Demand for Aflatoxin-Tested Maize Flour in Kenya

Last registered on December 04, 2015

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Demand for Aflatoxin-Tested Maize Flour in Kenya
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0000947
Initial registration date
December 04, 2015

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
December 04, 2015, 9:37 AM EST

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Innovation for Poverty Action

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2014-10-13
End date
2016-01-31
Secondary IDs
Abstract
This research explores the nature and determinants of consumer demand for food safety in Kenya, in particular, demand for aflatoxin-tested maize. Consumption of high levels of aflatoxin can be fatal, and chronic exposure has been linked in numerous studies to liver cancer, suppressed immune response and child stunting. In Kenya, where maize is a staple in the diet, a significant proportion of maize and maize flour samples fail to meet regulatory standards, although these numbers can vary widely by year, season and region. One study by researchers with the CDC found that 65% of maize samples collected from 20 major millers did not meet the national standard (Gathura 2011) and a study using 2013 data found that 26% of maize flour samples were above this standard (Moser and Hoffmann 2015). Because aflatoxin is unobservable and regulatory standards are imperfectly enforced, even informed consumers cannot be confident of the safety of maize or maize flour available in the market. Using a randomized controlled trial, we track the sales and prices of branded maize flour both before and after one of the brands becomes the first in Kenya to have its aflatoxin-testing procedures verified by a third party lab and to use a logo indicating this on its package.

We contribute to the literature in two important ways. First, consumer demand for food safety is not well understood. Because modern regulatory systems keep unsafe food out of the market, consumers do not directly choose safety as an attribute in developed countries. In markets where regulation is poorly in enforced or non-existent, consumers frequently do not have information on food safety. Our project takes advantage of a unique opportunity to study an emerging food safety system in Kenya. Commercial maize millers are beginning to respond to increasing consumer awareness of aflatoxin and pressure from the government by investing in aflatoxin testing. A third-party verification program, which validates a mill's aflatoxin testing processes, recently became available to millers and provides millers a way to signal to consumers that their products are safe.

In terms of preventive health technologies in general, the evidence suggest that consumers' willingness to pay for such investments is low.
Reasons likely include lack of awareness about the effectiveness or cost effectiveness of prevention measures, liquidity and credit constraints, present-biased time preferences, and attention constraints (Dupas, 2011; Spears, 2009; Kremer and Glennerster, 2011). However unlike other health investments that require discrete shifts in one’s use of time, attention or other scarce resources, households already purchase food; purchasing the brand that has been tested requires only a minor change in behavior. Further, the cost of purchasing safe food is a marginal increase to an unavoidable cash outlay; consumers are known to be less price sensitive to additional costs compared to stand-alone costs. Finally, food safety may be perceived to be correlated with other food attributes, such as taste or consistent quality.

Second, we contribute to the understanding of sustained behavior change. Although a pilot study found a high willingness-to-pay for a one-time purchase of aflatoxin-tested maize, it may be that the introduction of tested maize constituted a temporary shock to the salience of aflatoxin as a health risk, and that demand for tested maize will fall as this salience fades. Consumers may also falsely believe that tested maize will be correlated with attributes such as improved taste, and revert to untested maize when this is found not to the case. While several studies test the impact of information on health behavior at a single point in time (Madajewicz et al, 2007; Jalan and Somanathan, 2008; Luoto 2009), we are not aware of work that characterizes the dynamic impact of information. Learning and limited attention models give different predictions about the dynamic impact of information on health behavior. A learning model predicts that information leads to permanent behavior change, whereas a limited attention model, in which information increases the salience of a particular health risk temporarily, predicts that the effect of information diminishes over time (DellaVigna, 2009).
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Mbera, Gloria. 2015. "Demand for Aflatoxin-Tested Maize Flour in Kenya." AEA RCT Registry. December 04. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.947-1.0
Former Citation
Mbera, Gloria. 2015. "Demand for Aflatoxin-Tested Maize Flour in Kenya." AEA RCT Registry. December 04. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/947/history/6218
Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
The project took advantage of a program launched in Kenya by Texas A&M AgriLife Research in 2014 to build the aflatoxin testing capacity of maize industry and regulatory bodies. The program, Aflatoxin Proficiency Testing and Control for Africa (APTECA), is patterned after a successful aflatoxin co-regulation program in Texas. In order to use the APTECA logo on packaging or marketing materials, millers are required to: pass an aflatoxin analysis proficiency test, conduct weekly analysis of laboratory control samples to ensure testing accuracy, and develop and adhere to a rigorous aflatoxin food safety plan. Weekly audits of test records and related processes help ensure adherence to protocols. Companies repeatedly testing above the regulatory limit for aflatoxin must undertake corrective action and face a temporary suspension of APTECA logo use.

