ANALYSIS OF FOOD CONSUMPTION DATA IN THE ... - NSCB

ANALYSIS OF FOOD CONSUMPTION DATA IN THE
PHILIPPINES FOR POVERTY ESTIMATION
NSO-ADB TA3656-PHI: Improving Poverty Monitoring Surveys
Study II: ESTIMATING FOOD THRESHOLD AND
POVERTY INCIDENCE USING FOOD
BASKET ACROSS INCOME GROUPS
AND BOTTOM 30% INCOME GROUP

Critiques to the Low-Cost, Nutritionally-Adequate
Menus approach:
! tendency towards overestimating food threshold because
the list of commonly eaten foods were derived from
all income groups rather than the poor
! tendency to produce estimates of food poor based on
different standards of living between regions
and provinces

GENERAL OBJECTIVE:
To compare the food basket (derived from the 1993
National Nutrition Surveys), and food threshold of
households across income groups and in the bottom 30%
income group for estimating poverty incidence.

Specific Objectives:
1. To derive the actual food basket of Filipino households
across income groups and in the bottom 30% income
group from the 1993 Food Consumption Survey of the
NNS;
2. To estimate urban and rural food thresholds derived
from the food baskets of households across income
groups and the bottom 30% income group; and
3. To validate the derived food thresholds as tool for
estimating urban and rural poverty incidence using
consumption of households in the bottom 30% income
group from the 2000 FIES as benchmark indicator.

METHOD
1. Data cleaning, which included grouping of –
(i) fishes to small to medium and medium-large to
very large groups,
(ii) all shellfishes,
(iii) ordinary and special rice (except as rice
products such as rice cakes, etc.),
(iv) all kinds of milk,
(v) breads and special bakery products

METHOD
2. Shortlisting and ranking of food items based on the
distribution of food items by energy and protein
contribution in the “all income group” and “bottom 30%
income group,” urban and rural domains;
3. Stepwise non-parametric (kernel) discriminant analysis
using the ranked data of food items from no. 2, to identify
the food items that distinguished households with
adequate (100%) intakes from those households with
inadequate (

METHOD
4. Stepwise logistic regression, with “having adequate (100%)
energy and protein intakes” as dependent variable and the
food items, in grams of intake, found significant from the
discriminant analysis as the independent variables. The
food items that came out significant at α < .05 in the model
comprised the food basket;
5. Adjusting the food basket to reach the nutrition standard.
This included the addition of foods to meet at least 80%
adequacy for vitamin A and iron, and adjusting the
amount of some foods (eg. rice, cooking oil) to meet 100%
energy;

METHOD
6. Computing food cost based on the National Level 2000
Price Estimates of various food commodities (NSO 2000),
to estimate food threshold; and
7. Estimating food poverty incidence from the 2000 FIES
based on total family expenditure.

Daily per capita food basket derived from “all income group” vs. “bottom
30% income group” : urban
All income group
1. Rice
363.0g *
2. Bread
16.1
3. Pork
31.6
4. Fish
20.9
5. Chicken
12.6
6. Dried fish
10.0
7. Noodles
8.1
8. Mungbeans & Products
5.7
Energy
9. Condiments
16.5 (kcal,%RDA) 1994 kcal,
100% 10. Egg
Protein 13.2 (g,%) 50g,
100% 11. Sugars
Vitamin 21.2A (mcg RE, %) 458 mcg,
100% 12. Fruits
Iron (mg,
65.2
%)
12mg,
* with adjustment in quantity or weight of food item ** additional item
Bottom 30% income group
1. Rice
407.0g *
2. Bread
18.0
3. Pork
30.0
4. Dried fish
21.0
5. Noodles
7.7
6. Condiments
17.4
7. Sugars
6.2
8. Fruits
Energy 67.5 (kcal,%RDA) 1994 kcal,
100% 9. Cooking oil/gata
Protein
15.5
(g,%)
*
50g,
10. Kangkong/malunggay/
100% 30.0 **
Vitamin kamote A (mcg tops/gabi,leaves
RE,%) 458mcg,
100%
Iron (mg, %)
12mg,

Daily per capita food basket derived from “all income group” vs. “bottom
30% income group”: rural
All income group
1. Rice 375.0g *
2. Bread 11.5
3. Pork 30.5 *
4. Chicken 8.0
5. Dried fish 14.4
6. Noodles 4.7
7. Mungbeans & Prod. 5.5
8. Condiments 15.6
9. Sugars 18.9
10. Fruits 64.0
11. Cooking oil/gata 16.7 *
12. Milk 15.0
13. Kangkong/malung- 26.0 **
gay/kamote & gabi,leaves
Energy (kcal,%RDA) 1994 kcal,
100%
Protein (g,%) 50g,
100%
Vitamin A (mcg RE, %) 458mcg,
100%
Iron (mg, %)
12mg,
80%
Bottom 30% income group
1. Rice 407.0g *
2. Bread 6.8
3. Pork 9.5
4. Fish 22.0 *
5. Dried fish 15.3
6. Mungbeans & Prod. 4.4
7. Condiments 17.0 **
8. Sugars 16.0
9. Fruits 55.7
10. Cooking oil/gata 21.5 *
11. Milk 8.2
12. Kangkong/malung- 24.0 **
gay/kamote & gabi,leaves
Energy (kcal,%RDA) 1994 kcal,
100%
Protein (g,%) 50g,
100%
Vitamin A (mcg RE, %) 458mcg,
100%
Iron (mg, %) 12mg ,
80%
* with adjustment in quantity or weight of food item ** additional food item

