July 2002
USA PHILIPPINES
Department of Food Science and Technology
University of Georgia
Griffin, Georgia
USA
Department of Food Science and Nutrition
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City
Philippines
Food Development Center
National Food Authority
Taguig, Metro Manila
Philippines
Department of Agricultural Chemistry and Food Science
Leyte State University
Leyte
Philippines
No. 8
United States Agency for International Development
Peanut Collaborative Research Support Program
MONOGRAPH SERIES
Impact assessment of
PEANUT-crsp projects in 
the philippines - part 1
United States Agency for International Development 
Peanut Collaborative Research Support Program 
Project 04 
(USA and Philippines) 
MONOGRAPH SERIES 
No. 8 
Department of Food Science and Technology 
University of Georgia 
1109 Experiment St. 
Griffin, Georgia 30223-1797 
USA 
Department of Sociology and Anthropology 
North Carolina State University 
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695 
USA 
Food Development Center 
National Food Authority 
Department of Agriculture 
FTI Complex, Taguig 1632 
Metro Manila, Philippines 
Department of Food Science and Nutrition 
College of Home Economics 
University of the Philippines 
Diliman 1101 
Quezon City, Philippines 
Department of Food Science and Technology 
Leyte State University 
Visca, Baybay, Leyte 6521-A 
Philippines 
2
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
OF PEANUT-CRSP PROJECTS 
IN THE PHILIPPINES 
Part 1 
Alicia O. Lustre1 
Lutgarda S. Palomar2 
Ma. Leonora dL. Francisco3 
Robert L. Moxley4
 
and 
 Anna V.A. Resurreccion 5 
1
Co-Principal Investigator USAID Peanut-CRSP; Director, Food Development Center 1632, Philippines 
2
Professor, Leyte State University 6521-A, Philippines 3
Assistant Professor, College of Home Economics, U.P. Diliman 1101, Philippines 
4
Professor, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA 
5
Principal Investigator USAID Peanut-CRSP; Professor, University of Georgia, Griffin, Georgia 30223-1797, USA 
July 2002 
3
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 
The authors acknowledge the Peanut Collaborative Research Support Program (Peanut-CRSP) of 
the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for providing research funds through 
Grant No. LAG-G-00096-00013-00. 
We would also like to thank Dr. Tim Williams, Program Director of Peanut-CRSP for his support 
of our research activities; Dr. Anna V. A. Resurreccion, for her leadership as principal investigator of this 
Peanut-CRSP project, Dr. Robert L. Moxley, for his leadership as Project Director of this Peanut-CRSP 
Impact Studies, and Dr. William B. Clifford, for his contributions to the research and training activities. 
Our gratitude is extended to Mr. Ramon Pua of Newborn Food Products and to Mr. Kim Lapus of 
Marigold Commodities Corporation, for collaborating with us on these projects. 
We are grateful to the respondents who provided the necessary data for the completion of the 
survey part of the project, and all the interviewers for their efforts in data collection. 
The support of Ms. Marina Escaño, Division Chief, Food Development Center (FDC) Support 
Services, for assistance in monitoring and reporting expenses is greatly appreciated. 
We thank Ms. Lotis dL. Francisco for editing the manuscript and Ms. Jocelyn M. Sales for 
making all arrangements for its printing, and Ms. Gertrude Agustin, Ms. Edith San Juan and Ms. Sue 
Ellen McCullough for their technical support in the preparation of this monograph. 
5
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF PEANUT-CRSP PROJECTS 
IN THE PHILIPPINES - Part 1 
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 5
Chapter 1 Monitoring Impact of Completed Projects in the Market 16
Alicia O. Lustre, Alberto R. Cariso Jr., Robert Nestor B. Buan, 
Gertrude M. Agustin, and Anna V.A. Resureccion 
I. ABSTRACT 17
II. INTRODUCTION 18
III. OBJECTIVES 18
IV. METHODS 18
A. Preparation of a Checklist for Use in the Measurement 
 of the Sales Production, Production and Socio- 
 Economic Impact 
18
B. Collection and Verification of Data 19
C. Collection and Analysis of Samples 19 
V. RESULTS 19
A. Monitoring the Impact of Project 3.2.7A: Technology 
 for Vitamin A Fortification of Peanut Butter 
19
1. Monitoring the Production Volume, Sales Performance 
 and Socio-Economic Benefits as a Measure of Impact 
19
2. Monitoring the Vitamin A Content in Fortified 
 Peanut Butter 
21
3. Verification of the Possible Cause of Low 
 Vitamin A Contents in Fortified Peanut Butter 
26
4. Stability of Vitamin A Palmitate During Storage 28
B. Monitoring the Impact of Project 3.2.8A: Sorting 
 Technology for Aflatoxin Control 
29
1. Monitoring the Aflatoxin Content in Kare-Kare Mix 29
2. Monitoring the Sales Performance, Production 
 and Socio-Economic Benefits 
29
VI. CONCLUSIONS 
31
7
Chapter 2 Impact Assessment on the Use of Sorting in the Production of 
Peanut-Based Products 
34
Ma. Leonora dL. Francisco, Flor Crisanta F. Galvez,, Lutgarda S. 
Palomar, Robert L. Moxley and Anna V.A. Resurreccion 
I. ABSTRACT 35
II. INTRODUCTION 35
III. OBJECTIVES 38
IV. METHODS 38
V. RESULTS 
 A. Negative Impacts Encountered Upon Initial Adoption 
B. Impact on Employment, Facilities and Raw Material 
1. Manufacturing Facilities 
2. Employment 
3. Employees 
4. Raw Material 
C. Impact on Business 
1. Production Impacts on Kare-kare with Peanuts 
2. Production Impacts on Kare-kare without Peanuts 
3. International Marketing 
4. Research and Development 
D. Impact on Product Quality 
E. Impact on Consumers 
39 
39 
40 
40 
40 
40 
40 
41 
41 
45 
45 
49 
49 
50
VI. CONCLUSIONS 58
VII. REFERENCES 59
VIII. APPENDIX 
 Appendix A Questionnaire Used in the Consumer 
 Survey 
 
60
Chapter 3 Impact Assessment on the Technology of Vitamin A Fortified 
Peanut Butter 
73
Alicia O. Lustre, Alberto R. Cariso Jr., Gertrude M. Agustin,, Robert L. 
Moxley, and Anna V. A. Resurreccion 
I. ABSTRACT 74
II. INTRODUCTION 75
III. OBJECTIVES 75
8
IV. METHODS 
 A. Preparation of Questionnaires 
 B. Gathering of Data 
75 
76 
76
V. RESULTS 
A. Responses to questionnaires 
1. Effect on Product Sales 
2. Effect on the Marketing System and Volume 
3. Effect on the Product Quality 
4. Effect on the Production Cost 
5. Effect on the Employment and Workers’ Attitude 
76 
76 
76 
78 
79 
79 
80
VI. CONCLUSIONS 82
VII. REFERENCES 83
Chapter 4 Impact Assessment of Vitamin A Fortification of Peanut Butter on 
Filipino Families and Consumers 
84
Ma. Leonora dL. Francisco, Flor Crisanta F. Galvez, Lutgarda S. 
Palomar, Robert L. Moxley, and Anna V. A. Resurreccion 
I. ABSTRACT 85
II. INTRODUCTION 
A. Consumer Research 
B. Food Preferences 
C. Peanut and Peanut Products 
D. The Need for Vitamin A Fortification 
86 
86 
86 
87 
87
III. OBJECCTIVES 88
IV. METHODS 
A. Questionnaire Development 
B. Data Collection and Processing 
88 
88 
88
V. RESULTS 
A. Demographic Findings 
B. Socio-Economic Information 
C. Consumer Attitudes, Knowledge and Behavior 
89 
89 
90 
92
VI. CONCLUSIONS 101
VII. REFERENCES 103
VIII. APPENDICES 105
 
 Appendix A Total Population, Household Population and 
 Number of Households in the Barangay 
 Area Surveyed in Metro Manila 
105
9
 
 Appendix B List of Areas and Outlets Selling 
 Lily’s Peanut Butter 
107
 Appendix C Total Population, Household 
 Population and Number of 
 Households in the City/ Town Area 
 Surveyed Outside Metro Manila 
110
10
LIST OF TABLES 
Chapter 1 Monitoring Impact of Completed Projects in the Market 
Table No. Title Page
Table 1.1 Production volume and percent increase/decrease in sales volume of 
fortified peanut butter before and after technology adoption. 
22
Table 1.2 Vitamin A content in samples of fortified peanut butter for the period 
covering March 1999 to February 2001. 
25
Table 1.3 Comparison of levels of vitamin A in fortified peanut butter, peanut 
butter premix, and vitamin A palmitate using the recommended 
procedures in adding and mixing of the fortificant. 
27
Table 1.4 Total production volume of Kare-kare mix (with peanuts added), volume 
for export and volume produced for the U.S. market. 
32
Table 1.5 Aflatoxin content in samples of Kare-kare mix (with peanuts added) 
taken from supermarkets in Metro manila, provinces and Marigold plant. 
33
Chapter 2 Impact Assessment on the Use of Sorting in the Production of 
Peanut-Based Products 
Table No. Title Page
Table 2.1 Maximum allowable level of total aflatoxin (ppb) for commodities for 
human and animal consumption. 
36
Table 2.2 Aflatoxin content of dry blanched peanut samples obtained during the 
development of the sorting process. 
39
Table 2.3 Countries where peanut-based products are currently being exported 
(Kare-Kare mix and Java sauce). 
45
Table 2.4 Total production volume of Java sauce, volume for domestic and volume 
for export. 
49
Chapter 3 Impact Assessment on the Technology of Vitamin A Fortified 
Peanut Butter 
Table No. Title Page
Table 3.1 Questions and responses relevant to the effect on product sales. 77
Table 3.2 Volume of production of fortified peanut butter and raw material usage 
before (Year 1999) and after (Years 2000 and 2002) technology 
adoption. 
78
11
Table 3.3 Questions and responses relevant to effect on the marketing system and 
volume. 
78
Table 3.4 Questions and responses relevant to the effect on product quality. 79
Table 3.5 Questions and responses relevant to the effect on production cost. 80
Table 3.6 Questions and responses relevant to the effect on employment and 
workers' attitude. 80
Chapter 4 Impact Assessment of Vitamin A Fortification of Peanut Butter on 
Filipino Families and Consumers 
Table No. Title Page
Table 4.1 Sample distribution: major sampling area and gross monthly income for 
families with children living at home (N=361) 90
12
LIST OF FIGURES 
Chapter 1 Monitoring Impact of Completed Projects in the Market 
Fig. No. Title Page
Fig. 1.1 Percentage increase/decrease in sales of vitamin A fortified peanut 
butter, CY 1999, 2000 & 2001. 
20
Fig. 1.2 Monthly levels of vitamin A (Retinol) in fortified peanut butter, CY 
1999-2000. 
24
Fig. 1.3 Selected monthly total production volume, total volume for export and 
total for the U.S. Market, July-Dec. 2000 and Jan-Mar 2001. 
30
Chapter 2 Impact Assessment on the Use of Sorting in the Production of 
Peanut-Based Products 
Fig. No. Title Page
Fig. 2.1 Flow diagram of the developed manual sorting procedure for raw 
peanuts. 
37
Fig. 2.2 Total production volume of Kare-kare mix with peanuts, volume for 
domestic and volume for export from January to October. 
42
Fig. 2.3 Percent market share of domestic, export and U.S. sales of Kare-kare 
mix with peanuts from January to October. 
43
Fig. 2.4 Percent USA market share of Kare-kare mix with peanuts from January 
to October. 
44
Fig. 2.5 Total volume sales (as number of cases) of Kare-kare mix with peanuts. 
KRM57g = Kare-Kare Mix, 57 g variant; KRM100g = Kare-Kare Mix, 
100 g variant. 
46
Fig. 2.6 Total production volume of Kare-Kare mix without peanuts, volume for 
domestic and volume for export from January to December. 
47
Fig. 2.7 Percent market share of domestic, export and US sales on Kare-Kare 
mix without peanuts from January to December. 
48
Fig. 2.8 Number of respondents in different regions who buys Kare-Kare mix. 
(N. Luzon and S. Luzon stands for Northern and Southern Luzon, 
respectively; M. Mla stands for Metro Manila; LI stands for low income 
and MI stands for middle income). 
51
13
Fig. 2.9 Frequency of Kare-Kare mix purchased by Filipino consumers in 
different regions. (N. Luzon and S. Luzon stands for Northern and 
Southern Luzon, respectively; M. Mla stands for Metro Manila; LI 
stands for low income and MI stands for middle income). 
52
Fig. 2.10 Type of Kare-kare mix usually purchased by Filipino consumers in 
different regions. (N. Luzon and S. Luzon stands for Northern and 
Southern Luzon, respectively; M. Mla stands for Metro Manila; LI 
stands for low income and MI stands for middle income). 
53
Fig. 2.11 Basis of choice for Kare-kare mix p urchase of Filipino consumers in 
different regions. (N. Luzon and S. Luzon stands for Northern and 
Southern Luzon, respectively; M. Mla stands for Metro Manila; LI 
stands for low income and MI stands for middle income). 
54
Fig. 2.12 Brand of Kare-kare mix usually purchased by Filipino consumers in 
different regions. (N. Luzon and S. Luzon stands for Northern and 
Southern Luzon, respectively; M. Mla stands for Metro Manila; LI 
stands for low income and MI stands for middle income). 
55
Fig. 2.13 Response of Filipino consumers in different regions regarding their 
knowledge on aflatoxin. (N. Luzon and S. Luzon stands for Northern 
and Southern Luzon, respectively; M. Mla stands for Metro Manila; LI 
stands for low income and MI stands for middle income). 
56
Fig. 2.14 Percentage of Filipino consumers in different regions who will buy 
aflatoxin-free Kare-Kare mix 
57
Chapter 4 Impact Assessment of Vitamin A Fortification of Peanut Butter on 
Filipino Families and Consumers 
Fig. No. Title Page
Fig. 4.1 Amount in peso (PhP) spent by Filipino consumers in different regions 
on food per week (N. Luzon and S. Luzon stands for Northern and 
Southern Luzon, respectively, M. Mla stands for Metro Manila and MI 
and LI stands for middle income and low income, respectively) 
91
Fig. 4.2 Number of Filipino respondents in different regions who buys peanut 
butter (N. Luzon and S. Luzon stands for Northern and Southern Luzon, 
respectively, M. Mla stands for Metro Manila and MI and LI stands for 
middle income and low income, respectively) 
94
Fig. 4.3 Basis of choice for peanut butter purchase of Filipino consumers in 
different regions (N. Luzon and S. Luzon stands for Northern and 
Southern Luzon, respectively, M. Mla stands for Metro Manila and MI 
and LI stands for middle income and low income, respectively) 
95
14
Fig. 4.4 Response of Filipino consumers in different regions on their awareness 
regarding vitamin A fortified peanut butter available in the market (N. 
Luzon and S. Luzon stands for Northern and Southern Luzon, 
respectively, M. Mla stands for Metro Manila and MI and LI stands for 
middle income and low income, respectively). 
97
Fig. 4.5 Number of Filipino consumers in different regions who bought vitamin 
A fortified peanut butter (N. Luzon and S. Luzon stands for Northern 
and Southern Luzon, respectively, M. Mla stands for Metro Manila and 
MI and LI stands for middle income and low income, respectively) 
98
Fig. 4.6 Peanut butter consumption of children (in tablespoon) in low income 
households per week (Male <21, Female <18; 1 serving = 1 tablespoon) 99
Fig. 4.7 Peanut butter consumption of children (in tablespoon) in middle income 
households per week (Male <21, Female <18; 1 serving = 1 tablespoon) 100
15
CHAPTER 1 
MONITORING IMPACT OF 
COMPLETED PROJECTS 
Alicia O. Lustre1 
Alberto R. Cariso, Jr2 
Robert Nestor B. Buan 3 
Gertrude M. Agustin4
and 
Anna V. A. Resurreccion5 
1
Co-Principal Investigator USAID Peanut-CRSP; Director, Food Development Center 1632, Philippines 
2
Division Chief, Food Development Center 1632, Philippines 
3
Former Senior Research Specialist, Food Development Center 1632, Philippines 
4
Acting Division Chief, Food Development Center 1632, Philippines 
5
Principal Investigator USAID Peanut-CRSP; Professor, University of Georgia 30223-1797, U.S.A. 
16
ABSTRACT 
Impacts of two technologies developed in the project are discussed. The impact of the vitamin A 
fortification of peanut butter and of the sorting technology for aflatoxin control on the sales performance, 
production volumes and socio-economic benefits was determined through interviews with the 
collaborating company’s representatives and monitoring of the vitamin A and aflatoxin content of peanut 
butter in the market. 
 The collaborator promoted the vitamin A fortified peanut butter through: (1) a sticker on the label 
panel which bears the information “Fortified with Vitamin A” and the percentage vitamin A content on 
the Nutrition Facts Panel, (2) advertisements aired over the radio in January 2000 and on television in 
February 2000, and (3) nationwide distribution of 2,500 posters of the product. 
 Production volume was affected by the sales performance of the vitamin A fortified peanut butter. 
The volume decreased when sales were down, especially during the first few months after launch of the 
labeled vitamin A fortified peanut butter in December 1999 to March 2000. The volume was increased 
by the company in anticipation of the peak months of sales. Data shows that the sales performance 
dictates the production volume for succeeding months except when sales for the succeeding months are 
anticipated to increase. The adoption of the fortification technology necessitated the hiring of additional 
personnel, three women who were assigned to the Research and Development, Quality Control and 
Production Sections. In addition, two men from the Production Section were assigned full-time to the 
mixing step to ensure that recommended procedures for addition and mixing of the fortificant and premix 
were followed. 
Samples of vitamin A fortified peanut butter from area supermarkets were analyzed for vitamin A 
content to evaluate the efficacy of the premix technology. The data showed that the vitamin A in 10 of 22 
samples, vitamin A content met the target RENI of 4.38 μg retinol/g peanut butter. Verification of the 
possible causes of low vitamin A contents in the product was conducted. Results showed that the 
production personnel followed the recommended procedure in the addition and mixing of the fortificant. 
A storage study of the fortificant was conducted and showed that the initial content of the fortificant was 
found to be only 33% of the declared value and further decreased after one week of storage at 
refrigeration temperatures. This showed that a rate of loss after one week in storage was 2.49%. The low 
vitamin A content in fortified peanut butter samples was attributed to the low concentration of vitamin A 
in the batch of fortificant used. These findings were used as basis for advising the collaborator to 
discontinue the use of that particular batch of fortificant until a new supplier of the fortificant was 
available. 
Adoption of the sorting technology for removal of aflatoxin contaminated peanut kernels enabled 
the collaborating company to export Kare-kare mix with peanuts in the US, Middle East and Hong Kong, 
whereas sales performance of the Kare-kare mix with peanuts, before the introduction of the sorting 
technology, was zero. The addition of peanuts to Kare-kare sauce mix with peanuts not only improved 
the product but also contributed to an increase in sales. After adoption of the sorting technology, the 
collaborating company experienced increase in sales and production volume, and sometimes could not fill 
some orders, for both domestic and export markets as a result of the high demand and limited production 
situation. The adoption of the two technologies created confidence in the collaborating companies 
regarding the superiority of their products over their competitors, giving them a competitive advantage.
17
INTRODUCTION 
 The project aims to evaluate the sustainability of Peanut-CRSP completed projects by monitoring 
perceptible social and economic benefits experienced by industry collaborators resulting in the adoption 
of the new technologies developed. Two completed projects namely: (1) Technology for Vitamin A 
Fortification of Peanut Butter, and (2) Sorting Technology for Aflatoxin Control, were monitored to 
assess the impact of the projects after adoption of the technology by the industry partners collaborating on 
the project. 
 The formal turnover of above technologies to their respective collaborators took place in a signing 
ceremony held in June 1999. Present were industry collaborators from Newborn Food Products 
Corporation headed by Mr. Ramon Pua and Marigold Commodities Corporation headed by Mr. Kim 
Lapuz and Peanut-CRSP Principal Investigators headed by Dr. Anna V.A. Resurreccion of the University 
of Georgia, Dr. Alicia O. Lustre of the Food Development Center, Dean Angelita Dizon and Dr. Flor 
Crisanta F. Galvez of the University of the Philippines in Diliman. 
 In July 1999, samples of Vitamin A Fortified Peanut Butter and of aflatoxin-free Kare-kare Mix, 
were part of a food exhibit which was showcased during the Launching of Proper Food Handling Program 
“Epektibo at Responsableng Asal sa Pagkain” held at the Food Development Center. This event marked 
the first introduction of vitamin A fortified peanut butter and aflatoxin-free Kare-kare Mix in the local 
market as the two industry collaborators joined other food companies in participating in the food tasting 
and product selling activities. 
OBJECTIVES 
 Our objective was to monitor perceptible social and economic benefits of completed projects and 
to evaluate their sustainability. Specifically, we evaluated the impact of aflatoxin control technology on 
the acceptance/expansion of export shipments for “Kare-kare” mix to the U.S., of vitamin A fortification 
of peanut butter and of aflatoxin control on the sales of relevant products by Marigold and Newborn, of 
technology adoption by both industry collaborators on product quality at the market and other socio￾economic benefits provided by the technologies transferred. 
METHODS 
Preparation of a Checklist for Use in the Measurement of the Sales Performance, Production and 
Socio-Economic Impact 
 A questionnaire was prepared and was used as guide in gathering data on the sales performance 
of the product, monthly changes in the production volumes, employment opportunities and promotion of 
women welfare. The questionnaire was initially provided to the collaborators who took them several 
months to complete and return the accomplished forms. The first questionnaire was personally handed to 
18
the collaborators in February 2000 but the completed forms were received by the Food Development 
Center (FDC) only in June 2000. 
 
