UNDEMOCRATIC FOOD POLICIES IN DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES!

Centralized and gigantic manufacturing industry is a classical American mindset and this is true with many industrial countries where scale of economy is perceived to be the stepping stone to achieve lower cost of production and improve profitability. Historically tremendous engineering innovations in designing and fabricating high production capacity machinery , dearth of labor and the huge cost of human involvement in production floor operations naturally led to many industrial activity being automated across the spectrum. It is only recently the world has woken up to the dangers inherent in such mindless agglomeration leading to a rethink on the relevance of the present production culture. In the food sector increasing episodes of food poisoning and difficulties in tracing the source of contamination spawned the locavore movement which advocates producing and consuming the food locally in stead of ferrying them from far away places that can cause logistical, quality and large carbon foot print problems. With America's supremacy in the global arena, WTO also seems to be influenced in evolving trade policies that imitate the system that is prevalent in that country while locavore type system is more preferable to all countries. Democracy does not mean any thing if large food conglomerates hold the elected governments in their vice like grip sabotaging every good intentioned policies favorable to the well being of the citizens. Here is a critical commentary on this trade issue that is dividing the world vertically.         

"There has been a quiet revolution going around the world, as communities and nations retake control of their food systems. In the U.S., more people are taking a look at processed foods at the supermarket and opting instead for healthier choices, grown locally with fewer pesticides. People in Cambodia have taken a hard look at what's happening to their climate, soil and seeds, and figured out a new, low-cost way to produce rice, increasing production and putting farmers in charge. Brazilians are favoring local farmers growing sustainable foods for school lunch programs, lowering hunger rates dramatically as a result. This trend is larger than individual choice: people are using their rights as citizens to make sure governments, from local to national, support these innovations. Unfortunately, U.S. trade policy seems wedded to a discredited notion of how we should get our food and who should benefit. These local shifts involve choices, and in many cases choices that favor local producers over transnational corporations, local markets over imports; it seems that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has a problem with that. In its latest report, the agency highlights what it calls the growing problems of "localization barriers to trade," and vows renewed vigilance against these barriers to the free flow of goods and services. A free flow to where? And for whose benefit? In the U.S., local food is sometimes dismissed as an elite niche market, but in the rest of the world it has another meaning entirely. For decades, Western aid and trade officials have told poor countries to rely on international markets to feed their people; governments were forced to cut support for "inefficient" things like local food production and emergency grain reserves; domestic farming was undermined as cheap imports flooded in. When the price of internationally traded food spiked in 2007-08, and again in 2011, the poorest couldn't afford staples like wheat and rice, and global hunger soared. The developing countries that fared best were those that built domestic production and insulated themselves from volatile global markets. So while the USTR attack on all things local may be great for the U.S. food giants, it pushes an economic model that has been discredited by actual events".

Even in the US people seem to be concerned with the direction in which food industry is moving recklessly with no concern or remorse for their past sins. Every child in the US knows that the food industry in that country could not be trusted and it does not have good intentions vis-a-vis its attitude and action. Whether it is allowing unsafe chemicals in foods or or forcing the industry to label GM foods or diluting the standards for organic foods, the government invariably seems to be on the side of the industry ignoring the well being of the citizen.  

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

A FATAL NEXUS AGAINST CONSUMERS-THE US TRAGEDY!

The power of the GM food industry has recently been demonstrated in no uncertain terms when the government in the US prohibited courts interfering with propagation of transgenic plants like sugar beets in future! In no civilized country such a thing can happen because of the responsibility cast on the government to protect the citizens from any type of danger to their life. No doubt that the GM foods have come to stay in the US market, uncontrolled and unregulated by the government there because of the massive influence of the GM food industry on the law makers there through financial donations during election. Of course there is an ethics committee of the Senate which is after all a closed club of supporters of GM foods and nothing concrete can be expected from it in cases pertaining to corruption by the GM food industry. There are wide spread protests against this sordid policy orchestration though it is unlikely the government would bend. Here is a sad commentary on this new twist to the GM food story which can at best be described as a tragedy. 