Daily per capita food basket derived from “all income group” vs. “bottom
30% income group” : All(urban + rural)
All income group
1. Rice
348.0 g *
2. Bread
14.0
3. Pork
25.4
4. Fish
20.0
5. Chicken
10.5
6. Dried fish
9.5 *
7. Noodles
6.6
8. Mungbeans & Products
Energy 5.6(kcal,%RDA)
1994 kcal,
100% 9. Condiments
Protein
16.1
(g,%) 50g,
10. Egg
100% 10.9
Vitamin 11. Sugars A (mcg RE, %) 458 mcg,
100% 20.2
Iron 12. Fruits (mg, %)
12mg,
* with adjustment in quantity or weight of food item ** additional item
Bottom 30% income group
1. Rice
407.0g *
2. Bread
9.7
3. Pork
11.1
4. Fish
28.5
5 Noodles
3.9
6. Dried fish
13.7
7. Mungbens & Products
4.6
8. Condiments
Energy 13.0 (kcal,%RDA) **
1994 kcal,
9. 100% Sugars
Protein
15.9
(g,%) 50g,
10. Fruits
100% 58.0
11. Vitamin Cooking A (mcg oil/gata RE,%) 458mcg,
100% 19.8 *
12. Iron Milk (mg, %)
12mg,

Sample menu for food basket for a family of 6, urban “bottom 30%
income group”
1. Rice
2. Bread
3. Pork
4. Dried fish
5. Noodles
6. Condiments
7. Sugar
8. Fruit
9. Cooking oil/gata
10. Kangkong/
malunggay/
kamote tops/
gabi leaves
2442.0 g
108.0
180.0
126.0
46.2
104.4
37.2
405.0
93.0
180.0
Breakfast
Dried fish
Boiled rice
Coffee w/ sugar
Lunch
Noodle soup
Laing
Boiled rice
Banana
Supper
Pork sinigang
w/ kangkong,
kamote tops
Boiled rice
Snack
Bread

Food thresholds derived from “all income group”
and “bottom 30% income group” food baskets
Urban
Rural
All
All income
group
P 20.43
P 18.26
P 19.80
Bottom 30%
income group
P 17.59
(P 2.84)
P 16.69
(P 1.57)
P 17.02
(P 2.78)
Official estimate P 25.14

Food thresholds derived from “all income group”
and “bottom 30% income group” unadjusted food
baskets vs. official estimate
Urban
Rural
All
All income
group
P 50.14
P 35.12
P 41.88
Bottom 30%
income group
P 42.40
(P7.74)
P 29.73
(P5.39)
P 33.73
(P8.15)
Official estimate
P 25.14

Incidence of food poverty based on food
thresholds derived from “all income group” and
bottom 30% income group” vs. official estimate
Urban
Rural
All
All income
group
5.4%
13.9%
10.1%
Bottom 30%
income group
2.8%
9.7%
5.7%
Official estimate 33.7%

Incidence of food poverty based on unadjusted
food thresholds derived from “all income group”
and “bottom 30% income group” 1
Urban
Rural
All
All income
group
39.2%
55.5%
44.6%
Bottom 30%
income group
13.8%
32.7%
21.5%
Official estimate 33.7%

Sensitivity and specificity of estimated food thresholds for
identifying and classifying households who are food poor/not
food poor 1 25.2% 98.9%
Domain
Sensitivity Specificity
Urban
“all income”
“bottom 30%”
Rural
“all income”
“bottom 30%”
All
“all income”
“bottom 30%”
15.8% 100.0%
27.0% 98.1%
20.2% 100.0%
29.9% 98.3%
18.9% 100.0%
1 Food-poor households was defined as those households with total expenditure

Sensitivity and specificity of estimated food thresholds
(unadjusted) for identifying and classifying households who are
food poor/not food poor 1 84.6% 70.6%
Domain
Sensitivity Specificity
Urban
“all income”
“bottom 30%”
Rural
“all income”
“bottom 30%”
All
“all income”
“bottom 30%”
77.1% 100.0%
78.5% 65.5%
68.5% 100.0%
82.7% 71.8%
71.7% 100.0%
1 Food-poor households was defined as those households with total expenditure

Discussion
1. “all income group” vs. “bottom 30% income group”
- The food basket of the “all income group” is more
diverse, resulting to higher food cost / inflated food
threshold, than that of the “bottom 30% income group.”
- The estimates of food poor tend to be inflated when food
threshold is derived from the food basket of the “all
income group” compared to “bottom 30% income group”
- 92% higher for incidence of urban food poor, 43%
higher for incidence of rural food poor, 77% higher for
the overall incidence of food poverty.

2. Food basket vs. actual foods consumed
(unadjusted)
- food baskets or lumping of food items into groups vs.
actual foods consumed (unadjusted “food basket”)
tends to lower the validity (sensitivity and specificity) of
food poverty estimates

3. Arguments for the nutrition standard of 100%
energy and protein and 80% for other vitamins and
minerals, vs 100% energy
- RDAs are levels of intakes of energy and essential nutrients
considered adequate to maintain health and provide
reasonable levels of reserves (20% margin of safety) in body
tissues
- reference indiv in the formulation of the RDA (energy) is one
engaged in moderate physical activity, which reflects the level of
activity for occupations the lower econ strata usually engage in
- the RDA levels may not even be adequate under extreme
environmental conditions, nor to cover additional requirements
resulting from abnormal conditions. The poor are subjected to
adverse environmental conditions