Published Jul 09, 2026 | 7:00 AM ⚊ Updated Jul 09, 2026 | 7:00 AM
Milk. (iStock)
Synopsis: A new study mapping Hyderabad’s dairy supply chain has found widespread microbial contamination in raw milk, financial distress among farmers, normalised adulteration and an unequal market dominated by large dairy companies. Researchers say weak quality checks, reliance on trust instead of testing, and poor hygiene across the supply chain could pose health risks, particularly for young children.
A litre of milk reaches a home in Hyderabad through a chain of hands: a farmer, a collection centre, a wholesaler, a retailer. At almost every step, the next link checks nothing except whether the milk looks right and comes from someone familiar. A new study finds that this reliance on trust runs alongside widespread contamination, financial strain on farmers, normalised adulteration and a dairy sector where power sits firmly with large companies.
The study, published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, comes from researchers at the Royal Veterinary College, ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition, the International Livestock Research Institute, the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and other institutions.
The team worked in Addagutta and Warasiguda, two low-income neighbourhoods in Hyderabad, interviewing farmers, collection centre operators, wholesalers and retailers, and testing 42 milk samples, 24 cattle feed samples and 20 water samples drawn from across the supply chain.
Also Read: In Hyderabad, researchers found supply chains were risking egg contamination
Across the interviews, one pattern repeated: Very few transactions involved a written contract or a quality check. Buyers relied on relationships built over time.
“There is no agreement process in this business as it is completely based on a trust basis,” said a dairy farmer interviewed for the study.
A wholesaler described how this plays out with consumers. “Consumers ask for a particular brand of milk only,” they said. “Most of the consumers do not check anything while purchasing the milk due to trust in us.”
Retailers told researchers they often did not know where the milk they sold originated. No system tracked it back to a farm or a collection centre. Shoppers leaned on sensory checks, watching the milk get poured, judging its colour, sticking with a familiar shop, rather than any form of verification.
The lab results suggest that trust alone leaves significant gaps. Of the 42 raw milk samples tested, 90.5 percent carried faecal coliform bacteria, 95.2 percent showed yeast and mould contamination, and all samples tested positive for bacterial growth under aerobic plate count testing. Salmonella turned up in a third of samples, and Staphylococcus aureus in close to 31 percent. E. coli appeared in just under 12 percent of samples, more often in cow’s milk than in buffalo’s milk.
Water used to clean equipment and handle milk told a similar story. While none of the 20 water samples contained E. coli, 70 percent carried faecal coliforms, 60 percent showed yeast and mould, and 95 percent tested positive for bacterial growth. The dirtiest water came from stored containers and untreated borewells, the study found.
“Repeated exposure to contaminated milk could increase the risk of diarrhoeal illnesses, gut inflammation and poor nutrient absorption in young children,” the authors wrote, adding that infants and children under two face the highest risk because their immune systems are still developing.
Behind some of these gaps sits a financial story. Farmers told researchers that feed and veterinary costs have climbed. And that money, not negligence, often drives the choices they make.
“Some farmers will not give sufficient feed to animals, which impacts the milk quality. Few farmers will add water to milk, which affects the milk quality and fat,” said one milk collection point worker.
Another farmer laid out the economics behind these decisions. “We shall feed the animal with good food, then it will give more milk with good quality, thickness and colour,” they said, adding that a single veterinary visit costs ₹1,000–1,500 per animal, a sum many farmers struggle to spare.
These pressures filter down to what consumers receive. One farmer described selling two grades of milk side by side: full-fat milk at ₹75 a litre for those willing to pay, and milk mixed with water for everyone else. “Here we have 60 percent of consumers asking for pure milk… and for the rest of them, we give milk that has water added,” they said.
A wholesaler pointed to a related problem. “Milk price is a big barrier for poor people for consumption, and they don’t have the knowledge that milk consumption is good for children’s health,” they said.
Beyond dilution, the study documented claims of more active adulteration, with urea, milk powder and unspecified chemicals named by multiple informants, although researchers caution that some respondents may have misunderstood legitimate processing steps, such as reconstituting milk powder, as adulteration.
“Few farmers will do adulteration like adding urea, water and milk powder,” said one milk collection point worker.
A farmer went further, describing what they believed happens inside dairy companies. “They mix a few chemicals, powder, into milk. They add 75 percent water plus powder plus chemicals to 25 percent raw milk,” they said, claiming this extends the shelf life of milk from a single day to three or four.
Other farmers denied any involvement and pointed elsewhere along the chain. “We don’t know. Because farmers do not do any adulteration… Only middlemen can know about the adulteration in milk,” said one.
What struck researchers was less the practice itself than the resignation around it. Several informants described accepting adulteration as a fact of the business, with little expectation that anything would change.
Also Read: Telangana government launches Breakfast and Milk Scheme at state-run schools
The fourth theme the study identifies is an imbalance of power. Large dairy companies, researchers found, set prices and control market access, while small farmers carry the financial risk and have little say in how the chain operates.
“Dairy companies are the most influential people in the entire dairy business. They can manage everything,” said one wholesaler.
Another contrasted the position of small retailers with that of bigger players. “Roadside small shops and retail shops will get less profit than others as their business size is small compared to others like dairies or wholesalers,” they said.
Farmers without access to a cooperative or association were described as particularly exposed, unable to negotiate prices or push back against practices they disagreed with.
The study also tested cattle feed for aflatoxins, toxins produced by fungi that can pass from feed into milk. Of 24 feed samples, 67 percent tested positive, but all fell within limits set by Indian regulators. Researchers said the levels found were unlikely to translate into harmful contamination of milk, though they called for further study given how little research exists on safe thresholds for children.
The researchers framed their findings as a starting point rather than a verdict. They called for stronger enforcement of food safety rules, better hygiene practices across the chain, and awareness among both farmers and consumers of the risks of unsafe milk.
They also pointed to farmer cooperatives and associations as a possible route to rebalancing power, giving small producers more say in pricing and more support in adopting safer practices.
“Opportunities for safer and more nutritious milk that could help reduce child stunting include improved food safety practices, enhanced awareness of milk-borne hazards, institutional accountability and increased agency of value-chain actors,” the authors wrote.
For now, the system that brings milk to homes in Addagutta and Warasiguda in Hyderabad runs much as it has: On familiarity, on relationships built over years, and on an assumption of safety that the data does not fully support.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
