Contents - Previous - Next

This is the old United Nations University website. Visit the new site at http://unu.edu

BASIC FOODS

We considered bajra (pearl millet), kodra (millet), fresh, leafy vegetables, local berries, guava, and peanuts to be basic foods. They showed up in the LP solution at prevailing market prices. It is not unlikely that changes in the prices of items in the LP solution or of those not in the LP solution would change the make-up of items in the optimum solutions. We would like to emphasize that traditionally consumed items that were not high-priced seemed to be ranked as basic foods because they were low-cost sources of the minimum requirement levels of nutrients.

The basic food items supplied more than the required quantity of protein, despite the absence of pulses. The dual of the LP, therefore, does not give a shadow price for protein. At the consumption levels observed during the field survey, basic foods supplied 23 percent of the calories and 28 percent of the protein for all the households taken together.

STATUS FOOD AND OTHER PREFERRED FOODS

The linear programming exercise yielded shadow prices for the nutrients or outputs and, through its dual, we got shadow prices of the individual commodities used as inputs; we then derived the aggregate nutritional value of foods by multiplying the nutrients contained in the foods by their shadow prices. The differences between the market prices and the nutritional values of the non-basic foods were equal to the shadow prices of individual items of food (table 5). The nutritional worth based on the value of nutrients, calculated on the basis of shadow prices, would reflect the minimum, and not the market, cost of these items needed to obtain the required levels of nutrients (table 6). Table 7 shows the zero-order correlations among market prices, shadow prices, and nutritional values.

TABLE 6. Shadow prices of nutrients

TABLE 7. Zero-order correlations between market prices, shadow prices, and nutritional values

The market prices and the shadow prices of food items, other than those in the LP solution, were highly correlated. Because the shadow prices of food items represented the differences between market prices and nutritional values, they represented the "preference values" or the prices for the taste component of food items. The high value of the correlations indicated that the market sorted out food items on the basis of the preferences of consumers in the aggregate and priced them accordingly. This result emphasized the role that tastes and preferences played in the market's pricing of food. The market prices of food items with comparable nutrient values differed. We, therefore, found that the coefficients of correlation between the nutritional values on the one hand and their market values and shadow prices on the other were relatively low.

We grouped fourteen food items into three categories on the basis of their shadow prices. These items did not include the basic foods and tea, coffee, condiments, salts, and spices. The three preference categories were (a) high, (b) medium, and (c) low. The top six items were designated high-preference foods, the next five medium-preference foods, and the remaining three low-preference foods. We called the high-preference foods status foods.

The high-preference foods, or status foods, were ghee (clarified butter), hydrogenated oil, mutton/meat, eggs, peanut oil, and sugar; the medium-preference foods were rice, raw sugar, pulses, dry vegetables (potatoes and onions), and milk; and the low-preference foods were bavta, wheat, and jowar.

It was surprising that wheat, a non-traditional cereal for households in Matar Taluka, appeared in the category of low-preference foods. Wheat is not, however, regarded as an inferior cereal. It may also seem surprising that in a rural, predominantly vegetarian community such as Matar, eggs and mutton ranked among the status foods. However, among Hindus only high-caste families are strict vegetarians, while others are traditionally non-vegetarian by birth and by habit. They do not consume more non-vegetarian foods only because their low purchasing power does not permit it. As the incomes of some non-vegetarian households have risen, non-vegetarian foods have acquired status.

By and large, food categories based on preference reflected acceptance level. Rice ranked highest among cereals. Ghee (clarified butter) was the most coveted item of food. It is eaten on chapati and other cereal preparations, which are local variants of bread. Occasionally ghee is used with rice, but more often in the preparation of sweets; sweets made with ghee enjoy high prestige among consumers. Hydrogenated oil, a lower-priced substitute for ghee, is used for similar purposes. Fried food items, bread (puri) and savouries are among the status foods and, hence, peanut oil has a high rank; it is a cooking medium for vegetables and is also used in legume dishes.

