CHEMICALS IN FOOD-SAFETY IS NO BODY'S BUSINESS!

The sturdiness of man against all odds in sustaining himself is a remarkable natural trait ever since his advent on earth, say 40,000 years ago. In ancient world it was fight against fierce carnivorous animals and fight for food in competition with them which provided the challenge. To day the odds are same, the only difference being that hundreds of chemicals finding their way into the foods in the name of processing and preservation may be slowly killing him in stead of the quick kill happening to the Paleo man during fighting with wild and ferocious animals. While enemy in old days was clearly visible, the unsuspecting chemicals in the food added deliberately are silent and invisible slow killers. Here is a shocking revelation about the way chemicals are added to foods by the processing industry while the so called safety authorities either close their eyes or are unaware of this practice.

"If you are shocked to learn that industrial chemicals are routinely in the food you are feeding to your family, you will be even more shocked to read about a study published this week in the professional journal Reproductive Toxicology by researchers from the Pew Charitable Trusts — which funded the work — and the Environmental Management Institute. Problems in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food programs look even worse than the problems I know so well from EPA! After extensive research into what manufacturers add to our food, the researchers report that about 1,000 additives are in the food supply without the FDA's knowledge. And, for those additives the FDA does actually know about, fewer than 38 percent of more than 8,000 FDA-regulated additives — including those manufacturers intentionally add directly to food and materials that may come into contact with and contaminate foods — have a published feeding study. (Feeding studies comprise the basic toxicology test — the first test a scientist would do to evaluate the safety of a chemical additive.) For direct additives, added intentionally to food, only 21.6 percent of the almost 4,000 additives have undergone the feeding studies necessary for scientists to estimate a safe level of exposure, and the FDA databases contain reproductive or developmental toxicity data for only 6.7 percent. It appears the FDA and the food industry were often making safety decisions by comparing one chemical to another rather than doing an actual toxicology study. In making such decisions, they were building a house of cards based on assumptions and unsupported extrapolations instead of direct scientific evidence. How has the oversight of our food regulations gone so terribly wrong? The researchers have a few insights. First, many chemicals were grandfathered into the system in the 1950's, and so they are in our food supply without information on their safety. Once a chemical is cleared for use in foods, the clearance is forever, so there are no requirements or incentives for a manufacturer to support additional testing. And, under the outdated U.S. Food Additives Amendment of 1958, the FDA doesn't even have the authority to require testing if it has questions about a chemical. Also, industry can self-determine if its chemical food-additives are Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS), and therefore free from the usual regulatory requirements for food additives. If the industry makes a GRAS determination, it is not even required to notify FDA that it has put the new GRAS additive on the market. Allowing industry to determine the safety of the chemicals it creates is a textbook example of the fox guarding the chicken coop. Last week, many of the same Pew researchers published a report in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Internal Medicine showing that "financial conflicts of interest are ubiquitous" in the industry-driven process leading to determining that a chemical is GRAS. In that article, Pew reports that all — that's 100 percent — of the members of expert panels that review food additives to make GRAS determinations have financial relationships with companies that manufacture the food additives being reviewed".

If whatever has been said in the above critique is true, is humanity hurtling towards calamity in a few decades from now with all people suffering from one or the other health disorders lowering the quality of life dramatically compared to what they were about 100 years ago? One can only pity for the future generations to come as they are being consigned to a life of ignominy by the reckless actions of those who live to day! Of course there are a few people who are still aware of these contradictions and thanks are due to them for spawning the organic food industry which does not use chemicals in raising any crop or processing it into edible preparations. Unfortunately such people are far and few at present to make any impact but there is the promise that organic food consumption is growing albeit slowly which will leave at least a few people with normal health to carry forward the torch of human civilization! 

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

FOOD INDUSTRY'S LEGAL BATTLE-CONSUMERS BECOMING MORE AGGRESSIVE?

The great land of litigation, claiming all sorts of compensation by the citizens, viz the US seems to be moving towards a situation where food industry is now the focus of attention from the lawyers. Such a conclusion is being drawn based on the latest data on such cases which shows that law suits filed during the last few years registered a phenomenal increase. Probably this may be worrying the food industry as it is a reflection of decreasing trust consumers repose on the credibility of this sector and this is largely due to the rapidly growing obesity epidemic which threatens to swamp that country. There is a growing perception that food industry's intentions are not honest and they prefer profit over the well being their constituency, viz the citizens. In spite of dire warnings, persuasion, policy orchestrations and consumer pressure, food industry continues to persist with promoting unhealthy foods most of them rich in sugar, fat and salt, the villainous triumvirate, all indicted for their role in many life style disorders faced by the community as a whole. There is some talk that food industry, if it does not respond to the pulses of its customers, may end up in a situation similar to that faced by Tobacco industry decades ago, forced to fork out billions of dollars of as reparation to millions of consumers in the country. Here is a take on this interesting development. 

