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

SELF SUFFICIENCY IN FOODS-CAN THIS BE POSSIBLE FOR ALL COUNTRIES?

If every country in this planet wants to attain self sufficiency in food, is it technically and logistically achievable? Such lofty ideals are good to be proclaimed while the ground reality will tell a different story. Food pundits and policy experts tend to debate endlessly whether this planet will have the capacity to produce sufficient foods to meet the minimum food needs of every denizen if the population grows at the current pace but there is no unanimity on this issue with many predicting food famine and deprivation in in a few decades' time from now because Mother Earth cannot support huge jump in production even if there are some dramatic technological breakthroughs in the coming years. GMO lobbyists have their own answer and they aver that gene manipulating technology can increase food production very significantly though there is very little hard evidence to support their over optimism! Set against this bleak scenario, the lamenting of British policy makers about the dependence of this country on imported foods is rather amusing. Here is a take on this new fear being expressed in the UK regarding its food future. 

"Falling self-sufficiency means Britain produces less than two-thirds (62%) of the food the country consumes, down from 75% in 1991, the National Farmers' Union said. If all the food produced in the UK in a year were stored and eaten from January 1, the "cupboard" would be bare by August 14, the NFU has calculated. Farmers are calling for support from politicians, the public and food industry to back British farming and help them produce more. NFU president Peter Kendall said the UK could not simply go around the world chasing the cheapest deal on food. "To think that today's date would signal the time when our domestic food supply runs out is frankly alarming. It says to me that we must act," he said. "Right across the board farmers have a fantastic natural capacity to produce more British food, given the right market signals and the confidence to invest. We have the right technologies to produce more from less, with precision farming helping to target fertiliser and crop protection products within centimetres. "Laser technology can even pinpoint an individual weed, improving accuracy and efficiency. Crops grown under cover help to lengthen the season for our British fruits. "But there is more to do to empower our farmers to enable them to make the most of our natural resources and feed our growing nation." He urged the Government to help create an environment where farming businesses could invest, to address market failures and iron out price volatility to ensure the food chain can increase supplies".

It was assumed that the World has become a village with no borders under liberalized economic regimes and free trade protocols worked under the aegis of WTO. If this is really so, why should the UK government worry about import of foods from other countries with surplus production? Is it because of fear of inferior and relatively unsafe foods which may find their way into the country? With hardly any surplus land for agriculture how can a geographically small country like the UK can expand cultivation? Talking about technological innovations there is a limit for achieving incremental production and putting in place farmer supporting policy initiatives is unlikely to achieve much. Probably the UK must think in terms of encouraging their farmers to go out to countries where land utilization is relatively low due to many reasons and lease out land, deploy most productive modern production technologies and bring the same for the consumption of its citizens. If India can do this why not the UK. The inter dependence of countries on each other cannot be wished away under noble patriotic fervor. As for safety adequate mechanisms are available to ensure the same with sound management systems and intense vigilance. 

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

SUGAR IN FOODS-THE WRITING ON THE WALL!

Health pundits are becoming increasingly concerned that all efforts to rein in food industry from making high sugar products and persuading consumers to cut down on sugar consumption are proving to be ineffective during the past two decades. From time to time there have been strident voices advocating stringent action against food industry which is raking in billions of dollars by churning out such sugar sweetened products after realizing the weakness of humans to sweet tasting foods. Whether there is any unanimity or not on this issue, excess sugar intake has been unequivocally implicated in many diseases which debilitate human beings reducing the quality of life for millions, with mortality rate progressively climbing up! Here is the latest scientific documentation that seems to justify clamping down on the food industry through coercive policies to restrict added sugar in processed foods. 

