T : 88-02-9881265, 8824180-87F : 88-02-8823542, 8823614W : www.brac.net

BRAC Research and Evaluation DivisionBRAC Centre, 75 MohakhaliDhaka 1212, Bangladesh

Acceptability of Fortified Rice by Participants of Government Social Safety Net Programmes

Acceptability of Fortified Rice by

Participants of Government Social Safety

Net Programmes

Barnali Chakraborty Senior Research Fellow, RED, BRAC

Fahmida Akter Staff Researcher, RED, BRAC

June 2014

Research and Evaluation Division (RED), BRAC, 75 Mohakhali, Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh

Telephone: (88-02) 9881265-72, 8824180-7 (PABX) Fax: (88-02) 8823542

E-mail: research@brac.net, Website: www.brac.net/research

Copyright © 2014 BRAC

June 2014

Editing:

Iftekhar A. Chaudhury

Printing and publication

Altamas Pasha

Cover design

Md. Abdur Razzaque

Design and layout

Md. Akram Hossain

Published by:

Research and Evaluation Division

BRAC

BRAC Centre

75 Mohakhali

Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh

Telephone: (88-02) 9881265-72, 8824180-7 (PABX)

Fax: (88-02) 8823542

Website: www.brac.net/research

BRAC/RED publishes research reports, scientific papers, monographs, working

papers, research compendium in Bangla (Nirjash), proceedings, manuals, and other

publications on subjects relating to poverty, social development and human rights,

health and nutrition, education, gender, environment, and governance.

Printed by Zaman Printing and Packaging, 41-42, Islampur Road (Adel Complex) Dhaka 1100.

iii

Acronyms

BBS Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics

BDT Bangladeshi Taka

CI Confidence Interval

GoB Government of Bangladesh

HH Household

HIES Household Income and Expenditure Survey

MDMR Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief

MWCA Ministry of Women and Children Affairs

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

OR Odds Ratio

RED Research and Evaluation Division

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science

SSC Secondary School Certificate

UP Union Parishad

VGD Vulnerable Group Development

VGF Vulnerable Group Feeding

WFP World Food Programme

WHO World Health Organization

iv

Table of contents

Acronyms iii

Acknowledgments vii

Executive Summary ix

Chapter 1: Background information

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Introducing fortified rice to Bangladesh 2

Chapter 2: Objectives and methodology

2.1 Objectives 3

2.2 Methodology 3

2.2.1 Study design and population 3

2.2.2 Sample size and selection 4

2.2.3 Data collection 5

2.2.4 Data analysis 5

2.2.5 Quality control 6

Chapter 3: Results

3.1 Household characteristics 7

3.2 Knowledge, frequency and amount of pushti chal received 9

3.3 Usage, cooking method and consumption pattern of pushti chal 10

3.4 Taste and other traits of pushti chal 13

3.5 Acceptance and willingness to buy 15

Chapter 4: Discussion, conclusions and recommendations

4.1 Discussion 20

4.2 Conclusions 23

4.3 Recommendations 24

References 25

Annex A: Consent form and questionnaire (English version) 27

Annex B: Additional tables 34

v

List of tables

Table 1: Distribution of households by demographic and socio-economic

characteristics 7

Table 2: Distribution of households by food security, source of regular rice and

health status 8

Table 3: Distribution of households by knowledge/information received on pushti chal 9

Table 4: Frequency and amount of pushti chal received by the households 10

Table 5: Distribution of beneficiary households by usage of pushti chal 10

Table 6: Distribution of households by cooking method of pushti chal 11

Table 7: Distribution of households by consumption pattern of pushti chal 12

Table 8 : Taste and other traits of pushti chal 13

Table 9: Respondents’ acceptance of pushti chal (in terms of taste) by food

security status, location, level of knowledge and appearance 14

Table 10 : Perceived change in health experienced after consuming pushti chal by

households 15

Table 11: Respondents’ view and perceptions about pushti chal 16

Table 12: Distribution of households by willingness to buy pushti chal 17

Table 13: Factors associated with willingness to buy pushti chal at higher price 18

vi

This page intentionally left blank

vii

Acknowledgments

The acceptability trial on micronutrient fortified rice, or ‘pushti chal’ was conducted in

line with the agreement for the Acceptability Study on Fortified Rice which was signed

between BRAC and WFP in August, 2013. The study was carried out in two upazilas - Kurigram Sadar and Satkhira Sadar where WFP, in collaboration with the

Government of Bangladesh is piloting the distribution of pushti chal through two of

the Government’s social safety net programmes. The main objective of the study was

to determine the participants’ perception about pushti chal in relation to taste and

appearance (such as its colour, texture and smell) and their overall acceptance of

fortified rice. The study was supported by the Dutch-based multinational company

DSM.

WFP has chosen the Research and Evaluation Division (RED), BRAC as a partner in

conducting this study. The research team thanks Dr. WMH Jaim, former Director of

RED and Dr Moslem Uddin Mia, former senior researcher of RED, who provided

enormous support in initiating the study. The study team of RED acknowledges the

huge support received from Ms Jessica Staskiewicz, Ms Rachel Fuli, Mr Nurul Afsar,

Mr Rezaul Karim and Ms Carla Unger of the WFP rice fortification team in the

development of survey tools and the review of the report.

Special thanks are conveyed to Dr Ahmed Mushtaque Raza Chowdhury, Vice

Chairperson of BRAC and Interim Executive Director, Dr Mahabub Hossain, Advisor

to the Executive Director, BRAC and the lead researchers of RED, Mr Samir Ranjan

Nath and Dr Hashima-E-Nasreen, for their continuous support and technical

feedback in conducting the study and finalizing the report. Editorial comments from

Mr Iftekhar A Chaudhury coordinator, Editing and Publications of RED is greatly

acknowledged. Special thanks also go to RED researchers for their technical

feedback. The authors acknowledge the sincere support of administration, field

management and data management units of RED in implementing the study. Special

thanks go to the field enumerators who collected vital information from the

participants in the field. The authors highly acknowledge the generous support of Mr

Mesbah ul Alam, Secretary, Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief; Mr Tariq Ul-

Islam, Secretary, Ministry of Women and Children Affairs; and the Project

Implementation Officer and Upazila Women Affairs Officer of Kurigram Sadar and

Satkhira Sadar Upazilas. The study team acknowledges the co-operation of the

research participants sampled from the Vulnerable Group Development (VGD)

programme and Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) programme who gave their

precious time to respond to the survey questions. The report would not have been

possible without their active participation.

RED is supported by BRAC's core fund and funds from donor agencies,

organizations and governments worldwide. Current donors of BRAC and RED

include Aga Khan Foundation Canada, Agricultural Innovation in Dryland Africa

viii

Project-Spain, Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, AusAid, Australian High

Commission, The World Vegetable Centre (AVRDC), Bencom S.r.L, BRAC-UK,

BRAC-USA, British Council, Campaign for Popular Education, Canadian International

Development Agency, CARE-Bangladesh, Center for Development Research,

Commonwealth Foundation, Department For International Development (DFID),

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), EACI-Qatar,

Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Euro consult Mott Mac Donald,

European Commission, Family Health International, FHI Solutions, LLC, Foundation

Open Society Institute, The Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, Global

Development Network, The Global Fund, Govt. of Bangladesh (GoB), The Hospital for

Sick Children, Canada, International Centre for Diarrheal Disease Research,

Bangladesh (ICDDR,B,) International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI),

International Labour Organization, International Potato Centre, International Rice

Research Institute, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural

Resources, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Manusher Jonno Foundation,

Oxfam Novib (NOVIB), Oxford University, Rockefeller Foundation, Safer World, Sight

Saver-UK, Social Marketing Company, UN Women, UNICEF, Unilever-UK, United

Nations Development Programme, University of Bonn, University of Leeds, University

Research Company LLC, Vision Spring, Women WIN, World Bank, World Fish and

World Food Programme.

ix

Executive summary

Background

In Bangladesh, the World Food Programme (WFP), in partnership with the

Government has been working to introduce fortified rice, (locally known as ‘pushti chal’), proven in international studies to be effective in mitigating micronutrient

deficiencies. Pushti chal has been designed to be identical to normal rice in shape,

colour and texture. It involves the mixing of fortified rice kernels with polished rice at a

ratio of 1:100. The fortified rice kernels contain rice flour mixed with powdered vitamin

A, vitamin B1, vitamin B12, folic acid, iron and zinc. The pre-mix formulation was

produced in accordance with WHO guidelines and the micronutrient requirements of

the population of Bangladesh1.

At the time of the survey, WFP, in partnership with the Government had begun

piloting the distribution of fortified rice under two of the Government’s food-based

social safety net programmes, the Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) programme

under the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief and the Vulnerable Group

Development (VGD) programme under the Ministry of Women and Children Affairs,

with an aim to scale-up distributions dependent on the findings of the feasibility and

acceptability studies undertaken during a pilot stage. The VGF programme is a relief

programme that provides food ration(s) to households that are vulnerable to hunger

during times of disaster. On the other hand, VGD programme is a transformational

social safety net programme that provides services to ultra-poor women participants

including income-generating activities along with a monthly food ration. On a pilot

basis, a sample of participants under these programmes received fortified rice in

place of normal rice over a period of at least six months, starting from June, 2013 in

Kurigram Sadar for VGD and from August 2013 in Satkhira Sadar for VGF.

In Satkhira Sadar, fortified rice was distributed among 6,000 female or male

participants of the VGF programme, with a monthly VGF household ration of 20 kg of

fortified rice. In Kurigram Sadar, distribution of fortified rice was targeted to 2,794

women participants of the VGD programme, each of whom received a monthly

household ration of 30 kg of fortified rice, as per the programme design. At each rice

distribution information leaflets were available to inform the participants about the

nutritional benefits of consuming pushti chal and advice about recommended

cooking as well as storage practices in order to best retain the nutritional qualities of

1 Proposed formulation includes: 100 mcg Vitamin A (Palmitate), 0.35 mg Vitamin B1 (Thiamin), 0.8 mcg

Vitamin B12 (Cyanocobalamine), 100 mcg Folic Acid (Folic acid), 7 mg Iron (Ferric pyrophosphate), 5 mg

Zinc (Zinc Oxide) per 100 gram uncooked rice, including 30% overage to compensate for losses during

storage and food preparation. This is based on the experience with wholemeal wheat flour (atta)

fortification in Bangladesh, the WHO guidelines for flour fortification and the prevalence of micronutrient

deficiencies in Bangladesh. The composition has been approved by the Bangladesh Medical Research

Council, and if necessary will be further revised to ensure its suitability to the population.

x

pushti chal. Where NGO partners were available verbal messages reinforced the

content of the leaflets.

Overview on research objective and methodology

A study was conducted by BRAC-RED in partnership with WFP to determine the

participants’ perception about the pushti chal in relation to its taste and appearance

(such as colour, texture and smell).

The specific objectives of the study are to:

assess the acceptability of fortified rice with a sample of participants enrolled in

food based social safety nets;

look into potential regional differences in the acceptance of fortified rice.