Why is this such a big deal? The court system is often our last hope, with Congress, the White House, and regulatory agencies deep inside industry's pocket. Several legal challenges have resulted in court decisions overturning USDA's approval of new GMO crops, for example, sugar beets. So the biotech industry, unable to make its case to a judge, figured why not just rewrite the Constitution instead, with the help of a Democratic Senate led by Senator Barbara Mikulski, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Despite Montana Senator Jon Tester's best attempts to stop the so-called biotech rider, the measure was pushed through. (Industry had tried to get a similar measure passed more than once last year.) Tester minced no words in an article in yesterday's POLITICO about this and other industry power grabs such as weakening small farmer protections: These provisions are giveaways, pure and simple, and will be a boon worth millions of dollars to a handful of the biggest corporations in this country. They deserve no place in this bill. We simply have got to do better on both policy and process.

No doubt the GM foods have been tested extensively and no specific evidence has surfaced damning the technology or the products derived from this new breeding techniques. But all the studies which have found little evidence of safety risks are based on limited scale and short time duration. Those who care for the precious lives of future generation have the right to insist on establishing the safety beyond a shadow of doubt. The intolerance of criticism by scientists, social activists and consumers is great, GM food industry does not want its products to be even labeled so that one can make an informed choice whether to buy them or not! USA is the only country in the world which exempts the GM foods from declaring the same on front of the pack label. If such unlimited power is given to an irresponsible industry controlled by a few transnational corporations, what would be the fate of the consumers and how he can resist the force feeding strategy adopted by them? There is still hope that such brazen nexus between the "destroyer and the protector" will not be allowed to get away unchallenged in the coming days!  

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

POWER OF INDUSTRY LOBBYING-THE US SITUATION

Food industry can be applauded for many of its pro-consumer activities including developing and offering new products that help millions of families to save precious time in the kitchen through the convenience factor built into such products. Unfortunately the confidence and trust reposed by the consumers on the sincerity of the industry seem to be disappearing fast during the last 2-3 decades as the same have been misused by the industry to build an economic clout unchallenged by any organized government in most countries and in that process indulge in many practices considered unsafe by dispassionate experts. Latest to come to surface is the blatant pressure exerted by the meat industry to allow them to use some chemicals which were banned earlier in the US. Here is a take on this tragic episode which can be a forerunner for many such pro active policies, hostile to the citizen but friendly to the industry for considerations other than merit.  

According to Courthouse News Service (CNS), sodium benzoate, sodium propionate, and benzoic acid will now be permissible for use in preserving and treating meat and poultry products, despite having been previously banned. FSIS has long been of the persuasion that major food corporations would attempt to use such additives to "conceal damage or inferiority in meat and poultry," but the agency's view has apparently changed. After Kraft submitted its own company-funded trials claiming that the three preservative chemicals are allegedly safe, and that they supposedly cannot be used to disguise sub par meat and poultry products, the USDA suddenly changed its mind about them. This is all according to its mouthpiece, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which made the announcement recently about the change. "Kraft submitted data collected from its in-plant trials and from scientific studies that show that these substances do not conceal damage or inferiority, or make products appear better or of greater value than they are under the proposed conditions of use," says FSIS.

The case of safety-suspect Genetically Modified foods still rankles millions of consumers as the industry is allowed to develop and market such foods without the consumer ever knowing about it through the front of the label declaration! There are many such instances, especially in the US where many law makers are beholden to the industry for favors shown to them during election time. The US government had the temerity to even give protection to the industry from legal challenges on what they do vis-a-vis GM foods! At this rate the food industry in this country may succeed in re-introducing many banned chemicals under the pretext that they are found safe under questionable in-house, biased research findings. Viewed against this the citizens in other developed countries like those in Europe, Japan or Canada are more fortunate in having governments much more sensitive to their interests than this "most powerful" county in the world!
  

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

DECLINE OF SODA-IS IT A REAL THING?

