PLASTIC PACKAGING CAUSE FOR OBESITY AND DIABETES?

It is unimaginable as to why hundreds of chemicals are allowed for use by the food industry for one reason or the other. While pharmaceutical industry is shackled, forcing it to be more careful and cautious in using different ingredients in medicine formulations, food industry is allowed to get away, mostly under the so called GRAS provision under which proof of safety is not insisted on!  The result is that many of the food ingredients had to be withdrawn after consumers were exposed to their dangers unnecessarily. Latest to join the list of monster chemicals are phthalates and Bisphenol A. Though indications about their suspect safety credentials were known earlier, they were allowed to be used for technical reasons ignoring the harm they could bring upon the consumers. The dangers posed by the above chemicals have been highlighted succinctly in a recent report which has some credibility. 

"Children exposed to two chemicals commonly used in food packaging are more likely to be obese or show signs of diabetes precursors than those with lower exposure, new research suggests. Researchers found urine levels of one type of phthalate, used to soften plastic, were tied to a higher risk of insulin resistance among teenagers. Based on data from the same large nutrition survey, another study group linked bisphenol A, or BPA - used to line aluminum cans - to obesity and larger waists in youth. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about one in six U.S. children and teenagers is now obese. "Clearly unhealthy diet and lack of physical activity are the drivers of this epidemic … but increasingly environmental chemicals are being identified as possible contributors," Dr. Leonardo Trasande, a pediatrician from New York University, said. He and his colleagues analyzed data from a nationally-representative health and nutrition survey conducted in 2003 to 2008, which included urine and blood tests for 766 adolescents aged 12 to 19. They found urinary levels of one particular type of phthalate, known as Di-2-ethylhexylphthalate (DEHP), were closely tied to a teenager's chance of having insulin resistance, a precursor to diabetes. Just under 15 percent of study participants with the lowest one-third of DEHP levels were insulin resistant, compared to almost 22 percent of those with the highest levels. DEHP, Trasande said, is often used to soften plastic bottles. It's used in plastic that is printed with the number 3 for recycling. The researchers said their findings don't prove that eating food packaged with phthalates causes insulin resistance. For example, it's possible children who are already insulin-resistant have unhealthier eating habits and eat and drink more packaged products - thus the higher phthalate levels in their urine. But Trasande told Reuters Health the chemical may influence how the body secretes insulin in response to sugar. Because of that, he tells parents to avoid buying plastics made with DEHP. "I advise them not to wash plastic containers in the dishwasher," he said. And, "When the plastic is clearly etched or damaged, it's time to throw it away." For a separate study published concurrently in Pediatrics, Dr. Joyce Lee from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and her colleagues used nutrition survey data through 2010 to compare BPA levels in the urine of six- to 18-year-olds with other health measures. In their analysis of 3,370 kids, BPA - an industrial chemical that may mimic estrogen in the body - was not linked to insulin resistance or blood sugar. But children with higher BPA levels were more likely to be obese, and tended to have a higher waist circumference-to-height ratio, than those with the lowest levels."

The particular variety of Phthalate-DEHP is implicated in developing insulin resistance leading to diabetic conditions, especially among children. Similarly BPA is now being confirmed as an obesogenic chemical causing early obesity among children. On the face of the fact that almost 20% of American kids are obese and the consumption of processed foods is very high in that country, there is a definite cause for alarm. It is high time that safety authorities wake up to this shocking reality and revisit the issue of safety of all food ingredient currently allowed for use by the industry before further damage is caused to the innocent public.

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

THE GREAT CORN TRAGEDY-PULL BETWEEN FOOD AND FUEL!

Till recently corn was being blamed for the obesity epidemic in the US because of its connection to High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) which is suspected to be metabolized differently from white sugar. Also adding to the misery of corn is the predominance of genetically modified version in the American landscape which is being viewed with suspicion by a vast majority of people all over the world. When the American government enunciated its biofuel policy, corn got a big boost and conversion of corn into ethanol through microbiological route became a big business. It is a fact that more than 40% of the grain grown in that country finds its way to ethanol distilleries for blending with petroleum fuels. The food and beverage industry which depends  predominantly on corn for formulating their products seems to be in a blind because of the escalating cost of buying their corn needs due to strong pull from the biofuel industry. The result is significant price increase for all the products made from corn including a vast array of fast foods. The fast food industry therefore has a right to blame the supply shortage for its compulsions to raise prices for these products. Here is a take on the dicey situation. 

"From the grocery store to your favorite takeout joint to the drive-thru window, you're paying more for what you eat and leaders in the fast food industry say the reason for these increased costs is the federal government's continued support of corn-based ethanol. The bushel price of corn has nearly tripled in the past decade. Forty percent of what's grown today goes into fuel tanks and that percentage could rise if the current federal mandate--known as the Renewable Fuel Standard--remains in place. "It's harder every day to offer great value because our costs are skyrocketing," Lisa Ingram, president of White Castle, recently said in Washington. "In fact, since the RFS became law our cost for beef has increased by forty-seven percent." The fast food industry contends that with more corn going to ethanol gas, there's less for traditional corn-based food products and feed for farm animals, thus driving up the costs for restaurant owners."

One wonders whether the situation is really so bad as to create a crisis for the fast food industry. After all these fast food joints are severely indicted for their junk foods which are suspected to be causing many life style disorders like CVD, blood pressure and obesity. Why not take a positive view of this development and consider this as a blessing in disguise, as less and less people would patronize junk foods when the prices go up! In a country where business is accorded a higher priority than the health of the citizen, one should not be surprised if the government eventually comes forward to provide relief to the fast food industry through some form of policy intervention! One can understand the dilemma of the government as it wants to reduce consumption of fossil fuels through admixing it with ethanol while corn production is not sufficient to meet the demands from both food and ethanol sectors. It may be time to fast tract development of commercial technologies that can convert non-food biomass into alcohol or accelerate microbiological technologies such as algae so that food sector is insulated from shortages of its feed stock.