"As currently formulated, Coke, Pepsi, and other sugar-based drinks are unsafe for regular human consumption," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "Like a slow-acting but ruthlessly efficient bio-weapon, sugar drinks cause obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. The FDA should require the beverage industry to re-engineer their sugary products over several years, making them safer for people to consume, and less conducive to disease." In a 54-page regulatory petition filed today with the FDA, CSPI details the substantial scientific evidence that added sugars, especially in drinks, causes weight gain, obesity, and chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and gout. In particular, a growing number of clinical trials have found that people who are assigned to drink sugary beverages gain more weight than those assigned to drink sugar-free beverages. Other clinical studies found that high-sugar diets increase triglycerides, LDL ("bad") cholesterol, and liver fat. "If one were trying to ensure high rates of obesity, diabetes, or heart disease in a population, one would feed the population large doses of sugary drinks," said Walter Willett, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. "The evidence is so strong that it is essential that FDA use its authority to make sugary drinks safer." Willett is one of 41 leading scientists and physicians who signed a letter to FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg in support of the petition. Willett and his colleagues have conducted epidemiology studies that strongly link consumption of sugary drinks to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and gout. Soda and other sugar drinks are the single biggest source of calories in the American diet.Americans, on average, consume between 18 and 23 teaspoons—about 300 to 400 calories worth—of added sugars per day. Teens and young adults consume half again more than the average. About one-fifth of adolescents aged 12 to 18 consume at least 25 percent of their calories from added sugars, according to the government's 2007-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. About 14 million people of all ages consume more than one-third of their calories in the form of added sugars. The FDA classifies high-fructose corn syrup, sucrose, and other sugars as "generally recognized as safe," or "GRAS" in agency parlance. To be GRAS, there must be a scientific consensus that the ingredient is safe at the levels consumed. CSPI's petition contends that the current scientific consensus is that added sugars are unsafe at the levels consumed. The petition asks the FDA to determine what level of added sugars would be safe for use in beverages, and to require those limits to be phased in over several years. The petition did not propose a specific safe level, but notes that several health agencies identified two-and-a-half teaspoons (10 grams) as a reasonable limit in a healthier drink. In 1982 and again in 1988, the FDA committed to undertake a new safety determination if sugar consumption increased, or if new scientific evidence indicated a public health hazard. Both of those conditions have been met, which CSPI says obligates the FDA to act".

If there is a convincing perception that sugar including High Fructose Corn Syrup is becoming a public hazard, governments in any responsible country is duty bound to take pro-active steps to protect its citizens from the consequences of such practices of the industry. While the evidence is clear regarding the ill effects of sugar, what is lacking is the will to restrain the organized industry which seems to have a vice-like grip on the governing class in most of the countries where it has predominance! One cannot but agree with the suggestions in the above critique that upper limits for sugar in foods and beverages must be enforced sooner than later.

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

FOODS THAT INTERFERE WITH DRUG ACTION-NEW FINDINGS!

In an alarming report food-drug interaction is claimed to be a serious concern that deserves much more attention and focus in future. Who ever will suspect that Grapefruit consumption can cause problem to those who take regular medications for managing life style diseases like blood pressure which can even pose life threatening risks in some cases? After all citrus fruits in general are considered a valuable source of Vitamin C and many health boosting phyto chemicals and if the reports are true, there is an urgent need to open up investigations for bringing out such dangers with regard to other foods also. Here is a gist of the findings of some scientists which deserve serious attention by nutritionists and medical community alike.

