HOW SAFE IS THE "SAFEST" WATER SUPPLIED IN METROS? SOME UNCERTAINTIES

Any visitor to that beckoning continent called America cannot escape getting a feeling about the quality of life the population their enjoy though there are pockets of poverty here and there. Most remarkable is the undisputed quality and safety of water consumed by the people in almost all cities and settlements available through the protected water supply system. Imagine one able consume water even from a toilet tap without fearing about any infectious disease visiting them consequently! Compare this with what goes as protected water supply in a country like India where neither water is supplied regularly nor the safety guaranteed. Most urban areas do not treat raw water and supplies irregularly making people look for ways and means of making it potable and this unenviable situation has spawned an unethical industry that offers bottled water and water treatment gadgets with high price tag. In this context the recent report that the American water supply is not that safe as being touted is shocking indeed. Here is water a "Gorilla" type operation carried out by a group of scientists has brought out. 

"The 53,000 water utilities in the United States deliver some of the safest drinking water in the world — a public health victory of unrivaled success that began in 1908 with chlorination campaigns in Jersey City and Chicago. Still, millions of individual cases of waterborne diseases occur annually and related hospitalization costs approach $1 billion each year. In 2007 and 2008, the most recent years for which figures are available, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded 164 waterborne disease outbreaks, almost entirely from protozoan cysts of the parasite Cryptosporidium. New rules from the Environmental Protection Agency, instituted after earlier outbreaks, have led New York City and other municipalities with unfiltered surface reservoirs to begin zapping tap water with ultraviolet light to inactivate organisms like Cryptosporidium that resist chlorine-based treatments. The water supply system remains a deteriorating, mostly subterranean infrastructure so complex that in many municipalities officials can't even say where all the pipes are laid. The need for upgrades has never been greater, a report issued this year by the American Academy of Microbiology said, but they first want to understand what's living down there. "We have done the right thing with water treatment," said Joseph O. Falkinham III, a microbiologist at Virginia Tech. "What we have now is an unexpected consequence of doing the right thing."

It is amazing that the gastro system of Americans is so fragile even very minor microbial contamination can make them sick. Detection of protozoan parasites in deeply embedded supply lines explains why Americans get water borne infectious diseases and water safety regulations are now being revisited for making water safer. Another disturbing revelation is that most municipalities have no clue regarding the location of the subterranean supply lines which tend to deteriorate over a period of time. Besides these pipelines laid decades ago with the then prevailing materials and technology will have to be replaced if future water related health problems are to be avoided in a big way. Satellite imaging of subterranean pipes needs to be done to locate them for replacement. As usual civic bodies are starved of funds for renovation and rejuvenation of infrastructure like water supply and it is time federal government intervenes to pump massive funds for this purpose. Citizens also must pitch in with their share of the cost to make the urban living safer for future generations to come. 

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

WTO FORCING GMO FOODS ON MEMBER COUNTRIES? TIME FOR WINDING UP WTO?

Are genetically modified foods (GMO) absolutely safe? Is it necessary to let the consumers know that the product he is buying in the market contains GMO? If yes at what levels? Can the labeling policy be flexible enough to allow the industry the leeway to declare or not regarding presence GMO in the products marketed by them? These are inconvenient but pertinent questions on which international community must arrive at a consensus, sooner or later. Only harmonized standards can be the basis for free trade among countries having different standards and protocols. What is disturbing however is the implied stance of WTO that GMO must be accepted by all member countries but labeling provisions can be flexible with each country free to insist on mandatory labeling. Why the world body is taking this stand can be understood in the light of situation prevailing in the US considered the "champion of champions" of GMO, This country has long ago abdicated its national responsibility to protect its citizens from harmful foods long ago, leaving the same in the hands of the multinational GMO giants whose clout and muscle power in controlling policies in that country are well known. Here is a commentary on the role of WTO in toeing the despicable GMO policy of the US and insisting other member countries to follow the same! 