Collection and Verification of Data 
Quarterly interviews with the collaborators were conducted at least once for the period to gather 
and/or verify information supplied on production volume, sales volume, promotional activities and 
number of additional hired labor. 
Collection and Analysis of Samples 
Samples of Kare-kare mix and fortified peanut butter were obtained from Metro Manila stores 
and/or supermarkets on a monthly basis for aflatoxin and vitamin A analysis, respectively. Samples 
collected came from production batches with the highest production for the month, which were supplied 
by the industry collaborator. Thirteen packs of Kare-kare mix and two bottles of fortified peanut butter 
were either purchased in supermarkets and public markets or taken directly from the industry 
collaborator’s plant. In addition to the above, six shipments of Kare-kare mix (with peanuts added) 
intended for the U.S. market were analyzed prior to shipment to ensure that the product will not encounter 
any detention due to presence of aflatoxin. Samples obtained were submitted to the FDC, Chemistry 
Section for analysis. 
RESULTS 
Monitoring the Impact of Project 3.2.7A Technology for Vitamin A Fortification of Peanut Butter 
Monitoring the Production Volume, Sales Performance and Socio-Economic Benefits as a Measure of 
Impact 
Production Volume. Table 1.1 shows the production volume of vitamin A fortified peanut 
butter before and after technology adoption. The technology was actually adopted by the collaborator in 
July 1999 but the market launch of the labeled vitamin A fortified peanut butter did not occur until 
December 1999. The production volume gathered in 1999 represents the pre-technology adoption period, 
whereas the production volume gathered in 2000 represents the post technology adoption period. 
The total production for year 1999 was 507 metric tons while for year 2000, it was 534 metric 
tons or a production increase of 5.3%. There was an increase in production every quarter in 2000 
compared to 1999 except in the third quarter (July – September) of 2000. This decrease in production in 
the 3rd quarter of 2000 was purposely implemented by the collaborating company’s management, in 
anticipation of decreasing sales after the beginning of the school year in June. Conversely, when sales 
were anticipated to increase in the 4th quarter (September - December) production volume was increased. 
The first quarter of the year showed the lowest levels of production. This was expected as this 
period was just after the Christmas season when the purchasing activities of the Filipinos were also 
lowest. In year 2000, the highest production volumes achieved by the collaborator were in the 2nd and 4th
quarters of the year. The specific months of highest production were in June and December. June is the 
start of school year and December is the start of Christmas season.
19
Although the total increase in production volume in year 2000, after technology adoption, was 
relatively small compared to year 1999, before technology adoption, this was considered by the 
collaborator as a positive event in sustaining their competitiveness during these difficult economic periods 
in the Philippines. During these years, the Philippines experienced the devaluation of peso and many 
factories closed down. This was particularly a difficult time for peanut processors as peanuts raw 
materials were imported, and thus the cost was high but could not increase the price of the finished 
product as consumers might not buy it. 
Launching
Percenta
ge 
J FMAM J J ASOND J FMAM J J ASOND J FM
1999 2000 2001
Production Month 
Fig. 1.1 Monthly sales comparison of vitamin A fortified peanut butter in 1999, 2000 & 2001. 
Sales Performance. The sales performance (Fig. 1.1) for vitamin A fortified peanut butter was 
monitored from December 1999 to April 2001 after the collaborating company introduced the labeled 
Vitamin A fortified peanut butter product in the market in December 1999. According to the industry 
collaborator, one of the causes for the delay in market launch was because it took the company several 
months (∼4 months) to obtain the Bureau of Food and Drug’s (BFAD) approval for the product 
registration of its fortified peanut butter, which was considered a new product. There was also a need to 
prepare for technology adoption, by hiring and training additional workforce, purchasing and installation 
of equipment, which took approximately four months to complete. 
 One of the first promotional strategies undertaken by the collaborator was to place a sticker 
bearing the information “Fortified with Vitamin A” and % vitamin A content on the Nutrition Facts 
Panel, declaring that the peanut butter has been fortified with vitamin A. This was followed with 
advertisements about the product, aired over the radio in January 2000 and on television in February 
2000. Finally, 2,500 posters of the vitamin A fortified peanut butter were distributed nationwide. 
20
21
Table 1.1 also shows the percentage increase/decrease in sales volume of vitamin A fortified 
peanut butter before and after technology adoption. The basis of percentage computation in 
increase/decrease in sales was the comparison of the sales of the particular month to the same month of 
the previous year. Eight of twelve months in 2000, after technology adoption, showed an increase or 
equivalent sales was realized compared to 1999. However, there were only six of twelve months of 
increased or equal sales in 1999, before technology adoption compared to the previous year (1998). The 
first quarter of 2001 also showed sales increases in two of three months. In addition, Fig 1.1 shows that 
when the decreased sales observed yearly, in January and February, after the Christmas season, there were 
only three months of ten in 2002 that sales were lower compared to the same period in 1999. The 
increasing sales in 2000 and 2001, demonstrated above, helped the collaborating company to survive the 
otherwise catastrophic effect of the economic downturn experienced by the country in 1999 and early 
2000 as discussed previously. 
 
Socio-economic Impact. According to the collaborator, the adoption of the fortification 
technology in their peanut butter necessitated the hiring of three women workers and the reassignment of 
two males to the production section. The newly hired workers were assigned to the Research and 
Development and Quality Control and Production functions. A female full-time R&D/QC Head, was 
hired to oversee the research and development as well as quality control operations of the company. Two 
other females were hired, one as a Quality Control worker and the other as production head. Preparation 
of the fortificant, i.e. weighing of fortificant during the weekly transfer to smaller containers and its 
addition during premix preparation, was closely supervised by the R&D Head together with the QC 
worker who was tasked to supervise the preparation of the premix and fortified peanut butter. The female 
hired as production head supervised the company’s production operations. In addition to the above, the 
two males in the Production Section were assigned full-time to the mixing step to ensure that 
recommended procedures for addition and mixing of the fortificant and premix were followed. 
Monitoring the Vitamin A Content in Fortified Peanut Butter 
The effectiveness of the premix technology for the vitamin A fortification of peanut butter 
developed for Newborn Food Products Corporation was evaluated by collecting market samples of 
fortified peanut butter from local supermarkets and the industry collaborator’s plant. The information on 
the highest production codes produced during the month was taken from the industry collaborator to serve 
as basis for sample collection. In some instances, samples were obtained directly from the industry 
collaborator’s plant, particularly during the time when an FDC personnel conducted an observation of the 
addition and mixing process during a commercial production run to verify possible causes of low vitamin 
A content in fortified peanut butter. Samples from supermarkets consisted of two jars of fortified peanut 
butter while samples taken from the industry collaborator’s plant, consisted of three samples taken at the 
start, middle and end of the filling line. Samples collected were then analyzed compositely. 
22
Table 1.1 Production volume and percent increase/decrease in sales volume of fortified peanut butter before and after technology 
 adoption. 
Month Production Volume (Kg)1 Sales Percentage Increase/Decrease2
1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 
1st Q (Before Technology 
Adoption) 
Jan 32,000 33,760 32,000 Decreased (-12.0) Decreased (-20.0) Equal to 2000 sales 
Feb 38,000 41,800 45,000 Decreased (-13.0) Decreased (-20.0) Increased (+2.0) 
Mar 49,000 46,158 46,000 Increased (+10.0) Decreased (-3.0) Increased (+9.0) 
Sub-Total 119,000 121,718 123,000 Decreased (-15.0) Decreased (-43.0) Increased (+11.0) 
2nd Q (After Technology 
Adoption) 
Apr 46,000 47,794 - Decreased (-10.0) Increased (+2.0) - 
May 37,000 38,998 - Decreased (-5.0) Increased (+2.0) - 
Jun 46,000 58,420 - Equal to 1998 sales Increased (+6.0) - 
Sub-Total 129,000 145,212 Decreased (-15.0) Increased (+10.0) - 
3rd Q 
Jul 46,000 39,100 - Equal to 1998 sales Decreased (-15.0) - 
Aug 46,000 44,128 - Equal to 1998 sales Equal to 1999 sales - 
Sep 40,000 41,000 - Decreased (-5.0) Increased (+6.9) - 
Sub-Total 132,000 124,228 Decreased (-5.0) Decreased (-8.1) - 
4th Q 
Oct 40,000 46,000 - Equal to 1998 Increased (+5.0) - 
Nov 41,000 48,000 - Increased (+2.5) Increased (+5.0) - 
Dec 46,000 49,000 - Decreased (-20.0) Increased (+26.0) - 
Sub-Total 127,000 143,000 - Decreased (-17.5) Increased (+36.0) - 
TOTAL 507,000 534,158 - Decreased (-52.5) Decreased (-5.1) - 
 11999 was used as baseline production volume before the product launch in December 1999; production figures are contained in a report submitted 
 to FDC by Ms. Arlene Hilao dated October 11, 2000. 
 2Basis of percentage computation is sales volume compared to the same month of the previous year. 
 Note: Technology adoption started in July 1999 but 100% of peanut butter in the market was fortified in December 1999 
The collection and analysis of samples of fortified peanut butter from supermarkets and industry 
collaborator’s plant started in July 1999 immediately after the signing ceremony in June 1999 which 
marked the formal turn-over of the premix technology for the vitamin A fortification of Lily’s brand 
peanut butter. Commercial production of vitamin A fortified peanut butter did not occur until December 
1999. 
Table 1.2 shows the level of vitamin A content in samples of fortified peanut butter obtained in 
supermarkets and industry collaborator’s plant covering production dates from March 1999 to February 
2001. A graphical presentation of the above data is presented in Fig. 1.3. Serving as benchmark data was 
a sample of unfortified peanut butter purchased in Sorsogon, which was produced in March 1999. As 
expected, the vitamin A content of the peanut butter from Sorsogon had zero mcg retinol/g peanut butter. 
The vitamin A content in fortified peanut butter (Fig. 1.3) from various sources indicated varying 
levels of vitamin A which ranged from 2.23 - 11.51 μg retinol/g peanut butter. The data showed that the 
vitamin A in 10 of 22 samples, vitamin A content met the target RENI of 4.38 μg retinol/g. An initial 
verification of the possible cause of low vitamin A contents in fortified peanut butter was conducted in 
December 1999 by validating the fortification procedure recommended to the industry collaborator. The 
process was evaluated by observing plant personnel involved in the actual addition and mixing of the 
fortificant and/or premix during a commercial production of the premix and of the final fortified product. 
Result of actual observation indicated that the FDC recommended procedure for vitamin A fortification 
was not strictly followed by plant personnel. In two instances, e.g. in the months of January 2000 and 
May 2000, were highest (10.79 – 11.51 μg retinol/g) The high levels of vitamin A in the January 2000 
production date were attributed to an FDC staff members being physically present to observe the actual 
addition and mixing of the fortificant, thus the proper addition of the fortificant was implemented. The 
sample processed in May 2000 did not have an FDC staff members present. Based on the above findings, 
the industry collaborator was advised to strictly follow the FDC recommended procedure for the addition 
and mixing of the fortificant, to achieve the target level of fortification of 1/3 RENI. 
Since the fortificant used by the industry collaborator takes about 2 - 3 months to consume, 
evaluation of results was made on a quarterly basis. From July - December 1999, relatively low vitamin 
A content was observed in the fortified peanut butter, which ranged from 2.23 - 4.01 μg retinol/g peanut 
butter. The samples obtained in July to December 1999 had vitamin A when launching was only in 
December 1999 because the collaborator started to adopt the fortification technology as early as July 1999 
but it was only in December 19999 that the collaborator started to label their product with vitamin A. A 
validation of the procedure was conducted by FDC to verify the possible cause of the low levels of 
vitamin A in the final product. Results of the verification study showed that the recommended procedure 
for the addition and mixing of the fortificant was not strictly followed by plant personnel in-charge. 
Based on the above findings, the industry collaborator was advised to strictly follow the FDC 
recommended procedure for the addition and mixing of the fortificant, to achieve the target level of 
fortification of 1/3 RENI. 
23
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Mar
Jul
Sep
Oct
Dec
Jan1
Jan2
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec1
Dec2
Jan
Jan
Feb
1999 2000 2001
P ro d u c tio n M o n th
mcg Retinol / g Peanut Butter
4.38 
Fig. 1.2 Monthly levels of vitamin A (Retinol) in fortified peanut butter, CY 1999-2000. 
24
Table 1.2 Vitamin A content in samples of fortified peanut butter for the period covering March 
 1999 to February 2001. 
Production 
Date 
Collection 
Site 
Date 
Analyzed 
Vitamin A 
content 
(μg/g) 
Remarks 
1999 
Mar ‘99 Sorsogon Public 
Market 
September 1, 1999 0.00 Sample not fortified. 
Jul Newborn Plant September 1, 1999 2.23 
Sep Newborn Plant September 14, 1999 3.19 
Oct SM Megamall October 27, 1999 4.01 
Dec Newborn Plant December 23, 1999 3.88 
2000 
Jan’00 Newborn Plant January 14, 2000 11.51 
Jan Alabang Public 
Market 
April 3, 2000 4.67 
Feb Alabang Public 
Market 
April 4, 2000 4.43 
Mar SM Makati, 
Makati City 
May 12, 2000 
4.02 
Apr 7-11 Alabang July 25, 2000 3.06 
May SM Makati, Makati 
City 
August 2, 2000 10.79 
Jun Ever Gotesco, 
Quezon City 
July 25, 2000 3.42 
Jul SM Megamall, 
Mandaluyong City 
October 17,2000 2.90 
Aug SM Megamall, 
Mandaluyong City 
October 18, 2000 2.91 
Sep SM Megamall, 
Mandaluyong City 
October 4, 2000 3.54 
Oct SM Makati, Makati 
City 
December 5, 2000 7.23 
Nov Landmark 
Supermarket, 
Makati City 
December 7, 2000 5.71 
Dec Newborn Plant December 12, 2000 5.28 
Dec Newborn Plant December 12, 2000 5.45 Sample obtained during 
the 1st verification study. 
Dec‘00 Zamboanga City March 2, 2001 5.93 Provincial sample 
2001 
Jan’01 Newborn Plant January 30, 2001 2.47 Sample obtained during 
the 2nd verification study 
Feb SM Makati February 28, 2001 3.00 
 
25
After market launch in December 1999, in January - April 2000, the vitamin A content of 
fortified peanut butter was relatively higher (3.06 – 11.51 μg retinol/g peanut butter) than those obtained 
before launch in July - December 1999. The values obtained except for the March and April, 2000 
samples were found to be within the target fortification level of 1/3 RENI, which corresponds to 4.38 μg 
retinol/g peanut butter. Over the four-month monitoring period, a decreasing level of vitamin A was 
likewise observed which resulted in an increase in the rates of vitamin A loss. The lowest reported level 
of 3.06 μg retinol/g peanut butter was noted to have been produced in April 2000 while the highest 
reported level of 4.67 μg retinol/g peanut butter was produced in January 2000. The monthly rates of 
vitamin A loss during the period covered was an increasing 5.13%, 9.26% and 23.88%. One of the 
possible reasons for the low levels of vitamin A in the fortified product was the use of a fortificant, which 
had an initial assay lower than the declared concentration of 1 Million IU/g. It is important that the 
fortificant used provides the stated concentration on its label, as this would affect the level of vitamin A in 
the final product if it does not. The decreasing level of vitamin A over the four-month monitoring period, 
may be attributed to the possible degradation of the opened fortificant during its shelf-life, until it was 
used up. Since the 5 Kg fortificant used by the industry collaborator takes about 2 - 3 months to 
consume, the weekly transfer of the fortificant into smaller containers may have caused the degradation of 
vitamin A. Weekly transfer of the fortificant to smaller containers, needed for one day’s production was 
necessary to prevent the entire 5 Kg of fortificant from being exposed daily to light and oxygen, with each 
production run. However, as vitamin A is sensitive to light and oxygen, it is possible that the weekly 
transfer of the fortificant to smaller containers has affected the efficacy of the vitamin A palmitate. 
From June - September 2000, the vitamin A content of product samples during the period 
covered, were very low ranging from 2.90 - 3.54 μg retinol/g peanut butter. The values obtained did not 
meet both the results of pilot trials as well as the target fortification level of 4.38 μg retinol/g peanut 
butter. From October - December 2000, the vitamin A content in samples of fortified peanut butter were 
found to be relatively higher than previous months, as it ranged from 5.28 - 7.23 μg retinol/g peanut 
butter. 
 