TABLE 8. Food expenditures for food categories

a. These expenditures add up to 96.2. The remaining expenditures were on items such as tea, coffee, spices, and other foods.

From the point of view of social acceptability, basic food items would be considered low-preference foods. Bajra and kodra are inferior cereals. Local fruits and vegetables, which are not consumed in large quantities, have not enjoyed high status. Roasted peanuts are still considered a poor man's snack. On the whole, for all households together, medium preference foods were the major sources of both calories and protein (table 8). However, if we combined low preference foods and basic foods, the two together would emerge as leading sources of both calories and protein. As may be expected, low-preference foods and basic foods accounted for a relatively small percentage of total expenditure, while medium-preference foods claimed a major share. In contrast, high-preference foods accounted for a small percentage of the overall food expenditure (table 8).

OCCUPATIONS, CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURES, AND CALORIE-DEFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR HOUSEHOLDS

A total of 1,106 households was divided into 10 expenditure decile groups, based on expenditure per capita, and arranged in ascending order. With two exceptions, each decile group contained 110 households; however, the first contained 111 households and the highest decile group 115. Household occupational distribution was as follows: 606 were cultivators, 275 were farm labourers, and 229 were engaged in non-farm occupations. Households were also divided on the basis of their calorie intake. There were 601 (54.15 percent) that were calorie-deficient and 505 (45.86 percent) that were not.

Cross-classification of households on the basis of occupation and expenditure docile groups showed no systematic relationship between occupations and expenditure level. Ten occupations, including five sub-categories of cultivators, could be easily arranged in an order based on per capita expenditure level, as each occupation group had a wide range of per capita expenditure levels within it.

TABLE 9. Expenditure deciles, occupation groups, and calorie-deficient (D) and non-deficient (ND) groups of households

Households in each occupation group were distributed widely over different income docile groups. The lowest-ranked occupation had a few relatively very rich households in it. Farm labourers, who derived their income mainly from wage earnings, were in the lowest docile in economic ranking; however, out of 275 households of farm labourers, 48 or 17 percent belonged to the lowest docile, but 31 or 11 percent to the uppermost docile.

Households with farms smaller than five acres, i.e. the small farmers, were considered equal in rank to or just above farm labourers. A total of 304 households of small farmers were distributed fairly well over the 10 income deciles. A similar situation obtained for nearly all groups of cultivators. Artisans, traders, service workers, and households with miscellaneous occupations were distributed similarly to cultivators (table 9).

We believe the rapid development of Mater Taluka from 1965 to 1975 has introduced an element of dynamism, providing the opportunity for a substantial number of households to move above the traditional ranking of their occupation. The opposite trend has also occurred: those who enjoyed a high rank in a static economy have found that the unwary among them have slipped down to ranks below their traditional economic status. We found calorie-deficient (D) and calorie-non-deficient (ND) households in substantial numbers in each occupation group.

TABLE 10. Food expenditure, calorie intake, calorie costs

Calorie-deficiency is believed to be related to income or expenditure level. In our study, however, this relationship was somewhat weak, as observed from the distribution of the D and the ND households over docile groups. While the proportion of the D households declined as per capita expenditure level increased, we found that 120 were calorie-deficient, representing about 25 percent of the households in the upper deciles based on per capita expenditure-the fifth to the ninth deciles. In the lower five deciles about 75 percent of the households were deficient in calories.

The occupation of a household was not found to be a very accurate indicator of the level of nutrition or income, which was probably related to the rapid development of the region. Of the 271 households who were farm labourers, 167 or 62 percent were calorie-deficient, as were 50 percent of the small farmers with landholdings of up to five acres. Of the large farm households, the group with landholdings of 25 or more acres, 46 percent were calorie-deficient. Thirty percent of the traders' households also fell into this category. Thus, calorie-deficient households made up a fairly substantial proportion of all occupation groups.