Russia is gradually starting to fulfill its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). One of these obligations is a more lenient attitude towards products that contain genetically modified organisms (GMO). In line with WTO regulations, it will soon be possible to import GMO seeds into the country. This will enable producers to sell and label the resulting genetically modified products as any other product – that is, marking the food as containing genetically modified organisms will be made optional. Environmentalists are in an uproar, repeatedly taking to the streets with anti-GMO rallies in late May to get their voices heard. Labeling policy often appears simple and straightforward. However, the policy is complex, particularly for process attributes (those that relate to how a product was produced rather than its final use characteristics). In choosing GMO labeling policy, a government must address the long series of questions shown in table 1. This list can serve as a useful framework for comparing policies. Broadly speaking, the labeling choices being made by countries fall into two broad camps. One camp, including the European Union, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, among others, is pursuing mandatory labeling programs for GM food products, although in some cases voluntary labeling is retained for non-GM products. The other camp, which includes the United States (US), has voluntary labeling as its main strategy, with labeling being required if important end characteristics of the product, such as its allergenic potential or nutritional content, are changed. Genetically modified organism labeling is a prime example of a quick moving policy area where individual countries are not willing to take the time necessary for development of international consensus on the best approaches. The strategy is to regulate now and worry about coordination or harmonization later. The recent record of discord and gridlock in the relevant Codex Alimentarius committees reinforces the "everyone for themselves" approach. An example of the developing differences in policy, even within the mandatory labeling camp, can be seen in provisions on when labeling requirements are triggered. The European Commission is proposing that mandatory labeling be triggered if more than 1% of an ingredient in a product is GM. Japan is proposing to require labeling only for selected products and for those products, only for important ingredients. Legislation has been introduced in the current session of Congress in the US House of Representatives (Kucinich Bill, H.R. 3377) and Senate (Boxer Bill, S. 2080) to require mandatory GMO labeling in the United States. The Kucinich Bill is more detailed and specifies a self-certification approach to labeling a product's GMO status. While it is unlikely either bill will pass in this session of Congress, they suggest the mix of policy choices being thought about by some US legislators. In early May, the US Food and Drug Administration reconfirmed its policy of voluntary labeling for GMO products, when they are not significantly altered, and for non-GMO products. Voluntary labeling will be actively supported through issuance on labeling guidelines and provision of certification and reference testing services by the US Department of Agriculture.

India has done well to resist the WTO "guideline" on GMO and it is one of the few countries where GM foods are not allowed to be cultivated, at least officially. The story of GM Brinjal which was played out in India a couple of years back must still be fresh in the minds of Indian citizens and maintaining this stand is good for the country till there is absolute consensus regarding the safety of GM foods. Recent accidental finding of a GM wheat in the fields of some farmers in the US raises fresh concern about the environmental risks involved in giving a free run to GM crops in countries where most farmers do subsistence cultivation based on traditional seed raising and conventional technologies. If WTO is going to serve the interests of the American government and the American monopolistic industry giants as being perceived by many third world countries, it is time for this organization to close its shop once for all!   

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

AMERICA-CHINA BHAI BHAI!-THE CONSEQUENCES OF CHINESE FOOD IMPORTS

America and China are two countries which have a love-hate relationship since both are global rivals trying to establish unchallenged economic superiority. Though America enjoyed a near monopoly as a super power ever since the fall of the mighty Soviet Union, China with its Communist dictatorship registered dramatic growth during the last one and a half decade and according to economic experts America cannot afford to antagonize this nation because of its close economic dependence on Chinese investments in the US and over dependence of America on cheap Chinese imports. While cheap and low quality consumer products may not pose serious dangers to the citizens, when it comes to food safety, one can never compromise and it is here that Americans are becoming increasingly vulnerable to food poisoning from food products imported from China which are not subject to regular and thorough checking at various ports of entry. Here is a critical commentary on the current practices vis-a-vis the safety risks Americans face due to this situation.      