Vitamin A contents were high on the months of January 2000, May to June 2000, and on October 
2000. The high amount of vitamin A in the products could be due to high levels of vitamin A in the newly 
opened 5 Kg containers of the fortificant. According to the collaborator, a 5 Kg container of the fortificant 
is consumed within 2 to 3 months of production. However, decreases in Vitamin A followed a four month 
cycle. If one assumes that high levels of vitamin A on the months of May and October could be due to 
newly opened containers of the fortificant. The above findings showed that vitamin A inproduct samples 
decreased with longer time of storage or the vitamin A concentration of the fortificant decreased with 
longer time of use during this monitoring period. 
Verification of the Possible Cause of Low Vitamin A Contents in Fortified Peanut Butter 
As a result of the low vitamin A content in fortified peanut butter obtained in supermarkets in 
Metro Manila, a verification of its possible cause was conducted in December 2000 – January 2001. For 
every verification tests, an actual observation of the addition and mixing process by plant personnel was 
made after which samples of fortified peanut butter were taken for analysis of vitamin A content. The 
following were the results of the verification conducted. 
1st verification
In December 2000, an announced inspection of an actual commercial production was conducted 
by FDC to determine the cause of the low vitamin A contents in samples of fortified peanut butter taken 
in supermarkets. Two sets of product samples were taken and submitted at the FDC Chemistry 
26
Laboratory for vitamin A analysis, i.e. samples taken in a production batch where FDC personnel 
observed the actual mixing of the premix to plain peanut butter and in a production batch where no FDC 
personnel was present during production. Production of the premix was not observed at this time because 
the premix was already prepared when the team arrived. 
 Result of observation of the mixing process showed that the personnel in charge of mixing 
followed the recommended procedure in the addition and mixing of the fortificant. This is probably the 
reason why the level of vitamin A in samples taken in the presence and absence of FDC personnel did not 
show any significant difference, as shown in the results of analysis which indicated a vitamin A content of 
5.28 and 5.45 μg retinol/g peanut butter, respectively. The values obtained were 20 - 23% higher than the 
declared value of 1/3 RENI which corresponds to 4.4 mcg retinol/g peanut butter because an overage was 
added. The low vitamin A content in fortified peanut butter was attributed to the low concentration of 
vitamin A palmitate used in fortifying which according to the industry collaborator had been opened more 
than a month ago. 
Considering the above finding, a second verification was recommended wherein actual 
observation of the premix preparation and weighing of fortificant was conducted. 
2nd verification
In January 2001, a second verification was conducted. Production was observed starting from the 
weighing of the fortificant to the production of the premix to the production of fortified peanut butter. 
Samples of the fortificant, premix and fortified peanut butter were taken from the production line for 
vitamin A analysis. 
According to the industry collaborator, the fortificant used was manufactured by Roche and was 
purchased from Vitachem, a local distributor of Roche products. At the time the 2nd verification was 
made, the fortificant had been opened and stored at refrigerated temperature for about two weeks. 
Result of actual observation showed that the recommended procedures for the addition and 
mixing of the fortificant during the production of premix and fortified peanut butter were strictly followed 
by the industry collaborator. Despite this observation, it was noted that low levels of vitamin A content in 
both the premix and fortified peanut butter were obtained (Table 1.3). Following are the results of 
vitamin A analysis versus target levels: 
Table 1.3 Comparison of levels of vitamin A in fortified peanut butter, peanut butter premix, and 
 vitamin A palmitate using the recommended procedures in adding and mixing of the 
 fortificant
Product Analyzed Vitamin A content 
Obtained 
(μg Retinol/g) 
Vitamin A content 
expected 
(μg Retinol/g) 
Fortified Peanut Butter 2.47 4.38 (1/3 of RENI) 
Peanut Butter Premix 159.68 252.68 - 282.42 
Vitamin A palmitate 64,033.00 300,000 - 333,333 
27
The low vitamin A content in the peanut butter premix and fortified peanut butter were attributed 
to the low content of the vitamin A palmitate used to fortify the peanut butter as this was found to be only 
21% of the declared value of 1 Million I.U. (or 300,000 μg Retinol/g). This confirms earlier hypothesis 
made in the 2nd verification that the possible cause of low vitamin A content in the final product was 
probably due to the low content of vitamin A in the fortificant used. 
Considering the above findings, the industry collaborator was advised to inform its supplier about 
the low assay of the vitamin A palmitate and to request for a certificate of product analysis every delivery 
to ensure that the fortificant delivered meets the specifications. Information was likewise requested from 
Roche on studies undertaken by their company on the shelf life of vitamin A palmitate in both open and 
unopened conditions. The shelf life of vitamin A palmitate in the opened condition was deemed 
necessary because the smallest packaging available for a vitamin A palmitate is 5 Kg, which takes about 
2.5 months for Newborn to consume. According to Ms. Corazon Garalde of Roche, they do not have any 
data on the stability of vitamin A palmitate after it has been opened. 
Since no information on the stability of vitamin A palmitate after opening the container provided 
by Roche, it was recommended that a study to determine the stability of the fortificant at the target shelf 
life of 2.3 months be conducted. This is to ensure that the concentration of the fortificant is still within 
acceptable levels at the end of the target shelf life. A proposal to determine the stability of vitamin A 
palmitate at the target shelf life was prepared, with the fortificant being subjected to the existing handling 
and storage conditions practiced by the collaborator. 
Stability of Vitamin A Palmitate During Storage 
A study to determine the stability of vitamin A palmitate under existing conditions of handling 
and storage practiced by Newborn Food Products was conducted. The study involved the collection of 
vitamin A palmitate from Newborn Food Products, for the conduct of assay on the fortificant. Collection 
of samples was done immediately upon opening of the 5-Kg container then weekly thereafter until all of 
the contents are fully used up. Throughout the study, the fortificant simulated the existing handling and 
storage conditions practiced by the industry collaborator as follows: Initially, the 5 Kg vitamin A 
palmitate packed in aluminum container was divided into two separate containers of 5 Kg capacity. One 
of the containers was immediately stored at refrigerated temperatures for use after contents of the other 
container has been fully used up. Fortificant intended for one-week production was then taken from the 
other container by transferring ∼ 85 g of vitamin A palmitate in five 100 ml capacity aluminum 
containers. After every transfer in smaller containers, the fortificant was stored at refrigerated 
temperatures (2-8°C) until its intended use. Above procedure was to be repeated until the contents of 
both containers were used up. For this study, a 5-Kg container of vitamin A palmitate obtained by 
Newborn Food Products, Inc. from Vitachem, a local distributor of Roche products, was used. 
Result of initial assay after opening indicate that the fortificant had a low vitamin A content of 
99,758.95 μg retinol/g (or 332,529.83 IU/g) as this was found to be only 33% of the declared value of 
300,000 μg retinol/g (or 1 Million I.U./g). After one week of storage at refrigerated temperature (2-8°C), 
the assay of the vitamin A palmitate dropped to 97,277.78 μg retinol/g peanut butter (or 324.259.27 IU/g). 
The rate of loss after one week in storage was 2.49% which is considered low. Above findings confirm 
previous hypothesis that the cause of the low vitamin A content in the fortified peanut butter was due to 
the low concentration of vitamin A in the fortificant used after opening. 
Considering however, the low assay of the fortificant, it was recommended that the on-going 
stability study of the vitamin A palmitate from Roche, be discontinued. The need to continue the study 
was found unnecessary because the vitamin A content of the fortificant did not meet the declared value of 
28
1M IU/g, which was the concentration, needed to arrive at the target fortification level of 1/3 RENI. The 
collaborator was likewise advised to discontinue use of the entire container unless the amount of 
fortificant added is increased to meet the target level of fortification. As of this writing, a new supplier 
was being tapped by the R&D Head to supply the company with vitamin A palmitate. The study on the 
stability of the fortificant will resume soon as the new supplier delivers the fortificant. The need to 
conduct a study on the stability of the vitamin A palmitate with an assay of 1 Million IU/g at the target 
shelf life of 2.5 months was deemed necessary to determine the rate of vitamin A loss in the fortificant at 
the existing handling and storage conditions practiced by the collaborator. Knowledge of the level of 
vitamin A in the fortificant during the target storage period will be useful in establishing 
recommendations as to the amount of fortificant to be added after prolonged storage. 
Monitoring the Impact of Project 3.2.8A Sorting Technology for Aflatoxin Control 
Monitoring the Aflatoxin Content in Kare-kare Mix 
 For the period March 1999 to January 2001, a total of 21 samples were obtained from the 
supermarkets and the collaborator’s plant. All samples tested negative for aflatoxin content (Table 1.4). 
Likewise, samples taken from six shipments to the U.S. tested negative of aflatoxin contamination. 
According to the industry collaborator, it has not received any reports of detention due to aflatoxin 
contamination. The above findings indicate the effectiveness of the sorting technology in controlling 
aflatoxin in Kare-kare Mix. 
Monitoring the Sales Performance, Production and Socio-Economic Benefits 
 A total of five quarterly interviews were conducted and in attendance were, Mr. Kim Lapus, 
General Manager, Mr. Juan Bernad, the Management Trainee for Domestic Sales, Mr. Frank Aguba, 
Deputy Director for Sales and Marketing, Ms. Oteyza Peñero, R & D Head and Ms. Evangeline Tayag, 
Production Supervisor. The following information was gathered during the meeting: 
Sales Performance. Before the introduction of the sorting technology for aflatoxin control, the 
product sold by the industry collaborator to the U.S. market was a type of Kare-kare mix without peanuts, 
to prevent the product from being detained at the port of entry to the U.S. due to aflatoxin contamination. 
Consumers using the product were required to add peanuts or peanut butter during the preparation of the 
sauce for Kare-kare to enhance its peanut flavor, which is a characteristic of the product. After the 
collaborator adopted the technology, they tried shipping Kare-kare mix with peanuts to the U.S. initially 
in small quantities starting in June 1999. Since no reports of detention problems were received from its 
distributor in the United States, the industry collaborator after building confidence started accepting 
orders. The biggest shipment of the product made to the U.S. was reported in January 2001 at 1,040 Kg. 
(Table 1.5). 
During the monitoring period covered, the collaborator did not provide any figures of their sales. 
Only production volumes were provided. Since the collaborator claimed that all products produced for 
export are based on orders they received, it was then assumed that volume of sales for export are the 
volume produced for the given period. In an interview conducted last December 6, 2000, Mr. Frank 
Aguba, Deputy Director for Sales and Marketing, mentioned that the company sometimes had to deny 
some orders both in the domestic and export market because of the high demand and limited production 
situation. 
Promotional activities were reportedly conducted by the collaborator in the U.S. in November 
2000 in the Los Angeles, California area where Filipino population is high. Almost at the same time, an 
intensified promotion of aflatoxin-free Kare-kare mix with peanuts was conducted in the local market 
29
through the “Pistang Mama Sita”. The Pistang Mama Sita is a promotional activity where cooking 
demonstrations and free tasting activities were held in supermarkets and groceries. 
Production Volume. The collaborator claimed that they have no production data for the period 
April 1999 to June 2000 except for the volume shipped to the U.S. market during the period June-October 
1999 where they claimed to have produced and exported a total of 246.24 kg. of the product (Fig. 1.4). 
The collaborator however, cannot identify how much was produced and exported on a monthly basis. 
A comparison of production for the period January to March 2001 showed an increase of more 
than 30.0% from the total production of the same months in 1999 (Table 1.4). Table 1.4 shows that the 
total production for the export market was 246.24 Kg, however, the total production for the US Market 
was only 82.08 Kg. Almost two-thirds of the production volume went to other markets such as the Middle 
East and Hongkong, according to the collaborator. A total of 1,766.24 kg of Mama Sita’s Kare Kare Mix 
was exported during the first three months of year 2001 comprising 12.1% of total production while the 
volume produced for the U.S. market comprised 7.7% of total production and 63.5% of the total export. 
All exports to the U.S. market have not been tested by the U.S. Food and Drug (USFDA). This mean that 
the aflatoxin content of the product is acceptable. 
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb M ar
P ro d u ctio n M o n th
Kilogram of Product
T o tal P ro d . T o tal E xp o rt T o tal fo r U .S .
 Fig. 1.3 Selected monthly total production volume, total volume for export and total for U.S. 
market, July-December 2000 & January-March 2001. 
The fluctuations in the total monthly production levels from July 2000 to March 2001 is not based 
on sales forecasts but on the availability of the supply of good quality shelled peanuts. 
Socio-economic Benefits. With the adoption of the sorting technology for aflatoxin control, the 
collaborator reportedly hired five additional male workers to perform the sorting operation. The male 
workers were preferred because unlike its female counterparts, the male workers are able to carry the 
sack-loads of peanuts to the sorting table without any help. 
30
31
CONCLUSIONS 
Initial Impact 
Vitamin A Fortified Peanut Butter 
The collaborator, Newborn Foods Corp., is the first peanut butter processor in the Philippines to 
market vitamin A fortified peanut butter. The vitamin A fortification technology for peanut butter is often 
referred to by the industry collaborator as the main reason for their increased sales. 
Sorting Technology for Aflatoxin Control 
The adoption of the sorting technology enabled the collaborator, Marigold Commodities Corp., to 
export their Kare-kare mix with peanuts not only to the U.S. but also to Middle East and Hong Kong. 
Before the adoption of the technology, Kare-kare mix with peanuts could not be exported to these 
countries. The aflatoxin content of 0 ppb constantly obtained in samples of products obtained during the 
monitoring period, has built a high degree of confidence on the part of the collaborator, resulting in the 
development of additional peanut products including “Java” sauce, which incorporates the sorting 
technology as a major step in its production. The improved product i.e. with added peanuts, has 
contributed to the increase in sales. 
Continuing Impact 
 The continuing impact created by the two technologies to their respective collaborators is the 
increased confidence in the superiority of their products over their competitors. The projects also 
achieved the objective of increase peanut consumption in the country. 
Table 1.4 Total production volume of kare-kare mix (with peanuts added), volume for export and volume produced for the U.S. 
 market. 
Production 
Date 
(Month) 
Total Production 
(Kg) 
Total Production 
For the Export Market (Kg) 
Total Production 
for the U.S. Market (Kg) 
1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 
January 3,920.00 - 3,120.00 - - 1,520.00 - - 1,040.00 
February 3,880.00 - 5,760.00 - - - - - - 
March 3,440.00 - 5,760.00 - - 246.24 - - 82.08 
April - - - - - - - - - 
May - - - - - - - - - 
June - - - - - - - - - 
July - 6,240.00 - - 171.36 - - 171.36 - 
August - 4,240.00 - - 492.48 - - 492.48 - 
September - 4,880.00 - - 41.04 - - 41.04 - 
October 246.24 3,600.00 - 246.24 1,680.00 - 246.241 143.64 - 
November - 5,920.00 - - 1,160.00 - - 53.35 - 
December - 4,720.00 - - 1,760.00 - - 880.00 - 
Total 11,486.24 29,600.00 14,640.00 246.24 5,304.88 1,766.24 246.24 1,781.87 1,122.08 
 Source: Monthly Report submitted to FDC by Marigold Commodities Corp. 1The amount represents all shipments made to the U.S. from June to October 1999. 
32
33
Production 
Date 
Place Bought Date Analyzed Aflatoxin content 
(ppb) 
Remarks 
Feb. 1999 EDSA Central Public Market Aug. 31, 1999 0 Initial sample before sorting was 
introduced. 
Jul. 1999 Rustan’s Supermarket, Mandaluyong Aug.31, 1999 0 3 months after introduction of the 
sorting process. 
Sept. 1999 SM Megamall Oct. 26, 1999 0 
Oct. 1999 Marigold plant Dec. 29, 1999 0 1st shipment to the U.S. 
January Marigold Plant January 9, 2000 0 2nd shipment to the U.S. 
January Rustan’s Mandaluyong May 11, 2000 0 Shipping to the US & Middle East 
at 300 cases/month average. 
February Marigold Plant February 28, 2000 0 3rd shipment to the U.S. 
February SM Makati City May 11, 2000 0 Experienced no detention problems 
in the U. S. 
March Rustan’s Mandaluyong May 11, 2000 0 
April Sunshine Mall Taguig July 13, 2000 0 
May Sunshine Mall Taguig July 13, 2000 0 
June SM Megamall August 8, 2000 0 
July Makro, Sucat August 4, 2000 0 
August Rustan’s Mandaluyong May 22, 2000 0 
September Rustan’s Supermarket November 20, 2000 0 
October Landmark Supermarket, Makati City December 5, 2000 0 
November Landmark Supermarket, Makati City December 5, 2000 0 
December Agoo Supermarket, Agoo, La Union December 12, 2000 0 Provincial sample. 
Marigold Plant December 12, 2000 0 Produced for the U.S. market. 4th
monitoring batch 
Jan. 2001 Marigold Plant January 18, 2001 0 Produced for the U.S. market. 5th
monitoring batch 
Marigold Plant January 28, 2001 0 Produced for the U.S. market. 6th
monitoring batch 
Table 1.5 Aflatoxin content in samples of kare-kare mix (with peanuts added) taken from supermarkets in Metro Manila, provinces 
 and Marigold Plant. 
CHAPTER 2 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT ON THE USE OF 
SORTING IN THE PRODUCTION OF 
PEANUT-BASED PRODUCTS 
Ma. Leonora dL. Francisco1
Flor Crisanta F. Galvez, Ph.D.2
Lutgarda S. Palomar, Ph.D.3
Robert L. Moxley, Ph.D.4
and 
Anna V.A. Resurreccion, Ph.D.5
1
Assistant Professor, College of Home Economics, UP Diliman 1101, Philippines 
2
Professor, College of Home Economics, UP Diliman 1101, Philippines 3
Professor, Leyte State University 6521-A, Philippines 4
Sociologist, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA 
5
Principal Investigator USAID Peanut-CRSP; Professor, University of Georgia, Griffin, Georgia 30223-1797, USA 
34
ABSTRACT 
 While aflatoxins are known to be carcinogens, they also have additional toxic effects. A previous 
research and development project resulted in a procedure designed to eliminate aflatoxin-contaminated 
kernels in raw peanuts through a new treatment and sorting process. The collaborative project was 
carried out by the University of Georgia, the Food Development Center/National Food Authority, and the 
University of the Philippines at Diliman and was funded by the Peanut Collaborative Research Support 
Program (supported by U.S. Agency for International Development). A private company agreed to adopt 
the procedure for the peanut content in one of its products. This is a report on the process of technology 
transfer and assessment of the socioeconomic impacts of this new aflatoxin elimination process on that 
company. 
 Among other impacts, it was found that despite some increase in costs and labor (positive impacts 
on the Philippine economy) the adoption of the sorting technology enabled the company to significantly 
improve the quality of their production and subsequently their sales. For example, this process helped 
account for an increase in the total export market for all countries for Kare-Kare mixes (with peanuts) and 
100% of the increase in these exports to the United States. Also, new products have since been developed 
with other peanut-based products for export mostly due to aflatoxin reduction. Another major impact is 
that this company is now providing the Philippine consumer with the aflatoxin-free product. The 
company also indicates that their adoption of the sorting process led to an improvement in product quality 
in other ways, such as increased shelf life. 
A survey of consumers included questions concerning awareness and knowledge about aflatoxin 
among Filipino consumer and suggests very low familiarity with issues concerning food safety and 
hazards, especially aflatoxin. The indicated support of consumers (in the survey) in buying aflatoxin-free 
peanut products should encourage the collaborating company and others to look into the possibility of 
adding an “aflatoxin-free” statement on their labels of aflatoxin-free peanut-based products such as their 
Kare-Kare mix and Java sauce and adding aflatoxin-free messages to their advertising. This study also 
suggests that, while the sorting technology is labor intensive, it is feasible under the appropriate 
conditions and should be considered by other companies. 
 
35
INTRODUCTION 
Mycotoxins, such as aflatoxin, are chemical substances produced as secondary metabolites by 
fungi, especially molds. It is commonly produced by particular strains of Aspergillus flavus and 
Aspergillus parasiticus and is widely found in many agricultural products. These mycotoxins are widely 
studied due to their biological effect to animals and humans as well as their economic implications. 
Examples of agricultural commodities implicated with aflatoxin are groundnuts, corn, barley, beans, 
cottonseed, rice, wheat, copra, cassava and peas. 
 The first aflatoxins identified were designated as aflatoxin B1, B2, G1 and G2 on the basis of 
their color, either blue (B) or green (G), at which they fluoresce under ultraviolet (UV) light. Aflatoxin 
B1 is the most potent carcinogen among all natural compounds and is also acutely toxic at high levels of 
contamination (IARC, 1993). Even at low concentration, aflatoxin is believed to pose a risk to human 
health due to its extreme toxicity. Furthermore, since they are considered ‘unavoidable contaminants’ of 
major plant commodities, aflatoxin is considered a consumer food safety issue. Because of its 
carcinogenic properties, high levels of aflatoxin in agricultural products are not permitted by government 
food agencies such as the Bureau of Food and Drug in the Philippines and U.S. Food and Drug 
Administration in the USA. The maximum allowable level of total aflatoxin for commodities for human 
and animal consumption in different countries is shown in Table 2.1. However, aflatoxin exposure in 
many high mortality developing countries makes it probable that such exposure negatively influences 
many health factors (including HIV) that account for 40% of the burden of diseases in these countries 
(Williams et al, 2004). 
Table 2.1. Maximum allowable level of total aflatoxin (ppb) for commodities for human and 
animal consumption. 
U.S. FDA 
United Kingdom 
Asia3 
Philippines 
20 ppb1 
4 ppb2 
20-30 ppb1 
15 ppb 1
Flach, 1987, 2
MAFF, 1996, 3
China, India, Malaysia and Thailand 
The presence of aflatoxin in agricultural products can be detoxified in various ways. Physical 
destruction such as treating with heat and irradiation has been used but none of which was entirely 
effective. Chemical degradation of aflatoxins can be carried out by adding various chlorinating, oxidizing 
and hydrolytic agents. The use of bacteria, fungi and algae can remove or degrade aflatoxin in foods and 
feeds. And last, infected kernels or grains can be physically removed using the electronic color sorting 
equipment, water-flotation method, hydrogen peroxide blanching process and manually sorting for 
damaged kernels or grains. 
One of the problems of the peanut industry in the Philippines is aflatoxin contamination of raw 
and processed peanuts due to difficulty in controlling the temperature and relative humidity during 
storage. Norhayati, et. al. (1999) reported that in the Philippines, roasted shelled peanuts and fried 
peanuts had aflatoxin content of 117 and 375 ppb, respectively. Peanut products exported from the 
Philippines have suffered detention problems because of high levels of aflatoxin. Consumer demand and 
the world export market for commodities susceptible to aflatoxin contamination are even pushing towards 
zero tolerance for aflatoxin. From the methods mentioned on aflatoxin detoxification, peanut 
manufacturers in the Philippines can use manual sorting of raw peanuts to separate kernels that are not fit 
for human consumption. A manual sorting procedure to eliminate aflatoxin-contaminated kernels in raw 
peanuts has been developed through a tripartite collaboration between the University of Georgia, the Food 
36
Development Center under the National Food Authority and the College of Home Economics of the 
University of the Philippines (Galvez, Francisco, Lustre and Resurreccion, 2002). From the methods 
mentioned on aflatoxin detoxification, peanut manufacturers in the Philippines can use the manual sorting 
of raw peanuts to separate out kernels that are not fit for human consumption. The research and 
development was funded by the Peanut Collaborative Research Support Program (Peanut-CRSP) of the 
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The technology involves a dry blanching 
procedure where raw peanuts are roasted for 45 to 55 minutes and then aflatoxin-contaminated peanuts 
are manually sorted out from the batch of peanuts (Fig. 2.1). 
The newly developed procedure for sorting peanuts at commercial scale is as follows: 
Weigh 50 kg of raw peanuts 
Feed peanuts into the roaster 
Blanch for 45-55 minutes 
Cool peanuts 
Remove the skins using a de-skinner/blancher 
Sort for aflatoxin-contaminated, discolored and damaged kernels 
Store clean, sound peanuts until use 
Fig. 2.1 Flow diagram of the developed manual sorting procedure for raw peanut. 
The manual containing guidelines for sorting aflatoxin-contaminated, discolored and damaged 
kernels were introduced to a peanut product manufacturer. The sorting procedure resulted in a number of 
changes in the previous procedure that was being followed by the collaborator on roasting of raw peanuts 
prior to production of peanut-based products. The company now has to follow a 2-stage roasting process, 
the first stage of which is the blanching process to facilitate sorting of the aflatoxin-contaminated peanut 
kernels. The assessment of the process of transferring the technology and the factors affecting it are 
important for assessing the value of the technology transfer. In this study, the impact of the addition of 
the sorting procedure in the production of peanut-based products was assessed in terms of such factors as 
the quality of the product, sales and marketing, and changes in employment. This knowledge can inform 
and enhance the transfer of similar technology to other food industries engaged in producing peanut 
products. 
37
OBJECTIVES 
This study was undertaken to assess the overall impacts of sorting of peanuts in the production of 
peanut-based products specifically Kare-Kare mix. As there will be multiple impacts, the study expressly 
seeks to (1) assess the impact of sorting technology on the business and socio-economic status of the 
collaborating agency; (2) assess the impact of sorting technology on the employees directly affected by 
the technology and (3) assess consumer awareness of the negative effects of aflatoxin in peanuts. 
METHODS 
Chronology of Technology Transfer and Production Impacts 
 The sorting technology was developed by the research team from the University of Georgia, 
University of the Philippines and the Food Development Center (FDC) (Galvez et al, 2002). Activities 
related to the transfer, adoption and commercialization of the sorting technology are given in Table 2.2. 
 