The project partnered with the first commercial maize miller in Kenya to join the APTECA program and incorporate the “Alfatoxin tested verified by APTECA” label in its packaging and marketing materials. Because this is a potentially high-risk investment for a miller, costs of compliance with APTECA requirements beyond the firms’ current procedures during the study period were covered through research funds, and APTECA membership was provided free of charge through Texas AgriLife Research.

Six months prior to the launch of the labeled product, the miller provided lists of shops and distributors carrying their brand in 6 counties. Shops meeting the following criteria were considered for the study: shops could not be within easy walking distance of another shop in study, shops sold at least 48 kg of the study brand per week and shops had to be willing and able to track sales and prices of all maize flour in their shops. Fifteen shops in each county were initially recruited into the study.

After eligibility screening, shop owners were invited to participate in the study. They were told that if they chose to participate, they would be asked to track maize flour sales daily and provide this information to the study staff weekly; in compensation they would receive a monthly payment of 2000 Kenyan shillings (approximately $22 US at the time). A shop survey was then administered to the shop owner, which covered the volume of sales of the participating miller’s products as well as maize flour more generally, and basic characteristics of the shop.

Sales and prices of all maize flour brands were recorded by participating shop owners in a ledger provided to them. Field officers collected sales tracking ledgers weekly, and reviewed entries with the owners before entering the data electronically. In this way, shop owners were trained and retrained on how to correctly complete the sales sheets well in advance of the intervention. The price of whole grain maize at a vendor near each participating shop was also recorded by study staff during data collection visits Over the first two months of sales tracking, several shops were dropped from the sample based on failure to consistently complete sales records. Of the remaining 78 shops, five shops with much higher total maize flour sales than the rest were dropped from the sample.

In June 2015 the miller’s existing brand began appearing in shops with the logo. Shops were assigned to the following treatment groups based on random assignment after stratifying by county and average weekly sales of the miller’s product:
1. Control (24 shops)
2. Initial marketing only (12 shops)
3. Multiple marketing rounds, no discount (12 shops)
4. Initial discount + marketing (12 shops)
5. Multiple discount rounds + marketing (13 shops)

Once the mill began using the packages with the logo, all shops stocked the new packages, but in the control shops nothing was done to draw attention to the product change. While it is not likely that consumers will notice the addition of the small logo on the packet or understand its significance, follow-up interviews will determine what consumers knew or noticed about the aflatoxin logo.

Marketing treatments consisted of week-long leafletting campaigns at the shop and nearby open-air market where whole-grain maize is sold in addition to hanging posters at the shop for the duration of the study. The initial marketing groups received one week of marketing, while in multiple marketing treatments, the leafletting was repeated three times in four weeks intervals. The discount treatment reduced the price during the first week of marketing to induce consumers of cheaper brands or whole grain maize to switch. In the multiple discount treatment the discount was repeated during the second marketing campaign. The discount was a flat discount of 5 Kenyan shillings per kg, roughly a 10 percent discount. Field officers were trained to explain the leaflet content in local languages. Sales of all brands were tracked for 6 months. A baseline study of over 2000 consumers in these markets conducted in March 2015 allows us to characterize maize consumption and purchase behavior as well as socio-demographic characteristics of potential buyers and follow up with these consumers after the randomized controlled trial. An endline survey was conducted in November 2015.

Intervention Start Date
2015-06-08
Intervention End Date
2015-11-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Post intervention sales volumes for aflatoxin-tested flour, consumer aflatoxin knowledge levels
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
In June 2015 the miller’s existing brand began appearing in shops with the logo. Shops were assigned to the following treatment groups based on random assignment after stratifying by county and average weekly sales of the miller’s product:

1. Control (24 shops)
2. Initial marketing only (12 shops)
3. Multiple marketing rounds, no discount (12 shops)
4. Initial discount + marketing (12 shops)
5. Multiple discount + multiple marketing rounds (13 shops)

Once the mill began using the packages with the logo, all shops stocked the new packages, but in the control shops nothing was done to draw attention to the product change. While it is not likely that consumers will notice the addition of the small logo on the packet or understand its significance, follow-up interviews will determine what consumers knew or noticed about the aflatoxin logo.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
In office by computer.
Randomization Unit
the shop
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
73 shops
Sample size: planned number of observations
73 shops over more than 36 weeks of sales data. Baseline and endline surveys of approximately 2,000 individuals each in these markets.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
1. Control (24 shops)
2. Initial marketing only (12 shops)
3. Multiple marketing rounds, no discount (12 shops)
4. Multiple discount + marketing (13 shops)
5. Initial discount + multiple marketing rounds (13 shops)
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
International Food Policy Research Institute Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2014-03-18
IRB Approval Number
n/a
IRB Name
Maseno University Ethics Review Committee; IFPRI Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2014-03-24
IRB Approval Number
MSU/DRPC/MUERC/00065/14

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials