IS ICE A FOOD? A DEBATABLE ISSUE!

Water is a unique substance which is vital for life and on an average a person needs 2 liters of water every day for maintaining normal health. Yet water is never considered a food as it does not provide any of the nutrients like calories, proteins, fats or essential micro nutrients. For a number of years in a country like India quality and safety of water used by food processing industry were never covered by the erstwhile PFA rules. Only now that it is receiving attention from the regulators and water for food processing must meet the minimum standards laid down under the ISI quality band. Ice is another substance used extensively by the food industry including fish processors and surprisingly no law covers this ubiquitous substance leaving the ice trade totally uncontrolled. This issue is now receiving attention at the hands of regulators and new rules are being promulgated to meet the exigency of the situation. Here is a take on this emerging development vis-a-vis ice.  

'That means, packaged ice must be produced in accordance with the agency's Current Good Manufacturing Practices in Manufacturing, Packing, or Holding Human Food.  Translation? Ice manufacturers "must produce, hold, and transport ice in clean and sanitary conditions, monitor the cleanliness and hygiene of employees, use properly cleaned and maintained equipment, and use water that is safe and sanitary." During inspections, FDA investigators make sure: the plumbing design prevents contamination, the water supply is safe and sanitary, and and the facility and grounds are sanitary. Small-scale producers are exempt. Labels must also meet FDA requirements. An ingredient list and nutrition fact box are not necessary, but the labels must contain other information such as the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor of the ice and the net quantity of the contents. Ice labeled as made from spring water or artesian well water must actually be derived from those sources".

With refrigeration technology developing at a fast pace, use of solid ice is becoming some what declining but those who transport fresh fish still depend on solid ice made by the so called ice factories, most of them located near the fish landing regions on the coastal areas for temporary preservation till they reach the market or processing facilities. Though vectors like bacteria do not survive at temperatures less than 4 C, there is the possibility of dirt, non-biological contaminants and even live but hibernating bacteria getting into the ice in the factories where it is made under unhygienic conditions. Therefore laying down standards for adherence by the ice manufacturers is timely and crucial.  Strict compliance to these standards must be insisted on and enforced.

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

AIR LINE FOODS MORE RISKY?- NEW FINDINGS

Air travel, especially of long duration, is both tiresome and boring. In-flight music and video entertainment facilities make such travels some what tolerable while the foods served are supposed to be of mouth-watering quality. Modern Air Lines companies even offer diverse menu options to cater to different ethnic and cultural back ground of potential travelers. It is in this context that recent reports damning the safety of these foods emanating from the US are raising some alarm among travelers using US Carriers. While FDA is to be complimented for bringing to surface gross violations of hygiene and sanitary standards in kitchens where the foods are prepared for supply to the air lines. What is appalling is the response of the Carriers brushing aside these allegations lightly and probably FDA may have to take severe deterrent action against such repeat violators immediately lest the passenger confidence on airline foods is shattered. Here is a gist of the report culled out from reliable international media which provides a sad reading.

Airplane food has long been the butt of jokes for being bland, unimaginative and generally unappetizing, but now there is evidence to suggest that the meals served by airlines are not just lackluster, but they might actually make passengers sick. Inspections of airlines and outside caterers conducted by the Food and Drug Administration have revealed facilities crawling with mice, roaches and ants, and food preparation areas swarming with flies. According FDA health violation records obtained by ABC's 20/20, over the past four years, there have been more than 1,500 violations in the airline food industry. The federal agency said that 'significant' problems were found at a much higher rate than in other industry it inspects.

No one is arguing that in-flight catering is an easy job but unless some minimum safety precautions are taken health of many passengers may be adversely affected. It was not along ago that under recessionary trends, air traffic volume started declining and with fierce competition among the players to attract traffic, food was being considered as an instrument to cajole passengers to travel by air. There were even a few reports that some major air line companies were planning to upgrade their menu to offer very high quality preparations on par with 5-star restaurants. Alas that proved to be a non-starter once the air traffic became normal. All air line must understand the basic fact that passengers are not yearning for home foods while they travel but they will never compromise with products prepared in infected and infested kitchens which can put their life in danger. It is time that kitchens preparing foods for air line passengers are brought under a global safety regime and protocols that can be easily monitored by competent food safety specialists on a 24/7 basis.

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

  

FOOD FOR FUTURE-OPTIMISM IS THE KEY TO MEET THE CHALLENGE

Future challenges in meeting the demand for food by an ever increasing global population are considered to be daunting and this food insufficiency is already affecting millions of people, more common in the poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America. The problem is further compounded by enormous food wastage that takes place, especially in many developing countries reducing the availability further. Food wastage in wealthy countries has another dimension and this takes place mostly in the super markets, house hold kitchens and dining tables. Against such a situation how can the food insecurity which is expected to assume alarming proportion in a few years from now, can be overcome? Opinions differ among experts regarding the ability of this planet to achieve quantum jump in food production keeping in step with the growing population. Here is a take on this issue which reflects the optimistic view of some experts and opinion makers. 

"Last week at a three-day conference in Lexington, Ky., with food producers from 70 countries, Woroniecki said he learned that the world's population is expected to grow by 3 billion come 2050. He said that would require food-producing countries to produce one-third more food on the acres they currently have, and he believes the need can be met with the help of new methods and technology.  "The technology is there to do it, we just need be better at it," Woroniecki said. "We can better use technology, in regards to genetics of a herd and buying replacement stock suited for the environment. We can also do the best to work with nature and manage the extremes in weather, so there are fewer ups and downs in beef production." Crop production also must be elevated to meet consumption of a growing population, and Jim Bobb, grain division manager for Southwest Grain in Dickinson, said the advancements are out there to make it happen."Technology and equipment like GPS help to increase productivity and increase food supplies," he said. "My feeling, as I see it today, is that we will be able to keep up with the growing demand for food, but there's always the unforeseen, like extended droughts, that could change that."

Mention of GM technology as a possible route to achieve increased food production is however misleading because this particular crop manipulation method has not yet become universally accepted as many unanswered safety questions makes it suspicious in the eyes of the consumer. The most recent episode of cyanide poisoning of cattle in some ranches in the US, supposed to be due to consuming GM grass is a timely reminder about the uncertainties associated with gene tinkering and the consequences there of. But there are many new cropping technology emerging which can increase productivity very significantly and more attention needs to be focused on them. By far the most critical input for crop enhancement is water and world over water scarcity is staring at the farmers due to indiscriminate exploitation of ground water, enormous wastage and neglecting water conservation technologies. Drought resistant crops are being developed at a faster rate than ever and the answer to future food scarcity lies in achieving productivity with use of less and less water. Due to intensive agriculture during the last five decades, especially using mono culture, soil degradation is a very serious problem and reclaiming such lands will be another pre-requisite for increasing food production. Probably considering the many options available, there may be enough grounds for optimism that world will never run out of food in the foreseeable future.   

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