Kenyan milk consumers’ behaviour and perceptions of aflatoxin

M. Walke, N. Mtimet, D. Baker, E. Waithanji, J. Lindahl, M. Hartmann and D. Grace

6th All Africa Conference on Animal Agriculture

Nairobi, Kenya

27-30 October 2014

Outline

• Introduction

• Material and Methods

• Results

• Conclusions

2

Introduction

• Aflatoxins are mycotoxins produced by certain species of moulds,

mainly Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus

• Aflatoxins could be transmitted to humans through agricultural products

consumption

3

Introduction

Corn/feed

purchased

Treatment

Corn/feed

produced at farm

AB1

AB1 AB1-> AM1

Milk produced at farm

Consumers Farmer

AB1

AM1

Figure 1. Aflatoxin contamination pathway

4

Introduction

• Aflatoxins could be responsible of:

Hepatocellular carcinoma in human

Stunting in children

Acute aflatoxin poisoning due to consumption of contaminated food

causes deaths

Chronic aflatoxin poisoning in dairy cattle causes a reduction in

milk yield

Decreases feed efficiency

Reduces reproduction efficiency

5

Introduction

• There are no accurate estimates of incidence of chronic and acute

disease related to aflatoxin exposure

• Outbreaks in Kenya (1982, 2001, 2004 and 2005) and Somalia

(1997/98) indicate the magnitude of the problem

• The 2004 outbreak in Kenya was responsible for 317 cases and 125

deaths

6

Introduction

• Kenya is among the highest milk consumption levels of developing

countries (100 kg/year per capita vs 25kg for Sub-Saharan Africa)

• Around 80% of the marketed milk is sold raw and mainly through the

informal market

• There is also a growing niche market for packaged milk

• Research questions:

Are consumers aware about aflatoxins and possible milk

contamination?

Is there any difference between urban and rural milk consumers in

terms of milk consumption and aflatoxin perception? 7

• City of Nairobi - Kenya

• 2 areas:

Urban areas in Nairobi middle income class respondents ;

processed milk consumers (305 participants)

Dagoretti: peri-urban are of Nairobi low income class

respondents ; raw milk consumers (323 participants)

• Sampling: systematic sampling - assumptions of randomness over

time

• Face-to-face interviews conducted in July and August 2013

Materials and methods

8

• 2 types of questionnaires:

One directed to processed milk consumers

One directed to raw milk consumers

• Both questionnaires have many sections in common on:

Milk purchase and consumption habits

Aflatoxin Awareness

Attitudinal issues

Socio-demographic characteristics

• The unique difference is related to the Choice Experiment (CE)

attributes

Materials and methods

9

Results

Characteristic Characteristic level Raw milk (%) Procd. milk (%)

Age ≤ 20 6 5

21-30 50 49

31-40 28 34

41 and older 16 13

Marital Status Single 40 42

Married 56 57

Divorced 3 1

Widow 1 0

Members of Households One 14 16

Two 19 14

Three 22 22

Four 20 25

Five 18 17

More than five 7 6

Table 1. Respondents’ characteristics

10

Results

Characteristic Characteristic level Raw milk (%) Procd. Milk (%)

Children living No children 33 33

in the household One child 26 35

Two children 24 25

Three children

Four children and more

14

3

6

1

Education No education 1 0

Primary 23 2

Secondary 49 18

College 21 40

University 6 40

Table 1. Respondents’ characteristics (contd.)

