39% 38% 48% 19% 16%

AC -7% 15% 4% 5% 17% 2% 2%

Snapshot of perceptions regarding different milk suppliers (about cooperatives -coop) – Mixed bag

maintain high quality and safety standards

providers of safer milk than MD

as safe as branded milk products from the private sector

have no adulteration of milk that I know of

milk booths they are the most convenient form of milk retailing

Long history- must be safe

D -20% 20% 10% 35% 3% 10%

SD-17% 17% 15% 24% 7% 10%

SA -41% 34% 41% 28% 30% 47%

A-20% 27% 32% 13% 53% 30%

AC -1% 1% 2% < 1% 7% 2%

Snapshot of perceptions regarding different milk suppliers (about private sector) – Love and hate

provide safest milk

milk they provide retains nutrition value

cost of getting it wrong on safety or nutrition is comparatively high for them

might be safe but the price they charge is not worthy of it

provide only as safe and nutritious milk as cooperative sector

Under food safety concerns they are the best possible option/ do not trust their claims

D -22% 16% 6% 4% 21% 26%/8%

SD-17% 16% 8% 7% 18% 17%/15%

SA -36% 40% 24% 27% 41% 36%/32%

A-24% 26% 37% 54% 18% 18%/35%

AC -2% 3% 25% 9% 3% 4%/10%

What is most unacceptable? Milk handling practices among the most

unacceptable for food safety and nutrition?

Option 1: Mixing water Option 2: Dipping hands to test milk Option 3: Using unclean containers Option 4: Using unclean strainers Option 5: Mixing edible oil/urea to add to fat content, firming up

milk Option 6: Giving injections to cattle to improve yields Option 7: Others

28

On certification Some of the branded milk has international certification? Are you aware of this?

Options | Freq. Percent Cum.

Yes | 96 9.81 9.81

No | 883 90.19 100.00

What certification are you aware of


ISO | 86 91.49 91.49

HACCP | 6 6.38 97.87

Others | 2 2.13 100.00

Table 1: Choice of certifying agency

Choice of certifying agency (in percentage)

Government of India 65.78

State Government 19.70

International Agency 5.61

Retailers Chain 0.32

NGOs 3.71

Farmer Groups 2.65

Others 2.22

Table 1: Choice of certifying agency

On organic standards

Would you like your milk to be certified as organic?


Yes | 692 72.31 72.31

No | 265 27.69 100.00

What does it mean for milk to be organic?

Option 1: Fodder/feed is chemical free

Option 2: No medicine given to cattle

Option 3: No substance added to milk externally

Option 4: No injections/hormones given to cattle

Option 5: Other, specify

Options | Freq Percent

Option 1 | 568 56.8

Option 2 | 297 29.7

Option 3 | 320 32.0

Option 4 | 127 12.7

Option 5 | 63 6.3

Could organic be the highest food safety standard for milk?


Yes | 515 55.14 55.14

No | 419 44.86 100.00

Dynamics of choice across suppliers with information shocks

Main findings from preliminary analysis

• Significant information gaps related to safety in dairy

• Both notional and practical –something like pasteurization not widely known or valued

• Water is the principal issue with regard to safety and nutrition attribute in milk

• Information shocks seem to have limited effects • Not specific - signal extraction problem • Lack of alternatives (could move only to something potentially as bad) • Does work to a larger extent in case of child consumption

• Because of habit of boiling-could anchor on nutrition depletion more than safety

• Awareness of certification low- strategic withholding • Doctors main source of information, government most credible

for certification, trust of private dairies low

Summary findings: Continued Organic is not properly understood but is

considered to be the pinnacle of standards Size of the information shock matters

At high levels of common adulteration information Movement towards the segment (the unorganized)

where could have more control

session 4. roy - reducing adulteration in milk in india

Technology

milk consumption

consumption of milk

milk products

milk sampletaken

quality standards of

share of marketed milk

thenutritional quality

total marketed milk