Chinese imports dominate some food categories to a striking extent. In a testimony before a subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in May (pdf), food safety expert Patty Lovera noted that China accounted for 80% of tilapia, 51% of cod, 49% of apple juice, 34% of processed mushrooms, 27% of garlic and 16% of frozen spinach consumed in the U.S. in 2011. Reports on the state of Chinese food processing establishments are discouraging. More than half of food processing and packaging firms on the Chinese mainland failed safety inspections in 2011, according to a report by Asia Inspection, a China-based food quality control company. Meanwhile, in the U. S., inspections of imported food products are minute compared to the total volume of imports. According to a recent study by the Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee in 2011, FDA inspections were a mere 2.3 % of the total of all imported food products (pdf). The same study states that food imports generally have risen 10% annually since 2004, and are continuing to rise (imports grew from $399 million in 2011 to $426 million in 2012). The FDA estimates that food imports from China and India will grow by 9% annually between 2010 and 2020. The flow of reports in recent years from domestic and foreign sources alike about serious violations of food safety in China has been continuous and alarming. In the last year alone, the country has seen thousands of dead pigs show up in a major river, faced multiple milk scandals and busted operations that were passing off rat meat as mutton. In addition, as Patty Lovera told Congress, there is "widespread smuggling of products like honey to avoid tariffs and food safety restrictions [and] mislabeled products 'transshipped' through another country but produced in China." Food safety problems are, of course, not only a concern to the U.S. The German magazine Der Spiegel recently posted online a list of "rejected food" imported into the EU from China during 2012, including insect-infested potatoes, rabbit meat loaded with antibiotics, oyster sauce with staphylococcus, salmonella-infected ginger, pumpkin seeds contaminated with glass chips and arsenic in frozen calamari. American history of the late 19th and early 20th century reminds us that periods of rapid economic growth stimulate fraud and deception in food processing, which leads to increased regulation. As I noted in an earlier column, it wasn't until author Upton Sinclair aroused public concern with "The Jungle," his 1906 book on conditions in the Chicago meat packaging industry, that President Theodore Roosevelt moved to create the FDA.

China is not a saint when it comes to food safety assurance, even for its own citizens. This country was rocked by many food related frauds during the last one decade affecting children and adults alike and fraudulent practices are still being perpetuated by a section of the food industry which are being splashed across the news channels of electronic media across the globe! Whether this is happening in spite of the government or because of the government is not quite clear. The advantage China has in meting out justice is apparent when it is realized that the governing system is dictatorial in nature and unlike democracies, deciding about the guilty and according severe punishment can be swift. Still food safety scandals are tumbling out of the cup board in that country with a sickening regularity. America which prides itself the best governed country in the world, seems to be lowering its guard against China for reasons which are not very clear. If economic considerations are handicapping that country in taking the Chinese food safety problem seriously, one can only wish that the lives of innocent American citizens are not sacrificed at the altar of extraneous considerations.      

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

ENSLAVING THE CONSUMER-THE NEW GAME BY FOOD INDUSTRY!

Food industry has a responsibility to protect the health of its consumers by manufacturing healthy products because of the confidence and trust they receive from them unreservedly. Unfortunately this trust is being systematically undermined by practices considered unethical and hostile to consumer interests, at least by a major segment of the industry during the last three decades.  Safety authorities are increasingly being forced to bring in mandatory steps to discipline this industry which seems to be more focused on making easy money at the expense of the consumer. The enormous "money clout" and political patronage from the elected representatives make them immune to any penal action and corrective efforts by the government. The result is massive health crisis that is happening in countries like America where obesity and over weight people make up more than 50% of the population! Scientific data regarding adverse consequences of food additives are systematically suppressed and food standards are diluted through nexus with safety authorities. Now comes the news that American food industry controlled by a few monopolistic giant players have infiltrated into professional organizations for influencing technical decisions by scientists and generate industry friendly data. Here is a take on this unfortunate trend which needs to curbed at any cost 