 In January of 1998, the research team became a technology transfer team. For example, 
management had to be satisfied with regard to potential changes and costs of adoption of the technology, 
and middle managers directly responsible for production had to be trained on the steps of the sorting 
technology. Finally, new workspace had to be allocated and remodeled and workers trained to do the 
sorting. 
The company does not process peanuts regularly. The normal practice is for the company to 
blanch peanuts in bulk, and then store them until orders for Kare-Kare mix have been made. Once the 
orders have been placed, blanched peanuts are processed into Kare-Kare mix. The company also has a 
marketing distribution group, separate from the company that handles shipment of Kare-Kare mix outside 
the Metro Manila area. All of the above, plus the company’s concern for privacy and subsequent 
reluctance for revealing the monetary value of data reported, made the impact assessment less quantitative 
and precise. 
However, one basis of comparison is the data supplied by the company for Table 2.2. The 
January through March 1999 total production of Kare-Kare mix with peanuts (11,486.24 kg and 14,640 
kg for the same period in 2001) shows an increase of 3,154 kg (about 28%). The total amount produced 
for the U.S. export market between July 2000 and March 2001 is 15,762 kg. The total amount of Kare￾Kare mix with peanuts produced during this period is 44,240 kg, making the U.S. 35.6% of the market for 
this product during this period. Later figures in this report on the analysis of impacts on business give 
greater detail on the comparison of the domestic and export market. It is important to recognize that none 
of the Kare-Kare mix with peanuts could have been exported to the U.S. before the adoption of the sorting 
technology. 
After a number of qualitative open-ended interviews with the company owner and personnel in 
charge of the peanut sorting process, a set of questionnaires were prepared to be used as interview guides 
in gathering data on the impact of sorting technology. The questionnaires were designed to incorporate 
relevant questions regarding business and socio-economic status of the company. A questionnaire was 
submitted to the General Manager of the company. Interviews with the General Manager and the 
Production Manager were likewise conducted for gathering further data and verification of information. 
38
Table 2.2. Calendar of events on collaboration with a peanut manufacturing company on the 
 adoption of sorting technology (Galvez et al, 2002). 
Date Activities 
January 1998 
December 1998 
April 1999 
June 1999 
January – March 1999, 
October 1999 
July – December 2000 
January – March 2001 
Start of collaboration with peanut processors 
Use of technology in production line of the collaborating company 
Trial shipment of aflatoxin-free Kare-Kare mix to the USA 
Formal turn-over of sorting technology to industry collaborator 
Signing ceremony 
1st shipment of aflatoxin-free Kare-Kare mix to the USA 
Total production of Kare-Kare mix with peanuts, 11,486.24 kg 
Total production produced for the US market, 264.24 kg 
Total production of Kare-Kare mix with peanuts, 29,600.00 kg 
Total production produced for the US market, 14,640.00 kg 
Total production of Kare-Kare mix with peanuts, 14,640.00 kg 
Total production produced for the US market, 1,122.08 kg 
 To assess the aflatoxin awareness of consumers, interviews were conducted with 361 household 
respondents in 10 areas of Manila and communities North and South of Manila and in Visayas Islands of 
the Philippines using a structured questionnaire (Appendix A). The barangays (communities) in these 
areas were randomly selected from a list of 127 stores selling vitamin A fortified peanut butter. The 
survey was part of an impact assessment of a vitamin A fortification technology transfer project to a 
peanut butter manufacturer (Galvez et al, 2003). Respondents were chosen based on the following 
criteria: (1) respondent is the one who determines what foods will be bought for the household; (2) 
respondent’s household has children and; (3) respondent’s family eats peanut and/or peanut-based 
products. 
RESULTS 
Negative Impacts Encountered Upon Initial Adoption 
 The sorting procedure, which involves at least six steps, was added to the production flow 
diagram of the company. The initial problems perceived by the company were the following: 
1. Inavailability of space to accommodate manual sorting of peanuts. 
2. Additional personnel to manually sort the blanched peanuts. 
3. Training of personnel for proper sorting of damaged peanuts. 
4. Increase in production cost due to an additional processing step. 
5. Increase in time needed to prepare the peanuts for processing. 
39
Impact on Employment, Facilities and Raw Material 
Manufacturing Facilities 
 The manufacture of the Kare-Kare mix is maintained in one of the company’s food plants and the 
design of the food plant was modified to allow flexibility and continuity in the production. A total of 25 
square meter area was provided as an additional area for the manual sorting of peanuts. Additional 
utensils and/or equipment were purchased such as stainless tabletop trays and scoops to be used for 
sorting. The company has recently transferred to a bigger manufacturing facility. Operations for peanut￾based products started during the first quarter of 2003. A sorting area was included in the new plant, and 
the company also purchased a new, larger, continuous roaster to be used for blanching and roasting the 
peanuts. The Research and Development (R&D) Group of the company had to modify the sorting 
procedure that was originally given to them as a result of using the new roaster for their peanuts. New 
parameters, temperature and blanching time were established to conduct proper sorting of peanuts. 
Employment 
 
During bulk processing of peanuts, at least four to eight employees are assigned to conduct the 
sorting. The company hired two additional personnel to join the production team. The company assigns 
two regular employees as part of the team while the rest are temporary casual employees (employed for 
five months only). The sorting of kernels requires a high degree of familiarization of aflatoxin￾contaminated kernels. A total of 30 hours of training and orientation was given by the R&D group to 
production personnel involved in sorting. The Production Manager and two other assistants closely 
monitor the sorting of peanuts during the day. A few regular employees are included in the team, to serve 
as ‘leaders’ of the group. In this way, these regular employees are being asked to carry the 
responsibilities of the management. When an order must be filled, the workers always extend the normal 
8-hr workday by two to five hours to finish the processing of peanuts. This results in additional overtime 
pay. 
Employees 
 The sorting of peanuts for aflatoxin-contaminated and damaged kernels is not an easy task. The 
Production Manager indicated that they try to minimize the number of employees in the production. 
Therefore, workers have many tasks assigned to them such as sorting, weighing, and packing, among 
others. A maximum of eight employees have been identified to do the sorting of peanuts. The usual 
complaints by the sorters are eyestrain and also, extension of working hours due to sorting. As a 
response, the management decided to rotate the sorters in the production area to reduce eyestrain. At the 
conclusion of four hours of sorting, workers are transferred to do another task to rest their eyes. And after 
a few hours, they are rotated back and resume sorting. 
Raw Material 
 Since the company had not previously sorted for damaged nuts, an increase in raw material loss 
was noted, between 15 to 25%. This figure was found to be quite high. This reflects either raw peanuts 
being used are not of good quality or sorting for aflatoxin-contaminated peanuts is being overly done. 
When asked to verify this figure, the Production Manager said that sorters do not only look for aflatoxin￾contaminated and damaged nuts, but also, they have included off-colored peanuts in their sorting. The 
discoloration of peanuts was later found to be due to uncontrolled heating of peanuts while blanching. 
The fabricated roaster that the company is using does not have adequate temperature controls, and so, the 
roasting of peanuts was likely overdone, causing the discoloration of some peanuts. When the study by 
the research team on the development of the blanching procedure began, it was found that overheating 
40
results in the development of more intense color on peanuts, which might be mistaken for damaged or 
aflatoxin-contaminated. This can, therefore, increase raw material loss in the batch of peanuts. As the 
company has already built a new plant and acquired new equipment including a better roaster, the 
problem of overheating was solved. As a result, raw material loss dramatically decreased from 15-25% to 
1-3%. 
 
Impact on Business 
Production Impacts of Kare-Kare with Peanuts 
 Production data from 1999 up to 2002 was obtained from the company for their Kare-Kare mix 
with peanuts. The data included yearly production reports for domestic, export and U.S. markets, where 
values are in unspecified “weight units” to maintain the company’s privacy. A summary of the total 
production volume of Kare-Kare mix with peanuts from January to October is shown in Fig. 2.2. 
 The company indicated a growth of 30% in volume of domestic and exports sales after the sorting 
technology was adopted. Total production increased from 1999 to 2002 except for year 2001 where there 
was a drop in production volume both for domestic and export. Sourcing of raw materials and price of 
peanuts in the market contributed to the slight drop in production. 
A comparison of the total production for the period of January to October from 1999 to 2002 
revealed an increase of almost 60% from the total production of the same months in 1999. Covering the 
same period, the domestic market increased by 48%, while the export market increased (in gross weight 
units) from 3,100 to 6,900 which would not have been possible without aflatoxin-free peanut. 
As shown in Fig. 2.3, the majority of the Kare-Kare mix sales are for domestic consumption, with 
an average of 83.74%, while Kare-Kare mix for export sales is an average of 16.26%. The export market 
share sales gradually increased from 1999 to 2002 (a 39% increase). 
 Looking at the production data for export (Fig. 2.4), an increase in export production volume 
from 1999 to 2002 can be seen. None of this production could have gone to the U.S. without the aflatoxin 
elimination technology, and the market share increased even after the first year of exports. The average 
U.S. market share for the next three years (2000 to 2002) increased an average of 26.7 % over 1999. The 
average U.S. market share of 45.37% was obtained in 2001. 
 
41
Fig. 2.2 Total production volume of Kare-Kare mix with peanuts, volume for domestic and volume 
for export from January to October. 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1999 2000 2001 2002
Year
Total Volume '000 (weight units)
Total Production
Total Domestic
Total Export
42
Fig. 2.3 Percent market share of domestic, export and US sales of Kare-Kare mix with peanuts 
from January to October. 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1999 2000 2001 2002
Year
Percent
Domestic Export USA
43
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1999 2000 2001 2002
Year
Percent
Fig. 2.4 Percent USA market share of Kare-Kare mix with peanuts from January to October. 
 
44
An updated sales report was provided to the research team showing worldwide volume sales from 
2000 to 2004 (Fig. 2.5). The figures were reported in terms of number of cases sold for two sizes of 
Kare-Kare mix, the 57 g and 100 g sizes. Total sales volume increased from 2000 to 2004 for both sizes 
of Kare-Kare sauce mix. Highest percentage increase of 39.7% and 9.4% was obtained from 2002 to 
2003 for the 57 g and 100 g variants, respectively. Increases in dollar amounts were again not made 
available for both variants. 
Production Impacts of Kare-Kare Mix without Peanuts 
Despite the increase in total exports of Kare-kare sauce mix with peanuts, this has not diminished 
total exports of Kare-kare mix without peanuts to the US. Production data for the Kare-Kare mix without 
peanuts were also obtained from 1999 to 2002. Total production of the mix without peanuts increased 
from 1999 to 2002 by 8% as shown in Fig. 2.6, while a decrease was noted for the years 2000 and 2001. 
Sourcing of raw materials and price of peanuts in the market contributed to the slight drop in production 
as claimed by the company. Total export increased by 7% from 1999 to 2002. 
Almost 60% of the Kare-Kare mix without peanuts was produced for export as shown in Fig. 2.7. 
The percent market share for export, including the U.S., remained stable, even with the introduction of 
Kare-Kare mix with peanuts. The biggest export market is still the U.S., with at least one-third of the 
total volume for export produced. This is remarkable in that it suggests that all the Kare-Kare mix with 
peanuts exported to the U.S. resulted in new additional sales with introduction of the new product. 
International Marketing 
 Table 2.7 shows the countries where Kare-Kare mix is currently being exported. New markets 
established for the Kare-Kare mix with aflatoxin-free peanuts include the U.S., Hong Kong and Middle 
East. The company indicated that the U.S. and the Middle East are their biggest exporting countries for 
the Kare-Kare mix with peanuts. The inclusion of these countries in their market list improved positive 
growth and expansion for their Kare-Kare mix with peanuts. Although there was growth in the 
production of Kare-Kare mix with peanuts, the management indicated that their sales for Kare-Kare mix 
without peanuts remained unaffected by these improvements. 
Marketing activities conducted by the company included advertisements in the newspapers, 
consumer tasting in supermarkets and participation in trade fairs. Accompanying the display of their 
different products is a note that highlights the zero-aflatoxin content of their peanut-based products. The 
advantage that their product is the first peanut-based mix in the country to be proven aflatoxin-free was 
highlighted in their official website and product brochures.
Table 2.3. Countries where peanut-based products are currently being Exported (Kare-Kare mix 
 and Java sauce). 
 USA 
 Canada 
 Hong Kong 
 Singapore 
 France 
 Spain 
 Italy 
 Qatar 
Belgium 
Germany 
Kuwait 
United Arab Emirates 
Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Islands 
Japan 
Oman 
Bahrain 
45
Fig. 2.5 Total volume sales (as number of cases) of Kare-Kare mix with peanuts. (KRM57g = 
Kare-Kare Mix, 57 g variant; KRM100g = Kare-Kare Mix, 100 g variant.) 
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
No. of Cases
KRM57g
KRM100g
 
46
Fig. 2.6 Total production volume of Kare-Kare mix without peanuts, volume for domestic and 
volume for export from January to December. 
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1999 2000 2001 2002
Year
Number of cases '000
Total Production
Total Export
Total Domestic
47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1999 2000 2001 2002
Year
Percent
Domestic Export USA
Fig 2.7 Percent market share of domestic, export and US sales on Kare-Kare mix without 
peanuts from January to December. 
48
Research and Development of Peanut-Based Products 
The assurance that peanut-based products will pass the aflatoxin requirement encouraged the 
company to export Kare-Kare mix with added peanuts to the U.S. market. The success of the product in 
penetrating the U.S. market gave them the company confidence to develop other peanut-based products. 
The newest product that has been released and exported in other countries, including the U.S. is the Java 
sauce, which was released during the last quarter of year 2001. As shown in Table 2.8, the company 
started exporting Java sauce to the U.S. only in 2002 and almost 50% of the total export was targeted for 
the U.S. market. The collaborator also indicated that they have two additional peanut-based products 
currently under development. 
Table 2.4. Total production volume of Java sauce, volume for domestic and volume for export. 
Year Total Production 
(weight units) 
Total Domestic 
(weight units) 
Total Export 
(weight units) 
Total U.S. 
(weight units) 
20011 101.44 87.38 14.06 0.00 
20022 296.46 216.26 57.16 23.04 
1
From October to December 
2
From January to December 
Impact on Product Quality 
Upon the adoption of the technology and subsequently exporting Kare-Kare mix with peanuts to 
the U.S., the Food Development Center (FDC) monitored the aflatoxin contents of shipments made to the 
U.S. from October 1999 to January 2001. A total of six analyses were done, each of which resulted in 
zero level of aflatoxin. As for its shipments made to other countries, the company indicates that they have 
not received any product detentions from its distributors outside the Philippines. 
Management indicated that the inclusion of peanut sorting and aflatoxin testing increased 
production cost by 30%. This increase affected the price of Kare-Kare mix in the market. The company 
used to test their products for aflatoxin every month. At present, the company tests their products for 
aflatoxin every quarter, indicating great confidence that peanut sorting is successful in eliminating 
aflatoxin for their products. 
When the company adopted the sorting procedure, several product improvements were observed. 
The company claimed that Kare-Kare mix increased its shelf life from the normal six months to one year. 
They claim to have products that lasted for two years, without turning rancid. The research and 
development and production groups of the company regularly conduct sensory tasting of their products, 
and they noted that Kare-Kare mix had a better taste profile and acceptability. Since peanuts are 
rigorously sorted for aflatoxin-contaminated, as well as, damaged and discolored peanuts before 
processing, the Kare-Kare mix was improved in several ways. 
 Products returns reported were 1.2%, mainly due to macro contamination rather than product 
deterioration. The exact figures cannot be quantified since the common practice is that the distributor 
accumulates all rejects for a certain period of time, before traveling to Manila to save on cost. These 
rejects are normally found to occur in small groceries or ‘sari-sari’ stores in the provinces. 
49
Impact on Consumers 
 A total of 361 households were interviewed in the Luzon and the Visayas Islands. Respondents 
were chosen based on three criteria: (1) respondents are the ones who decide what food to buy; (2) 
respondents and their families eat peanut-based products and; (3) the household has children. 
 Of the 361 households, 176 respondents belong to the middle-income group (with monthly 
income >PhP10,000.00) while 185 respondents belong to the low-income group (with monthly income 
<PhP10,000.00). The survey was conducted in conjunction with the survey on the Impact of Vitamin A 
Fortification on Consumers. 
 When consumers were asked what peanut-based products they buy, 17.61% of the middle income 
and 18.92% of the low-income groups buy Kare-Kare mix. Based on the frequency of consumption (Fig. 
2.8), most consuin mers consume the product once a month, because it is readily available at restaurants. 
Kare-kare is usually prepared in the home during special occasions. As for the basis of choice, both 
income groups regard taste as the most important factor in choosing the Kare-Kare mix, followed by 
brand name and then price. Availability and color of Kare-Kare mix were found not to be relevant in 
their choice (Fig. 2.9). A majority of the respondents in both income groups consumes Kare-Kare mix 
that includes peanuts (Fig. 2.10). When asked what brand of Kare-Kare mix they usually buy, both 
income groups responded that they use the Mama Sita brand more than the other brands available in the 
market (Fig. 2.11). 
Of the 361 respondents, only 7.95% of the middle-income group and 4.86% of the low-income 
group are aware of aflatoxin as shown in Fig. 2.12. When asked what foods are susceptible to aflatoxin 
contamination, the respondents have very little knowledge (middle-income=6.8; low-income=1.6). 
The respondents were then told that aflatoxin is a carcinogen and that the usual foods 
contaminated are peanuts and corn. Having been thus informed, when asked if they will buy peanut￾based products with aflatoxin-free peanuts, 85% of middle-income group and 81% of low-income group 
said “yes” (Fig. 2.13). When asked if they have seen peanut products with aflatoxin-free labels, more 
than 98% of the respondents said that they have not seen peanut-based products with aflatoxin-free labels. 
Comparing the level of awareness of consumers on vitamin A and aflatoxin, as seen in Chapter 4 
of this monograph on impact assessment of vitamin A fortification of peanut butter on families and 
consumers, consumers were more knowledgeable about vitamin A than aflatoxin. This was expected 
since many institutions advertise the importance of vitamin A in the diet whereas efforts from the 
government or any other institutions to disseminate information on the role of aflatoxin in foods are nil. 
In fact, this is probably the first time that awareness on aflatoxin is being communicated. The fact that 
peanuts are popular in the Philippines and that aflatoxin contamination is prevalent; a tripartite effort from 
the government, academe and industry to reduce or eliminate the problem should be encouraged. 
50
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
LI MI LI MI LI MI LI MI
Region
Percent
Metro Manila North Luzon Southern Luzon Visayas 
Fig. 2.8 Number of respondents in different regions who buy Kare-Kare mix (LI stands for low 
income and MI stands for middle income). 
51
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
LI MI LI MI LI MI LI MI
Region
Percent
Once a week 1x every 2 wks
1x a mo others
Metro Manila North Luzon Southern Luzon Visayas 
Fig. 2.9 Frequency of Kare-Kare mix purchase by Filipino consumers in different regions (LI 
stands for low income and MI stands for middle income). 
52
Fig. 2.10 Type of Kare-Kare mix usually purchased by Filipino consumers in different regions (LI 
stands for low income and MI stands for middle income). 
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
LI MI LI MI LI MI LI MI
Region
Percent
with peanuts w/o peanuts no answer
Metro Manila North Luzon Southern Luzon Visayas 
53
Fig. 2.11 Basis of choice for Kare-Kare mix purchase of Filipino consumers in different regions (LI 
stands for low income and MI stands for middle income). 
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
LI MI LI MI LI MI LI MI
Region
Percent
Brand Price
Availability Taste
Color Texture
Metro Manila North Luzon South Luzon Visayas 
54
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
LI MI LI MI LI MI LI MI
Region
Percent
Mama Sita Knorr
Mother's Best Others
Metro Manila North Luzon Southern Luzon Visayas 
Fig. 2.12 Brand of Kare-Kare mix usually purchased by Filipino consumers in different regions (LI 
stands for low income and MI stands for middle income). 
55
Fig. 2.13 Response of Filipino consumers in different regions regarding their knowledge on 
aflatoxin (LI stands for low income and MI stands for middle income). 
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
LI MI LI MI LI MI LI MI
Region
Percent
Yes No
Metro Manila North Luzon Southern Luzon Visayas 
56
Fig. 2.14 Percentage of Filipino consumers in different regions who will buy aflatoxin-free Kare￾Kare mix (LI stands for low income and MI stands for middle income). 
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
LI MI LI MI LI MI LI MI
Region
Percent
Yes No
Metro Manila North Luzon Southern Luzon Visayas 
57
CONCLUSIONS 
 The initial perceived problems encountered by the peanut processing company upon adoption of 
the sorting technology to eliminate aflatoxin were: inavailability of space, hiring and training of 
additional personnel, and an increase in production cost and time needed to prepare the peanuts for 
processing. A sorting area was incorporated into the company’s production plant to accommodate the 
sorting of peanuts and the production team was reorganized to include the additional task. Fatigue and 
boredom were major problems for the trained “sorters”. Employment practices such as job assignment 
rotation were also modified to reduce fatigue and facilitate efficient sorting of peanuts. The hiring of new 
employees are positive impacts from the point of view of the Philippine economy. 
The company was able to improve their sales and production, especially in widening their export 
market for Kare-Kare mixes with peanuts (to the U.S., Hong Kong and the Middle East). Their export 
market sales increased from 14 to 20% (1999 – 2002) due mainly to new access to the U.S. market with 
aflatoxin-free peanuts. The U.S. share of the export market production for this product went from zero in 
1998 to 45% in 2001. This was completely due to having aflatoxin-free peanuts. Since then, no 
shipments made to countries such as the United States have been reported to contain aflatoxin. Other 
peanut-based products like Java sauce were developed due to the aflatoxin elimination process leading to 
expanded product lines. 
A consumer survey, which included questions on awareness and knowledge about aflatoxin 
among Filipino consumers, suggests very low familiarity with issues concerning food safety and food 
hazards including that of aflatoxin. The respondents however were willing to buy aflatoxin-free peanut 
products (over 80%). This should encourage the collaborating agency to look into the possibility of 
adding an “aflatoxin-free” declaration prominently displayed on their labels of peanut-based products 
such as Kare-Kare mix and Java sauce and to more aggressively advertise this advantage. 
The export of Kare-Kare sauce with peanuts to the U.S. by this company did not exist before the 
transfer of the aflatoxin control technology to the company. Although the peanut-free mix was exported, 
this required peanuts to be added. The amount of product exported more than doubled from 1999 to 
2001. In addition, the health and well-being of Philippine consumers is enhanced by aflatoxin-free 
products. These substantial positive impacts result from the aflatoxin sorting research and development. 
The technology has been transferred to peanut processors in the Philippines. 
58
REFERENCES 
Cuculla, A.F., Lee, L.S., Mayne, R.Y. and Goldlatt, L.A. 1966. Determination of Aflatoxin in 
Individual Peanuts and Peanut Sections. J Am Oil Chem Soc, 43:89-92. 
Flach, M. 1987. The Prevention and Control of Mycotoxins in Thailand. In: Joint 
FAO/WHO/UNEP Second International Conference in Mycotoxins. [Online], Available: 
http://www.fao.org/inpho/vlibrary/X0036E19.htm
Galvez, F.C.F., Francisco, M.L.D.L., Lustre, A.O. and Resurreccion, A.V.A. 2002. Monograph 
Series No. 3. Control of Aflatoxin in Raw Peanuts Through Proper Manual Sorting. USAID 
Peanut-CRSP, University of Georgia, Department of Food Science and Technology, Georgia 
Experiment Station, Griffin, GA 3-223-1097. 
Galvez, F.C.F., Palomar, L.S., Francisco, M.L.D.L., Aquino, M.B., Momville, K.T., and Moxley, 
R.L. 2003. Impact Assessment of the Vitamin A Fortification of Peanut Butter on Filipino 
Families and Consumers. Final Report. USAID Peanut-CRSP, U. of Ga. Experiment Station, 
Griffin, Ga. 
IARC. 1993. Aflatoxins. In: IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to 
Humans. Lyon, France, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 56:245-395. 
MAFF. 1996. MAFF-UK Aflatoxin Contamination of Peanut Butter and Peanuts (February 
1995). In: Food Surveillance Sheets [Online], 
Available:http://www.archive.food.infsheet/1996/no78/78afla.htm.
Norhayati, A., Hashim, N.H., Yoshizawa, T. 1999. Evaluation and Application of a Simple and 
Rapid Method for the Analysis of Aflatoxins in Commercial Foods in Malaysia and Philippines. 
Food Additives and Contaminants. 16:273-280. 
Williams, J.H., Phillips, T.D., Jolly, P.E., Stiles, J.K., Jolly,C.M. and Aggarwal, D. 2004. 
Human Aflatoxicosis in Developing Countries: A Review of Toxicology, Exposure, Potential 
Health Consequences and Interventions. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 80:1106-1122. 
59
APPENDIX A 
QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE CONSUMER SURVEY 
60
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES CONSUMER STUDY 
Code No. _____________________ Interviewer:____________________________ 
Area: ________________________ Date: _________________________________ 
Case No.__________________ Sex: Male (Lalaki) : _____ Female (Babae) : _____ 
Address (Tirahan) 
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
Good Afternoon/Morning, 
Hello, my name is________________________________________ 
I am working with the University of the Philippines to do a study of consumers and their opinions. The 
study is especially to find out about nutrition opinions, people who eat peanut products and their family 
characteristics. The Philippines has problems of vitamin deficiencies. Therefore, it is important to do this 
study to find out why and what can be done to improve the situation. 
(Ako po ay si _____________________________, estudiante sa U. P. May pag-aaral po kaming 
ginagawa sa U.P. tungkol sa mga opinion ng mga mamimimili, lalong-lalo na tungkol sa kalusugan at sa 
mga namimili at kumakain ng mga pagkaing may mani. Malaki po ang problema ng Pilipinas tungkol sa 
kakulangan ng bitamina sa kanilang kinakain. Kaya po namin ginagawa ang pag-aaral na ito.) 
Let me ask you a few questions to see if you qualify to be in the survey: 
1. Are you the person who determines what foods will be bought for this household? 
_______Yes _____ No 
(If “Yes”, describe relationship of respondent to household: ______________________ ) 
(If “No,” ask:) 
May I speak with the person who determines what foods will be bought for this 
household?________________________ 
(Describe relationship of respondent to household: ______________________________ )
2. Are there children living in the home now? _____ Yes _____ No 
3. Do you or members of your family eat peanut products? _____ Yes _____ No 
(If “No” to any of the above – stop interview and go to the next house.) 
(If “Yes” to all the above, proceed.) 
61
I need to ask you a few questions about you and your family as I said before. You can be sure that your 
name and your answers to my questions will not be revealed to anyone. Your answers will only be 
reported as numbers and percentages like in an opinion poll. This will only take a few minutes, so may I 
continue? _____ Yes _____ No 
(If “No”) 
Why? _______________________________________________________________________________ 
(If “Yes”, proceed with the questionnaire.) 
I would like to ask some general questions about you and your family. 
1. How old are you? (Ilang taon ka na?):……………………………____________ 
2. What is your marital status? (Ikaw ba ay?) 
Single (Binata/Dalaga)……………………………… _____ 
Married (May Asawa)……………………………………………….…… _____ 
(If “Married”) 
 How old is your spouse?……………………………………….……. _____ 
 How many years ago did you first get married?…………………….. _____ 
 How many years have you been living together with 
 your current spouse?………………………………….…………... _____ 
Separated (Hiwalay)……………………………………………………... _____ 
Widowed (Biyudo/Biyuda)………………………………………………. _____ 
3. Who are the people that live in this household? (Sinu-sino ang nakatira sa bahay na ito? 
Isama ang inyong sarili.) 
Household Member Age Gender Own Children?
 (Yes / No) 
Adults (M = 21; F = 18): 
(Encircle Respondent) 
_________________ _____ _____ _____ 
_________________ _____ _____ _____ 
_________________ _____ _____ _____ 
_________________ _____ _____ _____ 
_________________ _____ _____ _____ 
_________________ _____ _____ _____ 
Household Member Age Gender Own Children?
 (Yes / No) 
Children in the Household: 
_________________ _____ _____ _____ 
_________________ _____ _____ _____ 
_________________ _____ _____ _____ 
_________________ _____ _____ _____ 
_________________ _____ _____ _____ 
_________________ _____ _____ _____ 
_________________ _____ _____ _____ 
62
Household Member Age Gender Own Children?
 (Yes / No) 
Other Adults: 
_________________ _____ _____ _____ 
_________________ _____ _____ _____ 
_________________ _____ _____ _____ 
_________________ _____ _____ _____ 
(If “Single”, skip to 4.) 
How many of your children are living outside the house? ________ 
How old is your oldest child? _____ years old 
How old is your youngest child? _____ years old 
4. What was the highest grade level in school that you completed? (Antas ng pag-aaral na natapos mo). 
………………………………………………………. ________ 
Elementary High school College/Vocational Graduate school 
[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] [ 7 8 9 10 ] [ 11 12 13 14 ] [ 15 16 17 18 19 ] 
(Note: Record the exact number of years.) 
(If there is a “Spouse”) 
5. What was the highest grade level in school that your spouse completed? (Antas ng pag-aaral na 
natapos ng asawa mo). ………………………………….. ______ 
Elementary High school College/Vocational Graduate school 
[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] [ 7 8 9 10 ] [ 11 12 13 14 ] [ 15 16 17 18 19 ] 
(Note: Record the exact number of years.) 
Now, I would like to ask you about your employment. 
6. Which one of the following best applies to you and your spouse: (Alin ang pinaka-angkop sa iyo?) 
 
