TRENDS AND PATTERN OF CONSUMPTION OF VALUE ADDED FOODS IN INDIA

Michel Morisset and Pramod K mar

Respectively, Professor, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada, and Sr Scientist, IARI, New el!i, India"

$!e econo%ic &rowt!, c!an&es in tastes and preferences and urbani'ation !as resulted in c!an&in& consu%ption pattern away fro% traditional food co%%odities to processed and !i&! value co%%odities ()urty, *+++, )eena-s!i, #../, Rao, *+++0" $!e consu%ption of food is fallin& because of s!ift in consu%ption away fro% cereals to !i&! calorie co%%odities suc! as %eat, %il-, fis! etc, in ot!er words fro% low value to !i&! value co%%odities (1u%ar and 1u%ar, *++2, )eena-s!i, #../0" In rural areas t!e s!ift in consu%ption pattern is %ore in t!ose re&ions t!at are e3periencin& &reater i%prove%ent in infrastructure (Rao, *+++0" $!e c!an&in& consu%ption pattern !as resulted in decline in per capita !ouse!old de%and for food&rains (Rad!a-ris!na and Ravi, #..*, 1u%ar and )at!ur, #../, )urty, #..., 1u%ar and 1u%ar, *++40" 5owever, t!ere !as been little atte%pt to assess t!e c!an&es in consu%ption pattern by value added food products" $!e analysis of food consu%ption in Urban India is of &reater interest" It per%its not only to understand t!e food consu%ption pattern of an i%portant and &rowin& population but also reveals t!e future of consu%ption !abits in India" It is considered t!at t!e c!an&es in consu%ption are %ore li-ely to !appen in urban t!an in rural India" 6ven %ore, it is a%on& t!e urban population t!at t!e %ost i%portant concentration of wealt!y people are found and t!ey are considered t!e %ost auspicious to introduce t!e new trends" An understandin& of t!e c!an&in& consu%ption pattern accordin& to t!e e3tent of value addition would !ave i%plications not only for food&rains de%and pro7ection but also for develop%ent policies" It is t!erefore, pertinent to understand8 w!at is t!e e3tent of s!ift9 5as t!e consu%ption of value added products really increased, if yes, t!en to w!at e3tent9 Is t!is s!ift observable across all t!e inco%e &roups of t!e populationand specially in urban India9 $o find solution to t!ese, t!is study is underta-en wit! followin& specific ob7ectives8 #0$o study t!e food consu%ption pattern by e3penditure &roups for urban and rural India and across states for urban India, *0 $o classify t!e food ite%s in accordance wit! t!e level of processin& and to analyse t!e trend and pattern of consu%ption of processed food, and 40 $o analy'e t!e consu%ption of t!e !i&!est inco%e &roup of urban !ouse!olds as sy%pto%atic of future consu%ption pattern

Data and Methodology

*

The Data
$!e !ouse!old level data on consu%ption of food available fro% ::t! (#...;*+++0 and t!e /#st (*++2;+:0 rounds of t!e National Sa%ple Surveys <r&anisation (NSS<0 is used for analysis" $!e ten states, wit! i%portant urban population, were ta-en up for disa&&re&ated re&ional level analysis" $!e !ouse!old level data is classified into )ont!ly Per Capita 63penditure ()PC60 &roups" $!e )PC6 &roups are e3pressed as percentiles as is done in t!e NSS< survey reports No" :+= and :+." $!ese &roups were nu%bered fro% # to #*, startin& fro% t!e lowest to t!e !i&!est )PC6 &roup" A%on& t!ese, t!e four )PC6 &roups (two eac! fro% t!e be&innin& and end of t!e e3penditure continuu%0, eac! account for : per cent of t!e !ouse!old" $!e re%ainin& =+ per cent of t!e sa%ple !ouse!olds were classified into = e>ual percentile &roups, t!us %a-in& a total of #* &roupin&s" $!ese &roups facilitate t!e co%parison of t!e results of t!e two rounds of survey" $!e disa&&re&ated !ouse!old level data were used to analy'e t!e consu%ption by e3tent of value added food products" $!e e3penditures for t!e #2# food ite%s by all )PC6 &roups for bot! urban and rural India were calculated #" A &rid was evolved to classify t!e food ite%s accordin& to t!e level of processin&, w!ic! is8 #" Primary products: $!ese food products are consu%ed as is produced wit!out processin&" $!e activities li-e &radin&, sortin&, was!in&, pac-in& are not considered as processin&, t!erefore, t!e food products under&oin& suc! activities are considered to !ave not under&one any processin&" 63a%ples, fres! fruits and ve&etables, e&&s, fluid %il- at t!e far%, etc" *" First processing (low value added): Suc! food products t!at under&o a %ini%al level of processin& suc! as s!ellin&, !ullin&, !us-in&, %illin&, dryin& and &rindin& co%e under t!is cate&ory" ?or suc! type of processin& t!e input is a @pri%ary productA and t!e e3tent of value addition * is %ini%al (+;:B0" 63a%ples, rice, flour, pulses, spices, dry fruits, etc" 4" First processing (high value added): $!ese products under&o a sop!isticated level of processin& resultin& in relatively !i&!er value addition (:;#:B0" $!e nature of processin& to w!ic! t!ese type of food products under&o are pasteurisin&, !eatin&, fer%entin&, slau&!terin& and crus!in&" $!e co%%odities w!ic! are inputs for suc! processed products are pri%ary products and t!ere is no addition of in&redients or %i3 of pri%ary products" 63a%ples, dairy products li-e butter, curd, %eat, fis! and su&ar" 2" Second processing8 $!e co%%odities w!ic! are inputs for suc! processed products are @first processed productA w!ic! could be %i3ed wit! ot!er products includin& @pri%ary productsA" $!ese types of food products %ay include ot!er

in&redients, flavour, and preservatives could be added" 63a%ples, biscuits, bread, &!ee, ice crea%, 7a%s etc" :" Third processing: $!e type of food products co%in& under t!is class are ready to eat food, prepared and pac-ed %eals, ta-e out type %eals" It %ay also include ready to coo- seasoned %eat or fis! in s%all portion" $!e fa%ily can eat a w!ole %eal wit! a %ini%u% of preparation, as in a restaurant" Suc! type of food products de%and a !i&! level of sop!istication, a very &ood cold c!ain and a retail c!ain" $!is type of food co%petes wit! w!at one can &et fro% t!e restaurant" 63a%ples are ready to coo- %eals (pi''as, lasa&nes0, fro'en prepared %eals, etc" $!e study classified t!e food ite%s accordin& to t!e &rid developed by level of processin& and is presented in Appendi3 #"

Conceptual limitations of dataset

$!e NSS< survey data contains a few food ite%s t!at posses a certain level of a&&re&ation enco%passin& %ore t!an one level of processin&" ?or e3a%ple, fluid %il%ay include t!e fres! %il- @as fro% t!e cowA, pasteuri'ed %il-, standardi'ed %il-, specialty %il- wit! added vita%ins, %inerals, flavour, or&anic %il-, sterili'ed and even %ore" $o divide %il- between @pri%ary productsA, @first lowA and @!i&! processin& is difficult" Si%ilarly raw cas!ews, dry, roasted and salted, suc! food ite%s represent a continuu% based on level of processin& but in t!e survey t!ese food ite%s are considered a sin&le food ite%" Anot!er i%portant food ite% t!at de%and clarification is @Cevera&es and ot!er processed foodsA" Its consu%ption increases wit! increases in inco%e durin& bot! t!e survey periods, #...;*+++ and *++2;+:(Appendi3 *0" $!e dese&re&ated data revealed t!at t!e %ain ite% of t!is cate&ory is @Coo-ed %ealsA" $!e consu%ption of @coo-ed %ealsA as a proportion of @bevera&es and ot!er processed foodsA increased fro% /"2 per cent for t!e low e3penditures &roup to 2*"* per cent for t!e !i&!est )PC6 &roup in *++2;+: (Appendi3 40" $!e co%%on understandin& of @Coo-ed %ealsA would be t!e fro'en andDor prepared %eals, ready to coo- or to eat" Cut t!e NSS< definition of @Coo-ed %ealsA4 reveals t!at it is not a processed food ite% w!ic! is t!e focus of t!is paper" It does not co%e fro% t!e food industry and is produced wit!in t!e !ouse!old -itc!en, at t!e sa%e ti%e and in t!e sa%e pot as for all t!e fa%ily food" $wo ot!er ite%s need to be co%%ented upon i"e", tea (cup0 and coffee (cup0" $!ese are bevera&es consu%ed outside !o%e %ay be fro% a tea stall or a street vendor" $!ey s!ould

not appear2 in !o%e consu%ption cate&ory rat!er ter%ed as @food bou&!t and consu%ed outside !o%eA" If t!e coo-ed %eals and t!ese two bevera&es were e3cluded fro% t!e cate&ori'ation of products, t!en no ite%s would be left in t!e @t!ird processin&A &roup" An inde3 of processin& was developed usin& t!e followin& criteria8 Sl" No" # * 4 2 : Level of processin& Pri%ary ?irst processin& (Low0 ?irst processin& (!i&!0 Second processin& $!ird processin& Eei&!ta&e score (w0 # * 4 2 :

$!e inde3 of processin& would !elp in better understandin& t!e re&ional variations in t!e %a&nitude of processin& FLPi7 G wi IP7 H FLPi7 E!ere, IPH Inde3 of processin& LPH Percent e3penditure on it! level of processed product, iH Pri%ary, ?irst (Low0, ?irst (5i&!0, Second processed, $!ird processed wH wei&!ta&e score 7H states or inco%e &roup ()PC6 &roup0

