LOCAVORE MOVEMENT-THE "BRANDING" INITIATIVE IN SOME CITIES

Locavore movement that is catching up in the US is a product of intense citizen awareness about the damage brought about by the modern industrial agriculture, the fast food industry culture and mindless tinkering with the food processing operations by the intensely profit driven food industry. The damage is caused to the environment as well as the health of the citizens who are forced to accept the situation as a fait accompli with a sense of helplessness. The present initiatives taken by some people with a missionary zeal, aims to persuade people to shun foods from far away markets and in stead patronize those which are produced or made locally. The urban gardening phenomenon presently seen is an outcome of such efforts and with increasing demand for locally sourced foods, more and more cities are looking for policies that will help expanding the local production base. Here is a case with the famed city of Chicago in United States which is trying to introduce an exclusive brand with appropriate iconic symbol that will distinctly show, when labeled, as the product raised within the city limit. Here is a take on this new initiative.

"Chicago Grown envisions a just, sustainable, and prosperous Chicago food system, cultivated by Chicago's diversity of cultural traditions and its residents' passion for growing, producing, cooking, and eating local foods. Chicago Grown promotes foods grown and processed in the city of Chicago by: Raising awareness of fruits, vegetables & other products grown in the city. Supporting established local growers and providing support and encouragement to new farmers and food entrepreneurs. Increasing demand for prepared and processed foods that use Chicago Grown ingredients. Highlighting the economic and community benefits of a local food system, including jobs and youth development. Celebrating and connecting diverse food cultures throughout the city. Partnering with all others who share our vision and support our mission"

It is a proof that the city-grown food movements in the US are gnawing at the mainstream food production system with a potential to outpace them in the coming years. Chicago is the latest example. This city wants to launch immediately a new program that will see that all food products raised within the city limits are labeled with the phrase "Chicago Grown". According to the definition, all fresh foods and processed foods containing at least 50% local ingredients will be deemed to be eligible for such labeling. For this new idea the Chicago Food Policy Advisory Council, has to be applauded and when launched this label will be the first one from a local city intended to boost local agriculture. According to some reports others are also are jumping into this band wagon such as Marin County, California where local producers now have the option of using a "Grown Local Marin County" on their goods for a fee of about $65. Similarly  in Asheville, North Carolina, residents can look for the "Appalachian Grown" label, which denotes items that have been produced within 100 miles of the city. This new initiative is almost similar to the geographical identity protection under the IPO regime to famed products like Scotch Whiskey which needs to be produced in Scotland while Darjeeling Tea provides another example of such locally produced materials gaining international recognition. The above initiatives are really forward looking which if pursued efficiently can change the face of America eventually. 

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

WOES OF THE HOTELIERS-A COURT''S WISE ADVICE

Does cooking and serving food constitute manufacturing? There may not be a clear answer to this vexed question which is causing some problem for the FSSAI to enforce its Rules and Regulations primarily targeted at Food manufacturing industry. When cooking assumes commercial tone and food preparations are made in large quantities using mechanized gadgets, it may be difficult to argue that this does not constitute manufacturing. After all there is a lot of commonalities between the food made in a restaurant and processed by the main stream industry such as raw material standards, preparation environment and its safety, sanitary aspects of gadgets and other paraphernalia used, personnel hygiene, storage conditions and product specifications. Therefore the contention of hoteliers that the food laws as they exist to day in India are not applicable to them may not be valid. Recent judgment by the judiciary in Mumbai asking the Government to frame separate rules for hotels may not be justifiable. Here is a take on this court ruling which may cause some discomfort to the food safety authorities.  

The Bombay High Court today suggested the Maharashtra government to frame separate rules and regulations under the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA) for food service providers like hotels and restaurants. A division bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice M S Sanklecha was hearing a petition filed by the Association of Indian Hotels and Restaurants (AHAR), which has over 6,000 members, challenging the constitutional validity of FSSA 2006 and the Rules and Regulations framed under the Act in 2011. According to the petitioner association, the provisions of FSSA are not applicable to food hotels and restaurants as they do not manufacture food. "The Act deals only with manufacturing of food articles and are mainly and substantially for manufacturing units. In hotels and restaurants food is cooked and served to customers. Cooking of food is not manufacturing," the petition states.