 Respondent Spouse 
 Homemaker (Maybahay) _____ _____ 
Self-employed _____ _____ 
 Full-time employee (May pirmihang trabaho) _____ _____ 
Part-time employee (Hindi pirmihan) _____ _____ 
Student (Estudyante) _____ _____ 
Unemployed (Walang trabaho) _____ _____ 
Retired (Retiro) _____ _____ 
Now, I would like to ask you about the people that contribute to the total monthly household income. 
7. How many people in your household contribute to the household’s monthly income? Include yourself 
if you are employed. (Ilang miyembro ng pamilya ang may suweldo? Isama ang inyong sarili sa 
bilang) _________ 
63
8. What is the total gross annual income of your household? What is the total gross income of 
your household last month? (Gaano ang kinikita ng inyong pamahayan sa isang taon? Gaano ang 
kinita ng inyong pamahayan nitong nakaraang buwan?) 
 Annual Last Month 
 Is it: Under P 9,999 _____ Under P 1,000 _____ 
 P 10,000 – P 49,999 _____ P 1,000 – P 4,999 _____ 
 P 50,000 – P 99,999 _____ P 5,000 – P 9,999 _____ 
 P 100,000 – P 149,999 _____ P 10,000 – P 14,999 _____ 
 P 150,000 – P 199,999 _____ P 15,000 – P 19,999 _____ 
 P 200,000 – P 249,999 _____ P 20,000 – P 24,999 _____ 
 P 250,000 – P 299,999 _____ P 25,000 – P 39,999 _____ 
 P 300,000 – P 349,999 _____ P 40,000 – P 49,999 _____ 
 P 350,000 – P 399,999 _____ P 50,000 or over _____ 
 P 400,000 or over _____ 
Now I would like to ask you about food purchases. Please do not include non-food costs. 
9. How much does your household spend for food “per week”, not including money spent for meals 
eaten away from home? This will include money spent on meats, fish, etc. (Magkano ang ginagastos 
ninyo sa pagkain para sa isang linggong konsumo, hindi kasali sa gastos kung kumakain sa labas?) 
P ____________ 
10. How many persons eat their meals regularly in your home, not including visitors? (Ilang tao ang 
pirmihang kumakain sa bahay ninyo? Huwag ibilang ang bisita.) ________ persons 
11. Who is the person who cooks the food most of the time? 
 (Kung hindi, ang laging nagluluto ng pagkain ay - ) 
 Wife (Ina) _____ Helper (Katulong) _____ 
 Husband (Ama) _____ Others, specify (Iba) ____________ 
 Child (Anak) _____ 
Now, I would like to ask you about the health effects that food have. 
12. Are the following foods nutritious (good for the body) or not? (Ang mga sumusunod na 
 pagkain na aking babanggitin ay masustansiya ba o hindi?) 
 a. Fruits (prutas) _____Yes _____No _____Don’t know 
 b. Vegetables (gulay) _____Yes _____No _____Don’t know 
 c. Meat & Poultry _____Yes _____No _____Don’t know 
 d. Candies _____Yes _____No _____Don’t know 
 e. Snack chips (chichirya) _____Yes _____No _____Don’t know 
 f. Crackers _____Yes _____No _____Don’t know 
 g. Softdrinks _____Yes _____No _____Don’t know 
 h. Fruit-flavored drinks _____Yes _____No _____Don’t know 
 i. Milk and milk products _____Yes _____No _____Don’t know 
 j. Seafoods (laman-dagat) _____Yes _____No _____Don’t know 
 k. Eggs _____Yes _____No _____Don’t know 
 l. Nuts _____Yes _____No _____Don’t know 
 m. Bread (tinapay) _____Yes _____No _____Don’t know 
64
13. What are the effects of good nutrition? (Anu-ano po ang epekto sa tao kung ito ay sapat sa 
nutrisyon?) 
 _____ healthy body _____ strong muscles _____ good eyesight 
 _____ obesity _____ healthy skin _____ grow taller 
 _____ stronger bones _____ don’t kow _____ others 
 _____ resistance to disease 
14. What are the effects of poor nutrition? (Anu-ano po ang epekto sa tao kung ito ay kulang sa 
nutrisyon?) 
_____ weak _____ malnourished _____ don’t know 
_____ sickly _____ high blood pressure _____ others 
_____ diabetic _____ poor school performance 
_____ not within ideal weight 
Now I would like to ask you about what you consider important in buying foods. I am going to ask 
you how important you consider the following in buying foods: nutrients (sustansya), price (presyo), 
convenience (madaling gamitin), packaging (pinaglalagyan), quality (kalidad), and brand names 
(tatak) but I will you about them one by one. 
15. How important do you consider the following in buying food? (Gaano kaimportante sa iyo ang mga 
sumusunod sa pagbili mo ng pagkain?) 
How important are: 
Nutrients (sustansya)?
Very important____ Moderately important_____ Not important____ [ No response____ ] 
Price (presyo)?
Very important____ Moderately important_____ Not important____ [ No response____ ] 
Convenience/ease of use (madaling gamitin)?
Very important____ Moderately important_____ Not important____ [ No response____ ] 
Packaging (pinaglalagyan)?
Very important____ Moderately important_____ Not important____ [ No response____ ] 
Quality/taste (kalidad)?
Very important____ Moderately important_____ Not important____ [ No response____ ] 
Brand names (tatak)?
Very important____ Moderately important_____ Not important____ [ No response____ ] 
Are there other things that you consider important in buying foods? (specify) 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
Is it: 
Very important____ Moderately important_____ Not important____ [ No response____ ] 
Now I would like to ask you questions about peanut-based products. 
65
16. Which of these peanut-based products do you buy? (Alin sa mga sumusunod ang binibili 
mong pagakain na may mani?) 
Kare-kare mix _____ Adobo Peanuts _____ 
Flavored peanuts _____ Peanut Cookies _____ 
Peanut Candies _____ Java sauce _____ 
Boiled peanuts _____ Peanut butter _____ 
 Others (Specify) ____________
(If “Yes” to peanut butter, proceed to 17.) 
(If “No” to peanut butter, skip to 22.) 
17. How often do you buy peanut butter? (Pause.)
(Gaano ka kadalas bumili ng peanut butter?) 
_____ Once a week 
_____ Once every two weeks 
_____ Once a month 
_____ Others (please, specify) 
18. What do you consider important in your choice of peanut butter? 
(Ano ang basehan mo sa pagpili ng peanut butter?) 
Is it: 
_____ brand _____ taste _____ texture 
_____ price _____ color _____ others 
_____ availability _____ none of the above 
19. What brand do you usually buy? (Anong klase at tatak ang binibili mo?) ______ 
If that brand is not available, do you buy another brand? 
Yes (specify) _______________ No ________________ 
20. Who among the members of the household eat peanut butter? How many times a week does each 
member eat peanut butter? (Please estimate) 
Household member Times/week Amount Each time Total amount 
 (in tbsp) 
Adults: ________ __________ ______________ | _______ 
________ __________ ______________ | _______ 
________ __________ ______________ | _______ 
________ __________ ______________ | _______ 
________ __________ ______________ | _______ 
________ __________ ______________ | _______ 
Children: (M /F) | 
Child 1 __________ _______________ | _______ 
Child 2 __________ _______________ | _______ 
Child 3 __________ _______________ | _______ 
Child 4 __________ _______________ | _______ 
Child 5 __________ _______________ | _______ 
Child 6 __________ _______________ | _______ 
Child 7 __________ _______________ | _______ 
Child 8 __________ _______________ | _______ 
Child 9 __________ _______________ | _______ 
 Child 10 __________ _______________ | _______ 
66
Other Adults: | 
____________ __________ _______________ | _______ 
____________ __________ _______________ | _______ 
____________ __________ _______________ | _______ 
____________ __________ _______________ | _______ 
(Total Amount = Times/week X Amount each Time) 
21. How do members of the household eat peanut butter? (Check all that applies.)
_____ by itself or 
_____ with something (Specify) 
 _____ bread 
 _____ crackers 
 _____ rootcrops 
 _____ bananas 
 _____ with jelly or other spread (Specify) ________________ 
 _____ others (Specify) _________________ 
Do you have any peanut butter in your house now? _____Yes _____No] 
(If “Yes”, proceed. If “No”, skip to 22.) 
May I see what type of peanut butter you have and how much is left in the jar? 
 _____ Actually had peanut butter 
 _____ peanut butter with Vitamin A 
_____ peanut butter with no Vitamin A 
 _____ No peanut butter with Vitamin A 
Now I would like to ask you about vitamins. 
22. Have you ever heard about Vitamin A? (Nakadinig ka na ba ng tungkol sa Vitamin A?) ____Yes
 _____No 
(If “Yes”, proceed. If “No”, skip to 26.) 
23. What do you know about Vitamin A? (Ano ang inyong kaalaman tungkol dito?)
___________________________________________________________________________ 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
(If health benefits are mentioned, skip to 26.) 
24. Does Vitamin A affect health? _____Yes _____No 
(If “Yes”, proceed. If “No”, skip to 26.) 
25. How does it affect health?_______________________________________ 
26. Would you buy Vit. A-fortified peanut butter if you knew that it improves eyesight? _____Yes 
 _____No 
67
27. Would you still buy peanut butter with no Vit. A? _____ Yes _____ No 
Why____________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
28. Are you aware of the Vit. A-fortified foods in the market like noodles and Star 
margarine? (Alam ba ninyo na marami nang pagkain ang dinagdagan ng Vit. A tulad ng instant 
 noodles at Star margarine?) _____ Yes _____ No 
29. Have you ever heard of or seen Vit. A-fortified (added with Vitamin A) peanut butter? 
_____ Yes (Specify brands.) ________________ _____ No (Skip to 33.) 
30. Have you bought Vit. A-fortified (added with Vitamin A) peanut butter? _____Yes
 _____No 
(If “Yes”, proceed. If “No” skip to 33.) 
31. Why did you buy Vit.A-fortified peanut butter? 
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
32. Have you eaten peanut butter with Vit. A? 
_____Yes _____No _____ Don’t know 
Now I would like to ask you about other peanut-based products. 
(If kare-kare was checked in 16, proceed. If not, skip to 37.) 
33. How often do you buy kare-kare sauce? (Gaano ka kadalas bumili ng kare-kare sauce?) 
_____ Once a week 
_____ Once every two weeks 
_____ Once a month 
_____ Others (Specify) __________________
_____ Never 
(If “Never”, skip to 37 . If respondent buys, proceed.) 
34. Do you buy kare-kare sauce with _____ or without _____ peanuts? 
35. What do you consider important in your choice of kare-kare sauce? Is it: 
(Ano ang basehan mo sa pagpili ng kare-kare sauce?) 
_____ brand _____ taste _____ texture 
_____ price _____ color _____ others 
_____ availability _____ none of the above 
36. What brand do you usually buy? (Anong klase at tatak ang binibili mo?) _______ 
If that brand is not available, do you buy another brand? 
Yes (Specify) _______________ No, why________________ 
Now I would like to ask you about aflatoxins. Aflatoxins are toxins produced by molds (amag) on foods. 
68
37. Have you heard about aflatoxin? (Narinig mo na ba ang tungkol sa aflatoxin?) _____ 
Yes _____ No 
(If “Yes”, proceed. If “No”, skip to 40.) 
38. What do you know about aflatoxin? (Ano ang inyong kaalaman tungkol dito?) 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________ 
39. Are you aware which foods are susceptible to aflatoxin contamination? (Alam mo ba ang mga 
pagkain na pwedeng magkaroon ng aflatoxin?) 
_____ Yes (Specify) _____________ _____ No 
Aflatoxins cause cancer. 
40. Will you buy peanut-based products that say on the label that they don’t have aflatoxin? 
(Bibili ka ba ng mga pagkaing may mani na walang aflatoxin?) _____Yes _____ No 
41. Have you seen peanut-based products that are labeled aflatoxin-free? 
_____Yes (Specify)______________ _____ No 
Now, I would like to ask you some questions about family activities. 
42. Do you or your spouse actively participate in religious activities once a month or more (for example, 
attend church or mosque services, meetings of other religious associations etc)? 
Respondent _____Yes _____No 
Spouse _____Yes _____No 
(If Yes, proceed. If No, skip to question # 44.) 
43. What kind of religious activities are these? (e.g. activities related to Church, Mosque, 
Synagogue)____________________________ 
44. Are you or your spouse a member of any civic clubs? 
Respondent _____Yes _____No 
Spouse _____Yes _____No 
(If Yes, proceed. If No, skip to question # 46.) 
45. Which clubs are these? Respondent_______________ 
Spouse_______________________ 
46. To what other community club(s) and organizations do you or your spouse belong? 
Respondent________________________ 
Spouse _______________________ 
69
47. Do you or your spouse participate in school activities? 
Respondent _____Yes _____No 
Spouse _____Yes _____No 
(If Yes, proceed. If No, skip to question # 49.) 
48. What school activities have you participated in? 
Respondent________________________ 
Spouse _______________________ 
49. How many heads of the households on your street do you know by last and first name?__________ 
(If none, go to question #51. Otherwise, proceed.) 
50. Could you tell me their first and last names? (Stop at 20)
1___________________2__________________3_______________4____________ 
5___________________6__________________ Total___________ 
51. How many heads of the households on other streets of your neighborhood do you know by first and 
last name?_____ 
(If none, go to question #53. Otherwise, proceed.) 
52. Could you tell me their first and last names? (Stop at 20)
1___________________2__________________3_______________4____________ 
5___________________6__________________ Total___________ 
53. How often have you had dinner or a party at your neighbors’ places in the last six months? (circle 
one)
Never, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or more
54. How often have you invited your neighbors for dinner or a party at your place in the last six months? 
(circle one)
Never, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or more 
55. How often have you loaned things (tools, kitchenware etc) to your neighbors in the last six months? 
(circle one)
Never, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or more 
56. How often have you borrowed things (tools, kitchenware etc) from your neighbors in the last six 
months? (circle one)
Never, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or more 
57. In the last six months, how many times have you loaned money to your neighbors? (circle one)
Never, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or more 
70
58. In the last six months, how many times have you borrowed money from your neighbors? (circle one)
Never, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or more 
Now, I would like to ask you questions about your sources of information. 
59. Do you subscribe to a daily paper? _____Yes _____No 
60. Do you read at least the first page of a newspaper almost every day? 
_____Yes _____No 
61. Do you have a TV set? _____Yes _____No 
62. Do you watch TV news almost every day? _____Yes _____No 
63. Do you listen to news on the radio almost every day? 
_____Yes _____No 
Now, I would like to ask you questions on family decision-making. 
64. Who decides most often what to eat for dinner? 
1. You 
2. Your Spouse 
3. Children 
4. Other_____________ 
65. Who decides most often on what groceries to buy for your family? 
1. You 
2. Your Spouse 
3. Children 
4. Other_____________ 
66. Who makes most decisions about going to movies? 
1. You 
2. Your Spouse 
3. Children 
4. Other ________________ 
5. Never go to movies 
67. Who decides most often about whether to go to religious events? 
1. You 
2. Your Spouse 
3. Children 
4. Other__________________ 
5. Never go to religious events 
71
68. Who in your family most often decides whom to invite for dinner? 
1. You 
2. Your Spouse 
3. Children 
4. Other__________________ 
5. Never invite people to dinner 
69. What kinds of things does your family do together? 
1. Eat dinner together? Yes ___No____ 
2. Go to religious services? Yes___No___ 
3. Have birthday parties for the children? Yes__No____ 
4. Have birthday parties for the parents? Yes___No____ 
5. Go to movies? Yes__No__ 
6. Go on picnics? Yes___No____ 
7. What other things does your family do together? 
 1_________2_________3_____________4_______________ 
Maraming Salamat po sa inyong pahintulot na makausap ko kayo ngayon. 
Malaking tulong po ito sa amin. 
72
CHAPTER 3 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT ON THE 
TECHNOLOGY OF VITAMIN A 
FORTIFIED PEANUT BUTTER 
TO AN INDUSTRY COLLABORATOR 
Alicia O. Lustre1
Albert R. Cariso, Jr.2
Gertrude M. Agustin3
Robert L. Moxley4
and 
Anna V.A. Resurreccion5
1
Co-Principal Investigator USAID Peanut-CRSP; Director, Food Development Center 1632, Philippines 
2
Division Chief, Food Development Center 1632, Philippines 
3
Acting Division Chief, Food Development Center 1632, Philippines 
4 Professor, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University, USA 
5
Principal Investigator USAID Peanut-CRSP; Professor, University of Georgia, Griffin, GA 30223-1797, USA 
73
ABSTRACT 
The impact of the vitamin A fortification of peanut butter was evaluated on an industry 
collaborator who had produced the product for three years through face-to-face interviews with 
collaborator’s representatives. The study focused on the economic aspects, such as product sales, 
marketing system and volume, product quality and production cost; and on social impact such as effect on 
employment and workers’ morale. A questionnaire was used as guide during the interviews. 
The collaborator, in spite of the presence in the market and increase in sales as well as increase in 
the number of distributors of the product, viewed the technology as having no impact on sales. After the 
technology adoption the production volume increased by 37% in 2002 compared with their production in 
1999. The vitamin A fortification did not change the color and typical peanut butter aroma of the product 
or the “all natural” image of the product. The fortification technology, however, reduced the estimated 
shelf life of the product which caused the company to change their delivery patterns to ensure that the 
product contained the required vitamin A content. 
The production cost increased by 10% as a result of the adoption of the technology because of the 
additional steps and manpower. Six personnel were hired which is viewed as a positive impact for the 
Philippine economy. The only impact accepted by the collaborator on the adoption of technology was the 
strengthening of their technical group and positive changes in workers’ attitude. It created awareness in 
workers to consistently maintain the quality of their product and a big challenge in surviving the 
competition in the market. 
74
INTRODUCTION 
 In December 1997, the Food Development Center (FDC) invited possible industry collaborators, 
who were willing to participate in a research collaboration for the vitamin A fortification of peanut butter, 
to a conference. An existing Food Development Center client responded positively to serve as the 
industry collaborator for the research. The research had two phases. The first phase involved laboratory 
scale studies on how to incorporate the vitamin A into the product to achieve uniform dispersion without 
loss of the added fortificant. This took one year and four months to complete (Galvez et al., 1999). The 
second phase of the research involved a technology transfer stage providing the collaborator with the 
capability to incorporate the fortification step in its plant process and to sell a product that met the 
required standards. This included the establishment of Sanitation/Standard Operating Procedure (SSOP) 
and the development of a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan for vitamin A fortified 
peanut butter. This took two years for the company to implement. 
 According to a Memorandum of Agreement between the investigators and the industry 
collaborator, the cost of the research and technology transfer was shared under the following provisions: 
(a) cost of 50% peanuts during the first phase of the study, (b) cost of the fortificant during the first and 
second phases of the study, and (c) equipment, facilities, cost of peanuts, and cost of vitamin A analysis 
during the second phase of the study was to be provided by the industry. The collaborator was granted 
exclusive use of the technology for a period of one year. However, the collaborator had exclusive use of 
the technology for three years because they encountered unexpected problems in the launching and 
performance of the product in the market. The product was introduced in December 1999. 
OBJECTIVES 
The objective of the study was to evaluate the impact of the development, technology transfer, 
adoption and commercialization of vitamin A fortified of peanut butter specifically on sales, markets, 
product quality, employment and workers’ attitude. The hypothesis for the impact study was that the 
fortification of peanut butter would increase sales, expand markets adequately to counter increased 
production costs, improve product quality, and increase employment. 
METHODS 
 Vitamin A deficiency is a major problem among pre-school Filipino children, with extreme 
deficiency often resulting in blindness. Research and development was previously conducted to develop 
a process to reliably fortify peanut butter with vitamin A (Galvez et al. 1999). This is a critical 
innovation, since peanut butter serves as a major food commodity purchased by household consumers in 
the Philippines. 
 The present study involves an evaluation of the impact of the technology developed for the 
Vitamin A fortification f peanut butter on an industry collaborator. The collaborator is currently 
producing and selling a vitamin A fortified peanut butter brand and has done so for the last three years 
75
(1999-2001). The major objectives of this report are to evaluate the impacts of vitamin A fortification of 
peanut butter on the industry collaborator, with specific focus placed on sales, markets, product quality, 
employment and workers’ morale. 
 This study focused on an assessment of specific economic and social effects on the collaborator. 
Economic impact was assessed by determining the effect of selling vitamin A fortified peanut butter on 
(a) product sales, (b) marketing system and volume, (c) product quality, and (d) production cost. Social 
impact was assessed by determining the effect on employment and workers’ morale. 
Preparation of Questionnaire 
 A questionnaire was prepared as a guide for gathering data on the impact of the technology 
developed for vitamin A fortification of peanut butter on the industry collaborator. Impact refers to the 
broad, long term economic and social effects resulting from the research and technology transfer. Such 
effects maybe anticipated or unanticipated, and positive or negative, at the level of individual or the 
organization. Such effects generally involve changes in both cognition and behavior (Impact Assessment 
and /evaluation Group, 2002). 
Collection of Data 
 Face-to-face interviews were conducted with the relevant personnel to obtain data from the 
collaborator on sales figures, additional markets/distributors, additional employees hired due to the 
technology, increased sales personnel, new product lines developed and promotional activities. All data 
gathered were identified based on whether it occurred before or after technology adoption. 
 The first individuals interviewed were from the management representatives. They were the 
Executive Assistant to the President and the Industrial Engineer Consultant. The second group of people 
interviewed was from the research and development (R&D)/quality control (QC) representatives and 
production personnel namely: R&D and QC Head and their staff, Lead Person assigned at roasting and 
sorting of peanuts, Lead Person assigned at production area, Lead Person assigned at warehousing area. 
RESULTS 
Responses to Questionnaires and Evaluation of Data 
Effect on Product Sales 
 Table 3.1 shows the responses of management, R&D/QC representatives and production 
personnel on the effect of vitamin A fortification of peanut butter on product sales. The management 
indicated that vitamin A fortification did not have any impact on sales. Whatever increase in company 
sales was attributed to the additional distributors of the company rather than on the fortification of the 
product. The manger also stated that they did not encounter problems in selling vitamin A fortified 
peanut butter in the market. The R&D/QC personnel also indicated that adding vitamin A to the peanut 
butter did not affect their claim that their product is an “all natural” peanut butter as their volume of sales 
has been maintained. 
76
Table 3.1 Questions and responses relevant to the effect on product sales. 
Question Response 
Question 1 What are the impacts of vitamin A fortification 
of peanut butter in terms of domestic sales? 
 Increased  Decreased  No change 
No change 1 
Question 2 What were the problems encountered by the 
company in selling vitamin A fortified peanut 
butter? 
None 1 
Question 3 What is the effect of adding vitamin A to the 
company’s claim that their product is an all￾natural peanut butter? 
 