"A dramatic uptick in the number of consumer fraud lawsuits has put the food industry on the defensive against a wave of litigation, lawyers said at a panel Wednesday. The number of consumer fraud class actions brought in federal court against food and beverage companies has skyrocketed in the last five years, from roughly 19 cases in 2008 to more than 102 in 2012, according to data compiled by the food litigation department at Perkins Coie. At Wednesday's panel at the Intercontinental New York Barclay hotel, Perkins Coie partner David Biderman, a consumer and mass tort defense lawyer, said the legal and political environment has created the "perfect storm" for consumer fraud class actions against food and beverage companies. This "litigation explosion" has sparked fears that the food and beverage industry is being targeted by plaintiffs' lawyers, as the tobacco industry was several decades ago, said Ronald Levine, co-chair of the litigation department at Herrick Feinstein. "None of these companies would have predicted this wave of litigation even five years ago," Levine said. The majority of consumer fraud litigation against the food and beverage industry has landed in California federal courts, according to the Perkins Coie data. From 2008 until 2012, 186 class actions were filed in California court, many of them in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which has been dubbed the "Food Court." That's compared to just 18 in the second-busiest state, New Jersey".

There may be a point in the stand taken by the industry that it produces products demanded by the consumer and their business can thrive only when consumers patronize their offerings. They further aver that it is purely an individual's decision as to what should be purchased and which one should be shunned. Naturally if these calorie rich foods are more popular and others with healthy credentials are shunned in the market, can the industry continue with latter types of foods without risking bankruptcy? However this stand is contested by the protagonists of healthy foods who want the industry to be forced to change their product lines to include more balanced foods vis-a-vis good nutrients and change the market place into a "dessert" as far as foods with empty calories and high salt are concerned. If past trend is any indication the spate of litigation currently being seen may eventually subside because food is not like cigarette, being an essential part of daily life. Having said this one has to remind the industry that by claiming their products to be safe after suppressing evidence of their research to the contrary it will have to face the consequences as this amounts to criminal fraud deserving severe retribution.

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

NON-BROWNING APPLE-A NEW GMO FRUIT BEING APPROVED.

Apple is a fruit much cherished among well to do people who can afford to buy it at the present market price of Rs 150 per kg and above. Though Apple is produced in India in states like Himachal and Kashmir, considerable quantity is imported into the country from countries like the US, japan, New Zealand etc and after paying the import duty the price reaches levels which are unaffordable  to the vast majority of the Indian population. But what is not understandable is why Indian apple also costs as much as that of imported ones and the only explanation is that apple industry in the country sees this as an opportunity to make money because there are adequate buyers in the country who buy them at any cost!. What ever it is, the fact remains that a nutritious food material has become cost prohibitive due to factors which have nothing to do with actual cost of production in the orchards. Recent reports that apple has been genetically modified to make it more beautiful when cut without developing the brown color are interesting as this is a case of using a suspect technology for purpose other than improving nutrition or production economics. Here is a take on this new development which of course may not have any relevance in a country like India because of minuscule consumption.  

"First, let's look at the physical properties of apples. No matter how you slice it, every apple turns brown eventually. "When their flesh is cut, the oxygen in the air interacts with chemicals in the flesh of the apple," says Susan Brown, a plant scientist at Cornell University. An enzyme called polyphenol oxidase, or PPO, makes melanin, an iron-containing compound that gives apple cells a brown tinge. The same type of "oxidative" browning happens in the browning of tea, coffee or mushrooms, explains Brown. Within five minutes of slicing, browning can alter the taste and might not be as aesthetically pleasing, but it doesn't mean the apple is old or rotten. To prevent oxidative browning, the GM apples developed by Okanagan stop PPO production with a man-made gene containing pieces of four natural PPO genes. An insertion with gene fragments is an automatic red flag for the apple cell — usually the first step of viral attack — so it chops up every sequence of DNA that looks like the suspicious fragment, and the apple flesh stays light. "The beauty of this [process] is it's a natural plant defense mechanism," says Carter. Even when sliced, these apples stay clear of browning for about two weeks — that's roughly the same extended life span as apple slices from McDonald's and Burger King, which use lemon juice and calcium ascorbate to prevent browning.  But if the apple doesn't go brown, then how do you tell if it's rotten? An apple with just oxidative browning isn't automatically rotten. Rotting comes from a fungal or bacterial infection, which causes the apple to go either mushy or dry. Infecting spores, not melanin, also give the flesh a dark brown hue. So, taking PPO out of the equation won't make a rotten apple appear pristine. "'Bad' apples will still be evident," says Brown. Rotting GM apples look rotten and turn brown from a bacterial or fungal infection the same as a conventional apple. But Bill Freese, a science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, notes that some studies in tomatoes have shown that silencing PPO has an impact on a plant's susceptibility to diseases and invasive insects because the enzyme may play a role in plant defense reactions."