It is rather ingenious for one to argue that restaurant foods do not constitute "manufacturing" and hence the existing laws must not be enforced within a hotel! What if the Government amend the law to include food preparations in commercial establishments like hotels also in its ambit which may be perfectly justified? If it is a question of scale of operation, food industry has also small and cottage scale operators who are bound by the law and same should apply to restaurants also. The food laws are intended to protect the citizens from unsafe and sub-standard foods and therefore the standards should not be diluted at any cost. On the other hand there is a case for more making the rules more stringent because the vulnerability of citizens to food poisoning is much more when restaurant foods are consumed than consuming packed foods made by the food industry.

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

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

STREET VENDORS IN INDIA-THE ELECTION EVE ATTENTION FROM THE GOVERNMENT!

World over street foods are offered from the side pavements of many roads in major cities and towns where real estate is exorbitantly expensive and non-affordable to most small scale food vendors. It is true that this is a despicable practice due to its nuisance value to the citizens who are forced to walk on busy roads endangering their lives in the process. From time to time eviction efforts are made by the civic authorities but without much lasting success. Though most street vendors are supposed to be poor, they bribe the police as well as the civic officials to continue with their business without any harassment and hindrance. Since this sector has grown rapidly due to the affinity of even well to do citizens to the hot foods served by them on the road side, wishing away this phenomenon is no more possible and it has assumed a different dimension from a humanitarian angle. It is unbelievable that in India there are about 10 million hawkers across all the cities and towns doing a thriving business and since they constitute a sizable vote bank, the present political dispensation ruling in the country, in a desperate effort to expand its vote bank,  has cast its eyes on this group promising many things to attract their loyalty. A bill to offer many sops to these vendors has been just cleared by the government which is sought to be rushed through the Lok Sabha shortly. Here is a take on this new "sop avatar" being pushed through hastily for reaping the "harvest" in the forthcoming national election.

Ahead of the 2014 elections, the UPA government on Wednesday offered a major sop to the about 10 million street vendors across India – a part of its targeted aam admi vote bank. After hanging in fire for over a year, the Union cabinet cleared the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, which once enacted will go a long way in protecting the rights of vendors by giving them legal protection. Presently, there is no law to regulate and safeguard the interest of urban street vendors in India The bill mandates municipalities to set up restriction free vending zones/ night bazaars where hawkers can sell their wares without being harassed by the authorities. Town vendor's committee which will have representatives from municipalities as well as vendor associations will demarcate space where vendors can operate. The Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation ministry which is piloting the bill intends to introduce it in the ongoing budget session of the Parliament. However, it looks unlikely with the opposition continuing to disrupt the session. The bill will allow anyone over 14 years to apply and register as street vendor on payment of one time fees. Once registered, the vendors would be given identity cards entitling them to sell their wares in specified vending zones. It will do away with the existing license system that has become a tool of harassing the street vendors. In a city, 2.5 % of the total population would be eligible to register as street vendors. Besides, it will also help authorities regulate hawking activities in public spaces such as pavements, parks, and thoroughfares. The bill was earlier introduced in Lok Sabha last September and was subsequently referred to the Standing Committee on Urban Development. The committee which made several recommendations such as allowing vendors outside railway stations to be included under the bill's ambit were incorporated by the urban poverty alleviation ministry in the draft bill that was cleared by the cabinet Wednesday.

It was almost 25 years ago that the issue of street hawkers was brought to national attention and a few NGOs did try to bring in reforms to streamline the vending kiosks emphasizing on hygiene, sanitation and consumer safety. Many civic bodies introduced a sort of licensing and monitoring their activities through their health department officials. Even international attention was focused for some time on street vending which is prevalent in many countries in Asia and lot of efforts were made to "modernize" the kiosks with emphasis on cleanliness, safe water use and strict personnel hygiene. The present Bill is a good initiative and if properly drafted to cover the entire gamut of the issue, it can be a significant step in creating a win-win situation to both the vendors as well as the consumers. Unfortunately political chicanery to steal credit may yet derail the Bill. It is imperative that all political parties irrespective of their color or creed or biases contribute in refining the Bill so that it is practical, useful and of immense benefit to the urban consumers.    