No effect as they still maintain their 
volume of sales 2 
Question 4 What are the impacts of vitamin A fortification 
of peanut butter in terms of the volume of raw 
peanuts that you use per day/month? 
 Increased  Decreased  No change 
No change 3 
Question 5 Did you engage in advertising the product as 
vitamin A fortified until now? 
 Yes  No 
Yes 1 
Question 6 Please specify the medium used: 
 Radio  Print  T.V. 
Radio. Print, small scale. 
(They are disappointed on the lack of 
government support on the promotion 
of vitamin A fortified products. They 
believe that this is one of the reasons 
why their sales did not increase) 1 
Respondent: 1 Management representative 
 2
 R&D/QC representative 
 3
 Production personnel 
 
The above responses claiming that no change in sales occurred appears to agree with the 
information provided by the production personnel that the amount of peanuts used by the company before 
and after technology adoption remained the same. However, comparing the calculated production volume 
(693,000 kg) produced by the company in year 2002 and the reported volume (507,000 kg) produced in 
year 1999 prior to technology adoption (Table 3.2), indicates that the company increased its production 
volume by 186,000 kg or 37% after technology adoption. The management representative, however, 
refused to acknowledge any increase in production volume by the company due to vitamin A fortification 
of peanut butter. This is a typical response in a company operating in a very competitive environment. It 
is expected that companies would not reveal their production or sales volume, which might be useful to 
competitors, especially if this encouraged them to add vitamin A to their product. 
77
Table 3.2 Volume of production of fortified peanut butter and raw material usage 
 before (Year 1999) and after (Years 2000 and 2002) technology adoption. 
Item Year 1999 Year 2000 Year 2002 
Volume of production of 
fortified peanut butter in kg 
507,000 1 534,158 1 693,000 3 
Volume of raw material 
 usage in kg 
405,600 2 
≈ 31 sacks of 50 kg/day)
427,326 1 
≈ 32 sacks of 50 kg/day 
554,400 3 
≈ 42 sacks of 50 kg/day) 1
Reported in the Final Report on Project 3.2.17/Impact Monitoring of Completed Projects. Peanut Collaborative Research 
 Support Program. University of Georgia, April 15, 2001. 
2
Calculated value based on reported total production volume (80% of the reported total production volume). 3
Calculated value based on reported volume of raw materials being used everyday on an interview with RD/QC representative. 4
Calculated value based on reported volume of raw materials being used everyday in an interview with RD/QC representative. 
 (2,100 kg per day x 22 days x 12 months). 
 Although the company engaged in limited advertising of the product in radio and print media, the 
management representative complained about the lack of government support in the promotion of vitamin 
A fortified products as one of the reasons for not realizing the anticipated increase in company sales. 
Despite the perceived low impact of vitamin A fortification on product sales, the management 
representative expressed that the company sees vitamin A addition as something that maybe useful to the 
company in the future. 
Effect on the Marketing System and Volume 
 Table 3.3 shows the responses of the management representative on the effect on the marketing 
system and volume. He stated that vitamin A fortification did not contribute to opening additional 
markets or to the hiring of additional salesmen. However, he indicated that they increased their number 
of distributors by 5%. Distributors are carriers of product in various parts of the country. He stated that 
the increase in numbers of distributors was responsible for the increase in company sales. Although the 
management representative claimed that vitamin A fortification did not contribute to opening additional 
markets, the increase in number of distributors indicated additional volume of the product in the market. 
Table 3.3 Questions and responses relevant to the effect on the marketing system and volume. 
 
Question Response 1 
Question 1 Did you have additional outlets because of having a vitamin A fortified 
product? 
 Yes  No If yes, by how many? _______ 
No 
Question 2 Did you increase the number of salesmen because of having a vitamin A 
fortified product? 
 Yes  No How many? _____________ 
No 
Question 3 Did you increase the number of distributors because of having a Vitamin 
A fortified product? 
 Yes  No How many? ________ 
Yes 5% 
Question 4 Did you have new products developed because of technology adoption? 
 Yes  No Please specify _______ 
Yes, 
variations of 
peanut butter 
Respondent: 1
 Management representative 
78
Effect on Product Quality 
 Table 3.4 shows the responses of the R&D/QC and management representatives on the effect of 
vitamin A fortification on product quality. The management representative stated that vitamin A 
fortification did not change the sensory quality of their product in the market in terms of color and typical 
peanut aroma. The R&D/QC representative had the same assessment. This is a positive effect, as the 
company wanted to maintain the “original” quality of the product, as they perceived was desired by their 
market. The addition of vitamin A had not affected the “all natural” image of the product as it was 
reported that the volume of the sales was maintained. 
Table 3.4 Questions and responses relevant to the effect on product quality. 
Question Response 1, 2 
Question 1 Did fortification improve color of your products in the market? 
Darker Lighter No change 
No change 
Question 2 Did fortification change the typical peanut butter odor of your
products in the market? 
 Lesser  Stronger No change 
No change 
Question 3 Did fortification result in presence of off odor in your products 
in the market? 
 Present None 
None 
Question 4 Did fortification result in presence of off flavor in your products 
in the market? 
 Present  None 
None 
Question 5 What are the impacts of the technology on the quality of your
products in terms of shelf life? 
 Increased  Decreased 
Decreased 
from 9-12 months 
to 6 months 
Question 6 What are the impacts of vitamin A fortification of peanut butter 
on unsold volume of products? 
 Increased  Decreased No change 
No change 
Respondent: 1
 Management representative 
 2 R&D / QC representative
Effect on Production Cost 
Table 3.5 shows the responses of management on the effect on production cost. The management 
representative asserted that, in terms of production cost, the fortification of the product only resulted in 
added cost and time delay in processing because of the need to cool down the product prior to the addition 
of vitamin A. He also indicated that, while the cost of the fortificant was minimal, the additional step of 
fortification increased production time and financial cost by 10% because of the hiring of additional 
personnel and longer production time. The company claimed that the increased cost was not added to the 
price of the product. This increased cost may have been absorbed by the reported increase in company 
sales due to the expanded distribution network. 
79
Table 3.5 Questions and responses relevant to the effect on production cost. 
Question Response 1 
Question 1 What are the impacts of vitamin A fortification of peanut butter 
on the business of your company in terms of production cost? 
 Increased  Decreased  No change 
Increased 
Question 2 If yes, by how much? 10% 
Question 3 Why was the production cost increased? Because of hiring of 
additional personnel 
and longer production 
time 
Question 4 Did you increase selling price of the product because of vitamin 
A fortification? 
 Yes  No If yes, by how much ________ 
No 
Respondent: 1
 Management representative 
Effect on Employment and Workers’ Attitude 
 Table 3.6 shows the responses of the management and R&D/QC representatives on the effect on 
the employment and workers attitude. The management representative indicated that they increased their 
personnel by six: two in R&D, one in QC, one in Production and two in Management. 
Table 3.6 Questions and responses relevant to the effect on employment and workers’ attitude. 
Question Response 
Question 1 What are the impacts of vitamin A fortification of peanut butter 
on employment generation? 
 Increased  Decreased  No change 
Increased 1
 
Question 2 In what area did you increase personnel? 
 Production  Sales  Others. Please specify 
Production. 
Technical 
(QC and R&D) 
Management 1 
80
Table 3.6 continued . . . . 
Question Response 
Question 3 How much was the increase? 
 Production  Sales  Other(s) 
1 production staff 
2 R&D staff 
1 QC staff 
2 management staff 1 
Question 4 Did the company undergo re-organization of production staff 
due to fortification i.e., on number of employees? 
 Yes  No 
Yes 1 
Question 5 Did the company undergo re-organization of production staff 
due to fortification i.e., on gender issues; do you consider sex of 
applicant in hiring? 
 Yes  No 
No 1 
Question 6 Did the company undergo re-organization of production staff 
due to fortification i.e., on number of working hours? 
 Yes  No 
No 1 
Question 6.7 Did the company undergo re-organization of production staff 
due to fortification i.e., on training on production? 
 Yes  No 
Yes 1 
Question 6.8 What are the impacts of vitamin A fortification on attitudes of 
personnel? 
This created awareness 
among personnel to be 
quality conscious on 
maintaining the level 
of vitamin A in the 
product. It is also 
easier now to 
introduce new changes 
in the production and 
quality control system 
than before. There is 
less resistance in 
personnel to follow 
improvements on 
production and quality 
control system. 2 
Respondent: 1
 Management representative 
 2
 R&D/QC representative 
 
81
The management representative was appreciative of the fact that fortification of their product 
paved the way for the company to become more quality conscious resulting in the strengthening of the 
company’s technical group and changes in workers’ attitude. The above view was shared by R&D/QC 
personnel who indicated that vitamin A fortification created awareness among production personnel to be 
quality conscious in maintaining the level of vitamin A in the product. The R&D/QC personnel also said 
that it was also easier now to introduce new changes in the production and quality control system than 
before. There is now less resistance in personnel to follow improvements on the production and quality 
control system. 
CONCLUSIONS 
The continued presence, and increase in sales, of the vitamin A fortified peanut butter in the 
marketplace indicates that consumers are purchasing the product. Yet, the collaborator viewed the 
vitamin A fortification of peanut butter as having no impact on sales. It is logical that a company 
operating in a very competitive environment would not want to reveal information on sales. In fact, it 
was noted that a leading competitor brand of peanut butter fortified their product not with one vitamin but 
with four namely, vitamin A, B, D and E. This occurred about six months after the collaborator’s vitamin 
A fortified peanut butter was launched in the market. 
Although the collaborator stated that there was no improvement in sales due to the fortification, 
the company increased the number of distributors. This indicated additional volume of the product in the 
marketplace. This become evident when one considers the calculated volume of the product produced by 
the collaborator before and after the technology adoption. They increased their production volume by 
186,000 kg or 37% in year 2002 compared with their production in year 1999. It is, of course, difficult to 
separate out the causes of the increase. 
Company officials were relieved that vitamin A fortification did not change the color and typical 
peanut butter aroma. This is a positive outcome as the collaborator wanted to maintain the original 
quality of their product, which they perceived as desirable to their consumers. The addition of vitamin A 
did not affect the “all natural” image of the product. The vitamin A fortification however was perceived 
to reduce the calculated shelf life of the product. This caused the company to change their delivery 
patterns to ensure that the product contained the level of vitamin A on the market shelves as required by 
local regulations. The reduction in product shelf life did not affect product returns as the product was a 
fast moving item. 
 The vitamin A fortification increased production cost by 10% because of the additional steps and 
manpower requirement. Six additional personnel were added. While this is viewed as a “cost” to the 
company, the increase in employment is a positive impact for the Philippine economy. The continued 
adoption of the technology by the collaborator indicated that this additional cost may have been absorbed 
by some increase in company sales. However, the only impact of vitamin A fortification of peanut butter 
that was accepted by the collaborator was the strengthening of their technical group and positive changes 
in workers’ attitude. The adoption of this technology created awareness in workers to consistently 
maintain the quality of their product. This consciousness of maintaining a certain level of quality in the 
product paved the way for the employees to be quality conscious and strengthened the technical capability 
of the collaborator. The management viewed this change in worker attitude as very useful to them for the 
purpose of surviving the competition in the present time and in the future. 
82
While the collaborating company does not admit positive influences on sales after introducing 
vitamin A fortification, it does point to other positive outcomes both currently and potentially for the 
future. As awareness of the importance of vitamin A increases among consumers, this should benefit 
companies advertising fortification. Since the costs are negligible and the health benefits for consumers 
are substantial, other companies should be encouraged to adopt the technology. At the very least, better 
health for the children of the Philippines should be a strong motivation. 
REFERENCES 
Galvez, F.C.F., Francisco, M.L.D.L., Vendiola, N.Q., Padua, M.A., Edra, E.V., Lustre, A.O., & 
Ressureccion, A.V.A. 1999. Fortification of Peanut Butter with Vitamin A. Peanut Collaborative 
Research Support Program, U. of Georgia, Dept. of Food Science & Technology, Griffin, GA. 
Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural 
Research, 2002. “Impact Assessment of Agricultural Research: Context and State of the Art.” 
Paper prepared for the workshop on Impact Assessment o Agricultural Research on Eastern and 
Central Africa (Uganda, November 1999). Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome. 
 