"Instead of joining the fight against the obesity and diabetes epidemics, the food industry—Big Food—persistently pushes favorable legislation in Congress through aggressive and, more often than not, successful lobbying, as the recent "Monsanto Protection Act" proved. As if this were not enough, Big Food companies such as Coca-Cola, Kraft and Hershey's seem to have also basically taken over the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), the largest organization of dietitians and nutritionists in the country. And this is without even mentioning that research has led these companies to learn how to manipulate people's tastes and habits. Public health attorney Michele Simon talks about this in "And now a word from our sponsors: Are America's nutrition professionals in the pocket of Big Food?"—a report that questions the ethics of the Academy's acceptance of such sponsorship. "The food industry's deep infiltration of the nation's top nutrition organization raises serious questions, not only about that profession's credibility, but also about its policy positions," says Simon in the report's summary. Simon's reports that in the past 10 years there has been more than a three-fold increase in sponsorships from the Big Food industry. One of the most loyal AND's sponsor is the National Cattleman's Beef Association, followed by ConAgra, General Mills, Kellogg's and the National Dairy Council. Coca-Cola, Kraft and PesiCo come in next. If it were just because the Academy needs the funds to do its educational outreach, all this might be understandable. But has AND at least established some guidelines about the messages broadcast by the companies to their own people? It doesn't seem so. Paradoxically, the Academy represents itself as an advocate for Eating Right (their public campaign's brand), calling people to make informed choices and to develop sound eating and physical activity habits". 

What will happen to the consumers in the US if this trend continues unabated with many scientists in the pockets of the industry? Are their lives going to be more and more uncertain with practically no choice regarding what they want to eat? Who is to be believed and who are their real friends and protectors? The scientific community as a whole must be ashamed of themselves for this unholy alliance with this dubious industry! Where will the common man go in search of truth? Is a time coming for the consumer to be self reliant in terms of food safety by shunning the processed foods and in stead go back to their kitchens to make their own foods, preferably with organic food raw materials? May be yes.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

TOO MANY COOKS SPOIL THE BROTH!-THE AMERICAN SCENARIO

Blaming politicians for all the woes in a democratic system of governance is too common in many countries. Here is a difference when it comes to understanding the food safety problems in a country like America where a congress woman has comprehended the underlying issue that is responsible for countless episodes of food poisoning in that country. Here is her statement which deserves serious consideration by the Obama administration.

"Given the sheer number of foodborne illnesses and outbreaks, it is no surprise that federal oversight of food safety continues to be included on the GAO's list of high risk areas. You need to look no further than the current Salmonella outbreak that has sickened 18 people in five states to know that food safety deserves to be on this list and it is time for Congress to act. Since the GAO first added food safety to the list of high risk areas in 2007, they have highlighted the fragmented oversight of food safety and recommended the establishment of a government-wide plan to address this critical problem. That plan remains elusive. "The fragmented nature of our federal food safety system is well established and underscores the need for a single food safety agency. Right now there is not one single person in charge and that puts us all at risk of getting sick from preventable illnesses. I will again introduce legislation to establish a single food safety agency, which would ensure that there is one person the public can hold accountable when outbreaks occur. "Given the clear need to reorganize our food safety system to protect the public health, this bill is absolutely necessary. It will ensure a coordinated strategy for preventing and responding to foodborne illnesses. And it will go a long way to addressing the shortcomings identified yet again by the GAO that place Americans' health at risk."

Of course one of the main reasons for the pitiable state of affairs vis-a-vis food safety in the US is the vice-like grip the industry majors have on the elected representatives who are obliged to the former because of liberal donations to their election campaign. One may recall the recent failure of an innocuous proposal in the California ballot initiative to label GM foods which was defeated by the sheer money power of the GM food industry! Unless consumers get themselves free from countless allurements offered by the industry in sabotaging honest proposals like the above, nothing substantial is going to happen in that country in the food safety landscape and food poisoning episodes will continue to occur with sickening regularity. Citizens must unite to pressurize their elected representatives to safeguard their interests through sound legislation in stead of succumbing to the money power of the industry!

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

    

AMERICA'S FOOD SAFETY WOES-NEW LAWS ARE RIGHT ANSWER?

