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

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

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

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

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

THE "OILY" MESS-THE CONTINUING SAGA OF INDIAN CONSUMER

Edible oil has always been the "Achilles Heel" of the Government of India while the pulses situation borders on a trauma! No matter who rules the country the edible oils and pulses have always been the "playing field" for hoarders, industry, traders and importers to make money at the expense of the citizen. Except playing lip sympathy Government has proved its impotence in addressing the problem of shortage with the oil mafia holding the consumer to ransom year after year. Whether oil is an essential commodity required ad libitum for the health of the consumer is a bigger question that was never answered, considering it is one of the root causes of obesity and other food related diseases. If the per capita availability of edible oils in the country is taken into consideration it meets the average nutritional need of a person but averages never tell the real story with consumption invariably being lop sided. A report that the vegetable oil imports have registered a quantum jump recently is alarming though the reasons for this undesirable development may be many. Here is a gist of the above report which deserves serious attention by all concerned to think about the way India can get out of this perennial trap.

"A sustained slowdown in domestic oilseed crushing activity has led to an increase in the import of vegetable (veg) oil in recent months. Consequently, overall import of veg oil shot up 73 per cent in the second quarter of the current oil year (November 2011–October 2012) as against 31 per cent growth in the first quarter, to meet a deficit created by lower production from domestic sources. Data compiled by the Solvent Extractors' Association (SEA) showed overall veg oil import rose 95 per cent to 897,404 tonnes in April alone, compared with 475,123 tonnes in the corresponding month of the previous year. During the last quarter of the current oil year, import surged to 2.52 million tonnes (mt) compared to 1.46 mt in the same period last year. With a marginal decline in the first quarter, owing mainly to increased availability from domestic sources on intensified local crushing, the overall import of veg oil recorded a 31 per cent increase at 4.71 mt, against 3.6 mt in the comparable period last year".

Is there a serious flaw in the planning of agriculture in this country and if so who is responsible for it? Can all those who ruled in the past and present can be absolved of the responsibility in bringing the country to such a sorry pass? Excuses are galore when it comes to enforcing accountability but such excuses need to be brushed away mercilessly to punish those guilty. What type of planning is done by the much touted National Planning Commission during the last 5 decades? It is simply common senses to understand that the production problems of oil seeds and pulses are closely linked to the agricultural policy and the governments do not seem to have the required determination to evolve a long term policy for the agriculture. After all farmers will produce only those crops that will give maximum returns to his labor. Look at the sugarcane policy which ensures high returns in the range of Rs 50,000  per acre and if the land is suitable or water is available 365 days as in areas near Mandya District in Karnataka, farmers cannot be forced to switch over to other crops. It is for the government to persuade the farmers to grow certain crops as a part of the national policy through various fiscal incentives. Unless this is done India will remain a massive importer of oils and pulses eternally.

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

"COUNTRY OF ORIGIN"-LOOPHOLES IN THE LABELING REGULATION

One of the troubling questions that haunt international food trade is whether any country can impose unilateral laws which smacks of discrimination. The COOL policy now being implemented in some countries is an example where the retail shops are required to exhibit on the label the country of origin of any products sold by them. The "Country of Origin Law" (COOL), purported to be intended to serve the right of consumer to know fully about the nature of contents in a sealed food pack, is grossly discriminatory because it serves the selfish purpose of the government in the country of import to protect its own domestic industry against competition from imports. Interestingly the local retail industry itself is against such a policy because some of the products imported are far cheaper than the locally produced ones though quality wise both are comparable. Though the importing country governments feel that sheer patriotism would drive the consumers in hordes to buy locally made products, when it comes to buying many families consider price as the most sensitive factor in deciding on a purchase. If this is the reality it is unlikely that COOL will work in favor of domestically made food products. Here is a take on this interesting issue.

"COLES and Woolworth's are selling imported food without disclosing where it comes from, while still being able to boast it is "Made in Australia". The supermarket chains are using gaps in labeling laws that enable them to avoid disclosing where imports come from - despite laws stating that shoppers should be told the country of origin of their food. When the supermarkets were asked about examples of imported food sold under their private labels without showing the country of origin, Coles revealed two fruit juices for which the original source was undisclosed. Advertisement: Story continues below Woolworth's revealed Homebrand dried apricots, sultanas and dates were sourced from Turkey and 90 per cent of Homebrand orange juice concentrate was from Brazil. The labels describe the dried fruits only as "Packed in Australia from imported ingredients". A spokeswoman for Woolworth's agreed it was impossible for customers to determine the country of origin of these products "but we would also make the point that this labelling complies with what we are required to do". There is widespread disaffection with the labeling system, with Coles, the Australian Food and Grocery Council and Choice calling for a better approach. Only one in 100 Australians can explain what ''Made in Australia'' actually means under the complicated formula in the law, according to research by the labeling lobby group Australian Made, Australian Grown. "We believe it is so complicated and people are so confused about what this means that it tends to devalue the Made in Australia label," grocery council chief executive Kate Carnell said. In one Coles example, its Smartbuy three-litre apple and blackcurrant juice is sold under the label "Made in Australia from imported ingredients". To use "Made in Australia" without any further qualification, manufacturers must meet a test that shows both a substantial transformation and at least 50 per cent of the value of the good being created in Australia, including the packaging. This month, the federal government took no action on reforms to clarify country-of-origin labels proposed in the Blewett report into food labelling. Loopholes in the laws include food that is imported into New Zealand, repackaged and then sent to Australia, with no need for a label about where the food originally came from. In Australia, labelling foods with a country of origin is a legal requirement. But the loophole exists because of Australia's free trade agreement with NZ, which has a domestic policy of voluntary country-of-origin labels (except for wine). Coles and Woolworths say they label all NZ-sourced food to the higher Australian standards".

The fact food industry in Australia is exploiting the loopholes in the COOL policy speaks volumes about the likely negative impact it will have on food business in that country. Given the fact that Australia cannot provide fully the needed food for its citizens through domestic production calls for imports of some foods at least, it is imperative to go for imports. If the retailers stop importing these foods, there can be a shortage of these items, generating an upward price push for these products, harming the interests of domestic consumers. These discriminative policies ought to be frowned upon by WTO as they are hindrance for a truly free international trade. When industry world over are adopting extreme and highly stringent safety protocols under ISO, HACCP and other systems of  safety conformation, where is the need for the citizens to know from which country the food is imported? Does this information help the consumer to decide about the quality and safety of the product he is buying? No way! At best COOL is a protectionist policy that deserve to be condemned in no uncertain terms.

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