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

          

FOOD PROCESS EQUIPMENT-A POTENTIAL SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION

Food processing equipment used in the industry contribute to many food poisoning episodes unwittingly because of inappropriate design parameters based on which they are fabricated that enable microorganisms thrive in certain parts in spite of thorough cleaning. Though stainless steel (non-magnetic varieties) has replaced other fabrication materials during the last five decades, inadequate appreciation of parameters that go into sound machine design results in equipment which could be vulnerable to residual contamination or left over residues with potential to spoil large volumes of food under processing. Due to cost consideration, plastics are replacing metal as preferred fabrication material posing problems of contamination from these parts. Food industry should be careful while selecting processing equipment to ensure that they are soundly designed to address the various concerns safety experts point out from time to time. Here is a critical commentary on this important issue which is a must reading for all food technologists.

"Improved hygienic design enhances cleanability, decreasing the risk of biological (pathogens), physical and chemical (e.g., allergens) contamination. Furthermore, equipment that is designed and constructed to meet hygienic principles is easier to maintain and reduces the risks of physical hazards (e.g., metal fragments from food equipment) in food processing. Surfaces of food equipment and related ancillary equipment are divided into food contact and nonfood product contact surfaces. While most of the discussion in this article relates to food contact surfaces, it should be recognized that nonfood product contact surfaces are very important and cannot be overlooked, as these surfaces have been implicated in environmental contamination. Under 3A Sanitary Standards, the accepted definition of a food contact surface is any surface that has direct contact with food residue, or where food residue can drip, drain, diffuse or be drawn. All food contact surfaces must meet specific hygienic design and fabrication requirements to ensure cleanability. Corrosion resistance and durability of the materials used are also important to maintain cleanability. Where appropriate, equipment should also be constructed to allow accessibility for inspection to observe whether it is adequately cleaned. Hygienic equipment design encompasses the following:"

With the advent of Clean-in-place (CIP) system of equipment offered by most of the manufacturers, food poisoning may be considered as a thing of the past but still inadequate attention to manage such cleaning operations can pose some problem and continuous vigilance only can avoid unanticipated food infection on the factory floor. It is the small scale sector which suffers because of the inability of these processors to shell out huge investment for buying high end equipment with CIP regime which costs heavily. These players end up buying equipment from small scale engineering firms with indifferent quality fabrication which can derail any well laid plan for safety management. In India the difference in the cost of machinery between large players and small fabricators can be as high as 100-200% and with a low volume production base, many food processors invariably gravitate towards small fabricators resulting in frequent production problems. While dry foods do not pose much of a problem except for infestation it is the high moisture food on the processing line that is vulnerable to safety risks. Many of the points raised in the above critique are valid and food industry must listen and practice what is recommended for their own sake as well as that of the consumers whom they are supposed to serve.

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

TOO MANY COOKS SPOIL THE BROTH!-THE AMERICAN SCENARIO

Blaming politicians for all the woes in a democratic system of governance is too common in many countries. Here is a difference when it comes to understanding the food safety problems in a country like America where a congress woman has comprehended the underlying issue that is responsible for countless episodes of food poisoning in that country. Here is her statement which deserves serious consideration by the Obama administration.

"Given the sheer number of foodborne illnesses and outbreaks, it is no surprise that federal oversight of food safety continues to be included on the GAO's list of high risk areas. You need to look no further than the current Salmonella outbreak that has sickened 18 people in five states to know that food safety deserves to be on this list and it is time for Congress to act. Since the GAO first added food safety to the list of high risk areas in 2007, they have highlighted the fragmented oversight of food safety and recommended the establishment of a government-wide plan to address this critical problem. That plan remains elusive. "The fragmented nature of our federal food safety system is well established and underscores the need for a single food safety agency. Right now there is not one single person in charge and that puts us all at risk of getting sick from preventable illnesses. I will again introduce legislation to establish a single food safety agency, which would ensure that there is one person the public can hold accountable when outbreaks occur. "Given the clear need to reorganize our food safety system to protect the public health, this bill is absolutely necessary. It will ensure a coordinated strategy for preventing and responding to foodborne illnesses. And it will go a long way to addressing the shortcomings identified yet again by the GAO that place Americans' health at risk."

Of course one of the main reasons for the pitiable state of affairs vis-a-vis food safety in the US is the vice-like grip the industry majors have on the elected representatives who are obliged to the former because of liberal donations to their election campaign. One may recall the recent failure of an innocuous proposal in the California ballot initiative to label GM foods which was defeated by the sheer money power of the GM food industry! Unless consumers get themselves free from countless allurements offered by the industry in sabotaging honest proposals like the above, nothing substantial is going to happen in that country in the food safety landscape and food poisoning episodes will continue to occur with sickening regularity. Citizens must unite to pressurize their elected representatives to safeguard their interests through sound legislation in stead of succumbing to the money power of the industry!