Caffeine is being demonized as an undesirable food constituent that can be addictive and stimulant to be avoided by children, old age people and pregnant women. But till to date it has never been implicated in any health disorders of serious dimension. With the advent of cola beverages, caffeine consumption started increasing as it is a significant component in all such drinks. While caffeine was a matter of concern in these drinks, over a period of time it was overtaken by the sugar content in these drinks which was held responsible, at least partly, for the obesity syndrome in a country like the US. It is shocking that an average American gulps down more that 500 ml of cola beverage a day which constitutes almost 40% of liquid intake! In spite of many policy orchestrations and campaigns to reduce soda consumption, there was hardly any impact on this practice. Against such a background the recent news that Americans are switching over to coffee from soda in large numbers is a welcome development. Here is a take on this phenomenal change in the consumer attitude of late.  

"Ten years ago, Americans drank enough soda every year to fill a small aquarium. Fifty-three gallons of the stuff per person. That's half a liter of Diet Coke on an average day. Compare that to our other favorite liquid-caffeine companion. For every cup of coffee we consumed in 2003, we drank two cups of soft drink. For $1 we spent on joe, we spent $4 on soda. Now look where we are: Soda is in a free fall, with domestic revenue down 40%. Coffee culture is ascendant, up 50% in 10 years. In another decade, the United States could easily spend more on coffee than soda — something utterly unthinkable at the turn of the century (industry data via IBISWorld)"

Whether more consumption of coffee is better in terms of health is a debatable point but such a shift in consumer behavior will definitely contribute to lesser intake of sugar and its attendant benefits. The million dollar question is regarding the future of the soda industry which has been raking in record money for the last 6-7 decades through a captive consumer market? Probably the industry may yet see the writing on the wall and hopefully offer better products with more emphasis on the well being of the consumer. Explosive growth of coffee shops like Starbucks and others can have another implication because unlike the classic black coffee drink usually consumed in that country, the new "Avatars" are selling sugar laden variants of coffee using sugar syrup liberally and if this trend continues Americans will be back to square one, making no difference whether one drinks soda or coffee!  

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

NEW NON-TARIFF BARRIER IN THE US-IMPACT ON INDIAN EXPORTS

It is but natural that all sovereign countries in the world are concerned about the health and safety of their citizens and putting in place measures to ensure that, is their unquestionable right. That conceded, is there any justification for a country like the US to take decisions unilaterally to put many importers from other countries, especially from the third world, in difficulties by raising the bar too much. Latest to emerge is the new rule that requires every importer from other countries to register their facilities once every two years which is a laborious process. When quality and safety assurance systems like HACCP, ISO 14000, SAP etc are now available for application in all countries, is it not possible if such accreditation and inspection are insisted upon for products originating from each country? How is it possible for small scale exporters from India to go to the US and spend their time and money to deal with the bureaucratic set up there entrusted with registration. This is definitely a non-tariff barrier to put the exporters from developing countries in a disadvantage and must be referred to WTO. Here is a take on this new development which will have far reaching implication on Indian exports.

"The US may ban import of Indian food and dietary supplements if food companies fail to renew their Food and Drug Administration (FDA) registration by the end of this year.  "The US administration, over-cautious about probable acts of terrorism, has made it mandatory for all facilities that manufacture, process, pack or hold food for human or animal consumption in the US to register with the US FDA," said an official of Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), a government body which overlooks exports of agri and food products in the country.  The companies will then have to renew their registration every two years to continue their shipment to the US. Food from an unregistered foreign facility would be held at the port of entry unless the FDA directs it to be moved to a secure custody.  The new rule effective January 1, 2013, can create a non-tariff barrier for Indian food products companies, which exported more than $3 billion worth of food to the US in 2011.  The fresh registration rules will be applicable to all food products, all processed and manufactured products, and animal products. Under the new Food Safety and Modernisation Act (FSMA), FDA is to establish a "reliable system" that uses third-party audits conducted either by foreign governments or other third parties to help ensure food safety for food destined for the US. It will help FDA conduct investigations and surveillance operations in response to food-related emergencies". 