Food industry has already known that during apple processing browning is a problem and it also has the technology to prevent or retard browning by arresting the enzymatic reaction involving polyphenol oxidase which is exposed to the air when cell integrity is affected during peeling, slicing, crushing etc. If so what is the necessity for tinkering with the genes to knock out this enzyme through biotechnology? How many consumers want the apple to be without developing brown color during the time of eating? Probably not many. Though the safety authorities in the US may accord approval for this new version of apple, it is doubtful whether these apples will be readily accepted in other countries. The new variety developed through the GMO route may have a doubtful commercial success within the US itself if consumer comes to know that it is genetically tinkered with! It is another matter that GM products are not required to be labeled in a country like the US and therefore consumers may patronize the product unknowingly.     

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

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

FOOD HAZARDS-FILTHY KITCHENS AND UNSAFE SERVICE

Does the "Name and shame" strategy that is in force in some country really desist the eateries from indulging in food preparation practices and service that are considered unacceptable by known safety standards? Obviously not if the experience in Australia is to be considered. According to safety authorities there almost 10% of the eateries fail the hygienic tests carried out by them raising serious concerns about the well being of the consumers. Here is take on this issue which may be of relevance to many countries like India where consumer protection situation continues to deteriorate over the years. 

"The first full release of data from the Food Authority's Name and Shame register reveals that more than 3500 of the 36,000 eateries inspected across the state failed hygiene tests.The first full release of data from the Food Authority's Name and Shame register reveals that more than 3500 of the 36,000 eateries inspected across the state failed hygiene tests. One in 10 restaurants and cafes across NSW have been fined for food safety breaches, from preparing meals in filthy kitchens to failing to control bug infestations. More than 1000 of the 8042 penalty notices issued in the past five years related to cockroach infestations, rodent activity and droppings in commercial kitchens. Unsanitary food preparation areas, dirty equipment and lack of easily accessible hand-washing facilities made up nearly half the offences. The data, obtained under freedom of information laws, also revealed that since 2008: City of Sydney Council was home to state's most hazardous kitchens with 820 fines". 

If a relatively rich country like Australia with almost 100% literacy can face such a situation what chance others with large population of illiterate citizens like India has to put in place a workable system to discipline the catering industry? The FSSAI in India is a toothless organization with a paper tiger like status and it is very apparent that neither the  quality standards nor the safety parameters set by this bureaucratic organization evoke ant fear or respect among the industry players. It is time that the safety monitoring infrastructure and testing facilities are strengthened immediately and the degree of punitive punishment is raised to instill a deterrent effect on the violators.

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

ANOTHER BUMPER CROP? THE IMPLICATIONS

Any news regarding increased food production should be welcomed, especially in a country like India where hunger and poverty live side by side. If so why is that the latest "projection" by government agencies ( based on sowing estimates!) predicting a bumper harvest of food grains this year should create panic in the government? The answer is simple. Those in power at Delhi is again going to be caught in a state of unpreparedness to store the grains that will flow into the government granaries in the coming months. The problem is further accentuated by the higher support price being decided by the government against the advice of its own expert panel for political expediency. Those keen observers of the "grain politics" GOI is practicing in the past, cannot forget the rap it got from the Supreme Court last year for allowing precious food grains to rot in the open as sufficient storage facilities were not organized in spite of knowing the problem for almost two decades. With no clarity still emerging regarding the so called "Direct Cash Transfer" scheme and the fate of PDS in the coming years, what is in store for millions of people living below poverty line in future is still uncertain. Here is a critique on this vital issue facing the nation.   

