1. PROMOTING MILLETS FOR URBAN
FOOD SECURITY: AN ANALYSIS OF
MILLET PORRIDGE VENDORS AND
CONSUMERS IN MADURAI, TAMIL
NADU, INDIA
PRESENTED AT THE INTERNATIONAL FOOD SECURITY
DIALOGUE 2014
“ENHANCING FOOD PRODUCTION, GENDER EQUITY
AND NUTRITIONAL SECURITY IN A CHANGING WORLD .”
Sponsored By: Hosted By:

2. Introduction

3. Food Insecurity in Urban
India
Urban vs Rural Poverty
Poverty has declined at a greater rate in rural India
Urban areas lag behind in poverty reduction
Schemes tend to focus on rural areas
Urban Food Insecurity
Compared with rural areas, urban India has a higher % of
total population that consumes less that recommended
1890 kcal/day
Food security schemes (whether production, distribution,
or consumption related) see urban population simply as
passive beneficiaries of cheap food grains

4. Informal Sector and Street
Food Vendors
Informal Sector plays a major role
providing urban poor (90%) with
employment and livelihood
opportunities
Street food vendors, as a part of
the informal sector, provide urban
poor with food security and
livelihoods (especially for poor
women)
While street foods have been
portrayed as unhealthy and
unhygienic, nutritious street food
options do exist (ie. Millet
Porridge)

5. RESMISA Project
The CIFSRF project, led by CMU & DHAN Foundation, aims to increase
production, distribution, access, and daily consumption of small millets
and pulses seeds in rainfed regions of India, Nepal and Sri Lanka.
An exploratory study of Street Food Industry in Madurai was initiated in
order to explore urban channels for promoting consumption of small
millets in the urban areas through informal channels

6. Field Site: Madurai, TN, India

7. Situating Madurai’s Millet Porridge
Vendors

8. Objectives,
Methods, and
Classifications

9. Research Objectives
Research was conducted with four overlapping objectives:
(i)To understand the role of street vendors for enhancing consumption of
nutritious RTE food among poor (including millet porridge)
(ii) To understand the socioeconomic profile of street food vendors
(iii) To understand the socio-economic profile of street food consumers and
their preferences for food quality, nutrition, and hygiene
(iv) To explore rural and urban linkages between rural peasants and the
informal food sector employing urban poor.

10. Methods
Mixed Methods Exploratory Research
90 Semi-Standardized Vendor
Interviews
239 Consumer Surveys
 Of which 169 consumed millet
porridge from vendors
Focus Group Discussions
Mapping Exercise

11. 1. Porridge Vendor 2. Non-Porridge Push Cart
3. Hawker 4. Small Scale Restaurant
Classification of Street Food Vendors by
Infrastructure Level and Products Sold

12. Classification of Street Food Vendors
by Infrastructure Level and Products
Sold
No
infrastructure
Pushcart/
tricycle
Semi-
permanent
structure
All
infrastructure
types
Selling
millet
porridge
–
Porridge
vendors (37)
– 37
Selling
other
products
Hawkers (21)
Non-porridge
pushcart
vendors (13)
Curb-side food
stalls (19)
53
All products 21 50 19 90

13. Findings

14. Socioeconomic Profile of
Vendors
Hawkers Porridge
Vendors
Non-porridge
Pushcart
Vendors
Curb-side
Food Stalls
% illiterate 76 61 27 10
% low caste (SC, BC, OBC) 100 94 100 100
% migrant 14 43 15 42
% without bank account 71 83 38 22
% without motorized
vehicle
90 81 69 42
% below poverty line
(BPL card)
100 92 100 89

15. Products offered by
Vendors
10 Popular Products
Offered by Vendors
Idli
Dhosai
Pearl Millet Porridge*
Finger Millet Porridge*
Vada
Poori
Pongal
Paanaryam
Variety Rice
Chapati

16. Consumer Profile
◦ Poor labourers,
informal sector
workers, petty
traders
◦ Majority have less
than grade 11
education
◦ More than 1/3
were not fully
literate

17. Street Food Preferences
◦ Street foods are purchased often, (on average once
every 2 days) due to their convenience
◦ Millet porridge is only available from porridge
vendors (not made at home)
◦ Millet porridge
◦ Favoured by day labourers because it kept them
full and gave them stamina to do their work
◦ Favoured by diabetic patients

18. Consumers and Health
◦ Literature indicated that poor consumers are not
concerned with health and hygiene
◦ On the contrary, poor consumers were concerned with
the quality and hygiene of street foods
◦ Awareness of the nutritional benefits of millet
consumption was high
◦ Household incidences of diabetes is high among
consumers (treated with Finger Millet Porridge)

19. Lessons
Learned

20. Lessons for Policy Makers
◦ India’s food subsidy has grown more than 25 fold over the past
two decades: $0.62 billion (1992) to $16.67 billion (2012).
◦ This subsidy will be further increased one the National Food
Security Act will be implemented: Estimates are 1.1 to 3% of
GDP.
◦ Production, Distribution, and Consumption related schemes
have not engaged the urban poor
◦ Production schemes: Exclusively in rural areas
◦ Distribution schemes: Problems with leakage and corruption
◦ Consumption schemes: See the urban poor as passive beneficiaries
 None of these schemes provide any employment opportunity for the
urban poor

21. Engaging the Informal
Sector in state run schemes
Amma Unavagam
◦ Launched on February 24, 2013 (Jayalalithaa’s birthday).
◦ Offer ready-to-eat cooked food at subsidized rates to urban
consumers at highly subsidized price.
◦ 200 outlets in the greater Chennai: 200, 000 people per day.
◦ Adverse impacts on street vendors?
Street Food Voucher scheme?
◦ Market based food subsidy for the urban poor
◦ Vouchers to be used exclusively at street food vendors
Engaging street vendors in RTE food
distribution schemes such as ICDS, Mid Day
Meal programs.

22. Enabling Policy
Environment
◦ Current policy on health and safety standards of street food is
drafted by the Confederation of Indian Industry!
◦ Street Vending Act (2014):
◦ Licensing and Legitimacy
◦ Greater voice for vendors?
 Opportunities for food scientists improving the nutrition and quality of
street foods
 Limited understanding of the street food vending environment
 Participatory approaches to link food scientists with vendors.
 Opportunities to improve nutrition and diversity
◦ Role for NGOs
◦ linking small farmers with urban consumers via street food vendors
◦ capacity building for street vendors (micro credit, financial services)

23. Acknowledgements
•Canadian International Food Security Research Fund
(CIFSRF)
•International Development Research Center (IDRC)
•Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
•Development for Humane Action Foundation (DHAN)
•Esther Parameswari, Anwar Khan, and B. Gerard
(translation)

24. Thanks!