There is one aspect about which food industry in India must concern itself, that is the traceability question that haunts food safety agencies world over. Probably Americans are more concerned about the logistics involved in pin pointing the source of a food poisoning episode as and when they occur in there. Present manufacturing systems currently prevalent in most countries do not allow such investigations to proceed too far when there is a blind alley while pursuing the origin and credentials of many suppliers of various ingredients used in the manufacture of a food in a particular factory. It is better Indian food industry collectively thinks about the "one step backward and one step forward" strategy to document the full particulars of immediate suppliers of raw materials and ingredients and immediate buyers of their products. If every player follows this strategy traceability becomes easier though it will take some time to complete the investigation by working through the chain so formed. APEDA which is doing an excellent job in its role as an export facilitator must address this issue more seriously.

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

THE GREAT FOOD "TAMASHA" IN THE US-WHAT A TRAGEDY!

"Small is beautiful" is a famous saying that set the policies of many countries in promoting small and micro enterprises during the last millennium. But the world seems to have turned on its head with the emergence of "oligopoly" that controls the food market in countries like the US. The Americans boast that theirs is a country with unlimited choices of foods to the consumers who can pick and choose from over 50000 products offered in big and well organized super market outlets, may be literally true but a close critical look will reveal that these products are made by a few players with deep pockets and political power to sabotage any well meaning policies considered good for the consumers. The very fact that more than two thirds of the 300 plus million population in the US are either obese or overweight tells its own story regarding the track record of these handful of giant transnational companies. Fast disappearing breed of small and family farmers because of the onslaught of powerful corporate players further limits the choice of the consumer who is forced to "eat" what is offered and not necessarily what is good for him. Here is a critical commentary on this disturbing trend which is spreading across the world with unabashed capitalism spreading its wings.   

"Just five companies account for almost half of supermarket food sales in the United States. And what about the food those companies offer us? Let's take meat. A meal is not a proper meal without it, at least for 97 out of 100 Americans. Just four companies provide us with 79 percent of our beef, 65 percent of our pork, and 57 percent of our poultry. So, no matter what kind of meat we have for dinner, most likely it comes from the same handful of companies: Tyson,JBS, Cargill, Smithfield. You can never decide which bacon to bring home? Armour, Eckrich, Farmland, Gwaltney, John Morrell, Smithfield – all owned by Smithfield. So, market power is consolidated in the hands of a few multinational corporations. What does this mean for the food we eat and the people who produce it? They explain: Control of our food supply has been wrenched from independent farmers and ranchers in the corporate boardrooms of agribusiness giants. Since 1980, four out of 10 farmers who raise cattle and nine out of 10 who raise hogs have gone out of business.Under this Darwinian survival of the fittest model, control of most production is now in the hands of large corporations. But farmers still raise cows, and pigs, and chickens, right? Yes they do, say the professors, who recently also co-authored Slaughterhouse Blues: The Meat and Poultry Industry of North America, but "most of them don't really own the animals they raise. Virtually all the chickens sold in the United States are grown under production contracts to a handful of companies, who own the birds from egg to supermarket."

It has to be conceded that any investor pumping in money for taking up a manufacturing venture must be assured of a decent return on his capital but this has to happen under an environment where equity is the hall mark with every one, small and big getting equal opportunity. This is not what is actually happening as those with big money invariably buy out the smaller fish with highly tempting terms. Which small investor can resist the temptation of selling his venture if prices offered are 50-150% of the real value? While main stream food production and processing industry has been monopolized by a few giants, it is apprehended that organic food industry, evolved to escape from the risks inherent in most products offered by the modern processing sector, will also be eventually assimilated by the latter through economic aggression. Developing countries must shun such a model and put in place constructive policies and frame works to nurture small enterprises and ensure protection from the marauding poachers. Those countries clamoring for foreign investments in food processing and retailing with open arms, must guard against the transformation of their food sector into the ugly food scenario that predominates in the US where the powerful industry lobby is dictating terms to the government regarding what is good for the citizen!

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

"CAVIAR MONOPOLY" OF RUSSIANS-END IN SIGHT?