The acceptability study was carried out in Kurigram Sadar and Satkhira Sadar from

31 August to 9 September 2013 with participants from the VGD and VGF

programmes respectively. A sample of 808 participants (400 in Kurigram Sadar and

408 in Satkhira Sadar) was selected from the total list of VGD and VGF cardholders

using a systematic random sampling technique. A pre-tested structured

questionnaire was used to obtain information about acceptance of rice in terms of its

taste, texture and overall acceptability from the VGD or VGF programme participant

authorised to receive the rice. It also obtained socioeconomic and demographic

information.

Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 17. Descriptive analyses were

performed to generate tables of the relevant variables. Independent variables (i.e. the

presumed cause) included demographic and socioeconomic information, knowledge

and perception about pushti chal, cooking practice and intake pattern. The

dependent variables (i.e. the presumed effect) were acceptance in terms of taste and

texture as well as the willingness to buy the rice. Pearson’s chi-square test was used

to test the association between variables. A multivariate logistic regression was

performed to determine the extent of willingness to buy pushti chal at high price

across the small variance in income across the lower socioeconomic profile of the

respondents.

Key findings2

Demographic and socioeconomic information

The findings are generally reflective of the poor socioeconomic and food security

profile of social safety net programme research participant households:

The median income of households was 4,500 BDT/month in Kurigram

Sadar and 4,000 BDT/month in Satkhira Sadar.

2 All data refers to the responses of the programme participants (or respondents) selected for this survey

xi

About half of the household heads (main wage earner and decision maker)

was found to have no formal education and about one-quarter was found to

have a minimal literacy level (ability to read and write) in all areas (20% in

Kurigram Sadar and 33% in Satkhira Sadar).

Seventy seven per cent of households in Kurigram Sadar and 94% in

Satkhira Sadar experienced rice shortage for 6 months or more prior to the

survey period.

Receipt of awareness messages on pushti chal

Ninety per cent of the respondents (from the VGD programme) in Kurigram Sadar

said they had received awareness messages regarding pushti chal; but only 21%

of the respondents in Satkhira Sadar (VGF programme) did.

This reflects programme design, where VGD participants (women) are also in

regular contact with NGO partners, mostly for other training and other supporting

activities while in Satkhira Sadar the VGF programme involves simple distribution

of food by government officials.

Taste, colour and smell

Seventy eight per cent of respondents in Kurigram Sadar and 84% in Satkhira

Sadar rated the taste of pushti chal as the same or even better than normal rice.

100% of respondents said that any perceived difference in the colour of the

fortified was acceptable.

99% of the respondents indicated that the fortified rice was acceptable despite

any perceived difference in smell.

Overall acceptance

When asked to provide their overall rating of the fortified rice on a scale from

excellent to very bad, the fortified rice was rated as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ by 95%

of respondents in Kurigram Sadar and 78% of respondents in Satkhira Sadar.

Perceived health benefits of pushti chal

Fifty three per cent of respondents in Kurigram Sadar reported that they or

members of their household had experienced changes in health after consuming

pushti chal, although only 16% reported the same in Satkhira Sadar.

They mostly (51% in Kurigram Sadar and 15% in Satkhira Sadar) indicated

positive benefits such as weight gain, fewer instances of disease, improved

appetite etc.

Wider acceptance of pushti chal

The majority of the respondents in Kurigram Sadar (72%) and majority in Satkhira

Sadar (59%) believed that pushti chal would be accepted by their community,

xii

citing improved nutritional value and quality of the fortified rice compared to

normal rice.

Those who stated they received awareness messages reported a significantly

higher level of satisfaction with the taste of pushti chal in comparison to those

who indicated they did not receive awareness messages.

Willingness to buy

More than 90% of respondents in both areas stated that they would buy pushti chal if it was available in the market.

Regardless of their acceptance or preference for pushti chal, respondents were

found to be price-sensitive. The proportion that was willing to buy dropped to

35% in Kurigram Sadar and 13% in Satkhira Sadar when the price of pushti chal was proposed at a higher level compared to normal rice.

Households that had suffered from any rice shortage even for less than a month

due to financial inadequacy during the year preceding the survey period were

significantly less likely (adjusted Odds Ratio: 0.515; 95% Confidence Interval:

0.326;0.815) to buy pushti chal if the price was comparatively higher.

Respondents who received awareness messages were significantly twice as

likely to buy pushti chal over normal rice, even at the higher price, (95%

Confidence Interval: 1.908;3.127) than those that did not.

Participants in the VGD programme residing at Kurigram Sadar who received

additional training along with the food ration were twice as likely to buy at higher

price (95% CI: 1.353;3.686) in comparison to the VGF participants residing in

Satkhira Sadar.

Conclusion and recommendations

The large majority of respondents in both Kurigram Sadar and Satkhira Sadar were

accepting of the pushti chal. They were also willing to purchase fortified rice instead

of normal rice if it was available in the market, particularly if the market price was

within the price range of normal rice. Further, the results indicated a strong

correlation with the receipt of awareness messages and the depth of acceptance of

fortified rice and on the willingness to buy pushti chal at a higher price. Therefore,

when making the fortified rice available at scale or in the market place,

comprehensive awareness messaging and counseling may be effective in motivating

purchase and/or consumption of pushti chal. If aiming for market purchase by

households with a similar economic profile to those of the VGD and VGF participants,

a subsidized price may be required.

1

1. Background information

1.1 Introduction

According to the 2009 WHO landscape analysis Bangladesh is considered advanced

in its strong focus to promote nutrition at the central level (UNS: SCN 2009).

However, the country is still considered to have one of the highest prevalence’s of

under nutrition in the world as per the global atlas, despite significant economic gains

in recent decades (Bhutta et al. 2013). Micronutrient deficiencies are the most hidden

form of under nutrition, and are highly prevalent across the entire socioeconomic

spectrum in Bangladesh. Micronutrients refer to those vitamins and minerals (such

as, iron, iodine, zinc, vitamin A, vitamin B, etc.) which, while required in only small

amounts are essential for good nutrition, health and development (Swaminathan

1985). The effects of micronutrient deficiencies are intergenerational, presenting in a

cyclic process from conception to adulthood and are reflected in child and maternal

death, physical disabilities, impaired intellectual growth, low productivity and high

healthcare costs (Black et al. 2008, FFI, GAIN, MI, USAID, WB and UNICEF 2009).

Those most affected by micronutrient deficiencies are pregnant or lactating women,

adolescent girls and young children.

The most immediate cause of developing a micronutrient deficiency is the inadequate

intake of micronutrient rich food (FFI, GAIN, MI, USAID, WB and UNICEF 2009). A

variety of factors including affordability, dietary behaviour, inadequate knowledge and

awareness undermine the intake of nutritionally rich and diversified food. In

Bangladesh, rice is the staple food that accounts for 62 per cent of total per capita

energy intake, yet has very low levels of micronutrients (BBS 2011, Dexter 1998).

There are a number of strategies that have proven to be effective in mitigating

micronutrient deficiencies globally, e.g., supplementation, fortification, increasing

production, and disease control measures (FAO and ILSI 1997, Copenhagen

Consensus 2008). Recently, food fortification, particularly the fortification of staple

food has been highlighted as one of the most cost-effective solutions to address

multiple micronutrient deficiencies, particularly at scale and across a wide range of

demographic profiles (Copenhagen Consensus, 2008, Angeles-Agdeppa et al. 2011,

Beinner et al. 2010 and FFI, GAIN, MI, USAID, WB and UNICEF 2009). For heavy

rice-consuming populations such as that of Bangladesh, the fortification of rice is a

logical approach, if it is well accepted by the consumers. Fortified rice has already

been introduced in several countries such as the Philippines, Brazil, Colombia, Costa

Rica, USA, and India etc. (USAID, A2Z, AED and IFT 2008).

Around 30 studies in 13 countries have demonstrated the safety, stability, bio-

availability, acceptability, efficacy and effectiveness of fortified rice (PATH 2013). The

2

findings overall indicate that fortified rice is stable and safe to eat as well as effective

in reducing targeted micronutrient deficiencies.

1.2 Introducing fortified rice to Bangladesh

The fortified rice introduced to Bangladesh is known as ‘pushti chal’ and comprises a

pre-mixed fortified kernel containing vitamin A, vitamin B1, vitamin B12, folic acid, iron

and zinc. The micronutrient content of the fortified rice kernels is 195 mcg vitamin A

(palmitate), 0.52 mg vitamin B1 (thiamin), 1.3 mcg vitamin B12 (Cyanocobalamine),

170 mcg folic acid, 6 mg iron (ferric pyrophosphate) and 4mg zinc (zinc oxide). The

formulation is based on the previous experience of WFP regarding wholemeal wheat

flour (atta) fortification and it is in line with WHO recommendations (WHO 2009). The

identified vitamins and minerals are powdered and mixed with rice flour to form a pre-

mix, and kernels are produced applying ‘hot extrusion’ technology. The resulting

fortified kernels are then mixed with polished rice at the ratio of 1:100.

The main objective of this study was to determine the overall acceptability of fortified

rice amongst participants of rice based social safety net programmes and to inform

the further scale up of the distribution of fortified rice in Bangladesh. WFP, in

partnership with the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief and the Ministry of

Women and Children’s Affairs agreed to pilot the distribution of fortified rice in place

of the normal rice ration in two of the country’s largest food-based social safety net

programmes, the Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) and Vulnerable Group

Development (VGD) programmes. BRAC-RED conducted this study on a sample of

participants from the VGD and VGF programmes in partnership with WFP to assess

the overall acceptability of fortified rice by considering its taste, colour, smell, and

price sensitivity. The study also looked into potential regional variations in the

acceptability of fortified rice.

3

2. Objectives and methodology

2.1 Objectives

General Objective. Determine safety net participants’ perception of pushti chal in

relation to its taste, colour and smell, as well as overall acceptability.

Specific objectives:

1. To assess the acceptability of fortified rice with the participants of rice-based

social safety nets; and

2. To investigate if there are regional differences in the acceptance of fortified rice.

2.2 Methodology

2.2.1 Study design and population

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among those who were receiving

pushti chal through the Government’s VGD and VGF programmmes. The programme

areas for the fortified rice pilot were selected by WFP together with the relevant

ministries based on geographical proximity to local rice millers with the required

blending facilities. The study sites included Kurigram Sadar (a sub-district of Kurigram

that is located in the north) and Satkhira Sadar (a sub-district of Satkhira, located in

the south). A total of 8,794 persons received fortified rice, including 2,794 women

who were receiving pushti chal through the VGD programme in Kurigram Sadar and

6,000 persons (mainly women) who were receiving pushti chal through the VGF

programme in Satkhira Sadar. In Kurigram Sadar the distribution of fortified rice

began in June 2013 and in Satkhira Sadar it began in August 2013 for a period of at

least 6 months.The surveys where undertaken when all the participants had received

at least one month’s ration of fortified rice.

Participant profiles

The VGF programme, under the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief, is a

relief programme providing a food ration to persons whose household members are

vulnerable to hunger at times of emergency. They typically receive a ration of 20kg of

rice, for a decided period of time.