Food safety management is an art of balancing the interests of various stakeholders such as the consumer, farmer, processor and the government. No Food Law can be deemed to be perfect but striving hard to bring it to near perfection is the bounden duty of the government which has immense power to do that. Americans are known to be sensitive to food borne infections of different kind and most of the focus is on preventing such pathogen driven poisoning episodes that can take a toll on the health of the citizens. It is in this context that new food safety rules being implemented there are being scrutinized for their effectiveness. Many observers feel that the new protocols being put in place can only bring additional economic burden to the processing industry with practically no impact on food safety breaching in the coming years. Here is a critique on the above issue which is causing some consternation in that country.

'In pushing for passage of the law, the FDA and its supporters billed the law as a necessary solution to a problem of great magnitude. Indeed, some 48 million Americans suffer from some form of foodborne illness each year—a figure the FDA cites at several of its FSMA web pages. The agency claims the FSMA will "better protect public health by strengthening the food safety system" and helping to eliminate the "largely preventable" problem of foodborne illnesses. But if we can largely prevent foodborne illness, we won't have the new FSMA regulations to thank. In truth, the law's real impact on food safety will be minimal. The FSMA would permit the FDA to hire about 2,000 new food-safety inspectors in order to increase the frequency of food-safety inspections. Specifically, the proposed rules would require that "[a]ll high-risk domestic facilities must be inspected within five years of enactment and no less than every three years, thereafter." Given that the FSMA rules are just now open to public comment and won't be final for another year or two, this translates into a likely total of exactly two inspections of what the FDA refers to as the most "high-risk domestic facilities" over the next decade. How's that for impact? Even if these inspections were to take place more than once in a blue moon, just how effective at preventing foodborne illness are FDA inspections? Not very. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, for example, notes that FDA food safety inspections dropped by 47 percent between 2003 and 2006. During that same period, according to CDC data, rates of infection from bacteria like listeria were flat, and below traditional averages. This reflects what the CDC has reported—that despite the misconception that cases of foodborne illnesses are mushrooming, there has been a general "downward trend in foodborne infections."
A relevant question that is being asked is whether food borne diseases are really so wide spread as is being made out as the data show that such food safety failures are declining over the years. Probably the powerful electronic media which brings to the living rooms of millions of families even small episodes, is creating an impression that Americans are in danger of being overwhelmed by food poisoning incidences! The genuine concern expressed by the industry, especially the small scale players, about the economic burden on them in adhering to new safety regime put in place must be addressed to prevent a dislocation of the processed food manufacture and distribution system due to over zealous inspecting officials.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

THE GREAT MEAT DILEMMA-CONSUMER HEALTH VS FARMER HEALTH

Meat is very nutritious food besides providing unparalleled culinary pleasure to those liking them. It is no wonder that almost 90% of the world population eat meat given the opportunity and resources required to get access to them. Though there are sustained campaigns to convert people from carnivores to at least omnivores, if not herbivores, the argument being based on wasteful practices involved in commercial production of meat and similar animal products and the uncontrollable carbon emission causing global warming. However such scientific findings do not carry much conviction with those addicted to meat consumption. Feeble attempts to even marginally curtail meat consumption do not seem to have any chance of success as reflected by the recent aborted policy of American government to make one day in a week meatless day. Here is a report about this policy fiasco that may have far reaching implications.

"The USDA has retracted its support for an initiative to cut meat from Americans' Monday diets, caving in to pressure from livestock producers and complaints from a Kansas Senator. The original plug appeared in the USDA's internal "Greening Headquarters Update" on Monday, where three paragraphs on the third page mentioned Meatless Mondays, an initiative by Monday Campaigns, Inc.  The update called them a "simple way to reduce your environmental impact." The memo went on to say that animal agriculture — beef production in particular — wastes water, fertilizer, fossil fuels and other resources. It also contributes to global climate change, the memo said. "Because Meatless Monday involves only one day a week, it is a small change that could produce big results," the newsletter said. "Did you notice that our cafeterias have tasty meatless options?" Well, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association noticed. The association's president, J.D. Alexander, said the newsletter called into question the USDA's "commitment" to farmers and ranchers. He called the newsletter "awakening," and condemned the agency for failing to understand efforts made to produce food sustainably. He cited progress the industry has made over the last 30 years to produce more meat with fewer environmental costs. "This move by USDA should be condemned by anyone who believes agriculture is fundamental to sustaining life on this planet," Alexander said. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) noticed, too. Once he saw Twitter responses to the USDA's promotion of Meatless Mondays, he immediately printed out the USDA's newsletter and headed down to the Senate floor, his aide, Garrette Silverman told ABC News.com. Kansas is the third-largest beef producer in the country. "We are a beef-producing state and it is one of the items that improves our balance of trade as we export meat and beef around the world," Moran concluded his three-minute speech on the Senate floor. "And, yet, our own Department of Agriculture encourages people not to consume meat."