83
CHAPTER 4 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF 
VITAMIN A FORTIFICATION OF PEANUT 
BUTTER ON FILIPINO FAMILIES AND 
CONSUMERS 
Ma. Leonora dL. Francisco1 
Flor Crisanta F. Galvez2 
Lutgarda S. Palomar3 
Robert L. Moxley4 
and 
Anna V.A. Resurreccion5 
1
Assistant Professor, College of Home Economics, UP Diliman 1101, Philippines 
2
Former Dean, College of Home Economics, UP Diliman 1101, Philippines 
3
Professor, Leyte State University 6521-A, Philippines 4
Sociologist, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA 
5
Principal Investigator USAID Peanut-CRSP; Professor, University of Georgia, Griffin, Georgia 30223-1797, USA 
84
ABSTRACT 
Research and development funded by the Peanut Collaborative Research Support Program was 
previously conducted to develop a process to reliably fortify peanut butter with vitamin A (Galvez et al., 
1999). In 1999, the first industry collaborator agreed to adopt the technology and subsequently began 
marketing it throughout the stores carrying the firm’s peanut butter. The product was labeled “vitamin A 
fortified”. 
The research examines the impact of the vitamin A fortification of peanut butter on middle￾income and low-income consumers and their family characteristics. It involves the analysis of a stratified 
random sample survey of households in Cebu, Laguna, Tarlac, and 10 Metro Manila urban barangays
(communities). A total of 176 middle-income households and 185 low-income households participated in 
the survey for a total of 361 households. Only households that purchase peanut products and have 
children were included. Over 90 percent of the households consume peanut butter, by far the most 
commonly consumed peanut product. 
Highlights of the 2002 household survey include the following: Over 40% of households buy 
peanut butter at least once a month. Lily’s Peanut Butter is purchased by about 20% of households 
(16.5% of middle-income households and 22.7% of lower-income households), making it the second 
largest selling peanut butter. Among persons 2 to 20 years of age, 76% eat at least one serving of peanut 
butter per week. About 15% of children in the sample are estimated to be consuming at least one serving 
per week of Lily’s vitamin A fortified peanut butter. There are 127 locations in the places mentioned 
above that contain stores selling this fortified peanut butter. In addition (and independently) an industry 
competitor, Lady’s Choice, the number one peanut butter choice in this survey, has recently started 
advertising “Vitamin A Fortified” on its label. It is the choice of about 29% of households. None of 
these consumers had access to vitamin A fortified peanut butter before the fortification of Lily’s Peanut 
Butter in 1999. 
85
INTRODUCTION 
Consumer Research 
Consumers play a vital role in the success of products and new technologies in the market. 
Manufacturers and producers develop products that cater to the needs and wants of consumers. Therefore, 
it is important in understanding consumers to avoid judgment, accept their behavior, and present realistic 
choices through the products and services offered to them. 
The factors influencing consumer knowledge, attitudes and behaviors can be measured 
qualitatively and quantitatively through the conduct of an organized and unbiased investigation such as a 
consumer survey (Galvez et al., 2002). Consumer surveys lead the researcher to a better understanding of 
what consumers eat, and why and how they buy certain food products. This, in turn, helps decision￾makers, producers and manufacturers. 
New products should undergo research and development at the laboratory level. Products should 
also be tested for acceptability and market viability in the actual market for which it was intended. One 
specific tool typically used in this endeavor is the consumer survey. Aside from the above-mentioned 
application, consumer surveys are also designed to assess the current performance of products, impact on 
the target market and possibly the society as a whole from the vantage point of consumers. 
 
Food Preferences 
 
A variety of factors influence people in regards to their choice of what to eat, how it is eaten and 
why. According to Lyman (1989), among these are food characteristics, body weight, age, sex, race, self￾concept, socioeconomic status, peer or other role models, parental attitude, family relations, nutrition 
knowledge, television viewing, familiarity, context, geography, culture and food meanings. 
Aroma, taste and appearance are significant sensory properties of food that influence preference 
(Galvez et al, 2002). The pleasantness of aroma significantly affects the willingness to try foods 
(Raudenbush, 1995). On the basis of taste, both children and adults generally prefer sweet foods while 
aversion to sour and bitter tastes seems to be an innate reaction in most humans. Lyman (1989) reasoned 
that the latter could have been acquired as a form of adaptation because bitter taste is largely associated 
with poisonous substances. In terms of eye-appeal, the more attractive the packaging and the appearance 
of the food prepared, the more likely it will be purchased (Baron and Mueller, 1995). 
One of the factors that is said to largely influence food preference of young children is the family. 
Long-term food preferences could be acquired from family behavior towards food. However, research 
evidence is mixed. A previous study (Birch, 1992) showed that children tend to acquire the preference 
for fatty foods when they are exposed to adults who are fond of these types of foods. This is in contrast to 
a meta-analysis of the parent-child relationship which concluded that only a small, albeit significant, 
relationship exists in the similarity of parents’ and children’s food preferences (Borah-Giddens and 
Faciglia, 1993). 
Outside influences come into play as the child grows. Peer choices and the media can influence 
their food preferences. As young people enter adulthood, behavior towards food is affected by their 
individual lifestyle and social circumstances. This would include household composition, household 
employment, family relationships, eating location, extracurricular activities, and decision-making 
practices (Galvez et al., 2002). 
86
Nutrition knowledge is another factor influencing food preference. In a society that is now more 
aware of the positive association between good nutrition and healthy living and a prolonged and 
productive life, people are now looking for preservative-free, fresh and organic foods, supplements, and 
fortified foods. Nutrition knowledge, although not a guarantee of good eating habits, is often considered 
a significant supporting factor towards good eating habits and is supported by a number of research 
publications (Moxley, 1981). The cultural and geographic aspects of food preferences are also a 
consideration. An example of this is Australians who have an aversion to strong sour flavors, while the 
Japanese have a strong preference for this taste (Tacey, 1992). Lyman (1989) explained that the context 
of food preference includes the manner in which food is served and other components of the actual 
service and setting. This also includes the traditional pairing of food such as bacon and eggs, cookies and 
milk, and peaches and cream. 
Peanut and Peanut Products 
Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) is one of the most widely used and studied groundnuts. From its 
humble beginnings as farm feed for fowl and domestic animals in the U.S. during the early 1800’s 
(Woodroof, 1983), it has become a popular component of alternative food products such as beverages 
(Rubico et. al., 1987; Garcia et al., 1990), coffee whitener (Abdullah et al., 1990), buttermilk substitute 
(Lee, 1990), imitation cheese spreads (Santos et al., 1989), and peanut paste (Muego-Gnanasekharan and 
Resurreccion, 1993). 
Aside from these alternative products are other more common peanut products such as peanut 
butter. According to a study by Garcia et al. (1990), peanut butter was the most preferred peanut product 
among consumers in the Philippines (Galvez et al., 2002). Various modifications and additions have 
been made to peanut butter to make it more appealing to consumers. After the previous flowing-type of 
peanut butter came other variations such as stabilized peanut butter, peanut butter-jelly stripes, and now 
the vitamin A fortified peanut butter. These value-adding features of peanut butter have been intended 
not only to increase the number of peanut butter offerings in the market but also to address certain health 
issues such as malnutrition. 
The Need for Vitamin A Fortification 
Vitamin A deficiency is one of the leading causes of blindness among Filipino children. In fact, 
vitamin A deficiency (VAD) is still considered a public health problem among pre-schoolers and pregnant 
and lactating women (Villavieja et al., 2001). The Philippine government through its Department of 
Health has come up with programs to alleviate, if not totally eradicate this problem. Collectively, these 
were commonly referred to as the “Sangkap Pinoy” program during the early 1990’s, which was carried 
out in local health centers and other volunteer private food establishments. These so called “Patak 
Centers” gave capsulated vitamin A supplements to pre-school children and infants twice a year. Aside 
from the doses of vitamin A, the government has promoted the “Sangkap Pinoy Seal” (SPS) that 
encourages the usage of fortified food products. 
Motivated by these government efforts, food manufacturing companies have come out with the 
vitamin A fortified product lines such as instant noodles, margarines and other spreads, bread, milk and 
other milk products that add value to their commodities. The results of the survey conducted by 
Villavieja et al. (2001) revealed low levels of awareness among Filipinos of both food products with SPS 
(16.7%) and other fortified foods in general (11.6%). However, they found that despite the low level of 
awareness, there was a high percentage of usage of food products with SPS. Among the top five 
frequently used food products with SPS were “Star” margarine (61.1%), “Payless” instant noodles, 
“Lucky Me” instant noodles, “555” sardines, and “Tang” powdered juice drink (Villavieja et al., 2001). 
A consumer survey conducted in 2002 among Filipino households by Galvez and colleagues (2002) 
87
showed that Filipinos (90% of respondents) would be willing to purchase vitamin A fortified peanut 
butter, if this was made available to them. At that time, none was available on the market. 
OBJECTIVES 
Peanut-CRSP has conducted previous studies designed to develop various peanut products, one of 
which is vitamin A fortified peanut butter. After a presentation of the new technology to invited peanut 
manufacturers at the facilities of NFA/FDC, only one company indicated interest. With the technical 
assistance of the vitamin A research and development team from the University of the Philippines and 
Food Development Center, the industry collaborator adopted this technology and the resulting product 
was subsequently introduced in the market in 1999. With this event, there was a need to assess the impact 
of the introduction of vitamin A fortified peanut butter on consumers. It is envisioned that the 
information gathered will help in guiding future research and making policy decisions and marketing 
strategies in the development and distribution of fortified foods. The specific objectives of the study were 
to: (1) estimate the current impacts of fortified peanut butter on the consumers in the relevant market 
areas; (2) compare the knowledge, purchase, and use of vitamin A fortified peanut butter in low and 
middle income groups for enhancing planning for future impacts; (3) estimate the consumption of peanut 
butter with vitamin A among children to asses current impacts on the most vulnerable age groups; and (4) 
examine family patterns of consumption of vitamin A fortified peanut butter to assess general impacts on 
the family and learn more about household and family members in relation to children’s consumption. 
METHODS 
Questionnaire Development 
A survey instrument was developed to be administered in personal interviews. The final version 
of this questionnaire consisted of several parts. Topics included: (1) demographic and socio-economic 
questions including the name, address, age, sex, civil status, status of households, educational attainment, 
occupation, household income and food expenditures; (2) marketing and eating habits; (3) nutrition 
knowledge; (4) peanut product consumption of households; (5) peanut butter preferences; and (6) 
knowledge, attitude, behaviors towards vitamin A fortification. The questionnaire was written in English 
with Filipino translations in Tagalog (see Chapter 2, Appendix A). 
Data Collection and Processing 
An intensive three-day training workshop was held to train interviewers. In the summer of 2002, 
one-on-one interviews were conducted in some of the major areas of the Philippines where vitamin A 
fortified peanut butter was distributed in Metro Manila, South Luzon, North Luzon, and Cebu. A list of 
supermarkets and grocery stores where vitamin A fortified peanut butter were sold was obtained from the 
collaborating company. Manila, Cebu and barangays (communities) just outside Manila to the North and 
South were purposely chosen, because these are the areas where most of the stores were located. Also, 
these different geographical areas were selected to attempt to maximize family and consumer variability 
within travel and budget constraints of the research project. Random sampling was done to determine 
which of the 127 stores located in Metro Manila would be chosen. Ten sampling sites were randomly 
88
chosen for Metro Manila, while in South Luzon and North Luzon, two sampling sites were taken. In the 
Visayas region, eight sampling sites in Cebu were selected. The minimum target number of respondents 
for Metro Manila was 150, 100 for North and South Luzon and 100 for Cebu, which provided a total of 
350. Over-sampling was planned, however, to make up for rejections and, therefore, the actual sample is 
361. 
Only respondents who answered “Yes” to the three qualifying questions were considered for the 
survey namely: (1) if the respondent is the one who decides on food purchases; (2) if they had children 
living at home and; (3) if they eat peanut and peanut products. Both low-income families (with family 
income less than PhP 10,000 and middle-income families (with family income between PhP 10,000 and 
PhP 500,000) were represented in the total number of respondents. 
RESULTS 
Demographic Findings 
 Table 4.1 shows the distribution of respondents among the different major sites where the survey 
was conducted. From the 394 households surveyed, 361 respondents (92%) passed the screening test. 
The other 33 respondents either (a) failed the screening test (4%); (b) passed the screening test but did not 
want to be interviewed (3%) or; (c) did not want to be interviewed at all (1%). The distribution of 
respondents per survey area is: Greater Manila Area = 151; South Luzon = 50; North Luzon = 50; and 
Cebu = 110. Incomes of Php 10,000 or less were determined to be the low income group. A total of 176 
respondents (48% of the sample population) are in the middle income (MI) group and 185 (51.2%) from 
the low income (LI) level. The geographic breakdown in Table 4.1 shows that Metro Manila has the 
largest population in the sample (N=151 or 41.8%). This is appropriate since Manila has the greatest 
population concentration. 
The majority of respondents for both LI (91.9%) and MI (90.3%) households were female. Many 
of these were mothers, accounting for 73.9% and 78.4% of MI and LI respondents, respectively. The 
total number of non-adult members/children (male is considered adult if above 21, female is considered 
adult if above 18) in LI households was 468 while MI had 432 persons. The average number of children 
per household is 2.45 for MI and 2.53 for LI. About 65% of MI respondents and 34.1% of LI respondents 
had some education beyond high school. 
The survey results also show that more MI respondents were able to reach tertiary education than 
the LI group. The mother’s and father’s education are both important for nutrition knowledge, as 
evidenced by the findings of Moxley (1981). This in turn could have an effect on the intentions to 
purchase and consume vitamin A fortified peanut butter among respondents. 
89
Table 4.1 Sample Distribution: Major sampling area and gross monthly income for families 
 with children living at home (N = 361). 
Middle income 
(>PhP1
 10,000.00) 
Low income 
(<PhP1
 10,000.00) 
Major sampling 
area 
Frequency % Frequency % 
Metro Manila 80 45.4 71 38.4 
North Luzon 18 10.2 32 17.3 
South Luzon 19 10.8 31 16.8 
Visayas 59 33.5 51 27.6 
 Total 176 100.0 185 100.0 
1
 PhP=Philippine peso 
Socio-Economic Information 
MI households had a larger number of residents per household than the LI group, but as the 
survey results show, nearly 79% of both have 4 to 9 residents. The majority of both income groups have 
2 or fewer wage earners, but the percentage is higher for LI groups (76.7% for MI and 91.4% LI). 
Although 91.1% of respondents are females, 64.8% of MI and 61.1% of LI are employed (either self￾employed, full-time or part-time). The LI household income of Php 9,999 per month is equivalent to PhP 
119,988 per year. 
In terms of weekly expenditures for food, the highest percentage of expenses ranged from PhP 
1,001 to PhP 1,500 (34.7%) for MI and PhP 501 to PhP 1,000 (38.4%) for LI families (Fig. 4.1). Even 
this level of expenses would appear to be a hardship for many, since 27.5% make PhP 4,999 or less per 
month. Also, most families have four or more persons living in the household (only about 14% have 
less). Such relatively low incomes may be important in explaining why peanut butter, a relatively 
inexpensive food, is so popular. 
90
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
MI LI MI LI MI LI MI LI
Region
Percent
<Php1500
Php1500-3000
>Php3000
Metro Manila North Luzon South Luzon Visayas 
Fig. 4.1 Amount in Philippine peso (PhP) spent by Filipino consumers in different regions on food 
per week (MI and LI stands for middle income and low income, respectively). 
91
Consumer Attitudes, Knowledge and Behavior 
Family Activities 
 
 Based on Lyman’s (1989) statement that family influences food preference, there was a need to 
establish a clear picture of how strongly the parents and other family members influence the food 
preferences of the children. This can be achieved by finding out the activities the family do together most 
often. Results of the survey showed that the most common activity done together by family members was 
eating dinner (80% for both middle and low-income groups), followed by birthday parties for children 
(70% for MI and 52% for LI), birthday for parents (60% for MI and 36% for LI) and going on picnics 
(56% for MI and 47% for LI). Further analysis revealed that these activities have one thing in common – 
these all involve food purchase and consumption. This gives evidence that family indeed would have a 
substantial influence on children’s food preferences. These family members may not necessarily be the 
parents but other adult members of the household as well. 
Family Decision-Making 
Family decision-making was included in this study to determine the dynamics of decision-making 
in a typical Filipino household and whether this would have a significant influence on the decision to 
purchase and consume vitamin A fortified peanut butter. Previously, it was found that the women in the 
household were often the ones responsible for deciding on food purchases. The answers to these set of 
questions further strengthened the idea that women in the family were in fact responsible for decisions 
based on food consumption and purchases. More than 90% of respondents for both income groups were 
female and mostly the mothers and/or wives. Thus, it would be safe to infer that the main decision￾makers regarding what food to eat for dinner and what groceries to buy were the mothers and/or wives. 
It can also be seen that there was a very few percentage of children who were part of the decision￾making activities. Furthermore, most of these activities were related to going out to movies and inviting 
people to dinner. The adults in the family, as expected, had the final say with respect to what food to eat 
and what groceries to purchase. This suggests that adult decisions prevail and so information 
dissemination with regard to nutrition should target the adult members of the family. They are the ones 
who would eventually have to make an evaluation of the nutritional value of foods and its importance on 
the children or the younger members of the family. 
Nutrition Knowledge 
The variable, nutrition knowledge, was measured by first asking the respondents whether the 13 
food items enumerated in the survey had some nutritive value or none. Based on the total correct answers 
the level of knowledge was divided into three categories: level 1 (scores equal to or below 7 points), level 
2 (scores of 8-10) and level 3 (scores of 11-13). Seventy-seven percent of MI and 68.7% of LI are in 
level 3. 
Knowledge of the respondents on the nutritive values of certain foods shows that both groups are 
able to correctly identify from the given list what foods are nutritious. Respondents from both MI and LI 
are also correct in saying what effects good and poor nutrition have on the body. Based on the results, it 
seems that both groups are about equal in level of knowledge capabilities. The nutrition questions 
included in the survey may not be sufficient to accurately gauge the extent of knowledge each group 
possesses especially, more complex health implications. For example, it is notable that the lowest correct 
response on the effects of good nutrition was the effect on good eyesight (MI = 22.2%; LI = 15.7%). 
Since this would include vitamin A’s positive contribution, additional nutrition education is, apparently, 
still needed. 
92
Moxley (1981) cites numerous studies that provide evidence for a relationship between nutrition 
knowledge and a number of appropriate food and vitamin choices. Analyzing a U.S. sample (North 
Carolina families) he also found that family income and mother’s education were related to “mother’s 
nutrition knowledge”. 
Consumption of Peanut Butter 
Among the peanut products available in the market, peanut butter got the highest percentage 
(91.5% for MI and 93% for LI). It shows that it is still the most popular peanut product among Filipinos 
and an excellent medium through which to get vitamin A into the diet of the Philippine population. Fig. 
4.2 shows the number of respondents in the different regions who buys peanut butter. 
Peanut butter consumption patterns of Filipino families vary in terms of frequency of purchase, 
basis of choice and in the way it is eaten. This is not surprising because most of the respondents’ (both 
middle and low income groups) top three bases of choice for peanut butter were taste, brand, and price 
across all regions visited (Fig. 4.3). The survey revealed that the most common period of purchase is 
once a month. It would be difficult to judge, however, from the frequency of purchase alone to compare 
amounts of household consumption because the packaging size that each household buys varies. 
Comparison of peanut butter purchases between income groups showed that MI families (23.9% once a 
week) buy peanut butter more frequently than LI households (17.8% once a week). Only about 8% of 
households never buy peanut butter. 
 
A certain sense of brand loyalty is evident but this could perhaps be attributed to the taste of 
peanut butter the respondents were used to. Filipinos are known to have a liking for sweet taste as 
evidenced by the products catering to the so-called Filipino palate such as the sweet-blend catsup, 
Filipino-style spaghetti sauce (which is also slightly sweet) and sweet chili sauces. This could partly be 
the reason why there was a high percentage of respondents who bought Lily’s and Lady’s Choice peanut 
butter. Filipino households seem to also be price-conscious as supported by the relatively high percentage 
of respondents who answered price (74% for MI and 65% for LI) as determinant of peanut butter choice. 
When asked if they are willing to buy another brand, if the particular brand they like is not 
available, 51.1% of MI and 51.9% of LI families said “no”. This shows that the respondents have brand 
loyalty. This could be attributed to the taste respondents are used to having. Lily’s and Lady’s Choice are 
the most popular alternative brands. Among MI households 11.4% choose Lady’s Choice and 8.5% 
choose Lily’s, whenever the preferred brand is unavailable. For LI households, 10.3% choose Lady’s 
Choice and 9.2% choose Lily’s as an alternative. Until all peanut butter is fortified with vitamin A, brand 
loyalty is a problem, if it prevents consumers from switching to vitamin A fortified peanut butter. 
 
93
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
MI LI MI LI MI LI MI LI
Region
Percent
Yes No
Metro Manila North Luzon South Luzon Visayas 
Fig. 4.2 Number of Filipino respondents in different regions who buys peanut butter (MI and LI 
stands for middle income and low income, respectively). 
 