RES !TS "#D D$S% SS$&#

Evolution o' (ouseholds) E*penditures
$!e I P (constant rate0 increased by 44"J per cent durin& t!e study period #...;*++: and !as recorded an annual &rowt! rate ran&in& fro% 4". per cent to ="J per cent ($able #0" $!e per capita I P recorded an annual &rowt! rate ran&in& fro% #". per cent to J"+ per cent"

$able #8 )acroecono%ic indicators of Indian econo%y Kear #...;*+++ +rowth rate +DP (constant Rs) /"* +DP per capita 2"2 (( savings as , o' +DP *#"#

*+++;*++# *++#;*++* *++*;*++4 *++4;*++2 *++2;*++: Source8 I<I(*++/;+J0

2"+ /"+ 4". ="J J"2

#". 4". #". J"+ :"J

*#"+ *#"= **"J *4"= *#"/

$!e !i&! &rowt! perfor%ance of Indian econo%y is e3pected to result in !i&!er !ouse!old e3penditures" $!is is possible only if different classes of Indian society s!ared t!e &rowt! of wealt! and if a si&nificant part of it is allocated towards consu%ption e3penditure" 5owever, t!e proportion of !ouse!old savin&s to I P does not reveal suc! an i%portant s!ift durin& t!e observed period" It is e3pected t!at t!e e3penditure on food would increase &iven t!e fact t!at a lar&e part of t!e Indian population is undernouris!ed and t!at any increase in inco%e will be used to %eet t!e basic necessity of food" It is also !ypot!esi'ed t!at a si&nificant portion of t!e Indian %iddle class will s!ift its food consu%ption fro% low value to !i&! value products or fro% low value added to !i&! value added products (1u%ar and 1u%ar, *++20" 5owever, t!ese need to be e%pirically e3a%ined" $!e c!an&e in inco%e over t!e period #...;*+++ to *++2;*++: for t!e urban and rural !ouse!olds is presented in ?i&ure # and *, respectively" urin& t!e period %ar&inal increase in inco%e is observed and it is insi&nificant for %any )PC6 &roups" $!e first : )PC6 &roups, accountin& for 2+ per cent of urban !ouse!olds, recorded a %ar&inal decrease in total inco%e durin& t!e period #...;++ to *++2;+:" $!e increase in inco%e is concentrated in t!e !i&!er e3penditures &roups wit! t!e last &roup recordin& a substantial increase" It is also noticed t!at t!e food e3penditure did not increase for any &roup" Si%ilarly, for rural !ouse!olds, t!e first = &roups accountin& for J+ per cent of t!e !ouse!olds, incurred no increase in inco%e"

Fi! re " # Chan!e in e$%endit re &MPCE' d rin! the %eriod "((()** to +**,)*./ income !ro %0 Ur.an India
600,0

500,0

400,0

Constant Rs

300,0

200,0

100,0

0,0 1 -100,0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Expenditure groups
2004-05 food 2004-05 non-food 2004-05 all

Source8 IoI (#...;*+++0 L IoI (*++2;+:0

Fi! re + # Chan!e in e$%endit re &MPCE' d rin! the %eriod "((()** to +**,)*./ income !ro %0 R ral India
500,0

400,0

300,0

Constant Rs

200,0

100,0

0,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

-100,0

E$%endit re !ro %
2004-05 food 2004-05 non-food 2004-05 all

Source8 IoI (#...;*+++0 L IoI (*++2;+:0

$!e benefit of &rowt! was reaped by t!e last &roup t!at recorded an increase in e3penditure by %ore t!an Rs 2++" 6ven in rural areas t!e e3penditure on food recorded %ar&inal decrease across all inco%e &roups" $!ese results are contrary to e3pectations and only !i&!er inco%e &roups of !ouse!olds !ave &ained fro% t!e econo%ic &rowt!" It is now i%portant to -now !ow t!e increased inco%e is utili'ed" E!at are t!e c!an&es in food consu%ption pattern9

%hanging pattern o' (ousehold E*penditures

$!e data of NSS< survey rounds *Jt! (<ct #.J* to Septe%ber #.J40, 4*nd (Muly #.JJ to Mune #.J=0, 4=t! (Manuary #.=4 to ece%ber #.=40, 24rd (Muly #.=J to Mune #.==0, ::t! (Muly #... to Mune *+++0 and /# st (Muly *++2 to Mune *++:0 is used to analyse t!e lon& ter% c!an&es in co%position of !ouse!old e3penditure" ?i&ure 4 and 2 presents t!e relative i%portance of t!e food and non food ite%s in total e3penditures for bot! urban and rural !ouse!olds for 4+ years period (#.J*;J4 to *++2;+:0" It is evident t!at t!e i%portance of food in total e3penditures is decreasin& over t!e period"

Fi! re 1 # Com%osition o2 cons m%tion e$%endit re o2 Ur.an ho seholds d rin! the %eriod "(3+)+**100%

90%

80%

70% 60% dura le goods !is" goods # ser$% &oot'ear (lothing &uel, light )an,to %, intox% &ood

50% 40%

30% 20%

10% 0% 27st 32nd 38th 43rd 50th 55th 61st

Source: GoI (2004-05)

$wo co%%odity &roups are observed to be &ainin& i%portance in t!e !ouse!old consu%ption e3penditure" $!e first bein& @fuel and li&!tA w!ose s!are in total !ouse!old e3penditure increased durin& t!e period #.J*;J4 to *++2;+: fro% :"/ per cent to .". per cent and fro% :"/ per cent to #+"* per cent for urban and rural !ouse!olds, respectively" $!e second co%%odity &roup is @%iscellaneous &oods and servicesA t!at covers education, %edical care, rents and ta3es" Its s!are increased si&nificantly fro% #."* per cent to 4J"* per cent and fro% ="J per cent to *4"2 per cent for urban and rural !ouse!olds, respectively"
Fi! re , # Com%osition o2 cons m%tion e$%endit re o2 R ral ho seholds d rin! the %eriod "(3+)+**100%

80%

60%

40%

dura le goods !is" goods # ser$% &oot'ear (lothing &uel, light )an,to %, intox% &ood

20%

0% 27st 32nd 38th 43rd 50th 55th 61st

Source: GoI (2004-05)

$!e relative s!ares across ti%e period &ive t!e relative i%portance of t!e co%%odities in total !ouse!old spendin&" 5owever, it is i%portant to -now, w!at is t!e e3penditure pattern of !ouse!olds in real ter%s9 $!e !ouse!old e3penditures were deflated usin& suitable inde3es/ and co%pared" $!e urban !ouse!olds recorded an increase in inco%e available for total consu%ption durin& t!e last t!ree decades (?i&ure :0" $!e over all econo%ic &rowt! of Indian econo%y was beneficial to urban !ouse!olds" It is surprisin& t!at in real ter%s t!e rupees spent on food did not increase"

Fi! re -# Total e$%endit res0 Val es0 +3th to 4"st NSSO Ro nds0 Ur.an India
90%00

80%00

Constant r %ees &"(3+5"**'61* da/s6%erson

70%00

60%00 dura le goods 50%00 !is" goods # ser$% &oot'ear (lothing 40%00 &uel, light )an,to %, intox% &ood 30%00

20%00

10%00

0%00 27st 32nd 38th 43rd 50th 55th 61st

Source: GoI(2004-05)

Fi! re 4# Total e$%endit res0 Val es0 +3th to 4"st NSSO Ro nds0 R ral India
70%00

60%00 Constant r %ees &"(3+5"**'61* da/s6%erson

50%00

40%00

30%00

dura le goods !is" goods # ser$% &oot'ear (lothing &uel, light )an,to %, intox% &ood

20%00

10%00

0%00 27st 32nd 38th 43rd 50th 55th 61st

Source: GoI (2004-05)

#+

It &oes a&ainst t!e co%%on perception t!at t!ere is an increase in food e3penditure (in absolute ter%s0 even t!ou&! t!ere is decrease in its relative i%portance in total e3penditure" $!e situation of rural India is sli&!tly better and is revealed fro% t!e inco%e and consu%ption pattern of rural !ouse!olds" ?irstly, t!e inco%e &rowt! of rural !ouse!olds was %ar&inally superior (4J": per cent0 to t!at of t!e urban !ouse!olds (4:"# per cent0" Secondly, a %ar&inal increase in food e3penditure (in real ter%s0 was observed over t!e 4* years period" $!is findin& !as an i%portant conse>uence on t!e food consu%ption analysis" $!e develop%ent relies on t!e fact t!at t!e newly created wealt! benefits all classes of t!e Indian society" It is also assu%ed t!at !i&! inco%e elasticity of de%and for food e3ists, t!erefore, if t!e inco%e &rowt! is not t!ere, t!ere will be no pro&ress in de%and and no %ar-ets for food products"

Trend in Food e*penditures

$!e food e3penditures of urban !ouse!olds (in real ter%s0 decreased by 4"# per cent durin& t!e study period #...;++ to *++2;+: ($able *0"
Table 2:Food expenditures variation 1
#o$$odit% &roups #ereals .ilse /il0 'dible oil '&&s! 1is2 3 $eat 4e&etables Fruits (1res2) Fruits (dr%) Su&ar Spices 5evera&es Total

-2000 to 2004-05! "rban India ( in per cent)