The VGF participants fulfil the following terms and conditions (Mozumder et al. 2009):

1. Males/females who are day labourers or temporary labourers or those whose

income is irregular and/or inadequate or those who have no source of income at

all

4

2. Males/females who are landless or own less than 0.15 acres of land

3. Wives of disabled or handicapped husbands

4. Poor males/females who suffer due to river erosion/flood

Males/females who are receiving any benefit under government/non-government

organization’s food assistance programme including VGD are not eligible for

obtaining a VGF card, neither will households with a member who already holds a

VGF card.

The VGD programme is a transformational social safety net programme, under the

Ministry of Women and Children Affairs. In VGD, ultra-poor women participants

receive training on a diverse array of topics, including income generating activities, as

well as a monthly household food ration of 30kg of rice.

As per the VGD programme design, the VGD participants and their household are

those who at least fulfill four of the following criteria (WFP 2006, Mozumder et al. 2009):

1. Household members consume less than two full meals per day

2. Owning no land or less than 0.15 acres of land

3. Very poor housing conditions (material and sanitation facilities)

4. Extremely low and irregular family income from daily or casual labour

5. Household headed by a woman with no adult male income earner and no other

source of income

VGD Exclusion Criteria, even if the four criteria are fulfilled, the presence of any one of

the following criteria will make her non eligible for inclusion:

1. If the woman is outside the 18 – 49 age bracket

2. If she is already member of another similar food and/or cash assistance

programme

3. If she was a VGD cardholder at any time during the previous two VGD cycles

4. If she is an adolescent who is taking care of the household in the absence of the

housewife

2.2.2 Sample size and selection

Assuming that 50% of the target population will either accept pushti chal or not, at a

95% confidence interval and 5% margin of error, the required sample size was

estimated at 384 for each of the two locations. The total sample size for both

locations was rounded up to 800 (approx.). Eight additional persons were interviewed

in place of those who had not yet opened or consumed the package of fortified rice

at the time of survey.

The formula used for sample calculation is given below:

n=z2 pq/α2

5

Here, n denotes for sample size. The z value is 1.96 at 95% confidence interval, p

equals the proportion of population expected to accept pushti chal, q equals (1-p)

and α is the margin of error.

The sampled households were selected following systematic random sampling from

the available list of participants.

2.2.3 Data collection

A pre-tested, structured questionnaire (Annex A: Consent form and Questionnaire)

was used to obtain data on socioeconomic profile of the participants and their

households, demography and the acceptance of pushti chal in terms of its taste,

texture and satisfaction. Female household members (the VGD cardholders) were

selected as the respondents in the case of VGD households. Women who prepared

food were selected as primary respondent for the survey in case of VGF.

Respondents were selected for interview based on their willingness to participate in

the interview, as per the consent form (see Annex A: Consent Form and

Questionnaire). 99% of the respondents from both the VGD and VGF programmes

were female in both Kurigram Sadar (VGD) and Satkhira Sadar (VGF).

The senior researchers provided extensive training to the twenty data collectors. The

training included a briefing of the objectives of the survey, interviewing techniques,

ways to pose questions and code answers along with a detailed explanation of each

question and its relevance to the survey. Data was collected from 31st August to 9th

September 2013.

2.2.4 Data analysis

Data analyses were performed with SPSS version 17. Descriptive analyses were

performed with the cleaned data set to generate tables about the relevant variables.

Independent variables3 included demographic and socioeconomic information,

knowledge and perceptions on pushti chal, cooking practice, and intake pattern. The

dependent variables included acceptance in terms of taste, smell and texture as well

as willingness to buy the fortified rice. Pearson’s chi-square test was used to test the

association of the acceptance of rice by taste with socioeconomic variables,

distribution areas, and other traits. Based on the assumption that ‘willingness to buy’

indicated a deeper level of acceptance of the fortified rice, a multivariate logistic

regression was performed to determine the extent of association of willingness to buy

pushti chal by the participants (particularly who are ready to buy at higher price) with

socioeconomic background, level of knowledge about pushti chal and residing areas.

An initial set of variables were selected for the logistic regression model. These

variables were assumed to have a logical association with the willingness to buy

fortified rice, including occupation and literacy status of household heads (main wage

earner and decision maker), food security status, level of acquired knowledge about

3 The dependent variable is the variable that is being observed or measured. The independent variable is

the variable that ‘logically’ has some effect or causes change in the dependent variable.

6

pushti chal, distribution areas and acceptance of the taste of pushti chal. Income was

not included as VGD and VGF participants were solely from the lower income group.

The selected variables were first checked if any significant higher correlation existed

across the variables (Annex B). No such correlation was found. Then the variables

were included in a univariate model to check the level of association of the selected

variables with willingness to buy. The covariates found to be associated with

willingness to buy at higher price (with a p value of 0.25) were included in the

multivariate regression model (Hosmer DW et al. 2013). In the univariate model

almost all the selected variables except acceptance of taste were found to be

associated with willingness to buy at a p value<0.25 and were included in the

multivariate model. In the multivariate model significance level was encountered if p

value was less than 0.05.

2.2.5 Quality control

Supervision and monitoring were undertaken by the field monitoring team to ensure

the quality of the data. Day-to-day field activities were controlled and monitored by

field supervisors through spot checking, through cross checking of data collection

procedure as well as questionnaires. The team members checked each other’s

activities before handing the completed questionnaires over to the team leader, who

in turn reviewed them before passing them on for data coding and entry. Senior

investigators monitored all activities and assisted the field team in order to maintain

the homogeneity of data.

7

3. Results

3.1 Household characteristics

Table 1. Distribution of households by demographic and socioeconomic

characteristics

Characteristics Kurigram Sadar

(VGD)

Satkhira Sadar

(VGF)

All

n=400 % n=408 % n=808 %

Mean size of household 4.65 3.74 4.19

Distribution of household members by age

<5 236 12.7 107 7.0 343 10.1

5-10 418 22.5 193 12.7 611 18.1

11-19 299 16.1 297 19.5 596 17.6

20-45 745 40.1 563 36.9 1308 38.7

46 and above 160 8.6 365 23.9 525 15.5

Total 1858 100 1525 100 3383 100

Income per capita (mean), BDT/month 1043.6 1168.1 1099.7

Major sources of income by the household

Day labour 336 84 322 78.9 658 81.4

Farming 14 3.5 18 4.4 32 4.0

Business 40 10.0 31 7.6 71 8.8

Service 8 2 7 1.7 15 1.9

Other (begging, others' help etc.) 2 0.5 30 7.4 32 4.0

Educational attainment of household head

No education 213 53.3 193 47.3 406 50.2

Primary incomplete 117 29.3 107 26.2 224 27.7

Primary complete and secondary

incomplete 68 17 89 21.8 157 19.4

Secondary (SSC) completed or higher 2 0.5 19 4.7 21 2.6

Literacy of household head

(can read and write) 79 19.8 133 32.6 212 26.2

Table 1 represents the socio-demographic characteristics of the participants per

location (i.e. Kurigram Sadar and Satkhira Sadar) and overall. It shows that the

average household size is 4.65 in Kurigram Sadar and 3.74 in Satkhira Sadar, and an

average of 4.19 across both areas. In both areas, the majority of the household

members was within the adult age group (20 years and above), reflecting 49%

Kurigram Sadar and 61% in Satkhira Sadar. Only thirteen per cent of households in

Kurigram Sadar and 7% of households in Satkhira Sadar were found to have children

under 5 years of age. Twenty two per cent of households in Kurigram Sadar and

13% in Satkhira Sadar had children between 5-10 years. The median income of the

surveyed households was 4,500 BDT per month in Kurigram Sadar and 4000

BDT/month in Satkhira Sadar. The per capita income of the household members was

8

1,044 BDT/month in Kurigram Sadar and 1168 BDT/month in Satkhira Sadar on

average. The main source of income among the households was found to be daily

labour work (84% in Kurigram Sadar and 79% in Satkhira Sadar). About half of the

household heads (the person nominated as the main wage earner and decision

maker) were found to have no education (53% in Kurigram Sadar and 47% in

Satkhira Sadar). More than one-quarter of the household heads were found to have

minimal literacy level (ability to read and write letters) in all areas (20% in Kurigram

Sadar and 33% in Satkhira Sadar).

Table 2. Distribution of households by food security, source of regular rice and health

status

Characteristics Kurigram

Sadar

Satkhira

Sadar

All

n=400 % n=408 % All=808 %

Frequency of household food shortage (last year from survey period)

Never 94 23.5 25 6.1 119 14.7

Seldom (≤1 month in a year) 25 6.3 30 7.4 55 6.8

Sometimes (2 to 5 months) 240 60 228 55.9 468 57.9

Almost always (6 to 10 months) 26 6.5 91 22.3 117 14.5

Always (11/12 months) 15 3.8 34 8.3 49 6.1

Source of rice in households with adequate food

Home production 4 1.0 4 1.0 8 1.0

Purchase 63 15.8 11 2.7 74 9.2

As wage/in kind 7 1.8 2 0.5 9 1.1

Both home production and purchasing 10 2.5 5 1.2 15 1.9

Both purchasing and wage 10 2.5 3 0.7 13 1.6

Total 94 23.5 25 6.1 119 14.7

Health status of the household members while surveying

Normal 1679 90.4 1270 83.3 2949 87.2

Ill-health 93 5.0 209 13.7 302 8.9

Pregnant 19 1.0 8 0.5 27 0.8

Lactating 64 3.4 38 2.5 102 3.0

Pregnant and Lactating 3 0.2 0 0 3 0.1

Total 1858 100 1525 100 3383 100

Table 2 shows that overall only 15% of households ‘never’ experienced any food

shortage (i.e. had sufficient rice to eat) at any time during the 12 months prior to the

date of surveying. The main source of rice for households with an adequate supply of

food was through purchase in a local market, rather than home production or as

wages4. In Kurigram Sadar around 70% of households had experienced rice

shortage ‘sometimes’ to ‘always’ in the last year, and 87% indicated the same in

Satkhira Sadar. In Kurigram Sadar 6% of households and in Satkhira Sadar 22% of

households reported that they had to struggle with food shortages almost always (i.e.

for a period of 6 to 10 months), and 3% in Kurigram Sadar and 8% in Satkhira Sadar

reported constant food shortages over the full 12 months.

4 The source of rice for households who did experience food shortages was not captured in the survey.

9

In regards to health status, 90% of the study population in Kurigram Sadar and 83%

of the study population in Satkhira Sadar that had received pushti chal were found to

be of average or normal health. A small number of the respondents (99% of whom

were women) were found to be pregnant or lactating (5% in Kurigram Sadar and 3%

in Satkhira Sadar).

