Are Low-Income Consumers Willing to Pay for Fortification of a Commercially Produced Yogurt in Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an active debate over the potential for market-based strategies to address micronutrient deficiencies in low- and middle-income countries. However, there are questions over the viability of market-based strategies, reflecting limited evidence on the value that low-income households attach to the nutritional attributes of processed foods. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to investigate the willingness to pay of primary food purchasers in low-income households in rural Bangladesh for Shokti+, a nutritionally fortified yogurt produced and distributed by Grameen Danone Foods Limited. METHODS: A real choice experiment with economic incentives was conducted with 1000 rural food purchasers sampled from the distribution area of Shokti+ in rural Bangladesh. The choices of respondents revealed attribute nonattendance, favoring the fortification attribute over price. RESULTS: Results from a random parameter logit model found that respondents were willing to pay an average of 18 BDT (US$0.22) for fortification and 6 BDT (US$0.073) for brand name. The market price for Shokti+ at the time of the study was 10 BDT (US$0.12). The results from a random effects model suggest the magnitude of willingness to pay for fortification was primarily driven by the nutritional awareness of respondents but offset by household food insecurity. CONCLUSIONS: The article concludes that, while there is a viable market for fortified yogurt in rural Bangladesh, efforts to promote this product as a strategy to address micronutrient deficiency are best targeted at low-income households with some capacity to pay for low priced commercially produced foods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".