'xpenditure &roups

1 -11-5 -12-( -)-) (5-* 105-( 1(-* 4-5 )-4 - -1 14-2 -2-1

2 -10-4 -12-5 *(0-( 1-+ 0-) -* )5-1 1(-0 -*-* 10-2 -1-0

( -12-* -12-) 5-* 2 -2 )-* -1-+ -2-) 4 -4 4-) -+-1 2-2 -2-+

4 -12-* -11-4 +-2 2)-5 -2-0 -(10-0 (1-4 *-( -*-* )-4 -2-1

5 -11-* -10-* +-4 2 -5 4-1 -5-1 14-5 2*4-10-+ -0-5

) -10-+ -14(-+ 21-+ -10-( -+-* 12-4 (1-( 4-1 - -2 14-+ -2-2

* -12-0 -1)-) (-0 21-) -1(-5 -)-+ 5-+ 2 1-1 -12-0 10-1 -(-1

+ - -2 -1+-0-* 1+-11-2 - -0 -1-0 14-* 0-2 -12-* +-+ -(-) - -+ -1*-4 -(-2 20-1 -0-* -)-1 (-1 12-5 -2-0 -12-* )-* -2-+

10 -11-+ -1 1-0 1)-* -+-5 -10-0 -1-5 24-+ -2-( -14-1 +-1 -(-1

11 -+-( -20-* -2-2 1(-2 1-4 -11-4 -)-5 -(-5 -0-12-* -( -2-*

12 - -20-5 -*-0 1(-0 -+-1+-0 -10-) -)-5 -+-5 -1 -2 14-0 -4-0

,v& -10-+ -1)-* -0-2 20-) -5-5 -+-( -011-+ 0-+ -11-) -0 -(-1

Source: GoI (1999-2000b) & GoI (2004-05)

##

$!e decrease in food e3penditure is also observable across all e3penditure &roups" $!e structural c!an&e in consu%ption pattern is observed durin& t!e period #...;*+++ to *++2;+:" ecrease in consu%ption of certain food co%%odities J is observed, t!e %ost i%portant bein& Cereals, w!ose consu%ption fell by #+"= per cent in real ter%" Pulse is anot!er i%portant co%%odity recordin& a drop in consu%ption by #/"J per cent" $!e fall in consu%ption is observed for t!ese two &roups of co%%odities across all t!e e3penditure &roups" $!e decrease in ve&etables consu%ption (="4 per cent0 is also noticeable t!ou&! an i%prove%ent was recorded for t!e lowest two &roups" $able 48 ?ood e3penditure variation #...;*+++ to *++2;+:, Rural India ( in per cent0
Co%%odity &roups # Cereals Pilse )il6dible oil 6&&s, fis! L %eat Ne&etables ?ruits (fres!0 ?ruits (dry0 Su&ar Spices Cevera&es $otal ;#4"J ;/"= ;#": 4:"# * ;#J". ;J"2 *#"2 4/". 4 ;#:"J ;#+": #*"* 4.". 2 ;#/"J ;#*"2 #*"J 44"J : ;#:". ;#4"J ##"= 44": 63penditure &roups / ;#="# ;#4"J ."2 4#"= J ;#:": ;#/"J #*"# *J"+ = ;#/"+ ;#J"/ J"= *2"/ . ;#:"4 ;#=": ;+"2 *2"# #+ ;#:"2 ;#="2 ;*"J *+"+ ## ;#:"J ;*+"/ ;#"= **"/ #* ;#+"/ ;#:"* ;#J"4 *:": Av& ;#:"= ;#:": +"2 *J".

;4"4 *"* #+"+ ;#+"= #2"# ;##": 44": ;2".

;+". #"+ **". #=". #*"2 ;##"= */"+ ;:"=

4"J :"4 **"J *#". #2"# ;="J #="2 ;4":

+"/ *"/ #/"# #+"= #*"J ;#+": **"/ ;2"#

;:"= +". #."4 *J"J #*"+ ;#+"+ #J"* ;4"/

;#"2 #"+ #."2 #=". =": ;##"2 #/"2 ;2":

;2": ;+"4 2"2 #/"# 4": ;#4"# ."/ ;2"+

*"4 ;+"4 J"J *J"/ *". ;#4"/ 4". ;2"4

#+"= ;+"4 ."2 *="4 ;#"+ ;#2": #+"+ ;2"#

2"+ ;4"J ="4 *J". ;*": ;#:"2 ."2 ;:"+

;+"2 ;:": J"# *2"2 ;+"2 ;#:"J ."# ;2"J

*+": ;:"/ #+"4 ##"= ;:"+ ;#+": #2"/ ;4"2

2"# ;+": #+": *#"# 4"2 ;#*"2 #*"2 ;2"*

Source: GoI (1999-2000b) & GoI (2004-05)

$!e ?res! fruits, )il- and su&ar recorded an increase in consu%ption %ainly by low e3penditure &roup of !ouse!olds" $!ree co%%odity &roups recorded positive c!an&e in t!e consu%ption pattern8 6dible oil (*+"/ per cent0, ry fruits (##"= per cent0 and ry Cevera&es and ot!er processed foods (."+ per cent0" $!e increase in consu%ption of

#*

fruits is very !i&! for low e3penditures &roups" 6dible oil is recordin& a si&nificantly !i&! increase across all inco%e &roups, si%ilar pattern is observed for Cevera&es and ot!er processed food" $!e analysis of t!e rural sector reveals al%ost si%ilar pattern" $!e food e3penditure (in real ter%s0 is observed to !ave fallen by 2"* per cent durin& t!e period #...;*+++ to *++2;+:" Cereals and Pulses recorded a drop in e3penditure by#: per cent in t!e year *++2;+:" $!e wei&!t of t!ese two co%%odities in total food consu%ption e3plains t!e overall fall" )il- and Su&ar record %ar&inal increase on avera&e basis %ainly due to increase in consu%ption by t!e lower e3penditures &roups" An increase of 2"# per cent was observed in consu%ption of 6&&s, %eat and fis! over t!e period #...;*+++ to *++2;+:" A&ain t!e %ost i%pressive increase in consu%ption e3penditure are observed in 6dible oils (*J". per cent0, followed by ry fruits (*#"# per cent0, Cevera&es and ot!er processed food (#*"2 per cent0 and ?res! fruits (#+": per cent0" All of t!ese four co%%odities recorded an increase in e3penditure across all t!e inco%e &roups" A decrease in food e3penditure in real ter%s is e3perienced in bot! t!e urban and rural !ouse!olds" 5owever, it is acco%panied wit! s!ift in consu%ption pattern" It is now i%portant to analyse t!e s!ift in consu%ption pattern across states for urban India as t!is would &uide t!e future trend" $o facilitate t!e co%parison across states an inde3 of per capita food consu%ption of food ite%s is co%puted usin& t!e value for Urban India as #++" $!e variation in consu%ption of food a%on& t!e ten states, wit! t!e %ost i%portant urban population, and all Urban India are presented in $able 2" ?or cereals, t!e inde3 of consu%ption ran&es fro% =2": in )ad!ya Prades! to #*+"# in Eest Cen&al" Cereals !as t!e lowest standard deviation (stdH#*"2#0 of all food cate&ories revealin& lower inter state variation in its consu%ption" $!e consu%ption inde3 for pulses ran&es fro% :/"# in Ra7ast!an to #*2"= in $a%il Nadu" In %il- and %il- products so%e i%portant variations (std"H4="2/0 are observed, t!e ran&e varies fro% ::"+ in Eest Cen&al to #J."/ in el!i" $!e State wit! lowest consu%ption inde3 is Uttar Prades! (=+"#0 and t!e !i&!est is for Iu7arat (#:.":0 far %ore t!an t!at for Urban India" $!us, Iu7arat is an e3ception, wit! all ot!er States bein& closer to all Urban

#4

India" $!e consu%ption of 6&&s, fis! and %eat reveals wide inter state variations (std"HJ*"#*0, wit! t!e consu%ption inde3 varyin& fro% a very low of *="* in Iu7arat to a !i&! of *=/": in Eest Cen&al" $wo factors !eavily influence t!e consu%ption pattern across states8 one is t!e ve&etarianis% of a lar&e part of t!e population in certain States and t!e ot!er bein& !i&! fis! consu%ption in coastal States" ?or Ne&etables, t!e consu%ption inde3 ran&es fro% /J"# in )ad!ya Prades! to #/:"# in el!i" $!e ry consu%ption of fres! fruits varied fro% //": ()ad!ya Prades!0 to #2/"J ( el!i0"

fruits is a %inor ite% t!at s!ows i%portant variation (std"H:="4J0" Local production see%s to be an i%portant factor influencin& its consu%ption" Su&ar consu%ption varies fro% /*"+ (And!ra Prades!0 to #24"2 (1arnata-a0" Spices offers less variation e3ceptin& a very !i&! consu%ption observed in $a%il Nadu (#=4":0" ?inally, Cevera&es and ot!er processed food t!at is t!ou&!t to be associated wit! %odern consu%ption !abits varies fro% :.": ()ad!ya Prades!0 to #4/"J ($a%il Nadu0"
$able 28 Avera&e ?ood e3penditures, Urban, States and India, *++2;+:, inde3 Urban India H #++
M( Cereal Pulse L Pulse products )il- L %il- products 6dible oil 6&&s, fis! L %eat Ne&etable ?ruits (fres!0 ?ruits (dry0 Su&ar Spices Cevera&es etc $otal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elhi ./": ##2"* #J."/ #*+"/ /."4 #/:"# #2/"J *+:": #+="4 ./"/ ##2"4 #*/": $ndia #++"+ #++"+ #++"+ #++"+ #++"+ #++"+ #++"+ #++"+ #++"+ #++"+ #++"+ #++"+ Std dev #*"2# #."*# 4="2/ *2"4# J*"#* 4+".= *:"4= :="4J */"** *J"++ *2"2= #4"// "v1 .="= .=". #+2"# #+*": .4"+ #+/". .."# ##:"# #+2"4 #+J". .="2 #+#"*