3.2 Knowledge, frequency and amount of pushti chal received

Table 3. Distribution of households by knowledge/information received on pushti chal

Characteristics Kurigram

Sadar (VGD)

Satkhira

Sadar (VGF)

All

n=400 % n=408 % n=808 %

Information on pushti chal Received 361 90.3 85 20.8 446 55.2

Not received 39 9.7 323 79.2 362 44.8

Sources of information

Union Parishad (UP) Chairman/Member 34 9.4 22 25.9 56 12.6

NGO workers 214 59.3 1 1.2 215 48.2

WFP Staff 94 26.0 0 0 94 21.1

Leaflets 1 0.3 41 48.2 42 9.4

UP chairman and NGO worker 4 1.1 0 0 4 0.9

NGO and WFP staff 5 1.4 0 0 5 1.1

UP and WFP 3 0.8 0 0 3 0.7

Others (relatives, friends...) 6 1.7 21 24.7 27 6.1

Knowledge about the pushti chal (multi response)

It has better nutritional value than normal rice 269 74.5 75 88.2 344 77.1

It is good for health 234 64.8 40 47.1 274 61.4

How to cook it 248 68.7 23 27.1 271 60.8

How to store it 116 32.1 5 5.9 121 27.1

It is suitable for everyone 77 21.3 26 30.6 103 23.1

Others 3 0.8 0 0 3 0.7

Table 3 represents the distribution of households that had received any kind of

awareness message or information on pushti chal. Ninety per cent of respondents in

Kurigram Sadar said that they had received information on pushti chal whereas, only

21% indicated the same in Satkhira Sadar. This is thought to be due to the

differences in programme design between VGD and VGF, where in Satkhira Sadar,

the participants of the VGF programme receive food as relief and there is no contact

between participants and NGO officials, and only little contact with local Government

officials. Where as participants from Kurigram Sadar under the VGD programme have

regular contact with NGO staff, as well as Government officials, who can relay the

messages on the leaflets, answer questions and reinforce awareness messages. That

is a necessary support considering the low literacy levels of the participants. The

added benefit of verbal messaging is reflected in the higher levels of knowledge on

benefits, appropriate storage, and cooking of the fortified rice of the participants in

Kurigram Sadar compared to Satkhira Sadar.

10

Table 4. Frequency and amount of pushti chal received

Characteristics Kurigram Sadar

(VGD)

Satkhira Sadar

(VGF)

All

n=400 % n=408 % n=808 %

Frequency of receiving pushti chal

Once 0 0 408 100 408 50.5

Twice 44 11 0 0 44 5.4

Thrice 356 89 0 0 356 44.1

Amount of pushti chal received last time

20 kg 0 0 408 100 408 50.5

30 kg 388 97 0 0 388 48.0

Between 21 to 29 kg 12 3 0 0 12 1.5

Table 4 reflects the distribution and consumption of the fortified rice. The findings

indicate that 89% of households in Kurigram Sadar had received pushti chal three

times by the time of survey, while the remainder had received two distributions. In

Satkhira Sadar all respondents had received the ration once. In Kurigram Sadar,

almost all of the households (97%) said they have received their full entitlement of

30kg of pushti chal and in Satkhira Sadar all participants indicated they received their

full planned ration of 20kg.

3.3 Usage, cooking method and consumption pattern of pushti chal

Table 5. Distribution of households by usage of pushti chal

Characteristics

Kurigram Sadar

(VGD)

Satkhira

Sadar (VGF) Total

n=400 % n=408 % n=808 %

Utilization/usage of the pushti chal

Eaten 386 96.5 374 91.7 760 94.1

Partly eaten 12 3 29 7.1 41 5.1

Not eaten5 2 0.5 5 1.2 7 0.9

Alternate usage of the pushti chal (other than eating)

Sold it to meet urgent non-food

needs 3 0.8 3 0.7 6 0.7

Sold it to buy other food items 1 0.3 2 0.5 3 0.4

Shared with relatives or

neighbours 1 0.3 5 1.2 6 0.7

Didn’t like it/haven’t used it 9 2.3 2 0.5 11 1.4

Bird/Animal feeding 0 0.0 20 4.9 20 2.5

Regular rice is still not finished 0 0.0 2 0.5 2 0.2

Total 14 3.5 34 8.3 48 5.9

Table 5 reflects the utilization of the pushti chal, 94% of the respondents over both

areas indicated that their household members consumed all of the pushti chal

5 These households were removed from subsequent analyses.

11

received. Under 5% had eaten a partial ration while very few (less than 2%) had not

eaten any of the pushti chal by the time of survey. When asked about their alternate

use of pushti chal, respondents indicated several reasons, including selling the ration

to buy food items or non-food items, sharing it with others outside the household,

feeding it to animals (4.9%), and so on.

Table 6. Distribution of households by cooking method of pushti chal

Characteristics Kurigram Sadar

(VGD)

Satkhira Sadar

(VGF)

All

n=398 % n=403 % n=801 %

Cooking method practiced for pushti chal

Discard the excess water after cooking 16 4.0 357 88.6 373 46.6

Absorb the whole water during cooking 382 96.0 46 11.4 428 53.4

Cooking method of regular rice

Discard the excess water after cooking 24 6.0 382 93.6 406 50.2

Absorb the whole water during cooking 376 94.0 26 6.4 402 49.8

Rice cooked during the period of having pushti chal

Only pushti chal 367 92.2 346 85.9 713 89.0

Pushti chal and normal rice mixed 19 4.8 12 3.0 31 3.9

Pushti chal and normal rice separately 12 3.0 45 11.2 57 7.1

Table 6 reflects the cooking methods employed. Cooking by the absorption method

is recommended in order to retain the maximum amount of nutrients, and is reflected

as such in the leaflets. In Kurigram Sadar, the majority of households (96%) cooked

pushti chal using the recommended absorption method while only 11% did so in

Satkhira Sadar. This is thought to be reflective of take-up from the awareness

messaging, but more so regional differences in traditional cooking methods, i.e.

participants in Kurigram Sadar traditionally use the absorption method for both

fortified and regular rice, while in Satkhira Sadar the boiling/discarding method is

applied. The majority of households consumed only the pushti chal, very few

households mixed the pushti chal with normal rice (5% in Kurigram Sadar and 3% in

Satkhira Sadar) while cooking, and a few also ate both the normal and pushti chal (separately) over the survey period (3% in Kurigram Sadar and 11% in Satkhira

Sadar).

Table 7 demonstrates the eating habits of the pushti chal. In the majority of

households (99%) all members consumed pushti chal as the staple of their regular

main meal, complemented by a number of curries/dishes. Over two third of

households consumed the pushti chal with vegetable curry. Forty-one per cent in

Kurigram Sadar and 33% in Satkhira Sadar consumed pushti chal with meat/fish

curry. Twenty-three per cent of households in Kurigram and 18% in Satkhira Sadar

reported that they consumed pushti chal with mashed potatoes or mashed

vegetables. Note, that in order to obtain absolute numbers on the different types of

dishes consumed with the fortified rice multiple responses were counted, reflected by

the inflated n value.

12

More than twenty per cent of households in both Kurigram Sadar and Satkhira Sadar

consumed more pushti chal than normal rice, while more than 65% consumed the

equivalent quantity as normal rice. Similar patterns of consumption were reflected

across the different age groups in both areas (see Annex B).The main reason

provided by the respondents who ate more fortified rice than normal was a superior

taste (92%). For those respondents that indicated they consumed less fortified rice

than they did normal rice (10% in Kurigram Sadar and 14% in Satkhira Sadar), the

major reasons provided were dissatisfaction with the smell (70% in Kurigram Sadar

and 35% in Satkhira Sadar), an aversion to the taste (31% in Kurigram Sadar and

22% in Satkhira Sadar), because it was unfamiliar (4% in Kurigram Sadar and 15% in

Satkhira Sadar) and because it was larger or more coarse than the rice normally

consumed, requiring a smaller amount (26% - only in Satkhira Sadar).

Table 7. Distribution of households by consumption pattern of pushti chal

Characteristics Kurigram Sadar

(VGD)

Satkhira Sadar

(VGF)

Total

n=398 % n=403 % n=801 %

Households where all members ate pushti chal

396 99.5 398 98.8 794 99.1

Households where not all members ate

pushti chal 2 0.5 5 1.2 7 0.9

Dishes/types of dishes eaten with pushti chal (note multiple responses counted)

Meat or fish curry 162 40.7 133 33.0 295 36.8

Mashed dried fish (bhorta) 14 3.5 0 0.0 14 1.7

Mashed potato or other mashed vegetables

(bhorta) 91 22.9 71 17.6 162 20.2

Vegetable curry 264 66.3 349 86.6 613 76.5

Dal 77 19.3 132 32.8 209 26.1

Plain rice without curry 5 1.3 0 0.0 5 0.6

Quantity eaten by household members n=1837 n=1497 n=3334

More than normal 422 23.0 321 21.4 743 22.3

Less than normal 191 10.4 203 13.6 394 11.8

As usual 1224 66.6 973 65.0 2197 65.9

Reasons behind eating more amount of

pushti chal n=422 n=321 n=743

Liked the smell of rice 5 1.2 34 10.6 39 5.2

Liked the taste of rice 401 95.0 281 87.5 682 91.8

More appetite than normal 16 3.8 6 1.9 22 3.0

Reasons behind eating less amount of

pushti chal n=191 n=203 n=394

Did not like the colour 0 0 5 2.5 5 1.3

Didn't like the smell 124 64.9 71 35.0 195 49.5

Did not like the taste 59 30.9 44 21.7 103 26.1

Not used to the rice 8 4.2 30 14.8 38 9.6

The general rice was not good quality 0 0 1 0.5 1 0.3

Large/coarse rice kernels requiring smaller

amount 0 0 52 25.6 52 13.2

13

In a negligible number of households (0.9%, or 2 households from Kurigram Sadar

and 5 from Satkhira Sadar) pushti chal was not consumed by every household

member. A total of 15 individuals did not consume the fortified rice at all, the reason

being either the absence of the individual from the household, or in three cases only,

concerns on the quality of the fortified rice.

3.4 Taste and other traits of pushti chal

Table 8. Taste and other traits of pushti chal

Characteristics

Kurigram Sadar

(VGD)

Satkhira Sadar

(VGF)

Total

n=398 % n=403 % n=801 %

Noticed difference in color of pushti chal after it is cooked compared to uncooked rice

Reddish 102 25.6 148 36.7 250 31.2

Same as normal 283 71.1 237 58.8 520 64.9

Yellowish 12 3.0 3 0.7 15 1.9

Cream/brown 1 0.3 0 0 1 0.1

Blackish 0 0 15 3.7 15 1.9

Acceptance of different colours

Acceptable 74 64.3 144 86.7 218 77.6

Somewhat acceptable 41 35.7 22 13.3 63 22.4

Not Acceptable 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Total 115 100 166 100 281 100

Noticed difference in smell of pushti chal after it is cooked compared to uncooked rice

Different to normal rice 184 46.2 149 37.0 333 41.6

Same as normal rice 214 53.8 254 63.0 468 58.4

Total 398 100 403 100 801 100

Acceptance of different smell

Acceptable 113 61.4 102 68.5 215 64.6

Somewhat acceptable 68 37.0 47 31.5 115 34.5

Not acceptable 3 1.6 0 0 3 0.9

Total 184 100 149 100 333 100

Rating of taste about pushti chal Same as normal rice 97 24.4 119 29.5 216 27.0

Better 213 53.5 217 53.8 430 53.7

Worse 88 22.1 65 16.1 153 19.1

Don’t know 0 0 2 0.5 2 0.2

Total 398 100 403 100 801 100

Table 8 reflects perceived differences in colour, smell, taste, and acceptance of the

pushti chal.