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

    

AMERICA'S FOOD SAFETY WOES-NEW LAWS ARE RIGHT ANSWER?

Food safety management is an art of balancing the interests of various stakeholders such as the consumer, farmer, processor and the government. No Food Law can be deemed to be perfect but striving hard to bring it to near perfection is the bounden duty of the government which has immense power to do that. Americans are known to be sensitive to food borne infections of different kind and most of the focus is on preventing such pathogen driven poisoning episodes that can take a toll on the health of the citizens. It is in this context that new food safety rules being implemented there are being scrutinized for their effectiveness. Many observers feel that the new protocols being put in place can only bring additional economic burden to the processing industry with practically no impact on food safety breaching in the coming years. Here is a critique on the above issue which is causing some consternation in that country.

'In pushing for passage of the law, the FDA and its supporters billed the law as a necessary solution to a problem of great magnitude. Indeed, some 48 million Americans suffer from some form of foodborne illness each year—a figure the FDA cites at several of its FSMA web pages. The agency claims the FSMA will "better protect public health by strengthening the food safety system" and helping to eliminate the "largely preventable" problem of foodborne illnesses. But if we can largely prevent foodborne illness, we won't have the new FSMA regulations to thank. In truth, the law's real impact on food safety will be minimal. The FSMA would permit the FDA to hire about 2,000 new food-safety inspectors in order to increase the frequency of food-safety inspections. Specifically, the proposed rules would require that "[a]ll high-risk domestic facilities must be inspected within five years of enactment and no less than every three years, thereafter." Given that the FSMA rules are just now open to public comment and won't be final for another year or two, this translates into a likely total of exactly two inspections of what the FDA refers to as the most "high-risk domestic facilities" over the next decade. How's that for impact? Even if these inspections were to take place more than once in a blue moon, just how effective at preventing foodborne illness are FDA inspections? Not very. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, for example, notes that FDA food safety inspections dropped by 47 percent between 2003 and 2006. During that same period, according to CDC data, rates of infection from bacteria like listeria were flat, and below traditional averages. This reflects what the CDC has reported—that despite the misconception that cases of foodborne illnesses are mushrooming, there has been a general "downward trend in foodborne infections."
A relevant question that is being asked is whether food borne diseases are really so wide spread as is being made out as the data show that such food safety failures are declining over the years. Probably the powerful electronic media which brings to the living rooms of millions of families even small episodes, is creating an impression that Americans are in danger of being overwhelmed by food poisoning incidences! The genuine concern expressed by the industry, especially the small scale players, about the economic burden on them in adhering to new safety regime put in place must be addressed to prevent a dislocation of the processed food manufacture and distribution system due to over zealous inspecting officials.

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

FOOD SAFETY DEVELOPMENTS-COLD PLASMA, A POTENTIAL DECONTAMINANT

By far the most critical safety problem being faced by the consumers in many advanced countries is food poisoning caused by pathogenic bacteria like virulent E,coli species, Salmonella and listeria. The products getting contaminated include meat, vegetables, dry fruits, nuts, poultry products etc and fatalities vary in different episodes. In Europe the fenugreek sprout contamination with Listeria claimed several lives before even it is identified and source of supply traced. It is ironical that these deadly infections are more or less confined to rich countries where the safety standards are very stringent and the vigilance infrastructure is most modern. One interesting fact that emerges from a close scrutiny of food safety episodes is that almost all of them involved cold foods which cannot be heat treated because of their vulnerability to significant quality changes not accepted easily by the consumers. Paradoxically one of the most effective technological tools available to "cold sterilize" such foods, gamma radiation is not availed off by the industry due to nonsensical labeling rigidity on the part of the safety authorities. Another alternate option that may soon be available to the processors is the cold plasma technology which is undergoing tests to establish its technical feasibility vis-a-vis food sanitization. The claims being made by the scientific group that is pioneering the development are contained in the report below.  