Note8#0S!adowed over #+: and under .:" *0)5H )a!arast!ra, UPHUttar Prades!, $NH$a%il Nadu, ECHEest Cen&al, APH And!ra Prades!, IUMH Iu7arat, 1N1H
1arnata-a, )PH )ad!ya Prades!, RAMHRa7ast!an

Source8 NSS<, /#st Round, our calculations

It is t!us concluded t!at t!e t!ree States !avin& !i&!est consu%ption e3penditure are el!i (#*/":0, Iu7arat (##*"/0 and Eest Cen&al (##+"#0, two of t!ese include a %a7or #2

%etro" $!e t!ree lowest consu%in& states are )ad!ya Prades! (JJ":0, Uttar Prades! (=/"J0 and Ra7ast!an (.+"40, none is includin& a %a7or %etro" If we ta-e t!e nu%ber of food cate&ories wit! t!e inde3 %ore t!an #+:, el!i ran-s first, recordin& inde3 of %ore t!an #+: in = food cate&ories and is followed by )a!aras!tra (J0, $a%il Nadu (/0 and Eest Cen&al (/0" $!us, t!e 2 Indian %etropolises appear a%on& t!e top consu%in& states" At t!e ot!er end, are concentrated Uttar Prades! (#0, )ad!ya Prades! (#0 and Ra7ast!an (*0" It is now i%portant to analyse t!e co%position of consu%ption by level of processin& in order to deter%ine w!et!er t!e s!ift in consu%ption pattern is %ore towards value added food co%%odities"

%omposition o' 2alue added products in 'ood consumption

$!e trend in consu%ption of various &roups of co%%odities by levels of processin& alon& t!e e3penditure &roups for urban India is presented in ?i&ure =" $!e proportion of @pri%ary productsA consu%ed does not s!ow %uc! increase wit! increase in inco%e" $!e @first (low0 processed productsA as a proportion of total food consu%ed recorded si&nificant decrease wit! t!e increase in inco%e" <n t!e ot!er !and t!e @first (!i&!0 processed productsA as a proportion of total food consu%ed recorded substantial increase across t!e e3penditure continuu%" $!e benefit of c!an&es in consu%ption pattern across e3penditure &roups &oes to t!e @second processin&A resultin& in increase in its s!are fro% 2"+ per cent to #J": per cent for t!e lowest e3penditures to t!e !i&!est e3penditures &roup, respectively" $!us as e3pected t!e !i&!er e3penditure &roups are consu%in& %ore of products wit! a !i&!er level of processin&" $!is is observed despite t!e fact t!at t!e bud&et dedicated to food e3penditures is proportionately fallin& for urban !ouse!olds" ?or rural India, a si%ilar -ind of trend is observed as t!at in Urban India (?i&ure .0" $!e @first (!i&!0 processed productsA ta-e a %ore i%portant place in replacin& t!e fallin& @first (low0 processed productsA t!an t!e @second processed productsA as was observed in case of urban !ouse!olds" $!e proportion of @pri%ary productsA re%ained al%ost constant across t!e e3penditure &roups" Nevert!eless, caution is placed for t!is classification for rural India" Since, for urban India if fluid %il- is classified as a @processed productA" It is %ore appropriate to classify it as @pri%ary productsA in rural India" As can be seen fro% $able 2, it c!an&es t!e full portrait" #:

Fi! re 7# Food e$%endit res &corr8' accordin! to the le9el o2 %rocessin!0 Ur.an India0 +**,)*60,0

50,0

40,0

30,0

)ri*ar+ produ"t &irst pro"essing ,lo'&irst pro"essing ,high.e"ond pro"essing

20,0

10,0

0,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 E$%endit res !ro %

Source8 GoI (1999-2000b) & GoI (2004-05)

Fi! re ( # Food e$%endit res &corr8' accordin! to the le9el o2 %rocessin!0 R ral India0 +**,)*-0 &2l id mil; is classi2ied as First &hi!h' %rocessin!'
70,0

60,0

50,0

40,0 :

)ri*ar+ produ"t &irst ,/o'- pro"essing &irst ,0igh- pro"essing

30,0

.e"ond pro"essing

20,0

10,0

0,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 E$%endit res !ro %

Source8 GoI (1999-2000b) & GoI (2004-05),

#/

$!e $able : presents t!e co%parative picture of t!e pro&ress of processed food consu%ption between t!e two surveys" A decrease of t!e i%portance of @pri%ary productsA and of @first (low0 processed productsA in t!e food bas-et and a rise in t!e @first (!i&!0A and @second processed productsA is observed" $!e @second processed productsA consist of less t!an #+ per cent of t!e avera&e urban food bas-et"
Ta3le 4: Food e*penditure pattern according to the level o' processing5 Rural and r3an $ndia

(in Percent0 Urban Level of processin&

#...; *+++ *++2;+: #...; *+++ *++2;+:

Rural

Rural (%il-8 pri%ary product0

#...; *+++ *++2;+:

Pri%ary products ?irst (Low0 ?irst (5i&!0 processin& processin&

#J"2 4J". 4:": ."*

#/"= 42"= 4="* #+"*

#2"/ 2.". 4#": 2"+

#:"4 24". 4:"# :"J

*="2 2.". #J"J 2"+

4+"* 24". *+"4 :"J

Second Processin&

Source: GoI (1999-2000b) & GoI (2004-05)

$a-in& into account t!e level of e3penditures and t!e availability of processed food, t!e rural !ouse!olds are not e3pected to !ave t!e sa%e e3penditure pattern" As can be seen, t!e consu%ption of @pri%ary productsA occupies a relatively %inor place co%pared to t!at for urban !ouse!olds" ?or t!e @first (low0 processin&A, we observe t!at t!e rural !ouse!olds are dedicatin& %ore inco%e but t!e relative decrease between t!e two surveys is %ore i%portant for rural t!an for urban !ouse!olds" $!e relative s!are of @first (!i&!0 processedA food is lower in t!e rural area and even %ore, t!is affir%ation !as to be wei&!ted by t!e fact t!at t!e fluid %il- is classified as for urban !ouse!olds as a @first (!i&!0 processed productA" In t!e urban center t!e %il- is %ostly, pasteuri'ed, standardi'ed and pac-ed" It is w!at 7ustifies its classification" In t!e rural area t!e fluid %il- is %ostly consu%ed as a raw product involvin& little processin& and s!ould in conse>uence be classified as @pri%ary productA" If t!is is done, @pri%ary productsA and @first (!i&!0 processed productsA are re;balanced in favour of t!e @pri%ary productsA t!at

#J

are still increasin& t!eir s!are in *++2;+:" $!e place occupied by @second processed productsA in t!e rural area is around : per cent of food e3penditures" 5avin& observed t!e proportions of value added food ite%s in t!e total it is also i%portant to -now w!at is t!e situation in real ter%s, !ow %any rupees %ore or less were spent on t!e different cate&ories of processed products9 $able / presents t!e difference in consu%ption e3penditure by !ouse!olds between t!e two survey periods i"e", #...;*+++ and *++2;+:"
Ta3le 6: Processed 'ood consumption pattern5 variation in 7889:84 to ;<<<:78885 r3an $ndia (Constant Rs0
!evel processing o' ; Pri%ary products ?irst processin&(Low0 ?irst processin& (5i&!0 Second Processin& Unclassified #"4 7 +": = ;+"J 9 ;#"+ 4 ;#"# E*penditure group 6 ;*". > ;4"# ? ;:"2 < ;4"* ;8 ;/"4 ;; ;##". ;7 ;*2"J "vg ;2"/

;#+"J

;##":

;#2"2

;#:"2

;#:"#

;#:":

;#="*

;#/"=

;#="*

;*#"J

;*+"/

;*/"4

;#/".

4":

J"2

/"/

J"J

##":

:"#

/"+

4"J

:"+

/"J

J"*

;."+

:"#

#". +"2

+". +"/

*": ;#"+

4"* ;+"2

*". +"*

2"+ #"J

*"= +"*

*"2 +"*

*"+ +"#

4". +"=

*": 4"=

;4"2 */"4

*"* #":

Source: IoI (#...;*+++b0 L IoI (*++2;+:0

<n avera&e, t!e reduction in e3penditures by Rs 2"/ and Rs #/". is observed for @pri%ary productsA and @first (low0 processed productsA respectively" Increase in e3penditure is observed by Rs :"# and Rs *"* for @first processed (!i&!0 productsA and @second processedA, respectively" As was observed earlier in t!e paper, a reduction in food e3penditures in real ter%s was observed" $!is confir%s t!e fact t!at t!e develop%ent of t!e processed food on per capita consu%ption basis was %ar&inal durin& t!is five year period" ?or rural India, between #...;++ and *++2;+:, t!e fall of food e3penditures was Rs #+"# ($able J0" $!e e3penditure in Pri%ary products (%il- is !ere classified as ?irst (!i&!00 was al%ost sta&nant" $!e decrease in ?irst (low0 processed products (Rs *#"20 was partly co%pensated by an increase in ?irst (!i&!0 processed products of Rs /"J and of Second