11

Results

Figure 2. Milk purchase frequency

22%

69%

5% 4%

14%

55%

20%

7% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

More thanonce a day

Once a day Once/week<<once/day

Once a week Less than oncea week

Raw milk

Procd. Milk

12

Results

Figure 3. Quantity of milk bought

13

12% 18% 38% 9% 23%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0.5 litre

0.6 litre

1.0 litre

2.0 litres

other

1% 57% 20% 12% 10%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0.3 litre

0.5 litre

1.0 litre

2.0 litres and more

I don´t remember

Raw milk

Processed milk

Results

Figure 4. Price of milk

14

Raw milk

Processed milk

12% 21% 20% 14% 14% 19%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

40 KSH/litre

50 KSH/litre

60 KSH/litre

65 KSH/litre

70 KSH/litre

Other

20% 43% 11% 10% 16%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

80 KSH/litre

90 KSH/litre

100 KSH/litre

Other

Don´t remember

Results

Figure 5. Outlet of purchase*

15

Raw milk

Processed milk

41% 25% 25% 15% 10%

Shop

Producer/farmer

Milk bar

Kiosk

Hawker

65% 77% 6%

Shop

Super-/Hypermarket

Milk bar

Kiosk

Hawker

Results

Figure 6. Boiling milk prior to consumption

99%

1%

79%

21%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes No

Raw milk

Procd. Milk

16

Results

Figure 7. Reasons for boiling the milk*

17

Raw milk

Processed milk

77% 64% 18% 11% 21%

Health concerns

Hygienic concerns

No refrigeration

Uncertainty about milk´sfreshness

Because everybody is doing it

53% 34% 3% 8% 10% 14%

Health concerns

Hygienic concerns

No refrigeration

Uncertainty about milk´sfreshnessBecause everybody is doing it

To warm the milk

Results

Figure 8. Milk is safe after boiling

95%

5%

93%

7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes No

Raw milk

Procd. Milk

18

Results

Figure 9. Have you heard about aflatoxin?

19

55%

45%

80%

20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes No

Raw milk

Procd. Milk

Results

Figure 10. Aflatoxin can be transferred into milk?

20

45%

14%

41%

45%

9%

46%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Yes No D'ont know

Raw milk

Procd. milk

Results

Figure 11. Health impact of aflatoxin on humans

21

53%

19%

10%

3%

15%

71%

16%

2% 1%

10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Serious threat Medium threat Minor threat No threat at all I don´t know

Raw milk

Procd. Milk

Results

Figure 12. Is it possible to make aflatoxin contaminated milk safe?

22

37%

27%

36%

23%

29%

48%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Yes No I don´t know

Raw milk

Procd. Milk

Results

Figure 13. Opinion on food certificate/ food safety labels?

23

24%

13%

27%

23%

13%

19%

24%

22%

19%

16%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Fully trust Mostly trust Do not reallytrust

Do not trust atall

Do not evenlook at them

Raw milk

Procd. Milk

Results

Figure 14. Main sources of information

24

81%

57%

17% 11%

6% 2%

90%

41%

33%

43%

7% 4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

TV Radio Newspaper Internet Friends Workcolleagues

Raw milk

Procd. Milk

Results

Table 2. Respondents’ willingness to pay (WTP) estimates (in KSH/Litre) and 95%

confidence intervals (CI) for “aflatoxin free” certified milk

25

Raw milk Processed milk

WTP WTP

Group 95% CI 95% CI

All sample 69.3 136.8

[55.3; 89.2] [108.7; 176.3]

Heard about Aflatoxin 73.0 161.7

[55.7; 102.4] [121.4; 226.4]

Have not heard about Aflatoxin 66.4 99.0

[47.6; 99.5] [68.0; 154.1]

Aflatoxin can be transferred 154.3 165.2

[96.3; 370.7] [111.0; 259.2]

It can’t or don’t know 45.6 129.7

[36.8; 57.4] [95.7; 179.3]

Conclusions

• Milk consumers/buyers awareness about aflatoxin is high in urban

areas high (80%) and relatively high in peri-urban area (55%)

• Insufficient knowledge of respondents on the health risks of aflatoxin

and if it can be transferred to milk importance to inform/educate

consumers (communication, TV, radio)

• A high proportion of respondents believe that boiling the milk will

eliminate aflatoxin from the milk (which is wrong)

26

Conclusions

• Respondents are willing to pay a premium for certified “aflatoxin free”

milk These results are of value to the dairy industry in the design

and implementation of the necessary actions to improve the quality of

the product (certification? Trust?)

• Respondents’ WTP depends on their awareness about aflatoxin and it’s

presence in milk higher awareness implies higher premium

27

28

This article is part of the FoodAfrica Programme, financed as research

collaboration between the MFA of Finland, MTT Agrifood Research

Finland, the CGIAR research programs on: Agriculture for Nutrition and

Health and on Policies Institutions and Markets led by the International

Food Policy Research Institute, and the GIZ.

Acknowledgement

Contacts:

Nadhem Mtimet: n.mtimet@cgiar.org

International Livestock Research Institute www.ilri.org

Thanks

29