Caviar is a highly priced fish derived product popular all over the world. It is the non-fertilized Sturgeon roe either salt cured, fresh or pasteurized and to command such high prices the sturgeon has to come from Caspian Sea or Black Sea. Russian caviar was once the world standard but the self-imposed ban by this country against harvesting the roe, has spurred development of caviar substitutes from other fish species like Salmon, Steelhead, Trout, White Fish etc. Beluga, Sterlet, Osserta and Sevruga caviars still rule the roost. The rim countries of Caspian Sea viz, Iran, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Russia and Azerbaijan have access to genuine caviar and with Russians not in this business any more, Iran and Azerbaijan have become the major source of this precious food material. Recently there has been a shift in the dynamics of caviar production with the US entering the field with its own version of this product harvested predominantly from the southern coastal waters. Here is the developing story of caviar in the US.    

"Global efforts to all but ban the international trade of caviar from the Caspian Sea, where overfishing and pollution have depleted sturgeon populations, have opened enormous opportunities for affordable substitutes from unlikely places in America. Even landlocked Montana, North Dakota and Oklahoma have thriving markets based on wild river fish. "I think any chef or any food person with a conscience is only eating domestic or farmed caviar," said Mitchell Davis, executive vice president of the James Beard Foundation. The world has come to have a taste for the growing American market of caviar and fish roe. Between 2001 and 2010, annual exports of white sturgeon, shovelnose sturgeon (also called hackleback) and paddlefish roe increased to about 37,712 pounds from roughly 5,214 pounds, with a majority of wild origin, according to the American branch of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and the federal Fish and Wildlife Service. Seventy percent of the total caviar and roe exported from the United States in 2010 went to countries in the European Union, Ukraine and Japan. Domestically, there has also been a rise in interest in both wild and sustainably farmed caviar, from restaurateurs wanting local sources for interesting foods and from adventurous young consumers".

The success story of US entrepreneurship can be gauged by the fact that this country producing caviar from species like bowfin fish is exporting more than 75% of its production to countries like Europe, Ukraine and Japan! Considering that the supply of original Beluga caviar is dwindling fast and modern generation youngsters would never have tasted this product in their life, new products from other species are likely to be more and more popular among them. Besides, the price factor also makes a big difference in the purchasing decision of new generation consumers. If Russian caviar commands prices as high as $500 per oz, same type of products from other fish species can be available at less than $30 per oz. Caviar is preferred in its fresh form and both salt cured and pasteurized versions are not easily accepted by those swearing by the supreme flavor of fresh caviar. Incidentally even the FDA of the US does not accept any roe other than that originating from Sturgeon to be called caviar but allows others by their source of origin, like salmon caviar, bowfin caviar etc. Is it not amazing that a product like caviar which is after all used as a garnish or spread can command such high prices and there are wealthy consumers prepared to shell out such astronomical sums for such little pleasures? Probably the pricing incongruities has spawned an entirely new industry capitalizing in the name of caviar, offering similar products without sacrificing the inherent nutritional value of fish eggs per se that has made it possible for average consumers to patronize them.      

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

EVERY BODY LOVES CHINA-THE US TOO! AND THE CONSEQUENCES?

China is a country loved by many, hated equally by many and admired by many, depending on what criterion is used. Its pole vaulting into global economic summit and talking as an equal with established world powers has been both dramatic and amazing, calling for admiration all around. But it is hated world over when one looks at its brutality and remorseless suppression of the citizens denying the fundamental rights enjoyed in many democratic countries. No doubt China has built a solid foundation for its technological and industrial growth though the inputs from the erstwhile Soviet Union during early stages should not be forgotten. Full credit must be given to the farmers of the country for raising food production and productivity in almost all crops, making it the top producer of many foods. All said and done, China still lives in rural hinterlands and through shrewd policy orchestrations the country was able to back up the farming community remarkably well. Latest instance of governments long term vision is reflected in the frenetic pace with which it is trying to build up its swine food industry by transforming small scale rural farms into large industrial production centers. Unwittingly the US is helping China to achieve this goal through supply of technology and other inputs with a short term objective of earning dollars from this dollar rich country! Here is a take on this interesting development which should be an eye opener for others like India.