#=

processed products of Rs 2"* per person per 4+ days" $!ese incre%ents are, !owever, very s%all for a five years period"
Ta3le >: Processed 'ood consumption pattern5 variation 'rom ;<<<:7888 to 7889:845 Rural $ndia (in Constant Rupees0
!evel o' processing Pri%ary products ?irst processin&(Low0 ?irst processin& (5i&!0 Second Processin& Unclassified $otal ; +"2 ;##"4 4"+ #"J ;+"# ;/"4 7 +"2 ;#J"4 :"J #". +"+ ;."2 = #": ;#/"= J"+ 4"* ;+": ;:"/ 9 +". ;#.": J"4 4"/ +"4 ;J"2 4 +"/ ;#.": ="+ 4"= +"# ;/". E*penditure group 6 +"J ;*4"* ="4 2"4 +"# ;."= > ;+"4 ;*#"J ."+ 2"+ ;+"* ;."* ? ;+"# ;*4": ."* 2"* ;+". ;##"# < +"2 ;*2"* J": 2"= +"+ ;##": 8;8 ;#"+ ;*:"4 2"2 :"# +"# ;#/"J ;; ;#". ;*J". /"J :"2 +"+ ;#J"J ;7 ;+". ;*#"2 ;/"# J": :"= ;#:"+ "vg +"* ;*#"2 /"J 2"* +"* ;#+"#

Source: GoI (1999-2000b) & GoI (2004-05)

$!e re&ional variation in consu%ption of processed food is esti%ated and presented in $able =" ?or Urban India, t!e pri%ary products occupy #/"= per cent of t!e food bud&et, t!e first processed (low value added0 products 42". per cent, t!e first processed (!i&! value added0 4="* per cent and t!e second processed products #+"* per cent($able =0" $!e %oderni'ation of t!e consu%ption pattern in India is e3pected to provo-e an increase in t!e consu%ption of t!e pri%ary, first (!i&!0 and second processed products and a decrease in t!e first (low0 processed products" $!e s!aded area in t!e $able = s!ows t!ese c!an&es" $!is p!eno%enon can be co%pletely observed in state (Urban0" Ta3le ?: Food e*penditure according to the level o' processing5 States5 $ndia5 7889:845 per cent
Food items 3y level o' processing M( P T# -. "P + / 0#0 MP

el!i state" In )a!aras!tra and Iu7arat t!ree of t!e four trends

are present co%pared to Urban India" Surprisin&ly, t!e sa%e is also observed in Ra7ast!an

r3an5 selected
Delhi $ndia

R"/

Pri%ary ?irst (low0 ?irst (!i&!0 Second

#J"/ 44"J 4."# ."+

#/"4 4:"= 4/"= ##"#

*#"# 4/"J 44"* J"J

#="= 44"J 4/"J #+"=

#:"4 2*"4 44". ="/

#J": *="/ 24". #+"+

#2"= 4="* 4="4 ="/

#:"2 4="# 4=". =".

#2"/ 4#". 2#". ##"J

#.". *J"/ 2+"+ #*":

#/"= 42". 4="* #+"*

Note 8#0 S!adowed for Pri%ary, ?irst (!i&!0 and Second !i&!er t!an India, for t!e ?irst (low0 lower"
*0 )5H )a!arast!ra, UPHUttar Prades!, $NH$a%il Nadu, ECHEest Cen&al, APH And!ra Prades!, IUMH Iu7arat, 1N1H 1arnata-a, )PH )ad!ya Prades!, RAMHRa7ast!an

#.

Source8 NSS<, /#st Round, aut!ors calculations

$!e food consu%ption accordin& to t!e level of processin& of t!e avera&e !ouse!old was also co%pared wit! t!at of t!e : per cent of t!e !i&!est inco%e &roup ()PC6 &roup #*0" $!is &roup is e3pected to !ave adopted t!e new food consu%ption pattern"
Ta3le <: Food consumption according to the level o' processing5 Top 4, highest income group compared to State average (@;88)5 selected States and r3an $ndia5 7889:84
Food items 3y level o' processing Pri%ary ?irst (low0 ?irst (!i&!0 Second M( ##:"+ /=". #+*"= #/."2 P #+4"2 /:": #+#"* *+*"4 T# =#"4 =#"J ##2"/ #.:"2 -. #+#"4 /+". ##:"/ #/J"* "P #+*"J J:". ##2"4 #:2"* + / .J": =/"# =."= #=."* 0#0 #*:"2 J2"# .4"= #.*"+ MP #+="# /:"+ ##J"+ #::"* R"/ ##=": J4"4 .J"* #/+"J Delhi =*"* J/"/ #+2": #/2"4 $ndia ##+"= /."+ #+2"= #J*"+

Note8 )5H )a!arast!ra, UPHUttar Prades!, $NH$a%il Nadu, ECHEest Cen&al, APH And!ra Prades!, IUMH Iu7arat, 1N1H
1arnata-a, )PH )ad!ya Prades!, RAMHRa7ast!an

Source8 NSS<, /#st Round, our calculations

As can be seen, so%e c!an&es are %ore obvious a%on& t!is selected &roup" If for all urban India t!ere is still an increase in consu%ption of t!e pri%ary products co%pared to t!e avera&e, it is not t!e case any %ore in el!i, $a%il Nadu, and Iu7arat" After a &eneral increase t!at affects t!e avera&e consu%ption, t!ere is in fact a decrease for t!e !i&!est inco%e &roup" $!ere is a point w!ere t!e 6n&elOs Law finally applies" ?or all States and Urban India, t!e fall is obvious for t!e first (low0 processed products" An increase is observable for t!e first (!i&!0 processed products but t!e %ain c!an&e occurs wit! t!e second processed products" Its consu%ption increases by J* per cent for all Urban India and by a very si&nificant percenta&e for %ost of t!e States"

E*tent o' processed 'ood consumption

An inde3 for t!e level of processin& was created in order to better understand t!e deter%inant of t!e c!an&e in t!e consu%ption pattern" $!is inde3 relies on t!e classification t!at was %ade usin& t!e #2# food ite%s included in t!e NSS< survey" $!e pri%ary products received a wei&!t of #, t!e first (low0 *, t!e first (!i&!0 4 and t!e second processed products 2" $!e inde3 can vary fro% # to 2, four bein& t!e !i&!est level of processin&" $!e level of processed food consu%ption for Urban India is *"2* ($able #+0"

*+

It &oes fro% *"*2 in $a%il Nadu to *":# in Ra7ast!an" el!i (*"2:0 and Iu7arat (*"2/0 are in t!e !i&!est position and it is felt t!at %il- (wei&!t 40 is a %a7or e3planation" Ta3le ;8: !evel o' processing $nde*5 r3an5 selected States5 $ndia5 7889:84
M( Avera&e $op : B Nariation(B 0 *"4 = *"2 J 4". + P *"24 *"/: ."4+ T# *"*2 *":+ ##":+ -. *"4. *":. ="*+ "P *"4/ *"2: :"4+ + / *"2/ *"/+ :":+ 0#0 *"2+ *"2= 4"4+ MP *"22 *":= :"=+ R"/ *":# *"/# 2"#+ Delhi *"2: *"// ="/+ $ndia *"2* *":/ /"#+

Note8 )5H )a!arast!ra, UPHUttar Prades!, $NH$a%il Nadu, ECHEest Cen&al, APH And!ra Prades!, IUMH Iu7arat, 1N1H
1arnata-a, )PH )ad!ya Prades!, RAMHRa7ast!an

Source8 NSS<, /#st Round, our calculations

It is also i%portant to observe t!e trend in processed food consu%ption by top : per cent of urban population" $!e inde3 for level of processed food consu%ption by top : per cent of Urban India was *":/ and it varied fro% *"// in el!i, *"/: in Uttar Prades!, *"/# in Ra7ast!an and *"/+ in Iu7arat ($able #+0" A rise in inco%e class fro% avera&e to t!e top :B of t!e !ouse!olds !ave an i%pact on t!e inde3 of processed food consu%ption of only /"# per cent on all Urban India and it varies fro% 4"4 per cent in 1arnata-a to ##": per cent in $a%il Nadu" It was, !owever, e3pected t!at a %ore i%portant s!ift in consu%ption pattern would ta-e place" It reflects t!e fact t!at t!e consu%ption of second processed food is not t!at co%%on even a%on& t!e ric! people" It is also i%portant to recall t!at wit! t!e disa&&re&ated #2# food ite%s t!at are present in t!e NSS< survey, none of t!e ite%s could be classified as t!ird processed food" $!e $able ## illustrates t!e variation in t!e inde3 accordin& to t!e level of inco%e for all Urban India" $!e inde3 is observed to vary positively in relation wit! t!e inco%e &roup"
Ta3le ;;: !evel o' processing $nde* according to income groups5 r3an $ndia5 7889:84

Inco%e &roup
# L$44: * 44:; 4.: 4 4.:; 2=: 2 2=:; :=+ : :=+; /J: / /J:; J.+ J J.+; .4+ = .4+; ##++ . ##++; #4=+ #+ #4=+; #==+ ## #==+; *:2+ #* )$*:2+ All

Inde3 of processed food

*"*#

*"*:

*"*.

*"4*

*"4:

*"4=

*"4.