The fruit can cause overdoses of some drugs by stopping the medicines being broken down in the intestines and the liver. The researchers who first identified the link said the number of drugs that became dangerous with grapefruit was increasing rapidly. They were writing in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. The team at the Lawson Health Research Institute in Canada said the number of drugs which had serious side effects with grapefruit had gone from 17 in 2008 to 43 in 2012. They include some drugs for a range of conditions including blood pressure, cancer and cholesterol-lowering statins and those taken to suppress the immune system after an organ transplant.Continue reading the main story "Start QuoteOne tablet with a glass of grapefruit juice can be like taking five or 10 tablets with a glass of water" Dr David Bailey. Chemicals in grapefruit, furanocoumarins, wipe out an enzyme which breaks the drugs down. It means much more of the drug escapes the digestive system than the body can handle. Three times the levels of one blood pressure drug, felodipine, was reported after patients had a glass of grapefruit juice compared with a glass of water. The side effects are varied depending on the drug, but include stomach bleeds, altered heart beat, kidney damage and sudden death. Dr David Bailey, one of the researchers, told the BBC: "One tablet with a glass of grapefruit juice can be like taking five or 10 tablets with a glass of water and people say I don't believe it, but I can show you that scientifically it is sound. "So you can unintentionally go from a therapeutic level to a toxic level just by consuming grapefruit juice." The report said: "We contend that there remains a lack of knowledge about this interaction in the general health care community." They added: "Unless health care professionals are aware of the possibility that the adverse event they are seeing might have an origin in the recent addition of grapefruit to the patient's diet, it is very unlikely that they will investigate it." Other citrus fruits such as Seville oranges, often used in marmalade, and limes have the same effect. Neal Patel, from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society said: "Grapefruit isn't the only food that can cause issues, for example milk can stop the absorption of some antibiotics if taken at the same time. "Although some of these interactions may not be clinically significant, some may lead to more serious outcomes.

Inter disciplinary interactions among scientists are increasingly becoming more and more relevant in the light of the above findings. Already mankind is facing a health crisis due to shifting dietary habits with predominance of calorie rich foods, over use of antibiotics and use in feeds to animals, emergence of more and more virulent pathogens resistant to most antibiotics known to day, wide scale food contamination episodes linked food and environmental deterioration. If drug-food interactions become a serious concern, a total rethinking may be necessary on future life styles, if a major calamity is to be averted.

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

VULNERABILITY TO ALLERGY-A PREDOMINANT URBAN PHENOMENON?

Allergies can be caused by food as well the environment one lives in and in many cases it can be life threatening. Children are generally the victims of allergy which increases in severity as they grow. There are remedies which are available to deal with allergic reactions but ideally keeping away from situation that poses risk of allergy can be best solution. While in the case of food, it is somewhat easier to stay away from those containing known allergens, which are about 8 in number how can any one anticipate environmental hazards that also may trigger allergy? If a recent study on allergy is any indication, urban environment is more dangerous when it comes to food allergies though common sense tells that environmental induced allergic reactions should be more serious in such places. This is understandable considering the multitude of chemicals present in urban surroundings due to high population density and and all associated human activities.  For example emissions from heavy vehicular traffic that is a feature of urban living contain many chemicals in minute quantities that can be the cause of allergy. It is a logical finding that those living in rural areas where the environment is relatively cleaner the incidence of allergy is significantly less. But the report that urban children are more vulnerable to food allergy is indeed revealing. According to the authors of the study the reason for this could be the presence diverse microorganisms in rural environment o which children there are exposed, may be responsible to make them sturdy and resistant to allergy triggering. Here is a gist of the study that has brought to surface this interesting information.

"Study results showed that 9.8 percent of children in urban areas have food allergies as compared to 6.2 percent in rural communities. The states with the highest prevalence of food allergies in children were Nevada, Florida, Georgia, Alaska, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and the District of Columbia. "We have found for the first time that population density has an impact" Gupta told the Chicago Tribune. "The big question now is what in the environment is the trigger?" Some researchers believe that the many pollutants found in urban areas may trigger the development of allergies while exposure early in life to bacteria common to rural areas may protect against hypersensitivity to allergens. Still, finding the answer to the "trigger" question is no short order and food allergies are a growing health problem. According to 2011 research by Gupta, an estimated 5.9 million children under the age of 18 now have a potentially life-threatening food allergy. Severe allergic reactions that can lead to death include a drop in blood pressure, trouble breathing and swelling of the throat. And despite the geographic disparity between occurrences of food allergies, severe food allergy reactions are not confined to one area. The study showed food allergies are equally severe in regardless of where a child lives. Nearly 40 percent of all the children in the study had a severe or life-threatening reaction."This is really important to note," Gupta told Food Safety News. "There may be less food allergies in rural areas, but if you do have a food allergy, you still have an equal chance of having a severe, potentially life-threatening reaction. Gupta advises parents to always report a child's allergic food reaction to his or her doctor so the child can be prescribed medication to prevent a life-threatening situation".