"In a country where pork is a culinary staple, the demand for a protein-rich diet is growing faster than Chinese farmers can keep up. While Americans cut back on meat consumption to the lowest levels seen in two decades, the Chinese now eat nearly 10 percent more meat than they did five years ago. China's solution: to super-size its supply by snapping up millions of live animals raised by U.S. farmers as breeding stock - capitalizing on decades of cutting edge agricultural research in America. By taking this step, say breeders and exporters, China will move from small-scale backyard farms, to the Westernized tradition of large consolidated operations to keep up with demand. "I liken it to their telephone system," said Mike Lemmon, co-owner of the Whiteshire Hamroc farm, which specializes in exporting breeding swine to China. "Most of China's mainland went from having no landlines to everyone having a cell phone. They're doing the same thing with farming." Focus on livestock genetics also represents an emerging economic bonanza for two of the United States' most powerful industries: technology and agriculture. Worldwide, the United States exported a record $664 million worth of breeding stock and genetic material such as semen in 2011. But as fortune shines on breeders, concerns are being raised. While U.S. consumption of meat falls, the price of producing a pound of protein rises, meaning meat companies are seeing their margins shrink. That has prompted some critics to question whether the short-term gains of this trend will result in a longer-term loss of a key export market for American meat producers. This is, after all, a well-trod path in China's pursuit of efficiency: import a technology or create a joint-venture; learn the best practices; apply those practices at a lower cost than overseas rivals; and emerge as an aggressive competitor in the global market".

Whether such a move will prove to be beneficial in the long run is a big question mark only future can provide the answer. While increased production of pigs can definitely have an adverse impact on the carbon emissions globally, higher consumption of meat will have undesirable consequences on the health of the citizens in that country. As for the US, this is a country which does not seem to be learning any thing from the past dealings with China. If at all any single country which has continuously assisted China for more than 3 decades in its technological frog leaping it is the US with its huge investments on the industry there based on technology sharing mode. Chinese products made with US technology but with cheap Chinese labor are creating serious unemployment in the US because Chinese made products are invariably much cheaper than that made within the country. It is time the US wakes up to the real danger posed by China in the economic development through ways and means that cannot be considered truly transparent and honest.

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

THE "TIED" FOOD AID-THE HIDDEN AGENDA MUST BE SCRAPPED

It is aptly said that there is no free meal any where in the world and some one has to pay the prices for those meals considered free superficially. For example Americans are considered most charitable people in the world and almost 50% of global "food aid" comes from this country. World must salute the US for its "charitable" disposition. But a little bit surface scratching reveals a different story. Charity means helping others selflessly without expecting any thing in return and if American charity is measured on this scale it may not pass muster. According to organizations partnering the US government in food aid to third world countries there is a hidden agenda in spending more than $ 20 billion by this country as food aid. It appears that, due to "tying" up this aid with self-aggrandizing conditions, Americans them selves are short changing this program through waste and avoidable food losses. Here is a take on this interesting face of food aid.  

"The US provides roughly 50% of food aid globally at an estimated annual cost of $2bn. But unlike many other major donors, virtually all American food aid is "tied" and must be bought from US suppliers and transported on US ships – even if there are cheaper alternatives. The report urges Congress to relax these restrictions and curtail "monetisation" schemes, where aid agencies are given US food to sell off in developing countries to finance their projects. Such reforms to the farm bill, which covers the bulk of US food aid programmes and is up for reauthorisation this year, could pay "enormous anti-hunger dividends" for those most in need, says the report, while saving millions in taxpayers' money. "Food aid is a vital part of US foreign policy, but we are shortchanging millions of hungry people with unnecessary red tape," said the AJWS director of advocacy, Timi Gerson, in a statement. "US policies are ripe for reforms that will save lives now and reduce the need for aid later by enabling local farmers to thrive." A January 2012 study by agricultural economists at Cornell University found that buying food products locally leads to average cost-savings of more than 50% for cereals like wheat, and almost 25% for pulses like peas and lentils. However, it found that some processed foods like vegetable oil are potentially cheaper to buy and ship from the US. The study also estimated that procuring food locally, or distributing cash or vouchers, results in an average time-saving of nearly 14 weeks. It suggested a more flexible approach to food aid programmes, with aid agencies allowed to choose between food aid shipped from the US, locally or regionally purchased supplies, vouchers and cash transfers, depending on the situation and specific objectives".