Officials said wheat production in 2013-14 season that starts from April 1, is expected to be between 85 and 90 mt as sowing till Friday is around 458,000 hectares more than last year. This year, the country harvested a record 94 mt of wheat compelling state agencies to procure an all-time high 38 mt, a staggering 10 mt more than 2011-12. A situation similar to this year is also expected in 2013-14. Already, in rice state agencies have procured 1.2 mt more till yesterday as compared to the same period last year. By the close of the season, government plans to procure almost 40 mt of rice from farmers this year, 5 mt more than 2011-12. Wheat and rice procurement seasons are different. Rice procurement starts from October every year, while wheat begins from April. However, all this will not come at a low price. Infact, with government increasing the minimum support price (MSP) of wheat for 2013-14 season by Rs 65 per quintal, the food subsidy burden will straight away rise by Rs 2,275 crore. In 2012-13 Union Budget, the food subsidy has been pegged at Rs 75,000 crore. "With increase in MSP by Rs 65 a quintal, procurement cost of FCI will surely go up, and depending upon how much is procured and for how long it is stored and at price it is distributed under PDS, the subsidy Bill will get inflated. Presuming that FCI will procure at least 35 mt of wheat (last year it procured 38 mt), and if all other costs remain the same, the subsidy bill will go up by minimum Rs 2,275 crore," Gulati said. The burden will also be no less on consumers as wheat prices along with that of wheat flour will further move up. "Retail prices of wheat will go up further unless larger leakages from PDS flood the market at lower prices," Gulati said. The direct fallout of over-emphasis on grains, which the CACP sought to correct by recommending freezing the MSP of wheat for 2013-14 season is that import of edible oils and pulses is expected to cross Rs 65,000 crore in 2012-13 financial year, a steep jump of almost 16 per cent from the previous year. But, a bumper harvest does not necessarily mean that the farmers are getting benefit from producing more. A recent field visit by senior officials from the department of agriculture found that rice prices in eastern India has plummeted to almost Rs 800-1,050 a quintal, as against the Centre determined MSP of Rs 1,250 a quintal in the absence of suitable state intervention mechanism. Official data showed that this year (2012-13) rice procurement in the three major eastern states of Bihar, West Bengal and Odisha has been less than one-fourth of last year."This clearly shows that something is serious wrong with the policy as farmers are producing more, but in many area they are not getting adequate returns for their labour," another expert said.

What is becoming tragic is that farmers who toil hard against all adversities are becoming more and more stressed financially while the consumer prices are soaring making the lives of both more and more miserable! One of the funny reasons attributed to food inflation is that many states are succeeding in plugging leakage from the PDS, resulting in less and less transfer of cheaper grains from the distribution chain to the open market! Openly or surreptitiously GOi is bound to allow more and more export of grains to prevent spoilage like last year due to shortage of storage facilities. If direct cash transfer system were in place throughout the country probably there would have been higher off take of grains by those economically poor families with the cash received from the government. But this "gift" of the government may take years to come to the hands of all the beneficiaries as the infrastructure for fund transfer is grossly inadequate as of now. Thus bumper harvest or normal harvest, it makes very little difference to the two important players in this ball game, viz the poor farmer and the ever suffering aam aadmi!  

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

GRASS-FED BEEF-EVER INCREASING CONSUMER DEMAND

From time to time consumers are enamored by new trends in product development and generally these are mostly considered as fads unless the patronage grows consistently to establish a new line of industry with lasting impact. For example organic food movement or local foods preference or slow foods movement all started in a small way and they have now established them selves as viable businesses on their own. Similarly Atkins Diet, South Beach Diet and other similar movements started to deal with weight control were once some what popular but have since faded away for which reasons may be many. Now comes another consumer driven business alternative in the form of Grass-fed beef which is supposed to be tastier besides being more nutritious. Probably the main stream meat industry will have to blame itself for creating a strong competitor because of some of its operational practices considered unhealthy by the consumer community. Here is a look at this nascent industry in the US which seems to be posing a serious challenge to the conventional captive system of raising the animals feeding chemicals, hormones, antibiotics etc, frowned upon by the consumers.    

"It's expanded dramatically," said Alan Williams, a grass-fed beef producer and member of the Pasture Project, an effort to get more conventional producers in the Midwest switching to pasture-based systems. "In the late 1990s there were only 100 producers. Now there are more than 2,000. The market has grown from being $2 million to $3 million to over $2.5 billion in retail value." Most cattle raised in the U.S. are sent to feedlots, in Kansas and Nebraska mostly, where the animals are fattened and "finished" on a diet of corn and other grains. This feedlot system has enabled the country to develop its massive beef industry cheaply, efficiently and with less manpower. Cattle ranchers contend that a wholesale, or even partial, transition to a grass-based system would be impractical and would drive up costs. In recent years, however, critics of the feedlot system say the industry's growth has come at too high a cost for the environment, for human health and for the animals themselves. About 40% of the country's corn now goes to livestock, helping make corn the most grown, and most valuable, crop in the country. But corn production is nitrogen-intensive, and critics say that run-off from nitrogen fertilizer has contributed to polluted waterways, most notably the growing "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico. At the same time, cattle's corn-centric diets have contributed to fattier, less-nutritious beef that is higher in cholesterol and lower in good fatty acids, some say. Because the cost of that beef is relatively low, consumers can afford to eat more of it, often in the form of fast-food burgers. "Basically, it comes down to time," said Patricia Whisnant, president of the American Grassfed Assn., and a Missouri producer whose Rain Crow Ranch is among the largest grass-fed beef operations in the country. "You take an animal off of pasture, you give him antibiotics and corn, you're looking at harvesting that animal in 12 to 14 months. On grass, you're looking at 24 months, and more likely 28." Altogether, these factors appear to be getting the attention of consumers who are willing to pay a premium for grass-fed beef. Producers and retailers are responding. Until recently, most grass-fed beef was sold directly by the producer to the consumer, who often arranges to buy a whole side of beef through a special arrangement. Some grass-fed beef is also sold directly through buyers clubs".