*"2*

*"22

*"2=

*":*

*":/

*"2*

*#

Source8 NSS<, /#st Round, our calculations

%hanging composition o' 'ood consumption

So far only t!e a&&re&ated indicators of t!e consu%ption pattern and %ore particularly of processed food consu%ption was dealt, it is i%portant to loo- at t!e specific ite%s t!at are consu%ed to see if t!ere are differences a%on& t!e States (urban0 and for t!e !i&! inco%e &roup (:B0" It is e3pected t!at wit! t!e increase in t!e inco%e t!e wealt!y people will diversify t!eir consu%ption" It s!ould &et reflected in t!e concentration on food consu%ption in t!e top #+ or top *: food ite%s consu%ed" It was observed t!at t!e #+ %ost i%portant ite%s consu%ed for Urban India absorb :J"* per cent of t!e bud&et, w!ile t!e first *: %onopoli'e J:". per cent ($able #*0" Ta3le ;7: Share (,) o' the top ;8 and top 74 'ood items on total 'ood e*penditures5 r3an5 selected States and $ndia5 7889:84
No of ite%s in food bas-et Inco%e &roup )5 UP $N EC AP IUM 1N1 )P RAM el!i India

5i&! inco%e top #+ Avera&e

:."/

::" * /:" = JJ" J =4" +

:." : ::" * J=" . J:" #

:=" / /#" . J=" / =#" +

/+"J

:="4

:="*

/4" 2 /:" = J." / =#" 2

/4"J

:."2

:2"#

:="+

/:"2

/4".

:J"=

/."#

:."/

:J"*

5i&! inco%e top *: Avera&e

=+".

J="=

JJ"2

J="J

=*"#

J."2

J4".

J:"4

=#"4

J."J

J="#

=:"J

J=":

J:".

Note8 )5H )a!arast!ra, UPHUttar Prades!, $NH$a%il Nadu, ECHEest Cen&al, APH And!ra Prades!, IUMH Iu7arat, 1N1H
1arnata-a, )PH )ad!ya Prades!, RAMHRa7ast!an

Source8 NSS<, /#st Round, our calculations

Across States, t!e bud&etary s!are of top #+ food ite%s varies fro% ::"* per cent in $a%il Nadu to /."# per cent in Ra7ast!an" E!ile t!e top *: food ite%s of t!e food bas-et accounts for J:". per cent of t!e total bud&et and it varies fro% J:"# per cent in $a%il Nadu to =:"J per cent in Ra7ast!an" $!erefore, it is concluded t!at t!e consu%ption is concentrated to a li%ited nu%ber of food ite%s" It is also e3pected t!at t!e increase in inco%e will %a-e t!e !ouse!olds to diversify t!eir consu%ption of food ite%s, leadin& to introduction of new ite%s" $!is diversification s!ould be reflected in t!e percenta&e of t!e bud&et allocated to a li%ited list of ite%s" $!e percenta&e of t!e bud&et devoted to t!e top #+ or t!e top *: s!ould in conse>uence be

**

reduced" Actually, it is reduced by 4"# per cent in Urban India for t!e top #+ and by *"+ per cent for t!e top *:" ?or t!e States wit! t!e %a7or %etro, t!e trends are reversed" $!e proportion of bud&et devoted to top #+ food ite%s is increasin& for )a!aras!tra, $a%il Nadu, and also for t!e top *: food ite%s for 1arnata-a and !ave a closer loo- at t!e constituents of t!e top #+ food ite%s"
Ta3le ;=: Top ;8 'ood items consumed5 r3an5 selected States5 $ndia5 7889:845 RsApersonA=8 days
Maharashtra )il-8 li>uid E!eat atta Rice ot!ers Iround nut oil 6dible oil8 ot!er Su&ar Ar!ar, tur $ea8 leaf <t!er processed food Ioat %eatD%utton "ndhra Pradesh Rice ot!ers )il-8 li>uid 6dible oil8 ot!er <t!er processed food Ar!ar, tur Iround nut oil Ioat %eatD%utton C!ic-en Su&ar; ot!er sources Rice P S RaBasthan )il-8 li>uid E!eat atta I!ee Su&ar )ustard oil 6dible oil8 ot!er $ea8 leaf Iround nut oil Rice ot!ers Ioat %eatD%utton E*pend iture (Rs) J#":# 4."4. 4="++ *#"## *+"** #/":/ #*"/= ##"=. .".* ."J= E*pend iture (Rs) #+4"4/ :/"*+ #="2/ #J"J# #4"*J #4"*: #*"J. #+"*# =":# J"44 E*pend iture (Rs) .2":= J/".* *2"#* #J"/4 #+"22 #+"4/ #+"42 ."/J ="/* J"4/ ttar Pradesh )il-8 li>uid E!eat atta Rice ot!ers )ustard oil Su&ar Potato Ar!ar, tur $ea8 Leaf I!ee Prepared sweets +uBarat )il-8 li>uid E!eat atta Iround nut oil Rice ot!ers 6dible oil8 ot!ers Su&ar I!ee $ea8 leaf Ar!ar, tur Salted refres!%ents Delhi )il-8 li>uid E!eat atta Rice ot!ers )ustard oil Su&ar 6dible oil8 ot!er $ea8 leaf I!ee Potato Nanaspati, %ar&arine E*pendi ture (Rs) J2"+/ /+"/= *."2: *#"#+ #/"J2 #*"*# ."=. J":2 J":4 /"/J E*pendi ture (Rs) #+J"+. 2."*. 4/"*2 */"=# #=".* #/"./ #2":. #2"+4 #*"2J J"+J E*pendi ture (Rs) #*."// /*"4= 4*":2 #="+= #/"4: #:".= #4"4/ #*"4= ##"2+ .":= Tamil #adu Rice ot!ers )il-8 li>uid 6dible oil8 ot!er Ioat %eatD%utton Ar!ar" $ur <t!er processed food Rice P S C!ic-en Urd Iround oil 0arnataCa Rice ot!ers )il-8 li>uid Su&ar 6dible oil8 ot!ers $ea8 leaf E!eat atta Iround nut oil Ar!ar, tur Ioat %eatD%utton Mowar L products $ndia )il-8 li>uid Rice ot!ers E!eat atta Su&ar 6dible oil8 ot!er )ustard oil ?is!, prawn $ea8 Leaf Ar!ar, tur Iround nut oil E*pen diture (Rs) ==".4 /*"24 *4"4= #4"/# #*"4# ."+4 =":4 ="+. ="+J ="+4 E*pen diture (Rs) //"2: /+"4+ #="#: #J"+= #:"+# #4"#4 #*#"2: ##".2 ##":/ #+"*= E*pen diture (Rs) J4"4+ :4"4= 4J".2 #2"+J #4"4# #+"J4 .":# ."*+ ."++ =".2 -est .engal Rice ot!er ?is!, Prawn )il-8 li>uid )ustard oil E!eat atta Potato <t!er processed food C!ic-en Su&ar )asur Madhya Pradesh )il-8 li>uid E!eat atta Rice ot!ers 6dible oil8 ot!er Su&ar Ar!ar, tur $ea8 leaf I!ee )ustard oil Salted refres!%ents E*pend iture (Rs) .+":: :#"J2 4/"#2 4:"#* *#":+ #/"J# #:":# ##"/4 #+"JJ .".* E*pend iture (Rs) /#"J* ::":* *4"=+ #="=J #/":+ #*".. ."=+ ="=2 /"*J 2".+

el!i" It is now i%portant to

Note8 Public istribution Syste% (P S0 only w!en indicated"

$!e ten %ost i%portant food ite%s consu%ed by t!e avera&e urban !ouse!old of selected states and of India are presented in $able #4" $!e ite%s t!at are %ore particular to a sin&le or a few States were s!adowed" $!e consu%ption pattern s!ows a lot of si%ilarities revealin& t!e constitution of t!e basic Indian diet wit! so%e variation fro% State to State" In si%ple ter%s it could be stated t!at t!e basic diet is %ade of fluid %il-, rice, w!eat, pi&eon peas (ar!ar0, so%e oil, su&ar and %eat or fis! and tea" $!ere are so%e *4

re&ional variations8 rice will ta-e over w!eat, c!ic-en will be %ore i%portant t!an &oatD%utton, fis! will do%inate in Eest Cen&al, oil will vary or be replaced by &!ee or vanaspati, potato will appear in t!e top #+" Cut t!e avera&e picture re%ains %ore or less t!e sa%e" A few ot!er food ite%s %a-es a rare appearance li-e ot!er processed food (includes %any unidentified products0, vanaspati, 7owar or salted refres!%ent" $!us, about ::;/: per cent of t!e bud&et is spent on t!ese basic ite%s" Ta3le ;9: Top 74 'ood items consumed5 r3an $ndia5 7889:845 RsAPersonA=8 days
Avera&e )il-8 li>uid Rice ot!ers E!eat atta;ot!er sources Su&ar;ot!er sources 6dible oil8 ot!er )ustard oil ?is!, prawn $ea8 leaf Ar!ar, tur Iround nut oil <t!er processed food Ioat %eatD %utton I!ee Potato C!ic-en $o%ato <nion Salted refres!%ents Ciscuits Prepared sweets <t!er spices Canana Apple )oon& ry C!illies $otal J4"4 :4"2 4J". #2"# #4"4 #+"J .": ."* ."+ =". ="= J"= /": /"# :": :"* :"# 2". 2"= 2"/ 2": 2"* 4". 4"4 4"# 2#="= 5i&! inco%e )il-8 li>uid Rice ot!ers E!eat atta;ot!er sources <t!er processed foods 6dible oil8 ot!er ?is!, prawn I!ee Su&ar;ot!er sources Apple Prepared sweets $ea8 leaf Ioat %eatD%utton C!ic-en Ciscuits Iround nut oil Ar!ar, tur Salted refres!%ents )ustard oil Canana $o%ato Cread, ba-ery Potato Cold bevera&es <nion <t!er spices $otal Ran- c!an&e #J."* /."J 2:": 42"2 *."2 *J"# *#"J *+"4 #."# #J". #J"4 #2"* #2"# #4"2 #*"= #*": #*": ##". ##"= ."2 ="4 ="* J"= J"= J"= =:J"/ Up Up Up own Up Up own Up Up own own Up own Up own New own New own own RanSa%e Up own New ite% Avera&eH#++ *22 #4+ #*+ 4.# **# *=: 44* #22 2== 4.4 #== #=+ *:/ *J= #24 #4. *:/ ### *J. #=* 4*= #42 /:2 #:2 #J* *+: : . . *