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

THE WHOLE GRAIN FOOD PRODUCTS IN THE MARKET-MISLEADING THE CONSUMER

The new mantra being touted for attracting the junk food wary consumers is to eat more foods made from "whole grains" and there are thousands of products now being marketed touting to contain more of whole grains. Though putting the logo on the label of "whole grain" is legal as per the letter of the law, its spirit is being violated by many processors by manipulating the recipe to include some whole grains. Unfortunately this is a skewed approach because most products contain more sugar and fat than normal products though they have marginally higher dietary fiber. If this is not perpetuating a fraud on the consumer, what else it is? In the absence mandatory restrictions on labeling such products as healthy, industry will get away by its new brazenness! It is a tragedy that there are many products being churned out by the industry claiming to be multi grain based ones, a close look at the proportion of "other" grains to the main one, usually wheat is minuscule. Here is a critical look at these unethical practices of the food industry which must be frowned upon!  

"The benefits of switching from refined to whole grain foods are well established, including lower risk of cardiovascular disease, weight gain, and type 2 diabetes, the journal Public Health Nutrition reports. "Given the significant prevalence of refined grains, starches, and sugars in modern diets, identifying a unified criterion to identify higher quality carbohydrates is a key priority in public health," said Rebecca Mozaffarian, study author from the social and behavioural sciences department at Harvard School of Public Health. Based on this evidence, the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) 2010 dietary guidelines recommend that Americans consume at least three servings of whole grain products daily, and the new US national school lunch standards require that at least half of all meals be whole grain-rich. However, no single standard exists for defining any product as a "whole grain". From two major US grocers, researchers identified a total of 545 grain products in eight categories: breads, bagels, English muffins, cereals, crackers, cereal bars, granola bars, and chips. They collected nutrition content, ingredient lists, and the presence or absence of the Whole Grain Stamp on product packages from all of these products, according to a Harvard statement. They found that grain products with the Whole Grain Stamp, one of the most widely-used front-of-package symbols, were higher in fibre and lower in trans fats, but also contained significantly more sugar and calories compared to products without the Stamp. The three USDA recommended criteria also had mixed performance for identifying healthier grain products. Overall, the American Heart Association's standard (a ratio of total carbohydrate to fibre) proved to be the best indicator of overall healthfulness".

The suggestion that in stead of giving wide latitude to the industry in using such consumer attracting label claims, food safety agencies both national as well as international must work out a consensus on what constitutes a healthy whole grain food. The ratio of carbohydrate to sugar may be a criterion or ratio of carbohydrate to sugar as well as fat could be a better parameter. Alternately the dietary fiber content could be a major consideration while allowing such labeling practices. of course some clever players may add fiber from external sources which may not confer the same benefit as using whole grain flours which are much more diverse in terms of nutritional contents. Food scientists and nutritionists must put their heads together to help the consumers to choose healthy foods by evolving realistic standards for foods claiming to be manufactured from whole grains or from a blend of grains.

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

TAXING THE FOOD-IS IT ETHICALLY AND MORALLY JUSTIFIED?

Taxation and other financial impositions by governments all over the world are borne by the citizens believing that the money so collected goes for developmental activities beneficial to the citizen. But this does not happen, especially in an over democratic country like India where silent tax players never ask the government about lack of development in spite of paying taxes at rates unbearable to many. On top of it natural resources like spectrum, coal etc are distributed at throw away prices creating huge financial scams, depriving the government the much needed financial inputs for various developmental activities. Added to this a small percentage of citizens, that too mostly from the salaried class who pay income tax while a bevy of taxes are "innovated", like sales tax, value added tax, excise duty, import duty, service tax, wealth tax, road tax, property registration fees etc to fleece the citizens. While all these are understandable, what is reprehensible is the tax levied on food and drugs by state governments making them more expensive. How can any one justify taxing a basic food like food grain which is the essential for any human being to lead a normal life. Here is a critique on this subject.

'High taxes, levied by major food grain growing states of Punjab and Haryana, have made the Centre's task of selling wheat at low rates in the open market difficult. The taxes, ranging from 4.7 per cent in Madhya Pradesh to 11.5 per cent in Haryana and still higher at almost 14.5 per cent in Punjab, are incurred by the Centre while procuring grains from farmers every year at a fixed minimum support price (MSP). It is difficult for the Centre not to pass on these taxes to consumers at the time of selling grains in the open market as then its food subsidy burden will further inflate. According to some estimates, around 10 per cent or Rs 7,000 crore of the total food subsidy in 2011-12 was due to state taxes and levies, which the Food Corporation of India (FCI) paid by way of levies and taxes to different states".

Government of India generates inflation index periodically and one is not sure how reliable these figures are. Still a major contributor to inflation is the taxes levied on every conceivable consumer material the government can set its yes on! How can the private vendors and shops can be faulted if they also indulge in raising the prices on their own. Look at the hotel sector which has seen price hikes to the extent of 100% during the last two years as they are not covered by the rule of compulsory MRP declaration. Even those covered under MRP regulations consumers have learned long ago that the MRP declaration does not serve much of a purpose because, till recently, consumer products industry has been practicing fraudulent means in keeping the price line steady but progressively reducing the quantity within a pack! A honest government if it has any consideration for the sufferings of its people must exempt all foods, especially the basic ones, from the purview of punitive taxation!  The excuse that federal government in India cannot prevent the states from imposing tax on foods is just an excuse which the citizens cannot accept.

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