This reminds one of the parallel movement which was started some years ago to force the poultry farms to change their practices involving raising of the birds in cages packed fully without allowing them any movement. To day there are new guidelines emerging that requires poultry farms to change their operations drastically to meet with standards that ensure reasonable growing environment to the birds. Probably the current trend in the consumer attitude favoring grass-fed beef may also become to morrow's industry standard.

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

FOOD INFLATION-GOOD OR BAD?

With almost all countries in the world seriously worried about food inflation which causes upward movement of prices of most foods in the market, India seems to be a unique exception, with one of its ministers "boldly" stating  that rising inflation is a happy trend to be welcomed. His reasoning is that high consumer prices would bring higher returns to the poor farmers of the country! Can it be true? Can a responsible government favor a particular segment of the Society to the detriment of others? Is it alright if consumers are forced to pay high prices to the every day foods required to lead a normal life? What type of a philosophy is this? One can understand such a position taken by a farmers' lobby but not by a responsible government spokesman. Such utterances make the efforts of the government in subsidizing every agricultural crop grown in the country appear insincere while making the so called free market economics based policy a laughing stock! Here is a glimpse into this ridiculous situation created by this minister through his irresponsible utterances. 

Union Minister for Steel Beni Prasad Verma seems to have made a  habit out of courting controversies. His latest comments are not just likely to spell trouble for the Congress, but also will not go down well with the Samajwadi Party, that supports the UPA government at the centre. Talking to reporters on the sidelines of a function in Barabanki, near Lucknow, on Sunday, the minister said he was happy with the rising prices of these food items as it will benefit farmers. "Dal, atta, vegetables have all become expensive. The more the prices rise the better it is. I am very happy with inflation," he said.  Clarifying his remark today he said, "I am happy when farmers' income increases. High food prices good for farmers." He added he was sticking to what he had said.  Mr Beni Prasad Verma's  inflation rationale has been slammed by the Opposition. "The Congress leaders are not affected by inflation at all. They are turning a blind eye to what inflation is doing to people. Hence they are saying senseless things like farmers are benefitting from inflation. This shows the Congress' mentality," BJP Shahnawaz Hussain said. The Congress today tried to distance itself from Mr Verma's comments. "We put a stop on interest rate to control inflation. You should know that inflation is a matter of concern. I will offer sweets to him (Beni Prasad Verma) and ask him to keep his words sweet."

One wonders whether this minister, after enjoying power and perks for many years so freely bestowed by the government has forgotten whether he is still living in India where there is a wide disparity between what farmer receives and what consumers pay in the market. It is an established fact that the market situation in India is neither farmer -friendly not consumer-friendly, with almost 40-200% of the consumer price being swallowed by the middlemen through monopolistic and unfair trade means. Against such a background how can one expect the farmer to be benefited by high ruling market prices. The ones who will be benefited are the middlemen who act as a conduit for flow of food materials between the producer and the end user. It is fortunate that the views expressed by this insensitive politician are not shared by others in the government!  

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

FOOD LABELING-SUGAR CONTENT UNDER ATTACK

The front of the pack labeling regulations are supposed to help the consumers to understand better about many aspects of the contents inside including nutritive value. However due to practical reasons there is a limit as to how much information can be loaded on the labels and there are doubts regarding the effectiveness of the present regulations. In a country like India such declaration printed in English has very little value as majority of the population are English illiterate and the information provided probably does not serve the consumer community much. Still the current labeling practices do serve a purpose in documenting the nature of the product for quality and safety agencies to administer food laws. Having established beyond a shadow of doubt regarding the role played by sugar in progressively deteriorating health status of human beings in many countries, knowing the sugar content in a product helps the consumer to pick and choose those with least sugar levels among processed food products. One of the new proposals now being considered to improve the effectiveness of labeling involves declaration of "added sugar" in the product during processing. Whether this will serve any purpose or how added sugar can be distinguished from naturally present sugar are issues which require to be deliberated before implementing the same. Here is a take on this new rumblings in the food processing sector with a potential to polarize the stakeholders further in the coming months. 