$!e ne3t step is to co%pare t!e top food ite%s consu%ed by t!e avera&e !ouse!old wit! t!ose of t!e !i&!est inco%e" $!e top *: food ite%s of bot! &roups are presented in $able #2" $!e first t!ree ite%s, fluid %il-, w!eat;atta and rice are t!e sa%e" If t!e ran-in& of food ite%s is considered t!en it is observed t!at #= food ite%s c!an&e t!eir relative ran-in& and only * new food ite% appears in t!e food bas-et of !i&! inco%e &roup i"e", cold bevera&es and bread;ba-ery"

*2

In ter%s of e3penditures, t!e !i&!est inco%e &roup is spendin& %ore t!an twice (inde3 *+:0 t!e a%ount spent by t!e avera&e urban !ouse!olds on top *: food ite%s" So%e products are evidently recordin& a %a7or increase8 cold bevera&es (/:20, apple (2==0, prepared sweet (4.40, ot!er processed food (4.#0, &!ee (44*0, bread (4*=0, fis! (*=:0, banana (*J.0, biscuits (*J=0, salted refres!%ent (*:/0, c!ic-en (*:/0, fluid %il- (*220" $!ese are t!e i%portant product t!at can be associated wit! t!e &rowt! of inco%e in Urban India" 5owever, a %ar- of caution is put as far as t!e rate of increase is concerned" $!e startin& point is also i%portant, fluid %il- wit! an inde3 of *22 is t!e %ost increasin& ite% in rupee ter%s, recordin& an increase of %ore t!an Rs #++" $!e products t!at !ave recorded a fall in t!eir ran-in& are8 %ustard oil (###0, w!eat;atta (#*+0, rice (#4+0, potato (#420, ar!ar (#4.0, &round nut oil (#240, su&ar (#220, onion (#:20, ot!er spices (#J*0, &oatD%utton (#=+0, to%ato (#=*0, tea (leaf0 (#==0" All t!ese products !ave an inco%e elasticity of de%and lower t!an #" )any of t!ese products are considered as part of t!e basic Indian diet" $!e portrait c!an&es pretty %uc! w!en t!e c!an&es in co%position of food bas-et are e3pressed in rupee ter%s ($able #:0" $!e first *: ite%s secured J*"/ per cent of t!e rise, %il- alone bein& responsible for *2"# per cent" Ta3le ;4: %hange in consumption5 highest income group vs average household5
$ndia5 7889:84
(igh income )il-8 Li>uid <t!er processed food ?is!, prawn Rice ot!ers 6dible oil8 ot!ers I!ee Apple Prepared sweets Ciscuits C!ic-en $ea8 leaf Salted refres!%ents Canana E!eat atta;ot!er sources Cold bevera&es Ioat %eatD%utton Su&ar ot!er sources Cread, ba-ery $o%ato Iround nut oil Ar!ar, tur <t!er spices %hange Rs #+:". *:"/ #J"/ #/"4 #/"# #:"* #:"* #4"4 ="/ ="/ ="# J"/ J"/ J": /"/ /"4 /"* :"J 2"* 4". 4": 4"4

r3an

*:

<nion Potato )ustard oil Sub;total $otal

*"J *"# #"# 4#="= 24="=

%onclusion
$!e followin& conclusions are derived fro% t!e study8 $!e econo%ic &rowt! over t!e study period did result in distribution of wealt! a%on& t!e !ouse!olds but t!e resulted increase in e3penditures went on non; food ite%s and %ostly on @education, %edical care, rent and ta3esA and @fuel and li&!tA" $!e consu%ption pattern of t!e !ouse!olds is observed to %ove away fro% cereals and pulses to edible oil, dry fruits and bevera&es and ot!er processed products" $!e !i&!er e3penditure &roup of !ouse!olds s!owed s!ift in consu%ption pattern away fro% @first (low0A processin& food to @?irst (!i&!0A and @Second processin& productsA in t!e urban area" In t!e rural area t!e switc! was a lot %ore in favour of @?irst (!i&!0 processed productA or @Pri%ary productA dependin& on t!e placin& of @fluid %il-A" $!e avera&e s!are of food e3penditure on Second processed food is about #+ per cent in urban area and : per cent in rural area" urin& t!e study period, t!e c!an&e in consu%ption of processed food ite%s in real ter%s was %ar&inal at about Rs J for ?irst (!i&!0 processed and Rs 2 for Second processed food %ont!ly per capita e3penditure (in real ter%s0" 6ven wit! a decrease in per capita consu%ption, t!e &rowt! of t!e Indian population drove t!e %ar-et, addin& close to #++ %illions new consu%ers" ?inally t!e observed develop%ent of or&ani'ed and %odern food retailin& and food processin& industry !as to be understood in t!e li&!t of t!e presence of a %a7or unor&ani'ed sector t!at %ay be replaced over ti%e" $!e analysis of consu%ption pattern in Urban India reveals t!at t!e states wit! !i&! consu%ption of food were t!e states wit! %a7or %etros" $!us t!e level of urbani'ation !as an influence on t!e consu%ption" $!e consu%ption pattern w!en viewed fro% t!e level of processin& s!ows t!at t!e consu%ption of first (low0 processed products decreases w!ile t!at of pri%ary products, first (!i&!0 processed, and second processed increases" $!e %a&nitude of c!an&es is very !i&! for second processed products" Eit! increase in inco%e t!e e3tent of increase in consu%ption of processed food would be t!ere but not as !i&! as e3pected" $!is is %ainly because t!e consu%ption of second processed products is not t!at !i&! even in top : per cent of t!e !i&! inco%e population" $!e top *: ite%s of food bas-et ta-e a s!are of J:;=/ per cent of food bud&et" $!e basic Indian food diet was observed to be constituted of fluid %il-, rice, w!eat, pi&eon peas (ar!ar0, so%e oil, su&ar and %eat or fis! and t!e tea" $!e top *:

*/

ite%s of t!e total food bas-et of t!e !i&! inco%e !ouse!olds in co%parison wit! t!at of t!e avera&e !ouse!olds includes only * new ite%s t!at is contrary to t!e e3pectation" $!e ite%s recordin& %a7or increases are cold bevera&es (/:20, apple (2==0, prepared sweet (4.40, ot!er processed food (4.#0, &!ee (44*0, bread (4*=0, fis! (*=:0, banana (*J.0, biscuits (*J=0, salted refres!%ent (*:/0, c!ic-en (*:/0 and fluid %il- (*220" $!ese are t!e products t!at can be associated wit! t!e &rowt! of inco%e in Urban India" $!ese !ave i%plications for t!e retail sector and food processin& industry to tar&et for suc! products" It also !as i%plications for t!e policy %a-ers and ad%inistrators to pro%ote t!e food processin& industry caterin& to suc! co%%odities so t!at t!e &rowin& de%and for suc! products is %et wit!" Endnotes
1

Scrutini'in& t!e dese&re&ated data per%itted to find t!ree errors t!at were corrected in t!e #...;*+++ survey" In eac! case an individual !ouse!old !ad astrono%ical e3penditures fi&ures for one ite%" $!is result was reflected in t!e )PC6 and t!e avera&e (all0 result" Ee deleted t!e erroneous sin&le fi&ure and recalculate t!e correspondin& results" $!e c!an&es are si&nificant for Spices and Cevera&es and ot!er processed products (Appendi3 20" * ?or an analysis of value addition in t!e Indian food processin& industry see )orisset )"and P" 1u%ar, Structure and perfor%ance of food processin& industry in India, Journal of Indian School of Political cono!", (?ort!co%in&0" 4 @Coo-ed %eal refers to %eals prepared in t!e !ouse!old -itc!en and provided to t!e e%ployees and D or ot!ers would auto%atically &et included in do%estic consu%ption of e%ployer (payer0 !ouse!old" $!ere is a practical difficulty of esti%atin& t!e >uantities and values of individuals ite%s used for preparin& t!e %eals served to e%ployees or ot!ers" $!us to avoid double countin&, coo-ed %eals received as per>uisites fro% e%ployer !ouse!old or as &ift or c!arity are not recorded in t!e recipient !ouse!old" As a &eneral principle, coo-ed %eals purc!ased fro% t!e %ar-et for consu%ption of t!e %e%bers and for &uests and e%ployees will also be recorded in t!e purc!aser !ouse!old" $!is procedure of recordin& coo-ed %eals served to ot!ers in t!e e3penditures of t!e servin& !ouse!olds leads to bias; free esti%ates of avera&e per capita consu%ption as well as total consu%er e3penditure" 5owever, donors of free coo-ed %eals are li-ely to be concentrated at t!e upper end of t!e per capita e3penditure ran&e and t!e correspondin& recipients at t!e lower end of t!e sa%e scaleA"NSS<, Report :+=, Level and pattern of Consu%er 63penditure, *++2; +:, p": 2 $!e corrections refers to t!e e3clusion of t!ree ite%s, i"e", coo-ed %eals, tea(cup0 and coffee(cup0 ot!erwise t!ey will appear under t!e ter% @unclassifiedA in so%e tables" / CPI urban non;%anual e%ployees and CPI for a&ricultural labourer in IoI (*++2;+:a0" J Cereal substitutes is a&&re&ated wit! Cereals, Salt wit! spices"