Colour: About two third of households in both areas (71% in Kurigram Sadar and

59% in Satkhira Sadar) indicated that the cooked pushti chal was same in colour

compared to the regular rice they consumed. If a difference was perceived, the

majority of households (77%) still found the fortified rice to be acceptable.

Smell: Fifty-eight per cent of households overall (54% in Kurigram Sadar and 63% in

Satkhira Sadar) perceived no difference in the smell of the cooked fortified rice

14

compared to normal rice. If a different smell was perceived, the majority of

households (61% in Kurigram Sadar and 69% in Satkhira Sadar) still found the

fortified rice to be acceptable.

Taste: The large majority of households in Kurigram Sadar indicated that fortified rice

tasted better (54%) or the same (25%) as normal rice, and a similar pattern was

found in Satkhira Sadar (54% better and 30% same). Overall, 19% of the households

believed fortified rice tasted worse than the normal rice.

Table 9. Respondents’ acceptance of pushti chal (in terms of taste) by food security

status, location, level of knowledge and appearance

Characteristics Accepted% (n=646) Not accepted% (n=155) P value

Food security status

Food secure 82.2 (97) 17.8 (21) 0.643

Food insecure 80.4 (549) 19.6 (134)

Location

Kurigram 77.9 (310) 22.1 (88) 0.049

Satkhira 83.4 (336) 16.6 (67)

Information/knowledge

Received any kind of messages 83.7 (371) 16.3 (72) 0.014*

Received no message 76.8 (275) 23.2 (83)

Noticed differences in colour

Different 66.1 (186) 33.8 (95) <0.001*

Same as normal 88.5 (460) 11.5 (60)

Noticed differences in smell

Different 63.7 (212) 36.3 (121) <0.001*

Same as normal 92.7 (434) 7.3 (34)

Type of dishes eaten with pushti chal

Fish/meat 81.7 (241) 18.3 (54) 0.567

Dry fish 78. 6 (11) 21.4 (3) 0.843

Mashed potato/vegetable 86.4 (140) 13.6 (22) 0.037*

Vegetable curry 82.9 (508) 17.1 (105) 0.004*

Dal 83.2 (173) 16.8 (35) 0.284

Chi square (χ2) test (a statistical technique to test the association between two categorical variables),

statistically significant if p<0.05*

Chi square tests were undertaken to test the association between variables in terms

of acceptance of pushti chal, using acceptability of taste. The findings are reflected in

Table 9 above. There was a significant association between the receipt of awareness

messages by the participants and their acceptance of pushti chal, whereas, higher

proportion of respondents who received awareness messages about pushti chal accepted the taste of pushti chal (84%), than participants who did not receive such

awareness messages (77%) (p<0.05). There was also a significant association

between the perceived colour and the acceptance of the taste of the fortified rice.

Eighty-eight per cent of participants who perceived pushti chal to have the same

colour as normal rice indicated that they accepted the taste of pushti chal, compared

to 66% of respondents who perceived the colour to be different (p<0.001). Similarly,

15

a higher proportion of respondents (93%) who perceived no difference in smell

accepted the taste of the fortified rice compared to those who noticed a difference in

smell (64%) (p<0.001). Table 9 also indicates that the acceptance of the taste of

fortified rice varied with the dishes it was eaten with. Specifically, those who ate

pushti chal with mashed potatoes or vegetables or vegetable curries indicated that

they accepted the taste of fortified rice (p<0.05).

Table 10. Perceived change in health experienced after consuming pushti chal by

households

Characteristics Kurigram

Sadar (VGD)

Satkhira

Sadar (VGF)

All

n=398 % n=403 % n=801 %

Experienced change in health after consumption 211 53.0 65 16.1 276 34.5

Experienced no change in health after

consumption 187 47.0 338 83.9 525 65.5

Type of differences experienced

Felt better than before 205 51.5 62 14.6 267 33.4

Health is has improved 130 32.7 43 10.7 173 21.6

Gained weight 3 0.8 9 2.2 12 1.5

Relatively less/no disease 38 9.5 0 0.0 38 4.7

Gained more energy, appetite increased 32 8.0 8 2.0 40 5.0

Appetite improved 2 0.5 2 0.5 4 0.5

Felt worse 6 1.5 3 1.5 9 1.1

Stomach problem 6 1.5 1 1.5 7 0.9

Appetite reduced 0 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.1

Gas 0 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.1

Table 10 reflects any perceived changes in health after consuming fortified rice. In

Kurigram Sadar, 53% of households reported a change in health after consumption

of pushti chal while 16% of households perceived changes in health in Satkhira

Sadar. The majority of respondents indicated that the change was an improvement in

health, noting weight gain, decreased morbidity, less disease, etc. after consuming

pushti chal. A negligible number (less than 1%) across both areas reported ill health

after consuming fortified rice, and provided stomach problems, reduced appetite,

and gas as the presenting issues. These households had related these issues with

the consumption of the pushti chal but the cause was not confirmed. Except one

household, all household members had recovered by the time of survey. Among

those stated to be ill, one was in the under-5 age group, five were between 5 to 10

years of age, and six were in the adolescent age group.

3.5 Acceptance and willingness to buy

Table 11 represents the respondents’ views about how pushti chal would be

accepted by other people in their community, as well as the respondents’ personal

overall opinion of pushti chal. Seventy two per cent of households in Kurigram Sadar

and 59% in Satkhira Sadar believed that persons in their community would accept

pushti chal. Multiple responses were collected, and of these, 77% of respondents in

16

Kurigram Sadar and 21% in Satkhira Sadar reasoned that community members

would accept pushti chal due to its higher nutritional value, 18% of respondents in

Kurigram Sadar and 4% in Satkhira Sadar stated the community would accept pushti chal due to health benefits, and a large proportion (39% in Kurigram Sadar and 66%

in Satkhira Sadar) also stated that community members would appreciate the better

quality of fortified rice.

Table 11. Respondents’ perception on community acceptance and overall perception

and rating of pushti chal

Kurigram Sadar

(VGD)

Satkhira Sadar

(VGF)

Total

Characteristics n=398 % n=403 % n=808 %

Perceptions on community members’ acceptance of pushti chal

Will accept 287 72.1 238 59.1 525 65.5

Will not accept 39 9.8 30 7.4 69 8.6

Don't Know 72 18.1 135 33.5 207 25.8

Possible reasons for community members’ acceptance of pushti chal (multiple responses)

Quality of rice is good by taste, smell 39 13.6 158 66.4 197

Nutritious 221 77.0 50 21.0 271

Good for health and less disease 18 6.3 4 1.7 22

Food scarcity 7 2.4 12 5.0 19

Low price 14 4.9 10 4.2 24

Tastes same as normal 0 0.0 4 1.7 4

Total 287 54.7 238 45.3 525

Respondents’ perception (opinion) overall about pushti chal (multiple response)

Nutritious 227 57.0 60 14.9 287

Good for health (weight gain, less disease,

energy gain etc. 133 33.4 50 12.4 183

Quality is good in terms of taste, smell and

colour 223 56.0 338 83.9 561

Quality is bad by taste, smell and colour 81 20.4 121 30.0 202

It is for free/cheaper 16 4.0 22 5.5 38

It requires more amount of curries, but can

tackle food insecurity 31 7.8 50 12.4 81

Respondents' overall rating on pushti chal

Excellent 60 15.1 53 13.2 113 14.1

Good 319 80.2 262 65.0 581 72.5

Normal (Not different from daily rice) 3 0.8 32 7.9 35 4.4

Slightly bad 15 3.8 55 13.6 70 8.7

Very bad 1 0.3 1 0.2 2 0.2

When providing their own opinion on pushti chal respondents stated that they found

the pushti chal to be nutritious (57% in Kurigram Sadar and 15% in Satkhira Sadar),

of good quality (56% in Kurigram Sadar and 84% in Satkhira Sadar), and good for

health (33% in Kurigram Sadar and 12% in Satkhira Sadar), however, a proportion of

participants also indicated that the pushti chal was of poor quality (20% in Kurigram

Sadar and 30% in Satkhira Sadar). When asked to provide their overall rating of the

17

fortified rice on a scale from excellent to very bad, 95% of respondents in Kurigram

Sadar rated the fortified rice to be ‘excellent ‘or ‘good’, as did 78% of the

respondents from Satkhira Sadar. Table 12. Distribution of households by willingness to buy pushti chal

Willingness to buy Kurigram Sadar

(VGD)

Satkhira Sadar

(VGF)

Total

n=398 % n=403 % n=801 %

Will buy if available in market 359 90.2 366 90.8 725 90.5

Will not buy if available in market 39 9.8 37 9.2 76 9.5

If price is higher

Will buy 138 34.7 52 12.9 190 23.7

Will not buy 221 55.5 314 77.9 535 66.8

Ready to pay extra price for pushti chal

10 tk/kilogram more than normal rice 2 0.5 0 0 2 0.2

5 tk/kilogram more than normal rice 25 6.3 6 1.5 31 3.9

2-3 tk/kilogram more than normal

rice 47 11.8 2 0.5 49 6.1

1-2 tk/kilogram more than normal

rice 64 16.1 44 10.9 108 13.5

If price is same as regular one

Will buy 302 75.9 307 76.2 609 76.0

Will not buy 57 14.3 59 14.6 116 14.5

If price is less than the regular one

Will buy 395 99.2 395 98.0 790 98.6

Will not buy 3 0.8 8 2.0 11 1.4

Table 12 reflects the respondents’ willingness to purchase the fortified rice in the

market, noting that all households received the pushti chal as their due entitlement

and at no cost under the VGD and VGF social safety net programmes. A willingness

to buy the fortified rice product in the market is considered to reflect a greater level of

acceptance. About 90% of respondents across both areas indicated they would buy

pushti chal if it was available in the market. Seventy-six per cent of households overall

responded that they would purchase fortified rice over normal rice if the market price

was equivalent, and 99% indicated they would buy pushti chal if its market price was

lower than that for normal rice.

When asked if they would purchase fortified rice at a higher market price than normal

rice the survey respondents were found to be less willing to purchase pushti chal, although thirty-five per cent in Kurigram Sadar and 13% in Satkhira Sadar were still

ready to buy pushti chal at a higher price. When the additional cost was indicated,

13% of respondents overall were ready to pay an additional 1-2 BDT per kilogram,

and 28% in Kurigram Sadar if it was 3 BDT or less. However, if the price of pushti chal was 5 BDT/kg or more than the price of normal rice, only 4% of respondents

indicated that they would purchase it.