The American Bakers Assn. objects to the plan, saying (among other things) that since added and natural sugars are chemically the same, to enforce the labels the FDA would have to be able to inspect companies' recipes and they don't have the authority to do that. At the FDA website, you can read about the FDA's proposal and view comments that have been submitted. The National Dairy Council says such labels could lead to consumer confusion and unintended consequences, such as people avoiding nutritious foods that have sugars added to make them more tasty. They note that you can already see how much sugar is in food from the info on food packages right now. The National Milk Producers Federation worries about consumer confusion too. The Sugar Assn. recommends the study is not done, for a variety of reasons: They say the effect of added sugar on obesity is overstated, the FDA wouldn't have the regulatory power to act on this info, and that "it is in the public interest that FDA maintain its focus on the prominence of calories, maintain its science-based positions regarding added sugars labeling, and not further confuse consumers by adding unwarranted information to the [Nutrition Facts Panel]." And so it goes on … the National Confectioners Assn.opposes the research, the American Beverage Assn. opposes it.......while......on the flip side, the American Heart Assn."strongly supports the inclusion of added sugars on the Nutrition Facts Label" and writes that "In addition to the AHA, the 2010 Dietary Guidelines, MyPlate.gov, and countless other sources of dietary guidance recommend that consumers limit consumption of added sugars. Yet this can be difficult to do because added sugars are not currently included on the Nutrition Facts label. While 'sugars' is listed, the Nutrition Facts label does not distinguish between naturally occurring sugars such as those found in fruit or milk, which are associated with other important components inherent to foods such as vitamins and minerals, and added sugars, which are not." The Center for Science in the Public Interest is for the study, The Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at Yale University is for the study too. It is, of course, true that people can be misled if they overly focus on one particular facet of a food and that current labels on food packages are very good at helping us get confused that way. "Low-fat" items can contain just as many calories as higher-fat foods, and "organic" processed foods can be just as junky as any other kind, and just because Lucky Charms are made with whole grains, that does not make them a health food.

In a society where daily diet is made of processed foods as high as 70-80%, extent of sugar added by the industry during formulation may be critical and is controllable either voluntarily or by mandate. In such an environment declaration of added sugar can at least make the processor sensitive to the level of sugar incorporated and there is a possibility that voluntary reduction can be achieved. This is already happening with respect to salt and there is no reason it cannot happen with sugar too. It is not understandable as to why sugar needs to be added in high concentrations when many products can be still palatable at sugar levels of 10-15%. The current proposal to force the processors to declare the extent of sugar added can even set in motion competition among the processors to reduce added sugar as much as possible to gain consumer patronage. Technically it may be difficult to estimate in a finished product how much sugar has been added but as the processor knows the truth he can be forced to declare the same. While voluntary declaration of added sugar can be immediately enforced, monitory regime can be thought of later when reliable and simpler techniques are available for differentiating between natural and added sugar.  

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

UNCERTAINTIES OF "BIG SERVE" BEVERAGE BAN-WILL IT WORK?

A serious worry that is bothering many restaurants is how the new ban being proposed on "jumbo serving" size in some areas in the US will affect their sales. So far regulators have been targeting food with high caloric density or high fat content and if and when any restrictions are placed on these parameters, it would have been much easier to circumvent the same with modified formulations and new product designs. But the effect of "volume" based ban is some what difficult to comprehend because of the complexities inherent in such a control regime. American market was always driven by the concept that bigger the size of the offering, higher will be the business and the foundation of this very concept is going to be affected by the new policy on serving size of beverages. It is always true in the US that smaller the pack size, higher will be the unit cost driving the consumers, especially those who are careful with their money, to go for bigger sizes which, in turn, drives the business raising volumes. The scale of economy for manufacture invariably brings down the production cost and raise the profit margin. Probably this may be reason for the industry to protest and resist the implementation of the ban on large sized beverage servings. Here is a report regarding the dilemma of an internationally successful coffee chain as to what could be the repercussions of the new policy on its business.

"Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's plan, which would limit the size of sweet drinks sold at many establishments to 16 ounces or less, exempts any beverage that contains more than 50 percent milk by volume. Officials in City Hall and in Seattle said they were unsure how those rules might affect the Starbucks family of syrupy, milkshake-style coffee drinks, catnip to thousands of caffeine addicted New Yorkers who frequent the company's 190 outlets in Manhattan. "It's hard for us to give a definitive word on which of our beverages would be impacted by the proposal," said Linda Mills, a Starbucks spokeswoman, although she said the company was confident that many of its drinks would fall outside the proposed ban. The Starbucks question — complicated by the varying amounts of ice, sugar and milk in each customized drink — is just one of the ambiguities facing the city as it begins a three-month public comment period on the proposed rules. On Tuesday, the Board of Health, which has final say over the rules, agreed to consider the proposal formally at its next meeting, in September. The rules would ban large sodas sold at fast-food restaurants, movie theaters and street carts. But the Big Gulp, the supersized soda cup at 7-Eleven, would still be allowed under the proposal, because the proposal would exempt the sale of drinks in groceries or convenience stores".