"May was a rough month for fresh produce. Alfalfa sprouts, bagged salads, and diced onions were recalled because of possible listeria contamination, while baby spinach and papayas were recalled because of possible salmonella contamination. It's enough to make one scout for something new in food safety systems. And Brendan Niemira is working on something. Niemira, lead scientist at the USDA's Food Safety and Intervention Technologies Eastern Regional Research Center in Wyndmoor, Pa., has been studying cold plasma for nearly a decade. The process uses electricity and a gas — such as oxygen — to deactivate contaminating microbes on meats, poultry, fruits, and vegetables. Niemira and his colleague Joe Sites have treated a variety of foods — including almonds, apples, cantaloupe, lettuce and tomatoes — with cold plasma and produced multi-log reductions of E. coli O157:H7, salmonella and listeria. While cold plasma already is used to clean electronics, bond plastics in manufacturing and bind dye to fibers in textile production, its potential remains untapped in the food industry. "Anytime a technology is being developed, it's only going to be used in the industry if it shows some significant advantages," Niemira said. "Cold plasma is a waterless sanitizing process with no chemical inputs, so it's got some attractive points. The big key right now is to develop the technology so that it gives a solid level of sanitizing antimicrobial effects without unwanted side effects. That's the kind of thing that might lead an interested party to petition the FDA." Niemira said that in cold plasma trials with apples and almonds there were no changes in the product's appearance. Another advantage, he said, is the level of efficacy. While most chlorine rinses will give one or two logs of surface sanitization, Niemira said cold plasma systems have been shown to give three or four logs in trials".

As the development has yet to come out of the laboratory of the scientists concerned, it may be quite some time before technological facilities are designed and conditions standardized on a commercial scale. The fact that cold plasma sterilization has already become an industry standard for sanitizing electronic goods and bond plastics and may get accepted, to start with, for sterilization of food machinery surface, conveyor belts etc in the food industry. As multi log reduction in pathogens has been demonstrated using cold plasma, its efficacy or reliability may not be questioned. The present sanitization procedures use high volumes of water, besides chemicals like chlorine even to get a 2 log reduction of pathogens and there fore food industry is likely to accept the new technology as and when it is ready for commercial level operation. Of course investment cost and the recurring expense in using the technology may eventually determine its fate.  

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

THE "BEST BEFORE" DATE-ITS SIGNIFICANCE

Front of the pack labeling is a boon to the consumers who can decide about their food purchases based on nutrient make up and desirable features of the product they are buying. But there is one aspect about which lot of confusion still persists and this is regarding the expiration date indicated on the label. One may recall the clarion call by one of the ministers in British Government recently not to waste food unnecessarily and cautioning the citizens against throwing every food pack that has crossed the expiration date. The million dollar question is whether the food contents are still edible after the expiration date and how safe they are. It is generally understood that if the content in a food pack does not show any changes in terms of smell, texture and other physical characteristics, it can still be consumed and many people are doing precisely the same these days because of economic compulsions. This issue is assuming more importance with more and more people ignoring the "best before" date which may have some safety implications and same is the subject matter of a recent report. 

"Cash-strapped consumers are turning to a rather dangerous way to stretch their food dollars — they're ignoring expiration dates and keeping leftovers in the fridge for longer periods of time. In a recent survey, the Food Standards Agency in the UK found that one-third of respondents said that rather than throwing something out once it's expired, they rely on the look and smell of the food to gauge how safe it is to eat. And that can be risky. "With most of us seeing our weekly shopping bills increase over the last few years, we are all looking for ways to get the most out of our shopping budget," said Bob Martin, a food safety expert with the FSA, but he warns, "Bugs like E.coli and Salmonella don't cause food to smell off, even when they may have grown to dangerous levels. So food could look and smell fine but still be harmful." Andrew Wilson of the British Dietetic Association concurred and added, "A bout of food poisoning is not only unpleasant but could be potentially life threatening. There's no point in taking risks with food safety."

Of all the information contained on a label, expiration date is the most useful tool for the consumers obsessed with fresh foods. It is a common knowledge that the moment the food is harvested till it reaches the dining table, a series of chemical, physical and microbiological changes begin and what industry does is to extend the life of the material through processing and packing. But no matter what technology is deployed food continues to deteriorate, albeit slowly after processing, even under modified atmospheric conditions, and that is why expiration date is indicated for getting an idea of the time lapsed between manufacture and selling. In the true sense expiration date or "best before date" is only an estimate with regard to the eating quality of food and it does not reflect the safety limit. While consuming date expired foods, one has to make doubly sure that there are no hazardous microbial contamination that can cause injury to the consumer. This is more easily said than done. Probably a safe way of ensuring this is by heating the product sufficiently, if feasible, to destroy any microbes that might have gained entry into the packet.   

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