18

Table 13. Factors associated with willingness to buy pushti chal at higher price

Characteristics n=725 % ready to pay

a higher price Odds Ratio

¥

(95% CI)

Adjusted Odds Ratio¥¥

(95% CI)

Literacy status of household head P=0.073 P=0.010

Illiterate 532 24.4% 1 1

Literate 193 31.1% 1.395 (0.970;2.006) 1.735* (1.142;2.636)

Occupation P=0.004** P=0.111

Farming 49 20.4% 1 1

Small business 84 36.9% 2.281 (1.000;5.200) 1.547 (0.643;3.724)

Service 35 22.9% 1.156 (0.404;3.306) 0.751 (0.242;2.328)

Labour 489 27.6% 1.487 (0.722;3.063) 1.230 (0.567;2.669)

Others (begging,

disabled,

unemployed)

68 8.8% 0.377 (0.127;1.121) 0.448 (0.144;1.391)

Food security status P<0.001** P=0.004

Secure 111 46.8% 1 1

Insecure6 614 22.5% 0.329 (0.217;0.500) 0.515* (0.326;0.815)

Knowledge P<0.001** P=0.010

Received

no knowledge

323 13.9% 1 1

Received knowledge 402 36.1% 3.486 (1.189;3.206) 1.908* (1.164;3.127)

Location P<0.001** P=0.002

Satkhira Sadar 366 14.2% 1 1

Kurigram Sadar 359 38.4% 3.771 (2.624;5.417) 2.233**(1.353;3.686)

Acceptance of taste P=0.980

Not included in

multivariate model¥¥¥

Accepted 591 73.8% 1

Not accepted 134 73.9% 0.994 (0.649;1.524)

NB: Multivariate logistic regression; statistically significant if **p<0.01, *p<0.05. *Odds ratio is calculated

through univariate analysis indicating the increase in favour of willingness to pay for a one-unit increase in

the explanatory variable without controlling effects of other explanatory variables in the model. ¥Adjusted

odds ratio is calculated through multivariate analysis indicating the increase in favour of willingness to pay

for a one-unit increase in the explanatory variable while controlling for other explanatory variables in the

model. In the regression model, dependent variable was coded as 1 if beneficiaries were ready to buy at

higher price, and coded 0 if not ready to buy at higher price. ¥¥¥

The variables which had a p value of <0.25

in the univariate model were considered to be included in the multivariate model, and thus acceptance of

taste was excluded from the multivariate model.

Considering a willingness to buy fortified rice in the market as a proxy variable for

level of acceptance of fortified rice, analyses were undertaken to determine what

extent different factors were associated with respondents’ willingness to buy pushti chal at higher price, findings are reflected in Table 13. In the univariate analyses

literacy status and occupation of the head of household, food shortage, receipt of

6 For the purposes of these analyses, households who had any rice shortage during the last year (even for

less than a month) due to limited purchasing power, are considered food insecure. Those who did not

face any kind of rice shortage during the last 12 months (from time of survey) are considered as food

secure.

19

awareness messages, and location, were found to be significantly associated with a

willingness to buy fortified rice at higher price. In the multivariate analysis food

shortage, literacy level, receipt of awareness messages and location were found to

be significantly associated with willingness to buy.

The results show that, controlling effects of other explanatory variables included in

the model, respondents from households which had rice shortage due to limited

purchasing power during the last year from before the survey period, even for less

than a month, were less likely to buy pushti chal if the price was higher in comparison

to those who had ‘never’ suffered a shortage of food (aOR: 0.515, 95% CI:

0.326;0.815). Again, controlling effects of other explanatory variables included in the

model, respondents from households whose heads had a greater level of literacy

were significantly more likely (nearly twice as much) to buy pushti chal at higher price

in comparison to households whose heads were considered illiterate (p<0.05, 95%

CI: 1.142;2.636).The households that had received awareness messages about

pushti chal were twice as likely to buy pushti chal, even at a higher price (p<0.01,

95% CI: 1.164;3.127), in comparison to those from households who did not. The

VGD participants residing in Kurigram Sadar were also twice as likely to indicate that

they would buy pushti chal, even at the higher price (p<0.01; 95% CI: 1.353;3.686),

than the VGF participants/recipients residing in Satkhira Sadar.

20

4. Discussion, conclusions and

recommendations

4.1 Discussion

Socioeconomic status

Most of the food-based safety net programmes in Bangladesh are designed to target

vulnerable households residing in poverty-prone, disaster-prone, or food insecure

areas, the programmes apply pre-set selection criteria that include minimal land

ownership, inadequacy in income, day labourers, susceptibility to natural disasters,

inadequate agricultural production and so on (Rahman et al. 2011). The survey of

VGD and VGF participants in the pilot of fortified rice and surveyed for this research,

reflects such a socioeconomic profile. The main occupation of the participants’

households was to found day labouring, and the large majority had experienced food

shortages over the past 12 months. In both areas, per capita income of the

household members reflects the national per capita income for the poor, that is,

those who fall below the lower poverty line with a per capita income of 1102.84 BDT.

The income profile also reflects the divisional level per capita income for the poor in

Rangpur Division where Kurigram Sadar is located and Khulna Division where

Satkhira Sadar is located (BBS 2011).

Receipt of fortified rice and awareness messaging

It was confirmed that during the pilot period, the VGD participants in Kurigram Sadar

received their monthly entitlement of 30 kg of pushti chal and in Satkhira Sadar the

VGF participants received a household ration of 20 kg of fortified rice. The fortified

rice was accompanied by leaflets that provided brief awareness messages on

nutritional benefits and recommended storage and cooking practices. Ninety per cent

of the respondents in Kurigram Sadar confirmed they had received information on

pushti chal. However, in Satkhira Sadar only 21% reported receiving such awareness

messages. This reflects both the low literacy levels of the participants overall, and the

difference in programme design and services between VGD and VGF. For the pilot

study NGO partners were in regular contact with VGD participants assisting the

Government in distribution of the fortified rice and delivering training activities and

were therefore, available to read out the pushti chal leaflets and to provide further

reinforcing verbal messages. WFP staff were also present during the distributions to

reinforce awareness messaging, however, WFP’s involvement in VGD is particular to

this pilot stage of the rice fortification initiative. In Satkhira Sadar the VGF participants

were provided with leaflets containing information about pushti chal, but without NGO

partners to assist in reading the leaflets and less engagement of the Government

officials due to the programme design, it is expected that the uptake of the

21

awareness messaging would be less, which seems to reflect in regional differences

across a number of variables. Furthermore, the participants in Satkhira Sadar were

only in receipt of one month’s ration of fortified rice and thus, accompanying

awareness messaging compared to three months in Kurigram Sadar.

Cooking practice and consumption of fortified rice

In Kurigram Sadar most participants (96%) cooked the fortified rice by the

recommended absorption method. However, in Satkhira Sadar the majority did not

(only 11%). This finding may be explained both due to the regional difference in

cooking practices (where absorption is practiced in Kurigram area but boiling and

discarding excess cooking water in Satkhira area) and distribution of awareness

messages (the majority had received it in the north, while few had received it in the

south).

More than two thirds of household members across all age groups consumed the

same quantity of fortified rice as normal rice. Among the remaining third some (22%)

were found to eat more than normal rice, citing improved taste, and some (12%)

consumed less, citing an unpleasant smell as the reason why. Almost all households

who received pushti chal consumed it as their main meal component complemented

by different curries and dishes. The findings suggest that the type of dishes

consumed alongside the fortified rice may have contributed to the perception that

fortified rice tasted better than normal rice (primarily when eaten with mashed

potatoes/vegetables and vegetable curry rather than with other dishes).

Taste, colour and smell

The fortification process of pushti chal allows the flexible adaptation of micronutrient

formulation, shape, and colour to suit population needs and match to the type of rice

they will be mixed with (DSM and Buhler n.d., Kunz R 2009). It is therefore,

hypothesized that there should be little or no impact in terms of appearance, taste

and texture on consumers. In this study, the participants’ opinions were collected to

determine if they perceived any differences in taste, colour, smell and texture of

fortified rice over normal rice, and whether any perceived differences were acceptable

or not acceptable. The majority of respondents who noticed a difference in colour

perceived that pushti chal took on a reddish colour when cooked (possibly linked to

the powdered iron present in the fortified kernel), but of the respondents most of

them found it to be acceptable. Less than half of the respondents perceived a

different smell to normal rice although overall it was also found to be acceptable. The

large majority of the respondents found that the fortified rice tasted the same or even

better than normal rice.

To further investigate the perceived difference of colour and smell, a WFP staff

member cooked a sample of the fortified rice distributed to participants which was

drawn by an external inspection agent in June 2013. The sample was cooked in

February 2014 through the absorption method. The rice was noted to be an

acceptable cream colour, however, a faint smell was perceptible during cooking. It

22

was noted that a possible cause of the smell may come from the rice the fortified

kernels blended with rather than the fortified kernels itself. Typically, rough rice goes

through a parboiling process where it is soaked in water for 24 hours or more at

ambient temperature (Juliano BO 1993). If the water is not changed every 12 hours

the rice tends to absorb odours; such instances of re-using water have been noted in

some rural areas of Bangladesh.

Changes in health

Evidence suggests that fortified rice with single or multiple micronutrients is effective

in mitigating micronutrient deficiencies with no toxic effects (PATH 2013). In this

study, more than half of the participants who were interviewed reported an

improvement in health following consumption, including less morbidity, weight gain,

improved appetite, and so on. Logically, these findings were mostly reported by

participants from Kurigram Sadar (52%) who had received the pushti chal for 3

months (in most cases), than participants from Satkhira Sadar (15%) who had only

received pushti chal for one month.

A negligible number of participants (about 1%) reported mild, and temporary ill health

which was related to the consumption of fortified rice, although it is uncertain whether

this was due to consumption of the pushti chal or not, noting it could be due to the

quality of the received rice overall, other foods consumed, or another cause entirely.

In all but one case symptoms had disappeared by the time of survey.

Community acceptance of pushti chal

As a whole, the bulk of the respondents in Kurigram Sadar and the majority in

Satkhira Sadar determined that pushti chal would be accepted by their community.

Open answers were collected to determine why, with more than three quarters of

respondents in Kurigram Sadar referring to the nutritional value of fortified rice as well

as its better quality, while in Satkhira Sadar, most respondents assumed that the

local people would accept fortified rice as it had a better taste and smell. Further

analyses confirm that the regional differences may reflect the better take-up of the

awareness messaging in Kurigram Sadar. As the majority of respondents in Satkhira

Sadar stated they did not receive awareness messages about pushti chal, it can be

assumed that participants in this region were less aware about the nutritional benefits

and more readily identified the positive tangible aspects of the fortified rice as their

reason for preference.

Willingness to buy

In this study, respondents were found to be price sensitive. While more than 90%

stated that they would buy pushti chal over normal rice if it was available in market,

their willingness to buy the fortified rice dropped when the price was raised above

normal rice, even if they perceive it to be of better quality or to be more nutritious.

The proportion of respondents willing to buy fortified rice at a higher price dropped as

the price increased. Overall about 15% of the respondents who indicated they would

23

purchase if available in market would buy if the increased price was marginal, i.e. 1-2

BDT/kg more, and among the respondents from Kurigram 18% indicated they would

purchase at this marginal increase in price.

As the surveyed households are from the lower income bracket, face food shortages,

and have low purchasing power their priority is to purchase enough food to satisfy

their hunger, while nutritional value is of secondary importance. The findings are

reflective of this, in that households suffering from food shortages at any time in the

preceding 12 months were less likely to buy fortified rice at a higher than normal rice

market price.