As the new policy has not yet been implemented and it is being subjected to more stringent scrutiny in the coming days there may be some changes that will meet with some of the peculiar problems which are likely to be encountered during translation of the policy into practice. Also not understood is why convenient stores and grocery outlets are exempted from the purview of the ban and it is possible that more such stores will start beverage services for circumventing the regulation to make a fast buck in the process. What about the industry offering unlimited refills for the basic 16 oz cup for a slightly higher price which in effect will nullify the spirit behind the new policy. There is a case to exempt beverages containing fruit pulps and milk solids, even if the content is less than 50% because they are much more preferable to 100% sugar based drinks, providing some nutrition. There is every justification to bring in other foods also within the ambit of the banning policy which may include jumbo sized ice creams and large sized high fat products.  Ultimately whether such "pressures" in the form of restrictive policies will make any impact on the obesity epidemic remains to be seen. But trying to do some thing, even with a small chance of success, must not be given up in the face of any hostility from the industry and other arm chair critics!

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

THE SWEET TOOTH-A WEAKNESS INHERITED!

Who has to bear the blame for to day's over eating trend among young as well as the old, rich as well as the poor? The blame game drags in all the players who have some thing to do with food production, processing, marketing, consuming, food science and governing but the problem does not fit into any equation or mathematical modeling. What is needed is a concerted effort by all to tackle this menacing problem after understanding the reasons underlying the problem. While education of consumers, persuading the industry for voluntary action and coercion by government have the potential to reverse the present trend, so far none seems to be working as per expectations. Latest controversy about the policy being promoted in New York for banning large sized sugary beverages which has created a ruckus among human right activists and some consumer organizations is another example of the intractability of this grave problem. According to some analysts coercive policies only will work because the present addiction to sugary products is inherited through human evolution and unless humans are helped to over come this attraction to sugar through some compulsions, no voluntary action may work to chuck this trend. Here is a critique on this issue which appears to be reasonable in its conclusions.

"Since sugar is a basic form of energy in food, a sweet tooth was adaptive in ancient times, when food was limited. However, excessive sugar in the bloodstream is toxic, so our bodies also evolved to rapidly convert digested sugar in the bloodstream into fat. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors needed plenty of fat — more than other primates — to be active during periods of food scarcity and still pay for large, expensive brains and costly reproductive strategies (hunter-gatherer mothers could pump out babies twice as fast as their chimpanzee cousins). Simply put, humans evolved to crave sugar, store it and then use it. For millions of years, our cravings and digestive systems were exquisitely balanced because sugar was rare. Apart from honey, most of the foods our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate were no sweeter than a carrot. The invention of farming made starchy foods more abundant, but it wasn't until very recently that technology made pure sugar bountiful. The food industry has made a fortune because we retain Stone Age bodies that crave sugar but live in a Space Age world in which sugar is cheap and plentiful. Sip by sip and nibble by nibble, more of us gain weight because we can't control normal, deeply rooted urges for a valuable, tasty and once limited resource. What should we do? One option is to do nothing, while hoping that scientists find better cures for obesity-related diseases like heart disease and Type 2 diabetes. I'm not holding my breath for such cures, and the costs of inaction, already staggering, would continue to mushroom. A more popular option is to enhance public education to help us make better decisions about what to eat and how to be active. This is crucial but has so far yielded only modest improvements. The final option is to collectively restore our diets to a more natural state through regulations. Until recently, all humans had no choice but to eat a healthy diet with modest portions of food that were low in sugar, saturated fat and salt, but high in fiber. They also had no choice but to walk and sometimes run an average of 5 to 10 miles a day. Mr. Bloomberg's paternalistic plan is not an aberrant form of coercion but a very small step toward restoring a natural part of our environment".

The perfectly balanced argument questions the right of the parents to guide their children or the schools to ban undesirable foods if government based on scientific evidence cannot do any thing to curb consumption of super rich, nutritionally unbalanced foods that destroys the health of its citizens, knowingly or unknowingly. If suicides can be prevented by coercive laws or if smoking can be restricted through restrictive policies, why not force people to restrict consumption of patently unhealthy foods? When a patient goes to a physician, his ailment is diagnosed and appropriate medicines, may be bitter to taste, are prescribed. Does the patient protest about it? Rarely, because he knows that it is done for his good. Then why not accept scientifically based restrictions for curing the disease of obesity? Sooner this bitter truth is realized, better it will be for the human race as a whole.    

