This document discusses reducing adulteration in milk in India through increasing consumer awareness. It provides background on India's dairy sector, including the large role of small farmers and cooperatives. The study aims to assess consumer awareness and valuation of food safety and nutrition attributes in milk, and identify information gaps. Initial findings show significant information gaps regarding safety, with water being a major issue. While information shocks had some impact, effects were limited by a lack of clear alternatives and an inability to attribute health issues to milk. Consumers displayed mixed perceptions of different milk suppliers. The role of certification in improving standards was also examined.

1. 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

2. Snapshot of dairy supply chains in
India

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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-

9. Proposed methodologies


10. 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

11. 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

12. Milk related practices- water is a big issue
12
Source of water

13. Water: continued- big share do not
purify

14. What about milk consumption with
information shock from FSSI

15. What was the behavioral response
then?
Moved to branded Adjusted children’s consumption

16. 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 -

17. 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

18. 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%

19. Safety and nutrition awareness
 On packaged milk do you look out for
nutrition label?

20. sources of adulteration in milk known
20

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

22. Knowledge of the consumers: About
tuberculosis

23. Striking facts- on pasteurization
 Knowledge about pasteurization Look for pasteurized milk

24. 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
adulterati
on 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%

25. 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%

26. 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
comparative
ly 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%

27. Share of different milk sellers
What is the brand of milk you purchase?
Brand Name | Freq. Percent Cum.
Chitale | 322 32.69 32.69
Warana | 9 0.91 33.60
Katraj | 141 14.31 47.92
Nestle | 2 0.20 48.12
Amul | 35 3.55 51.68
Gokul | 55 5.58 57.26
Govardhan | 12 1.22 58.48
Thote | 4 0.41 58.88
Others | 212 21.52 80.41
Unbranded | 193 19.59 100.00
If switched to branded, reason

28. 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

29. 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
Options | Freq. Percent Cum.
ISO | 86 91.49 91.49
HACCP | 6 6.38 97.87
Others | 2 2.13 100.00
Table 1: Choice of certifying agency

30. 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

31. On organic standards
Would you like your milk to be certified as organic?
Options | Freq. Percent Cum.
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?
Options | Freq. Percent Cum.
Yes | 515 55.14 55.14
No | 419 44.86 100.00

32. Dynamics of choice across suppliers with information
shocks

33. 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

34. 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