It was not long ago that critics were pointing fingers at the US government for its subtle attempts to tie the economic aid in Africa to buying GMO seeds from American companies without realizing the long term effect of promoting such activities on the economic conditions of poor farmers in this continent. Ideally any aid given should be without strings and as far as possible the real value of the aid must be maximized by buying materials wherever they are cheaper. Of course the foreign aid to a poor country has many ramifications and making such aids most beneficial to the recipient country must be the priority.

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

EVERY BODY LOVES CHINA-THE US TOO! AND THE CONSEQUENCES?

China is a country loved by many, hated equally by many and admired by many, depending on what criterion is used. Its pole vaulting into global economic summit and talking as an equal with established world powers has been both dramatic and amazing. calling for admiration all around. But it is hated world over when one looks at its brutality and remorseless suppression of the citizens denying the fundamental rights enjoyed in many democratic countries. No doubt China has built a solid foundation for its technological and industrial growth though the inputs from Soviet Union during early stages should not be forgotten. Full credit must be given to the farmers of the country for raising food production and productivity in almost all crops, making it the top producer of many foods. All said and done, China still lives in rural hinterlands and through shrewd policy orchestrations the country was able to back up the farming community remarkably well. Latest instance of government's long term vision is reflected in the frenetic pace with which it is trying to build up its swine food industry by transforming small scale rural farms into large industrial production centers. Unwittingly the US is helping China to achieve this goal through supply of technology and other inputs with a short term objective of earning dollars from this dollar rich country! Here is a take on this interesting development which should be an eye opener for others like India.

"In a country where pork is a culinary staple, the demand for a protein-rich diet is growing faster than Chinese farmers can keep up. While Americans cut back on meat consumption to the lowest levels seen in two decades, the Chinese now eat nearly 10 percent more meat than they did five years ago. China's solution: to super-size its supply by snapping up millions of live animals raised by U.S. farmers as breeding stock - capitalizing on decades of cutting edge agricultural research in America. By taking this step, say breeders and exporters, China will move from small-scale backyard farms, to the Westernized tradition of large consolidated operations to keep up with demand. "I liken it to their telephone system," said Mike Lemmon, co-owner of the Whiteshire Hamroc farm, which specializes in exporting breeding swine to China. "Most of China's mainland went from having no landlines to everyone having a cell phone. They're doing the same thing with farming." Focus on livestock genetics also represents an emerging economic bonanza for two of the United States' most powerful industries: technology and agriculture. Worldwide, the United States exported a record $664 million worth of breeding stock and genetic material such as semen in 2011. But as fortune shines on breeders, concerns are being raised. While U.S. consumption of meat falls, the price of producing a pound of protein rises, meaning meat companies are seeing their margins shrink. That has prompted some critics to question whether the short-term gains of this trend will result in a longer-term loss of a key export market for American meat producers. This is, after all, a well-trod path in China's pursuit of efficiency: import a technology or create a joint-venture; learn the best practices; apply those practices at a lower cost than overseas rivals; and emerge as an aggressive competitor in the global market".

Chinese are biggest consumers of pork meet and changing their traditional food eating habits is a herculean task. The fact that Chicken meat is cheaper to produce should have persuaded the Chinese authorities to discourage pork based diet in stead of tuning their livestock industry to raise pork production which will definitely be harmful to the country in the long run. Another concern is the impact of the expansion of pork industry in China on the global food front. While country farms use locally available feed resources, high tech birds need to be fed grain based feeds sucking out a substantial portion of food production regularly without any respite. The US which is pampering the Chinese in every conceivable way will realize soon about its short sighted policy of assisting Chinese in their focused pork industry program!

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