On the other hand, it was found that respondents who received awareness

messages about pushti chal were twice as likely to buy pushti chal, even at a higher

price. This implies that counselling and awareness messages had a positive impact

on motivation and behaviour. The VGD participants were also significantly more likely

(twice as much) to buy pushti chal at the higher price in comparison to the VGF

participants. The finding may be related to the fact that VGD beneficiaries received

training on income generating activities in addition to the rice ration and awareness

messages, whereas, VGF participants receive only rice. The programme differences

may lead to a number of enhancing factors, such as increased purchasing power,

nutrition knowledge, or another motivation for the VGD participants’ willingness to

purchase fortified rice at higher price compared to the VGF participants. Logically,

literacy status of the household head was also found to be a significant factor in

influencing respondents’ motivation as these people were capable of reading the

messages from the leaflets, and wider, and therefore, more informed by the benefits

of fortification.

4.2 Conclusions

Overall, the findings of this research are conclusive, in that the large majority of the

sampled respondents from the VGD programme in Kurigram Sadar and the VGF

programme in Satkhira Sadar accept pushti chal. This was found, regardless of any

differences in colour, taste or smell between fortified rice and normal rice.

Impressively, households also reported improvements in health which were attributed

to the nutritional benefit from consuming pushti chal. A strong level of acceptance

was revealed, with the majority of respondents indicating that they would purchase

fortified rice over normal rice if it was available in the market at the same price as

normal rice.

Critical factors affecting the acceptance of fortified rice include the take-up of the

awareness messages provided through the accompanying information leaflets and

direct verbal awareness raising of the participants. The modality of awareness

messaging is critical. VGD participants with a greater level of contact with NGO

officials and households headed by someone with a higher level of literacy were

found to be more likely to accept fortified rice than participants enrolled in VGF, or

with less literate household heads. This is specifically reflected in perceived

preference of the taste and smell of the fortified rice, and on the willingness to buy

24

pushti chal, even if the price is higher. It is possible that the awareness messaging

also assisted to reinforce the application of the recommended cooking method (i.e.

absorption, as seen in Kurigram Sadar), however, regional differences in traditional

cooking may also have impacted. Therefore, comprehensive awareness raising on

the fortified rice, involving both verbal messages and counseling/real life examples

might be useful to build understanding and motivate the consumption of fortified rice. If marketing the rice to consumers with an economic profile similar to the VGD and

VGF participants, a subsidized price might need to be considered.

It should be noted that the research findings are limited to the socioeconomic profile

of the sampled respondents, therefore, the findings cannot be readily generalized to

the larger population of Bangladesh, or beyond.

4.3 Recommendations

Awareness messaging involving different modalities for delivery (pictorial, verbal,

written, and counseling, and real examples) might be most effective to build

knowledge and motivate for the consumption of fortified rice over normal rice.

A subsidized price would be required for people with a lower socioeconomic

profile to purchase the fortified rice in the market.

A larger scale trial across different socioeconomic profiles may provide more

generalizable findings if aiming to market the rice to the general public.

25

References

Angeles-Agdeppa I, Saises M, Capanzana M, Juneja LR, Sakaguchi N (2011). Pilot-scale

commercialization of iron-fortified rice: effects on anemia status. Food Nutr Bull. 32(1):3-12.

Black RE, Allen LH, Bhutta ZA et al. (2008). Maternal and child under nutrition: global and

regional exposures and consequences. The Lancet; 371: 243-60.

Beinner MA, Velasquez-Meléndez G, Pessoa MC and Greiner T. (2010). "Iron-Fortified Rice Is

As Efficacious As Supplemental Iron Drops in Infants and Young Children". Journal of Nutrition

(140): 49–53.

Bhutta ZA, Das JK, Rizvi A, Gaffey MF, Walker N, Horton S, Webb P, Lartey A, Black RE;

Lancet Nutrition Interventions Review Group; Maternal and Child Nutrition Study Group. (2013).

Evidence-based interventions for improvement of maternal and child nutrition: what can be

done and at what cost? Part of the 2013 Lancet Series on Maternal and Child Undernutrition.

The Lancet 382 (9890): 452-77. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60996-4. PubMed: 23746776.

Copenhagen Consensus 2008 Outcomes. Copenhagen Consensus website. Available at:

www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=953.

Dexter PB (1998). Rice fortification for developing countries, USAID opportunities for

micronutrient interventions program. Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/

PNACD279.pdf. (Accessed on 10 March, 2014)

DSM and Buhler (n.d.). Mutririce Process: A Breakthrough in rice fortification. Available at:

www.buhlergroup.com/global/en/services/nutrition-solutions/nutririce.htm. (Accessed on 30

Dec, 2013)

FAO and ILSI (1997). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

and International Life Sciences Institute. 1997. Preventing micronutrient malnutrition: a guide to

food-based approaches. Why policy makers should give priority to food-based strategies.

Food and Agriculture Organization; 1997 Available from: www.fao.org/DOCREP/x0245e

/x0245e01.htm

FFI (Flour Fortification Initiative), GAIN, MI, USAID, The World Bank and UNICEF (2009).

Investing in the future: A united call to action on vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Global

Report. Available at: www.unitedcalltoaction.org/documents/Investing_in_the_future.pdf.

(Accessed on 10 Dec, 2011).

Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S and Sturdivant RX (2013). Model-building and strategies and

methods for logistic regression. Applied logistic regression, Third edition, Wiley Series in

Probability and Statistics. John Wiley and Sons Inc; (Online publication).

Hosmer, Jr., D. W., Lemeshow, S. and Sturdivant, R. X. (2013) Model-Building Strategies and

Methods for Logistic Regression, in Applied Logistic Regression, Third Edition, John Wiley &

Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA. doi: 10.1002/9781118548387.ch 4

icddr,b, UNICEF, Bangladesh, GAIN and Institute of Public Health and Nutrition (2013).

National Micronutrients Status Survey 2011-12. Dhaka: icddrb.

Juliano BO (1993). Rice in human nutrition. FAO Food and Nutrition Series. No. 26.IRRI and

FAO. Rome. Available at: www.fao.org/docrep/t0567e/t0567e0h.htm (Accessed on 30 Dec,

2013)

26

Kunz R (2009). Technical profile: A Breakthrough in rice fortification. Available at:

www.buhlergroup.com/global/en/services/nutrition-solutions/nutririce.htm. (Accessed on 30

Dec, 2013)

Mozumder MAK, Islam MM, Alam S, and Rahman M (2009). Transparency and accountability

for ensuring food security in Bangladesh: A Study on field institutions. Final Report CF #

3/07.Department of Public Administration.

PATH (2013).Ultra rice technology research summary table. Available at:

www.path.org/publications/files/MCHN_u_r_res_sum_tbl.pdf. (accessed on 31 Dec, 2013)

Rahman HZ, Choudhury LA and Ali KS (2011). A PPRC-UNDP research initiative social safety

nets in Bangladesh. Dhaka: Power and Participation Research Centre (PPRC).

Swaminathan MS (1985). Essentials of food and nutrition, Vol.1. India: Bangalore Print and

Publishing Company.

UNS: SCN (2009). United Nations System: Standing Committee on Nutrition (2009).

Landscape analysis on countries readiness to accelerate action in nutrition. SCN News, No:

37, ISSN:1564-3743. Available at:

www.unscn.org/layout/modules/resources/files/scnnews37.pdf. (Accessed on 22 July, 2012)

USAID, A2Z, AED, IFT (2008). Rice Fortification in Developing Countries: A Critical Review of

the Technical and Economic Feasibility.

WFP, Bangladesh, Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) (2006). Available at:

www.documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/liaison_offices/wfp120731.pdf.

(Accessed on 03 Dec, 2013)

WHO, FAO, UNICEF, GAIN, MI, and FFI (2009). Recommendations on wheat and maize flour

fortification. Meeting report: Interim consensus statement. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Available at: www.who.int/nutrition/publications/micronutrients/wheat_maize_fort.pdf

(Accessed on 16 February, 2014)

27

Annex A: Consent Form and Questionnaire (English version)

INFORMED CONSENT

Research and Evaluation Division, BRAC

Study on Acceptability of Pushti Chal (Fortified Rice) - 2013

Assallamu-alaikum/Aadab,

I am ______________ from BRAC. BRAC, in collaboration with the United Nations World Food

Programme, would like to know your opinion on the ‚Pushti chal‛ or fortified rice, which you

have been receiving under the Government’s VGD programme (Kurigram) OR VGF programme

(Satkhira). The information you give us will help us in the scale-up of fortified rice in

Bangladesh.

This survey will take less than 20 minutes. Your participation is completely voluntary and there

is no personal benefit for participation in this research. If you do not wish to answer a question,

or wish to quit the survey, you are allowed to do so at any time you like with no effect on your

current or future participation in safety net programmes.

If you agree to participate the information will be used for research purposes only. All

information collected during the interview will be kept confidential by the researcher. You will

not be quoted anywhere nor will your name be identified in reports or publications.

If you have any questions about this study, you may call: [880 2 9881265, Ext 3719]

Participant’s Name: ___________________ Identification Number:___________________

May I begin the interview now?

For researcher: Check one: Has agreed Has not agreed

Signature/ thumb print of Participant: ___________________________________

Interviewer’s Name: ________________________ Interviewer’s ID:

Checked by: _______________________________ Checker’s ID:

2

28

Questionnaire

Acceptability of Pushti Chal (A collaborative project with WFP)

Section – A: Socio-economic and Demographic Information

Respondents: Female VGD/VGF Participants

Household Information Interview Information

Household No:

HH Head Name:

Name of

Village:

Respondent’s Name :

Name of Union: Respondent’s VGD/VGF

Programme ID:

Name of

Upazila:

Date of data collection:

Q.

No.

Question Coding categories Remarks

1. Have you received the ‚Pushti chal‛? 1=Yes

2=No

(If no, stop

interviewing)

2. How many members are there in your

household?

persons

Q3.Family members Information

(Insert code from table below where indicated)

Line

No

Name of

family

members

Gender

(insert

code)

Age Marital

Status

(insert

code)

Health

Condition

(insert

code)

Can

write &

read

(1=Yes,

2=No)

Class

Passed

Information

(insert

code)

Occupation

(insert code)

Years Month Main Secondary

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. N. B. Circle the line. no of respondent

29

Gender

code

Marital Status

Code

Health

condition

Code

Class Passed Code Occupation code

1=

Female

2= Male

1 =

Unmarried

2 = Married

3 =Separated

4 = Divorced

5= Widow

1=Normal

2=Ill

3=Pregnant

4=Lactating

5=If, pregnant

and lactating

Numerical value of Class

Passed

11= HSC/Alim

12=Degree/BA/Hons/MBBS/E

ngineer/LLB/Fazil

13= MA/Masters/ Kamil

50= Religious education

00=Had attended in school but

did not pass any class

77=Never attended in school

88=Don’t know

99=Not applicable

1 =

Agriculture

2= Business

3 = Service

4 = Day

labour

5 = Lives

abroad

6 = Housewife

7 = Driver

8 = Student

9 = Unemployed

(>6 yr)

10 = Ready Made

Garments worker

11 =

Rickshaw/Van

Pullar

12 = Construction

labour

13 = Others

99=Not applicable

(<6 yr)

Q.