FOOD EXPENDITURE, CALORIE INTAKE, AND CALORIE COSTS

From 1974 to 1975 more than half of the households in Matar Taluka did not consume the minimum requirement of calories. A somewhat weak relationship between calorie intake and expenditure could be traced, among other factors, to the calorie levels of purchased foods.

Consumers who allotted relatively large shares of their expenditure to low-calorie foods consumed diets with relatively high calorie costs and low calorie intakes Table 10 shows the levels of calorie intake, cost in poises (one hundredth of a rupee) per 100 kcal, and annual food expenditures. Details are given for calorie-deficient and calorie-non deficient households for each expenditure docile group. From the data in table 10, we can make the following observations:

For all docile groups calorie costs were higher for the D than for the ND households.

For both the D and the ND groups calorie costs tended to rise in ascending order of expenditure docile, but they increased more rapidly for the D households.

For all deciles we found higher levels of calorie intake for the ND than for the D households as defined by a cut-off point of 2,360 kcal per adult per day. There was a continuously rising trend of calorie intake for the ND group and a slowly rising trend up to the first six deciles for the D households. The D households in the eighth, ninth, and tenth deciles had even lower calorie intakes than the D households in the fourth to seventh deciles.

The ND households in all deciles spent larger amounts on food per Year or adult unit than the D households did. In addition, we found that, per adult, the total expenditure per year was considerably higher for the ND than for the D households up to the fifth docile. In the upper deciles, the differences narrowed and finally almost disappeared. Compared to the D households, the ND households spent more on food in terms of both the absolute amount per adult unit as well as in terms of the percentage of total expenditure. The implications of this observation are important. The D households had lower income levels, especially for the lower deciles, but they spent relatively more on non-food items. This difference was significantly large up to the seventh docile, even though the difference in total expenditures narrowed.

TABLE 11. Household persons-household size

a. Figures in parentheses denote percentages to respective total.

Thus, non-deficient households had higher levels of calorie intake, levels that rose rapidly with total expenditure, partly because they allotted larger amounts of their budgets to food and partly because they selected foods with lower calorie costs. In terms of preference, these results implied a "food-quantity" preference on the part of the non-deficient households. On the other hand, calorie-deficient households exhibited a preference for "quality" or status food and a preference also for services and goods other than food.

HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND CHILDREN

We decided to explore the possibility that calorie intake level by deficient and non-deficient households might be influenced by household size and number of children.

The following arguments, although plausible, were not supported by the data (table 11). First, larger families may be constrained to make larger expenditures on foods, a basic need, than smaller families with the same income. If the proportion of children in a household is relatively large and if the children are to receive adequate nutrition, expenditure per person may tend to be higher than that for households with fewer children but with comparable incomes.

As table 11 indicates, non-deficient households had a smaller average size of households in all but the seventh docile, for which the difference is marginal, yet they devoted larger amounts to food expenditure per adult unit than did calorie-deficient households. For all deciles except the eighth and the tenth, non-deficient households had a relatively larger percentage of children. We defined children as those aged five and below. Expenditure on food was no doubt more for the non-deficient than for the deficient households, but the ND households spent more on relatively low-cost foods. More nutritious foods, like milk and vegetables, have a higher market value but lower status rank. The low cost of calories for non-deficient households would suggest that they preferred low-cost/high-calorie foods, but not necessarily food meant for children, which is more expensive as well as more nutritious.

TABLE 12. Distribution of deficient and non-deficient households for different nutrients by decile group

NUTRITION DEFICIENCY PROFILE

A little over half of the sample households were deficient in calorie intake per adult per day. We examined whether deficient households paid more for their calories: whether they chose expensive foods that were low in calories, but high in other nutrients. In other words, was calorie intake level positively associated with the level of other nutrients or not? To answer this question, we determined the distribution of calorie deficient and calorie-non-deficient households for each nutrient taken singly (table 12).