94
Fig. 4.3 Basis of choice for peanut butter purchase of Filipino consumers in different regions (MI 
and LI stands for middle income and low income, respectively). 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
MI LI MI LI MI LI MI LI
Region
Percent
Brand Price
Availability Taste
Color Texture
Others
Metro Manila North Luzon South Luzon Visayas 
95
Consumption of Vitamin A Fortified Peanut Butter 
Results reveal that a large percentage of respondents (71.0% for MI and 84.3% for LI) say they 
do not consume vitamin A fortified peanut butter. However, when asked if they were willing to purchase 
vitamin A fortified peanut butter, 96.0% of MI and 94.6% of LI respondents responded positively. 
Only 26.1% of MI families and 15.7% of LI families conveyed that they have eaten vitamin A 
fortified peanut butter (Fig. 4.4). Just 34.7% of MI and 26.0% of LI respondents have heard of or seen 
vitamin A fortified peanut butter (Fig. 4.5). Willingness to buy vitamin A peanut butter is supported by 
previous studies by Galvez et al. (2002) on Filipino consumer preferences for peanut butter. The results 
indicated that 98% of MI respondents and 96% of LI respondents were willing to purchase vitamin A 
fortified peanut butter. However, if the price was higher, they might not buy it. 
Lady’s Choice and Lily’s are the most frequently purchased peanut butter brands. Therefore, 
nearly half of households (51.1% of MI and 47.0% of LI) purchase and eat peanut brands that are labeled 
“fortified with vitamin A” (Lady’s Choice and Lily’s). These are the only brands labeled “fortified with 
vitamin A.” However, Lady’s Choice was not so labeled when Lily’s first sold fortified peanut butter and 
unlike Lily’s, the technology transfer team did not test Lady’s Choice for amounts of vitamin A content. 
Actual peanut butter consumption (by number of servings) of children in LI and MI households 
shows that the age range with the highest amount of servings consumed per week (31-40 tablespoons) 
was 13-20 years old for LI and 7-12 years old for MI. Across all age ranges above 2 yrs for both income 
groups, the most frequent amount of servings consumed per week is 0.5-10 tablespoons. The highest is 
63.6% for LI children 7 to 12 (Fig. 4.6 and 4.7). 
According to the United States National Institute of Health (US/NIH), the daily recommended 
intake (RDI) of vitamin A for children ages 2-6 is approximately 350 mcg (micrograms), equivalent to 
that contained in two tablespoons of Lily’s vitamin A fortified peanut butter. For children ages 7-12, the 
recommended daily intake (RDI) is roughly 550 mcg (just over three tablespoons of Lily’s vitamin A 
fortified peanut butter). For persons ages 13-20, this number is 900 mcg (between five and five and a half 
tablespoons). The United States Institute of Health’s recommended daily intake numbers for vitamin A 
are provided here since the Philippine RENI’s are only available for adults. 
Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) at present is most prevalent among children age 6 months to 6 years 
old. The responses in this study were obtained from children ages 2 to 6, which is the most vulnerable 
age group among these categories. Even if all peanut butter were as fortified as Lily’s, 11.4% of LI and 
6.8% of MI children ages 2 to 6 would certainly be consuming enough to receive the RDI. Some LI and 
MI in the categories of 11-20 servings per week would as well. The results show the highest consumption 
is among older children 7 to 12 years of age (about 64% of LI and about 58% MI eat 0.5 to 10 servings 
per week). However, since only those consuming 3 tablespoons per day of vitamin A fortified peanut 
butter (according to US/NIH) get the full RDI, most of the children do not consume sufficient quantities 
to get the full RDI. 
If all peanut butters were fortified, a large percentage of the vulnerable groups’ age 2 to 6 would 
be able to obtain a higher percent of the target RENI for fortified foods with vitamin A. Additional 
variants of peanut butter (e. g. chocolate-flavored or strawberry-flavored peanut butter) could also be 
fortified with vitamin A. Consumer research should be carried out to see what would most effectively 
increase consumption of vitamin A by younger children. 
96
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
MI LI MI LI MI LI MI LI
Region
Percent
Yes
No
No answer
Metro Manila North Luzon South Luzon Visayas 
Fig. 4.4 Response of Filipino consumers in different regions on their awareness regarding 
vitamin A fortified peanut butter available in the market (MI and LI stands for middle income and 
low income, respectively). 
97
Fig. 4.5 Number of Filipino consumers in different regions who bought vitamin A fortified 
peanut butter (MI and LI stands for middle income and low income, respectively). 
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
MI LI MI LI MI LI MI LI
Region
Percent
Metro Manila North Luzon South Luzon Visayas 
98
0
5
10
15
20
25
<2 2 to 6 7 to 12 13 to 20
Age (Years)
Average Weekly Consumption (Percent)
0 0.5 to 10
11 to 20 21 to 30
31 to 40 41 to 50
In tablespoons 
Fig. 4.6 Peanut butter consumption of children in low income households per week (Male < 21, 
Female < 18; 1 serving = 1 tablespoon). 
99
 
0
5
10
15
20
25
<2 2 to 6 7 to 12 13 to 20
Age (Years)
Average Weekly Consumption (Percent)
0 0.5 to 10 11 to 20
21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50
In tablespoons 
Fig. 4.7 Peanut butter consumption of children (in tablespoon) in middle income households per 
week (Male < 21, Female < 18, 1 serving = 1 tablespoon).
100
CONCLUSIONS 
This study of the impacts of vitamin A fortification of Lily’s Peanut Butter on consumers is based 
on a sample of 361 households with 150 distributed in 10 barangays (communities) in Metro Manila, 50 
each from Northern Luzon and Southern Luzon and 110 from Cebu, the second largest City in the 
Philippines. 
There are 900 children in these households, 468 in lower-income (LI) households and 432 in 
middle-income (MI) households. On average, there are 2.49 children in each household. Of the 361 
households, 71 indicate Lily's is the brand they buy (the second most purchased peanut butter in the 
Philippines). At 2.49 children per household the estimate would be that 177 (19.7%) are living in 
households with Lily's vitamin A fortified peanut butter available. However, since response patterns 
indicate that 76 percent of children eat peanut butter weekly, the number actually consuming Lily's peanut 
butter on a regular basis would be closer to 135 (15.0%). 
There are 185 LI households in this sample. Of these, 42 indicate regularly purchasing Lily's 
Peanut Butter. LI households have an average of 2.53 children per household, which means about 106 
(22.6%) of LI children live in households with Lily's vitamin A fortified peanut butter available. Of the 
176 MI households in the sample, 29 purchase Lilly's Peanut Butter. MI households average 2.45 
children per household, which means about 71 (16.4%) of MI children live in households with Lily's 
vitamin A fortified peanut butter available. 
While the samples in this study are not large enough to be scientifically representative and, 
therefore, we cannot provide statistical probabilities of accuracy, we are able to obtain some basic 
demographic data for the 10 sample barangays (communities) where stores selling the Lily's product in 
the Metro Manila area are located (Appendix A). These 10 store locations (in 10 barangays) range from 
999 to 11,016 households for a total of 33,673 households. If one assumes that, as in the study sample, 
92% of households would meet the screening criteria, the total would be 30,979 households (with 
children) in which peanut butter is consumed. If, as in the sample, 20% of these purchase the Lily's 
product, this would be about 6,196 households using the vitamin A fortified Lily's brand. While 
population estimates for them are not available, there are 127 locations in and around the Metro Manila 
area containing stores selling Lily's vitamin A fortified Peanut butter (Appendix B). Also, the barangay
level population data are not available for the areas sampled in Northern Luzon, Southern Luzon and 
Cebu. The cities in which these stores are located have a total of 280,645 households (see Appendix C 
for details). 
The potential for increasing the intake of vitamin A through peanut butter fortification appears 
substantial. Peanut butter is by far the number one choice among peanut products (92.2% of 
respondents). Only 30.2% of respondents have seen or even heard of vitamin A fortified peanut butter. 
However, after being informed of its importance, 95.3% indicate they will buy vitamin A fortified peanut 
butter in the future. This suggests that considerable gains could be made through effective education and 
advertising. Since 90% of respondents were female and about 74% of them are mothers who make the 
decisions on what foods to buy, women are the logical target audience. 
Another avenue to increase vitamin A intake is to convince the other peanut butter producers to 
add vitamin A. One competitor has recently done so (Lady’s Choice) and is the first choice of survey 
participants among all brands (34.7% of MI and 24.3% of LI). Together, vitamin A fortified labeled 
peanut butter brands (Lily’s and Lady’s Choice) are purchased by 47.0% of LI and 51.1% of MI 
households. (Lady’s Choice was not tested for actual vitamin A content.) 
101
If 57.1% of MI and 47.0% of LI households in the survey areas are consuming vitamin A fortified 
brands, this amounts to a substantial contribution. Providing thousands of Filipinos with this additional 
source of vitamin A will help augment total vitamin A and diminish deficiencies and its debilitating 
effects. 
The sample population on which this study is based is mainly urban and suburban (72.3% from 
Manila and Cebu, the second largest city). Forty-nine percent of respondents had obtained some 
education or skill training beyond high school. Over 60% of the mostly female respondents are employed 
at least part-time. While all LI families made less than PhP 10,000 per month, 45% spent more than PhP 
1,000 per week (PhP 4,000 per month) on food. By comparison MI families make more than PhP 10,000 
per month and 70% spend more than PhP 1,000 per week on food. The findings regarding peanut butter 
consumption and vitamin A in this study are more likely to apply to other urban and suburban populations 
of the Philippines with the characteristics described here. 
Even with a relatively urban and educated population, like the one represented in this study, the 
knowledge of vitamin A and food sources containing it are not very well known. Four years after the 
industry collaborators’ launch of vitamin A fortified peanut butter in the market, there still seems to be a 
lack of awareness about this product. The lowest percent correct response on the nutrition knowledge test 
in this survey was the detrimental effect of vitamin A deficiency on eyesight. Consumers need to be made 
more aware of the importance of obtaining the required vitamin A from their diet and the severity of the 
adverse effects from its deficiency. The results point to a need for more aggressive marketing of the 
fortified peanut butter by the company and a more extensive vitamin A information dissemination 
campaign on the part of the government. 
NOTES 
1. The research and development technology being assessed here resulted in a serving of vitamin A 
fortified peanut butter that is 65 percent of the Philippine Recommended Daily Allowance (RENI) for 
an adult male and is equivalent to 525 mcg RE. The actual vitamin A content was 8.50 to 8.60 mcg 
retinol per gram peanut butter. The serving size was 2 tablespoons (or 40g) 
2. The U.S. RENI for vitamin A is 1,000 retinol equivalents per day for adults and children over 4 yrs. 
A good food source of vitamin A contains at least 10 percent of U.S. RENI “in a selected serving size 
or a unit of measure considered easy for the consumer to use” (Hopkins Technology, 2003). 
3. At the end of the data collection day, each questionnaire was reviewed to assure completeness and 
accuracy. The actual interview period was from June to October 2002. Three types of interviews 
were conducted to pre-test the questionnaire: (1) actual interview practice with project staff members; 
(2) actual interview with households in nearby residential area and (3) actual interview on one of the 
sampling sites. Interviewers were asked to read the questions verbatim. For every actual survey 
conducted, interviewers were asked for feedback on their experiences and problems encountered. 
Necessary revisions were done on the questionnaire based on the results of the pre-test. Upon 
completion of the survey, questionnaires were coded and data were entered in the database. Data 
entry was 100% verified. Statistical Analysis System v.8 (SAS Inc., 2001) was used for all statistical 
analyses. 
4. Random sampling of households began in the city blocks surrounding each store and continued in the 
next until the target N was reached. Proximity to stores which sold Lily’s peanut butter was 
considered important to insure that households had a reasonable opportunity to have access to it. 
Zero purchases would eliminate the dependent variable. 
102
5. A serving is one tablespoon, which is 32.5% of the Philippine Recommended Daily Allowance for an 
adult male (see note number one). 
6. The latest recommendations for the daily intake for vitamin A (updated October 6, 2003) provided in 
the Dietary Reference Intakes developed by the Institute of Medicine are: 300 mcg for children ages 
1-3, 400 mcg for children ages 4-8, 600 mcg for children 9-13, 900 mcg and 750 mcg for males and 
females ages 14-18, respectively, and 900 mcg and 770 mcg for males and females over the age of 19, 
respectively (Clinical Nutrition Service, Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center, 2003) 
REFERENCES 
Abdullah, A., Malundo, T.M., Resurreccion, A.V.A. and Beuchat, L.R. 1993. Descriptive sensory 
profiling for optimizing the formula of a peanut mil-based liquid coffee whitener. J. Food Sci. 
58:120-123. 
Baron, P.J. and Mueller, R. 1995. Consumer perceptions in eastern European food markets. British 
Food J. 97:34-38. 
Birch, L. 1992. Children’s preference for high-fat foods. Nutrition Reviews 50:249-255. 
Borah-Giddens, J. and Faciglia, G.A. 1993. A meta-analysis of the relationship in food preferences 
between parents and children. J. Nutrition Education 25:102-107. 
Clinical Nutrition Service, Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center, Office of Dietary Supplements, 
National Institute of Health, 2003. Available: http://www.cc.nih.gov/ccc/supplements/vita.html
Garcia, V.V., Rubico, S.M., Racquel, C. and Valmonte, R.D. 1990. Peanut consumption patterns in the 
Philippines. Los Banos, Laguna Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural 
Resources Research and Development (PCARRD), University of the Philippines, Los Banos, 
Laguna pp. 85. 
Galvez, F.C.F., Palomar, L.S., Francisco, M.L.D.L., Lustre, A.O. and Resurreccion, A.V.A. 2002. 
Monograph on Peanut Butter Consumption Patterns of Filipinos. USAID Peanut Collaborative 
Research Support Program (P-CRSP), University of Georgia, Department of Food Science and 
Technology, Georgia Experiment Station, Griffin, GA 30223-1097. 
Hopkins Technology. 2003. U.S. RENI. Available: http://www.hoptechno.com/book29a.htm.
Lee, C. 1990. Bacterial fermentation of peanut milk and its performance in selected food systems. 
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, G.A. 
Lyman, B. 1989. A Psychology of Food: More Than a Matter of Taste. Van Nostrand Reinhold 
Company, Inc. 
Moxley, R. L. 1981. Socioeconomic Environment and Race as Predictors of Mothers’ and Daughters’ 
Nutrition Knowledge. Ecology of Food and Nutrition; 10 13-152. 
103
Muego-Gnanasekharan, K.F. and Resurreccion, A.V.A. 1993. Physico-chemical and sensory 
characteristics of peanut paste as affected by processing conditions. J. Food Proc. And Pres. 
17:321. 
Raudenbush, P.J. 1995. The Contribution of Psychological and Sensory Factors to Food Preference 
Patterns as Measured by the Food Attitude Survey (FAS). Appetite; 25 (1) 1-15. 
Rubico, S.M., Resurreccion, A.V.A. and Beuchat, L.R. 1989. Nutritional, microbiological and sensory 
qualities of a peanut beverage prepared using various processes. J. Food Sci. 54:1540-1543. 
Santos, B.L., Resurreccion, A.V.A. and Garcia, V.V. 1989. Quality characteristics and consumer 
acceptance of a peanut-based imitation cheese spread. J. Food Sci. 54:468-470, 494. 
SAS. 2001. SAS User’s Guide: Basic, Version 8 ed. SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC. 
Tacey, L. 1992. Australia Unlocks the Japanese Market. Food Manufacture-International; 9 (3) 19-20. 
Villavieja, G.M., I.S. Sario, R.D. Laña, C.M. Cerdeña, E.R. Tarrayo and C.A. Nones. 2001. Awareness 
and Usage of Fortified Foods in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Nutrition; 48 (3-4) 147-
162. 
Woodroof, J.P. 1983. Peanut Butter. Ch. 9, In Peanuts: Production, Processing, Products. 3rd ed., J.G. 
Woodroof (Ed.,), pp. 181-227. The AVI Publishing Co., Inc., Westport, Connecticut.
104
APPENDIX A 
TOTAL POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD 
POPULATION AND NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 
IN THE BARANGAY AREA SURVEYED IN METRO MANILA 
105
TOTAL POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD POPULATION AND NUMBER OF 
HOUSEHOLDS1 IN THE BARANGAY AREA SURVEYED IN METRO MANILA 
Store Location 
Total 
Population 
Household 
Population 
Number of 
Households 
Glorimart San Francisco del Monte, 
Q.C. 
35,923 35,782 8,300 
Welcome Rotonda, Q.C. 4,292 4,292 1,011 
New Life Delta, Q.C. 12,600 12,505 3,236 
EPC Munoz, Q.C. 9,265 9,254 2,131 
TDC Novaliches, Q.C. 12,078 12,038 2,731 
Value Point Binondo, Manila 5,384 5,373 1,121 
Admiral Blumentritt, Manila 8,038 8,030 1,664 
Trident Paco, Manila 5,395 5,381 999 
All Nation Las Pinas City 6,377 6,377 1,464 
Big C Bicutan, Taguig 48,865 48,689 11,016 1
 as of May 1, 2000 
Sources (Personal Communication): 
Mr. Ramon Dolor, Sec 1, NSO, Household Statistics Department 
Ms. Gloria Barcebal, Community Office, Manila City Hall 
Ms. Nimfa Maranan, Community Affairs Officer V, Manila Barangay Bureau 
106
APPENDIX B 
LIST OF AREAS AND OUTLETS 
SELLING LILY’S PEANUT BUTTER 
107
LIST OF METRO MANILA AREAS AND OUTLETS SELLING LILY’S PEANUT BUTTER 
Quezon City Manila 
Store Location Store Location 
Eunilane Supermarket Visayas Ave. Glorimart Laon-laan 
Eunilane Supermarket Kalayaan Intermassive Paco Paco 
G.L. Delmonte Del Monte Manel’s Mart Singalong, Malate 
Glorimart Tandang Sora SSG Sta. Ana Sta. Ana 
Glorimart Del Monte SK Port Area Port Area 
Glorimart Kamias Corona Foodmart Binondo 
Glorimart Project 8 Masagana Supermarket Kalaw 
Glorimart Project 4 Manel’s Mart Malate 
Glorimart Visayas Ave. Value Point Binondo 
Parco Supermarket Quezon Ave. Fairmart Sta. Cruz 
Parco Supermarket EDSA Trident Paco 
ALW Quirino Quirino Masangkay Sta. Cruz 
Fernando’s Supermarket Sta. Mesa Subway Sta. Cruz 
Daily Supermarket Cubao Admiral Grocery Blumentrit 
Anson Aurora Phil. Commercial San Andres 
UC Plaza Kamuning St. Joseph Supermarket Gagalangin 
Purity Supermarket Cordillera Imart Sampaloc 
Shopper’s Delight Project 8 Imart Paco 
Welcome Supermarket Rotonda Imart Sta. Mesa 
UP Cooperative UP Diliman Imart Tayuman 
Home Sweet Home Roosevelt, SFDM Imart Vito G. Cruz 
New Life Delta Imart V. Mapa 
Tropical Panay Imart P. Campa 
EPC Munoz Munoz Imart Onyx 
Imart Kamuning Imart Hidalgo 
Imart QC Hope Well Foundation Sta. Cruz 
Imart Banawe Kings Foodmart Sta. Cruz 
Imart Katipunan Fargo Quiapo 
Imart Dahlia Shoppersmart Sta. Cruz 
Imart Vicas Plaza Fair Manila 
Kids & Mom Pandacan 
Imart Shorthorn Kids & Mom Faura 
Imart Mayon Kids & Mom Maypajo 
Liana’s Supermarket Rotonda Western Supermarket Escolta 
Plaza Fair Cubao Remson Carriedo 
Grocer’s Foodarama Cubao 
Cesar’s Balintawak A. Bonifacio, 
Balintawak 
 
108
List of Metro Manila Areas and Outlets Selling Lily’s Peanut Butter (continued) 
Quezon City Paranaque 
Store Location Store Location 
Super Nova Novaliches Sucat Foodmart Sucat 
TDC Bayan, Novaliches Better Living Paranaque 
Glorimart Novaliches Chessy Sucat 
Edd Tess Novaliches V.M. Baclaran 
Nova Gold Bayan, Novaliches Big C Bicutan 
EPC Novaliches Novaliches Mega Mart Bicutan 
San Roque Supermarket Novaliches Tropical Bicutan 
Nova Deal Novaliches Imart Paranaque 
Imart Novaliches Imart Baclaran I 
Plaza Claire Sauyo Imart Baclaran II 
Imart Lagro 
Gracewill Lagro 
Meadows Regalado Valenzuela 
Shortstop B.F. Fairview 
Store Location 
CVC Supermarket Malinta 
Mandaluyong Home Sweet Home Dalandanan 
Royal Mall Malinta Exit 
Store Location Fast n’ Shop Valenzuela 
EPC Kalentong Kalentong 
Richmarsh Kalentong 
Imart Kalentong Pasay 
Imart Parklea 
Store Location 
Masagana Pasay 
Rizal Alphabeta Taft Avenue 
Imart Taft 
Store Location Publix Mart Taft 
Imart Taytay 
Tropical Taytay 
Tropical Cainta Antipolo 
CVC Supermarket Cainta 
Home Sweet Home Masinag, Rizal Store Location 
Rempson Taytay Taytay 
Imart San Mateo Rempson Masinag 
Imart Antipolo 2 Gems Supermarket Antipolo 
Imart Antipolo Eastmart Antipolo 
Imart Parang Rejoice Antipolo 
Super Palengke Antipolo 
Ultramega Antipolo 
109
APPENDIX C 
TOTAL POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD 
POPULATION AND NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN THE CITY/TOWN 
AREA SURVEYED OUTSIDE METRO MANILA 
 
110
TOTAL POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD POPULATION 
AND NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS1 IN THE CITY/TOWN 
AREA SURVEYED OUTSIDE METRO MANILA 
Province City/Town Total Population Household 
Population 
Number of 
Households 
Laguna Calamba City 281,146 280,529 58,466 
 Los Banos 82,027 80,830 17,030 
Tarlac Tarlac City 262,481 262,015 51,703 
Cebu Cebu City 718,821 714,388 147,600 
 Source: 1 www.census.gov.ph/census, 2000, 
111