Re'erences:
IoI (#...;*+++a0" Level and Pattern of Consu%er 63penditures in India, NSS<, Report no" 2:J, #...;*+++, )inistry of Statistics and Pro&ra%%e I%ple%entation, IoI, New el!i" IoI (#...;*+++b0" Consu%er 63penditure, 6%ploy%ent;Une%ploy%ent Survey (MulyP #... ; MuneP *+++0, ::t! round, NSS<, )inistry of Statistics and Pro&ra%%e I%ple%entation, IoI, New el!i" IoI (*++2;+:a0" Level and Pattern of Consu%er 63penditures in India, NSS<, Report no" :+=, *++2;+:, )inistry of Statistics and Pro&ra%%e I%ple%entation, IoI, New el!i IoI (*++2;+:b0" Consu%er 63penditure, 6%ploy%ent;Une%ploy%ent Survey (Muly *++2 Q Mune *++:0, /#st round, NSS<, )inistry of Statistics and Pro&ra%%e I%ple%entation, IoI, New el!i" IoI(*++/;+J0, 6cono%ic Survey, *++/;*++J, )inistry of ?inance, I<I, New el!i" 1u%ar, Pradu%an and N"C" )at!ur (#../0" Structural C!an&es in t!e e%and for ?ood in India, Indian Journal of #$ricultural cono!ic%, :#8//2;J4"

*J

1u%ar, Pradu%an and Pra%od 1u%ar (*++40, e%and supply and trade perspective of ve&etables and fruits in India" Indian Journal of #$ricultural &ar'etin$, #J(408#*#;#4+" 1u%ar, Pradu%an and Pra%od 1u%ar (*++20" ?ood Production and e%and by State and Re&ions in India, National A&ricultural $ec!nolo&y Pro7ect, ICAR, New el!i )eena-s!i, M"N" (#../0" 5ow i%portant are C!an&es in $aste9 A State;Level Analysis of e%and" cono!ic and Political (ee'l", ece%ber #2, #../" )urty, 1"N" (*+++0" C!an&es in $aste and e%and Patten for Cereals8 I%plication for ?ood Security in Se%i;Arid $ropical India, #$ricultural cono!ic )e%earch )e*ie+ , Nol #4(#08*:;:#" )urt!y, 1"N" (*+++0" C!an&es in $aste and e%and Pattern for Cereals8 I%plication for ?ood Security in Se%i;Arid $ropical India, #$ricultural cono!ic% )e%earch )e*ie+, Nol #4(#08Pp*:;:#" Rad!a-ris!na, R and C" Ravi (#..*0, 6ffect of Irowt!, Relative Price and Preferences of ?ood and Nutrition, ,he Indian cono!ic% )e*ie+, Special Nu%ber in %e%ory of Su-!a%oy C!a-ravarty, Nol *J, pp4+;2#" Rao, C"5"5" (*+++0, eclinin& e%and for ?ood&rains in Rural India8 Causes and I%plications, cono!ic and Political (ee'l", Manuary **, Pa&es;*+#;*+/"

*=

Appendi3 #8 Classification of co%%odities accordin& to t!e level of processin&

Sl" No"
# * 4 2 : / J = . #+ ## #* #4 #2 #: #/ #J #= #. *+ *# ** *4 *2 *: */ *J *= *. 4+ 4# 4* 44 42 4: 4/ 4J 4= 4. 2+ 2# 2* 24 22 2: 2/ 2J 2= 2. :+ :#

Pri%ary product
Eggs ,no%)otato 8nion 1adish (arrot 6urnip 9eet .5eet potato @ru* )u**p3in ;ourd 9itter gourd (u"u* er )ar'al BhingaC torai .na3e gourd )apa+aCgreen (auliflo'er (a age 9rinAal /ad+Es finger )ala3> other leaf+ $egeta les &ren"h eans 6o*ato )eas (hillies, green (apsi"u* )laintain4 green Ba"3fruit4green /e*on ,no8ther $egeta les 9anana Ba"3fruit4green =ater*elon )ineapple ,7o%(o"onut ,no%;ua$a .ingara 8range, *ausa*i ,no)apa+aCgreen !ango :har ooDa )ears, naspati 9erries /ee"hi @pple ;rapes 8ther fresh fruits ;arli" ,g*;inger ,g*(o"onut4 green ,no-

?irst processed products (Low0

1i"e )2. 1i"e others (hira :hoi, la'a !uri 8ther ri"e produ"ts =heat>atta-)2. =heat atta-other soure"s !aida .uAi, ra'a .e'ai noodles 8ther 'heat produ"ts Bo'ar # produ"ts 9aAra # produ"ts !aiDe # produ"ts 9arle+ # produ"ts .*all *illets and produ"ts 1agi # produ"ts 8ther "ereals (ereal su stiture ,tapio"a, Aa"3fruit,et"@rhar, tur ;ra*, split ;ra*, 'hole !oong !asur Frd )eas .o+ ean :hesari 8ther peas ;ra* produ"ts 9esan 8ther pulse produ"ts (o"onut "opra ;roundnut 2ates (ashe'nut =alnut 8ther nuts 1aisin, 3is*is, *ona""a, et" 8ther dr+ fruits .alt 6ur*eri" ,g*9la"3 pepper ,g*2r+ "hillies ,g*6a*arind ,g*8ilseeds ,g*8ther spi"es ,g*i"e

?irst Processed Products (5i&!0

*il34 li5uid ,litre(urd 9utter !ustard oil ;round nut oil (o"onut oil Edi le oil4 other &ish, pra'n ;oat *eat> *utton 9eaf> uffalo *eat )or3 (hi"3en 8thers4 irds, "ra s, o+ster .ugar ,)2..ugar-oterh sour"es ;ur 0one+ 6ea4 /eaf ,g*(offee4po'der,g*-

Second Products

Processed

Unclassified
6ea4"ups ,7o(offee4"ups ,no(oo3ed *eals ,no-

read, a3er+ a + food *il34 "ondensed po'der ;hee <"e-"rea* 8ther *il3 produ"ts ?anaspati, *argarine (and+, *isri (urr+ po'der ,g*(old e$erages4 ottles>"anned ,liter&ruit Aui"e and sha3e ,litre8ther e$erages4 "o"oa, (ho"olate, et" 9is"uits .alted refresh*ents )repared s'eets (a3e, pastr+ )i"3les ,g*.au"e ,g*Ba*, Aell+ ,g*8ther pro"essed food

*.

Appendi3 *8 Cevera&es and ot!er processed foods in total food e3penditures, Urban India, #...;*+++, *++2;+: (in 6upees)
#o$$odit% 7ear 1 2004 -05 1 2000 2004 -05 1 2000 12- 5 (*-14) 10-0+ ()-12) 1+1-( 1)4-)) 2 1*-4 (*-5+) 14-11 ()-+1) 2(0-) 4 20)+ ( 21-4( (+-15) 1+-)( (*-*)) 2)2-+1 240-2( 4 2*-40 (+- )) 22-+* (+-24) (05-+ 2**-5 5 (4-)+ (10-02) 2+-0) ( -0 ) (45- 1 (0+-*) 'xpenditure &roup ) 42-40 (11-04) (2-+0 ( -41) (+(-+* (4+-5) * 50-42 (11- 1 ) 40-)+ (10-4+ ) 42(-25 (++-21 + )0-1) (12-*4 ) 4 -11 (11-2+ ) 4*2-1* 4(5-20 * -)2 (14-)1) ))-(( (1(-(2) 544-++ 4 +-10 10 111-(4 (1*-4 ) 1-4 (15-)*) )()-)5 5+(-+4 11 14 -2 (1 -5)) 121-(5 (1*-42) *)(-1+ ) )-*2 12 2*4-(( (2*-40) 21(-** (2(-0+) 1001-(5 2)-40 ,v& )5-1( (14-)1) 5(-10 (1(-00) 445-)5 40+-42

5evera&es and ot2er processed products

Total 1ood expenditure

-ote: .i$ure% in /arenthe%e% are /er cent to the total

Source : -SS01 55th and 21%t )ound1

,ppendix (: #oo0ed $eals in 5evera&es and ot2er processed 1ood! "rban India! 1 -2000! 2004-05 (in 6upees)
'xpenditure &roup 7ear 1 0-+( 200405 1 2000 ()-4) 0-55 (5-4) 2 1-*2 ( -+) 1-12 (*- ) ( 1-(1 ()-1) 1-++ (10-1) 4 1-++ ()- ) 2-44 (10-*) 5 (-4) (10-0) (-1( (11-1) ) 5-)2 (1(-() (-*2 (11-() * *-12 (14-1) 5-54 (1(-)) + -02 (15-0) *-0( (14-() 1)-45 (20-*) 1(-4) (20-() 10 2 -) (2)-*) 24-41 (2)-*) 11 42-4* (2+-4) (4-50 (2+-4) 12 115-) (42-2) *)-)4 ((5- ) ,v& 15-(( (2(-5) 11-+5 (22-()

-ote: .i$ure% in /arenthe%e% are /er cent to the total Source: -SS01 55th and 21%t )ound

Appendi3 28 $!e specific cases appearin& to be outliers in t!e ::t! Round data NSS< Re&ion State Ite% no Na%e of ite% Quantity Nalue Urban $a%il Nadu *=4 Iarlic (&%0 #++++ *++:++++ Eest Cen&al *.+ $ea (cups0 2:++2:++ 2/4:2/4/ Rural $a%il Nadu *=J <ilseeds (&%s0 2:++ .+*++++ Pun7ab *=: Iin&er(&%0 *:+++ #+++#+++

4+