The matrices in table 12 were triangular for about six nutrients when we considered all households together. Protein and vitamin C illustrated the two basic patterns. In the case of protein, an adequate calorie level assured an adequate protein level too. Moreover, a substantial number of the calorie-deficient households seemed to have an adequate protein level. Both the D and the ND groups had a sufficient level of vitamin C and similar pattern obtained for carotene. A substantial number of households from the calorie-deficient group, and nearly all from the ND group, had an adequate level of the three minerals. Almost none of the D households had an adequate level of riboflavin, but a majority of the ND households did. For thiamine, however, a substantial number of D households obtained a sufficient level of intake, and only one of the ND households was deficient.

With the exception of protein, iron, and to some extent thiamine, the D group did not have adequate levels of nutrients. A larger proportion of ND households had, in addition to calories, adequate levels of other nutrients. An emphasis on cheaper calorie sources by the ND group of households did not put them at a disadvantage regarding nutrition compared to the D group.

Use of a common price for all households for a given item of food might lead us to underestimate the preference component. For instance, those in the upper expenditure bracket would buy better quality rice, but get the same calories per kilogram. We believed that the margin could be small, since in rural areas all households would consume mostly the locally produced variety of grain; however, the role of home supplies was reduced with the development of the market. Since we do not have relevant data regarding the quality of each individual food grain consumed by each household, we cannot reach a definite conclusion concerning the effect of using common prices for foods.

TABLE 13. Expenditure on food, according to groups of items (percentages)^a

a. The four groups do not exhaust the total items of food. Expenditure on tea, coffee, salt, spices, other food grains, and other foods are excluded. They would account for less than one-seventh of total expenditure, and their share would vary for different deciles (table 14).

b. Ghee (clarified butter), vegetable ghee (hydrogenated gill, meat, mutton, eggs, edible oil, and sugar.

c. Rice, raw sugar (gur), pulses (legumes), potatoes, onions, and milk.

d. Bavta, wheat, jowar.

With the exception of iron, the ND group not only had a higher level of calories than the D group, but also higher mean levels of all other nutrients for all docile groups (table 12). The sufficient intake of calories does not necessarily imply adequate levels of all nutrients, but a higher calorie level does imply for the most part higher levels of intake of other vital nutrients.

ALLOCATION OF FOOD EXPENSES

Our analysis has suggested that compared to the non-deficient households the calorie-deficient households put relatively greater emphasis on taste or status in terms of social acceptability. We examined this aspect directly through the allocation of expenditures on categories of foods. Table 13 gives the percentage of expenditure on food according to preference categories for deciles and within deciles for deficient and non-deficient households.

Of the tote) expenditure the proportion spent on status foods-that is, high-preference or even medium-preference foods-showed a distinct pattern in the third to eighth deciles In these six deciles the D households allotted a distinctly larger percentage of total expenditure to status food than did non-deficient households. It follows that deficient households allotted relatively less to the remaining three food groups-the medium- and low-preference and the basic food groups. In these upper six deciles, there was a substantial number of both D and ND households. In the top and the two bottom deciles, the D and the ND households respectively were relatively few in number, so that a comparison of allocation of expenditure would not be very meaningful.

TABLE 14. Percentage of total food spent on tea, coffee, spices, and residual food items^a

a. Residual items are tea, coffee, salt, spices, other food grains, and other foods.

Tea, coffee, salt, and spices were excluded from the preferred and basic food categories. With the exception of the top docile households, D households allocated a larger percentage of their food expenditure to residual items than ND households did (table 14). The share of total expenditure on food used for residuals did not show a trend for the two groups. Table 14 gives percentages of expenditures on tea/coffee and spices, and also on all residual items taken together. The data indicated that the D households spent relatively more on tea/coffee and spices than the ND households, In this comparison, it became clear that the D households, as a group of consumers, were influenced more by preference than by nutritional considerations.

TABLE 15. Food groups as calories and protein sources (percentages)

continue

Contents - Previous - Next