One of the illogical offshoots of the above flip-flop is the inconvenient question whether the US government is pro farmer or pro consumer or pro lobbyists1 It is an established fact that the American government is a prisoner of powerful farm and industrial lobbies which are supported by the political class of all hues unabashedly. In this particular policy reversal case it is the producers of meat products who exerted undue influence to abort the policy under the pretext that the highly subsidized industry would suffer grievously if meat consumption is reduced by even marginally. Same scenario is repeating itself whether it is use of HFCS in most products or improvement of cages for the poultry birds or genetically modified foods or branding of Pizza products as vegetables for school cafeterias with consumer interests totally sidelined! This is a travesty justice as promotion of meat is not a policy that can improve the health of the population as well as that of the planet. Such lop sided priorities are bound to cause long term damage to the citizens and it is nothing but shirking of responsibility by the government to wards building a healthy environment in the country  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

"WAR" ON CHILDHOOD OBESITY IN AMERICA-THE WINNER IS -----!

Lot has been said and written about the villainous role played by the processed food industry in raising a nation of children with distorted body shape due to over consumption of fat and calories served by the former. No matter what any body says the industry seems to be least bothered because of its "money power" that has kept national governments under the thump! Every time a proposal is mooted to impose stringent regulatory control over the industry, the strategy has been to coddle up to the government promising voluntary action to curb the manufacture of patently unhealthy but organoleptically mouth watering foods, only to break the same with neither remorse nor fear of retribution. Here is the latest instance of the destructive way the industry deals with issues that concern the health and lives of citizens in that "great" country, all call as the United States of America!

In the political arena, one side is winning the war on child obesity. The side with the fattest wallets. After aggressive lobbying, Congress declared pizza a vegetable to protect it from a nutritional overhaul of the school lunch program this year. The White House kept silent last year as Congress killed a plan by four federal agencies to reduce sugar, salt and fat in food marketed to children. And during the past two years, each of the 24 states and five cities that considered soda taxes  to discourage consumption of sugary drinks has seen the efforts dropped or defeated. At every level of government, the food and beverage industries won fight after fight during the last decade. They have never lost a significant political battle in the United States despite mounting scientific evidence of the role of unhealthy food and children's marketing in obesity. Lobbying records analyzed by Reuters reveal that the industries more than doubled their spending in Washington during the past three years. In the process, they largely dominated policy making -- pledging voluntary action while defeating government proposals aimed at changing the nation's diet, dozens of interviews show. In contrast, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, widely regarded as the lead lobbying force for healthier food, spent about $70,000 lobbying last year -- roughly what those opposing the stricter guidelines spent every 13 hours, the Reuters analysis showed.


While the above case pertains to USA, the experience is not different in other countries where the food industry has a free run with no modicum of respect for the regulatory agencies whose activities are tailor made to the needs of the big industry. Take the case of India where a clear dichotomy exists and it is the small enterprises which are "punished" for minor violations while the big fish never gets caught, no matter. how serious the violation is! Standards and specifications are manipulated such a way that only manufacturers with deep resources can "manage" them while the small players become the victims of the system. One thing is very clear that India always likes to be a country with strong rules on paper but with weak implementing infrastructure, few personnel and callous approach to safeguard the health of citizens!


V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com