No.

Question Coding categories/Answers Remarks

4. What is your average monthly

household income? (Calculate

average income: divide total income

of last 1 year by 12)

Tk. …………….

5. What is the major source of your

household income?

1 = Labor ,2 = Agriculture,

3 = Business, 4 = Service, 5 =

Cattle/Poultry rearing, 6 = Begging

7= Others (specify)……..

6. How frequently do you face food

(rice) shortage in the household?

(During last 1 year)

1 = Never, 2 = Seldom (≤1 month in

a year), 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Almost

always, 5 = Always

If never,

skip to

Q8

7. How many months did you have

food (rice) shortage? (During last 1

year)

-----------month

8. If rice is adequate for household,

what is the major source of having it?

(During last 1 year)

1 = Home production, 2 = Purchase,

3 = Begging, 4 = As wage/ In Kind

5 = Others (Specify)------

Multiple

answers

possible

30

Section – B: Assessment of Taste, Awareness and Acceptability

Respondents: Female VGD/VGF Participants

Q.

No.

Question Coding categories/Answers Remarks

Awareness, Cooking and Eating Practices of Pushti Chal

9. Have you received any

information about the pushti chal?

1=Yes, 2=No If no,

skip to

Q12

10. If yes, from which source? 1= UP chairman/member, 2= NGO workers

3=WFP officers, 4= Leaflet, 5= Others

Specify---

11. What do you know about

Pushti chal?

1 = It has better nutritional value than normal

rice

2 = It is good for health

3 = How to cook it, 4 = How to store it

5 = It is suitable for everyone

6 = Others (Specify)------------

Multiple

answers

possible.

12. How did you cook the Pushti Chal?

1 = Discard the excess water after cooking

2= Absorb the whole water during cooking

13. Normally, how do you cook

your regular rice?

1 = Discarded the excess water after

cooking

2= Absorbed the whole water during

cooking

14. How was the quality of

general rice?

1 = Acceptable, 2 = Somewhat acceptable

3 = Not acceptable

15. How many times have you

received Pushti chal?

______ times

16. When did you last get the

Pushti chal?

Month ______________

17. How much Pushti chal did

you receive last time?

_______kg

18. What did you do with the

Pushti chal you received last

time?

1=Eaten, 2=Partly eaten, 3=Not eaten If eaten,

skip to

Q-20

19. If not or partly eaten, what did

you do with the pushti chal?

1= Sold it to meet urgent non-food needs

2 = Sold it to buy other food items

3 = Shared with relatives or neighbors

4= Didn’t like it/haven’t used it

5= Bird/Animal Feeding

6= Others (Specify)……….

Multiple

answers

possible

20. During the period you have

been receiving Pushti chal, which rice do you cook?

1 = Only Pushti chal 2 = Pushti chal & normal rice mixed

3 = Pushti chal & normal rice separately

4 = Others (Specify)……….

21. Did all the members in your

household eat pushti chal?

1=Yes, 2=No If yes,

skip to

Q-24

31

22. If no, who didn’t eat pushti chal?

Group Line no. Multiple

answers

possible 1 = Small children (<5y)

2 = Young children (5-10 y)

3 = Adolescent boys (11-19 y)

4 = Adolescent girls (11-19 y)

5 = Adult males and non-

pregnant females (≥20y)

6 = Pregnant/lactating females

23. If no, why didn’t members eat

pushti chal?

Reasons:

1._______________________

2._______________________

3._______________________

Record

the major

three

reasons

(rank)

24. What dishes/types of food did

you eat with the pushti chal for your last lunch?

1 = Meat or fish curry, 2 = Dried fish mash

3 = Potato mash/other vegetables mash

4 = Vegetable curry, 5 = Dal

6 = Plain rice (no curry)

7 = Others (specify)---------------

Multiple

answers

possible

Taste and Other Traits of Pushti Chal

25. Have you noticed any

difference in color of pushti chal after it is cooked

compared to uncooked rice?

1 = Yes different to normal rice (Specify the

color)---------------------------

2 = No, same as normal rice

If no,

skip to

Q-27

26. If yes, is the colour of the

pushti chal acceptable to

you?

1 = Acceptable, 2 = Somewhat acceptable

3 = Not acceptable

27. Have you noticed any

difference in smell of the

cooked pushti chal compared

to normal rice?

1 = Yes, different to normal rice

2 = No, same as normal rice If no,

skip to

Q-29

28. If yes, is the smell of the

pushti chal acceptable to

you?

1 = Acceptable, 2 = Somewhat acceptable

3 = Not acceptable

29. How did the pushti chal taste?

1 = Same as normal rice

2 = Better than normal rice

3 = Poorer than normal rice

4 = Don’t know

5 = Others (specify)____________

Acceptance of Pushti Chal & Willingness to Buy

30. Do you think people in your

locality will accept this rice?

1 = Yes, 2 = No,

3 = Don’t know If no or

don’t

know,

skip to

Q-32

31. Why do you think people in

your locality will accept it?

Reason: _________________________

32. Beside pushti chal did you

purchase normal rice? (During

last 1 month before Pushti Chal finished)

1=Yes, 2=No If no,

skip to

Q-34

32

33. If yes, how much normal rice

do you purchase in a month?

(During last 1 month)

_______kg

34. If available in market, would

you be ready to buy pushti chal instead of normal rice?

1 = Yes, 2 = No If no,

skip to

Q-39

35. Will you buy the pushti chal if the price is more than the

price of the normal rice?

1 = Yes, 2 = No

36. Will you buy the pushti chal if the price is a little bit more

than the price of the normal

rice?

1 = Yes, 2 = No

37. How much more would you

pay for pushti chal?

1 = 10 tk/kilogram more than normal rice

2 = 5 tk/kilogram more than normal rice

3 = 2-3 tk/kilogram more than normal rice

4 = 1-2 tk/kilogram more than normal rice

38. Will you buy the pushti chal if the price is same as the price

of the normal rice?

1 = Yes, 2 = No

39. Will you buy the pushti chal if the price is less than the price

of the normal rice?

1 = Yes, 2 = No

Consumption pattern of Pushti chal of different age groups and reason

40. When you last received the rice, did your household members eat more/less/normal

pushti chal than normal rice?

Household members Line No. Consumption pattern: If household

members eat more/less/normal

pushti chal than normal rice (insert

code)

Reason

(insert

code)

1 = Small children (<5y)

2 = Young children (5-10 y)

3 = Adolescent boys (11-19 y)

4 = Adolescent girls (11-19 y)

5 = Adult males and non-

pregnant females (≥20y)

6 = Pregnant/ Lactating

women

33

Consumption pattern Code Reasons Code

1 = More than normal rice

2 = Less than normal rice

3 = Same as normal rice

1 = Did not like the color

2 = Did not like the smell

3 = Did not like the taste

4 = Not used to the rice

5 = General rice was not tasty

6 = Caused or aggravated

indigestion

7 = Caused other health

problems

8 = Liked the smell of rice

9= Liked the taste of rice

10 = More appetite than

normal

11 = Others (specify)

Changes in health condition due to Pushti Chal consumption

41. Did any member of your

household experience any

change in health condition after

consuming pushti chal?

1 = Yes, 2 = No If no,

skip to

Q-46

42. If yes, who? Group Line no Multiple

replies

possible 1 = Small children (<5y)

2 = Young children (5-10 y)

3 = Adolescent boys (11- 9y)

4 = Adolescent girls (11-19y)

5 = Adult males and non-

pregnant females (≥20y)

6 = Pregnant/lactating women

43. What change in health did they

experience after eating pushti chal?

1 = Feel better than before (specify)------

2 = Feel sick (specify)_______________

3 = Others (specify) _______________

If feel

better

Skip to

Q46

44. If feel sick, who became sick? Group Line no Multiple

replies

possible 1 = Small children (< 5y)

2 = Young children (5-10 y)

3 = Adolescent boys (11-19 y)

4 = Adolescent girls (11-19 y)

5 = Adult males and non-

pregnant females (≥20 y)

6 = Pregnant/lactating females

45. Is he/she cured/better by now? 1 = Yes, 2 = No

46. Overall how will you evaluate the

rice?

1 = Excellent, 2 = Good,

3 = Normal (No different from daily rice)

4 = Slightly bad, 5 = Very bad,

6 = Don’t know,

7 = Others (specify) ________

47. Respondent’s perception (opinion) overall about the pushti chal: _________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

34

Annex B. Additional tables

Table B1. Pearson correlation matrix between household characteristics variable

Literacy

status of HH

head

Food security

status

Level of

knowledge

received

Household

income

Location Acceptance of

taste

Occupation of

HH head

Literacy status of

HH head 1 -.082* .044 -.120** -.153** .054 .157**

Food security

status -.082* 1 .158** .180** -.276** -.025 -.155**

knowledge

received .044 .158** 1 .037 -.682** -.066 .014

Location -.153** -.276** -.682** -.087* 1 -.118** -.020

Acceptance of

taste .054 -.025 -.066 .080* -.118** 1 .014

Occupation of HH

head .157** -.155** .014 -.234** -.020 .014 1

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level,** correlation is significant at the 0.01 level .

35

Table B2. Distribution of households by amount of pushti chal consumed across different age groups

Amount of pushti chal consumed across different age groups Kurigram Sadar Satkhira Sadar All

n=398 % n=403 % n=801 %

Quantity eaten by children (< 5years)

More than normal 41 18.3 23 23.5 64 19.9

Less than normal 28 12.5 10 10.2 38 11.8

As usual 155 69.2 65 66.3 220 68.3

Quantity eaten by children (5 to 10 years)

More than normal 104 24.9 39 20.5 143 23.6

Less than normal 53 12.7 33 17.4 86 14.2

As usual 260 62.4 118 62.1 378 62.3

Quantity eaten by adolescent boys

More than normal 31 22.1 35 23.3 66 22.8

Less than normal 6 4.3 25 16.7 31 10.7

As usual 103 73.6 90 60 193 66.6

Quantity eaten by adolescent girls

More than normal 25 16.8 25 19.5 50 18.1

Less than normal 17 11.4 19 14.8 36 13.0

As usual 107 71.8 84 65.6 191 69.0

Quantity eaten by adult male and females (non pregnant/non lactating)

More than normal 200 24.4 185 20.9 385 22.6

Less than normal 80 9.7 111 12.5 191 11.2

As usual 541 65.9 589 66.6 1130 66.2

Quantity eaten by pregnant/lactating mothers

More than normal 21 24.4 14 30.4 35 26.5

Less than normal 7 8.1 5 10.9 12 9.1

As usual 58 67.4 27 58.7 85 64.4

T : 88-02-9881265, 8824180-87F : 88-02-8823542, 8823614W : www.brac.net

BRAC Research and Evaluation DivisionBRAC Centre, 75 MohakhaliDhaka 1212, Bangladesh

Acceptability of Fortified Rice by Participants of Government Social Safety Net Programmes