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

THE SUBSIDY "MANIA"-WEALTHY NATIONS MUST SCRAP THE POLICY

Food inflation is a concern shared by all countries, poor as well the rich ones and many suggestions have been articulated to reign in this trend that costs the consumer dearly in terms of diminishing disposal income. When there is a normal situation under a free economy the demand-supply gap determines the market price unless there is too much speculation and hording. That rich countries like the US and those in the European Union pay their farmers hefty agricultural subsidy is a fact of life though there is strong opposition to this unethical practice from poor developing countries at the WTO level. But in stead of these subsidies on the way out, they are actually increasing if the direction of economic policies of developed countries is any indication. For example the EU is slated to increase its subsidy quantum under the Common Agricultural Policy of the Union from the current Euro 55 billion to Euro 63 billion by the year 2020. According to economic experts such subsidies have a snow balling effect on food prices all over the world besides adversely affecting the land productivity. Here is a take on this issue.

"By 2020 the EU is planning to increase expenditure on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) by some €8billion a year at a time of catastrophically bad public finances. Despite the concern about pressure on food prices, reform of the CAP will not increase efficiency or lower prices to the consumer. The sweeping rejection of the benefits of new technologies and the proposals for more government control of food markets by many NGOs and lobby groups would exacerbate current problems. The geographical and economic realities are such that yields per hectare will have to increase substantially over the next 40 years. The CAP – especially after recent reforms – leads to farm yields well below the level of maximum efficiency. This lack of efficiency has several dimensions: land is not used for the most efficient crops; yields per hectare are well below the maximum attainable levels; and incentives to adopt – or research – new technologies that will increase productivity have been blunted. Research shows that farm subsidies do not necessarily help bio-diversity and that their abolition would lead to a less than corresponding fall in farm incomes. To a large extent, subsidies become capitalised in land values, thus increasing costs to farmers. Between 1992 and 2009 – the period since the introduction of direct payments under the CAP – the value of agricultural land and buildings in the UK rose 400 per cent compared with 38 per cent general inflation. This suggests that one of the effects of removing direct payments would be a decline in land prices, rents and associated production costs. The abolition of subsidies in New Zealand demonstrates how government subsidies damage productivity and their removal leads to increased productivity". 

Is it not ironical that in a country like the US super rich farmer families are paid large sums every year from the exchequer "for not cultivating the land"? Similarly direct subsidies in the EU make the farmers less innovative and industrious, satisfied with the return they are already getting and the chain effect is stagnation of crop yields while food needs are increasing continuously. If the demand outstrips supply as it is going to happen in a few years from now if the current practices continue, the food prices have to go north creating further hardships to the citizens. It is argued, probably with some justification, that removal of farm subsidies would wake up the farming community to work harder and use more efficient technologies to raise land productivity which in turn can be expected to reduce market prices of food materials. Whether this is going to happen depends on the collective wisdom of countries that make up the EU.

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

FOOD SAFETY RESPONSIBILITY-GROWERS VS PROCESSORS

While debating about who are responsible for the safety of foods consumed by the citizens there is rarely any unanimity. There are several players in producing and distributing food to the market and they include the grower, transporter, handling agency, processor and the retailer. Of course even consumer can be some time responsible for food related episodes. In the case of processed and packed & sealed foods the processor has to ensure that only safety conformed contents are marketed and it is more or less certain that responsible processors assume responsibility for the safety of their products till the date of expiry or till it is opened. Controversy comes when one deals with raw meat products and cold stored open packs which are liable to be contaminated at different handling stages. Holding the farmer responsible for the produce they supply to the retailer may not be absolutely justified considering that contamination can always occur once the product is transferred to the retailer. Here is an interesting discussion on this issue.   

"A food safety expert has told growers that they should not rely on third party audits to guarantee the safety of their produce. Larry Goodridge, associate professor at the Center for Meat Safety and Quality in the Department of Animal Sciences at Colorado State University, told farmers that they bear primary responsibility for food safety. "Each farm or processing facility has to be able to assess their own risks," Goodridge told the governor's annual forum on Colorado agriculture in Denver. "Everybody who produces food has to be responsible for the safety of the food they produce. You cannot rely on third parties. You just can't." He cited the listeria outbreak of last year that was responsible for the deaths of 32 people, and which, for example, was traced to a farm that has just recently been awarded a "superior" rating from a third party food inspector. The Food and Drug Administration does not regulate third-party auditors, and a congressional report released in January quoted the auditing company that graded Jensen farms as saying audits are not intended to improve food safety standards".

The above discourse applies to the situation involving technical auditors on whom the farms depend on for safety certification. Dependence on third party auditors is inevitable because most farms do not have the necessary wherewithal to test their products but it appears that it may become mandatory for the farms to assume responsibility for the safety of their offerings if the present trend of thinking is taken into reckoning. It does not augur well for the meat industry if they are punished when their auditors do not do a good job after taking hefty fees. Government must take the auditors also as responsible for bad products which only can make the latter more diligent and careful while doing their job.

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