The role of microbes in making children less sensitive to allergens, as suggested by the scientists in the above study is really significant and many recent studies have brought out the beneficial effects of human microbiome in health that offer logical explanation for this perception. Another variable factor is the exposure of children to restaurant foods and processed products containing many chemical additives and whether this also plays a part is not known. Food allergy is a manifestation of reaction to certain specific proteins present in the food and there is no permanent remedy presently available. Also to be noted is the fact food allergy has a strong genetic factor as children borne to families having a history of allergy are more likely to inherit the same. On the other hand if urban environment is the major culprit for increasing incidences of allergy in urban areas and consequent development asthma and other respiratory ailments, what practical methods can be envisaged to ameliorate the situation? In spite of all claims that environment safety agencies are monitoring the quality of air in major urban settlements, it is doubtful whether the standards and enforcement practices are adequate to meet the emerging challenges. The hypothesis that exposure to microbes during early child hood may lessen the chances of food allergy is a good lead worth pursuing to reach a logical conclusion on this issue. In many cases gut microbes belonging to different species help in digestion of proteins significantly leaving very little peptide residues that can be absorbed to elicit allergic reaction. The well organized multi institutional research projects initiated in 2007 by National Institute of Health in the US on human microbiome can be expected to bring out lot of information on the role of microorganism in food allergy reactions.

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

NEW FOOD CONTAMINANTS-ARE THEY ALARMING?

To the plethora of chemicals humans ingest in the day to day life here comes another one which was recently found to be in some food products and the environment around. HBCD as it is named by the organic chemists has not yet been conclusively proved to be harmful at concentrations found in meat, milk and fish, though further studies only can reveal the extent of danger posed by this substance. What is interesting is that HBCD levels in the house hold environment is much higher than that is found in some of the foods tested so far and the implication of this finding cannot be comprehended as of now. Though government safety agencies "think" that the current situation does not warrant any alarm, it is difficult to take such assurances at their face value and sooner the issue is resolved better it will be for the consumer community. Here is a take on this new developments which needs priority consideration by the health experts for further consideration.

"A new study from researchers at the University of Texas School of Public Health has revealed that flame retardant chemicals were found in many samples taken from popular food items. While less than half of the tested food products had detectible levels of the chemical called hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), 15 out of the 36 items tested positive. HBCD is used in polystyrene foam in the building and construction industry and can be found worldwide in the environment and wildlife, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. It has been highly toxic for aquatic organisms, and shown to have troubling effects on animal populations. "The levels we found are lower than what the government agencies currently think are dangerous," study author Dr. Arnold Schecter, a public health physician at the University of Texas School of Public Health in Dallas, told WebMD. "But those levels were determined one chemical at a time."

What is of serious concern is its possible role as an endocrine disruptor, capable of adversely affecting the functions of hormonal system as a whole and the Thyroid function in particular. The dangers of careless and indiscriminate disposal of plastics into the open which ultimately end up in the water bodies are obvious when it has been pointed out that HBCD is found mostly in foods derived from animals and fish which consume contaminated water and vegetation containing this toxic chemical. Endocrine disruptor chemicals are becoming more and more prominent these days because of their suspected role in causing many diseases due to interference with functions of the hormonal system in human body. Besides some of them have been implicated as obesogens, responsible for hijacking the fat metabolism leading to the obesity syndrome in most people. In the light of these findings, more serious attention needs to be bestowed on such chemicals which creep into the food system at sun-ppb levels with enormous potential to cause havoc on human health.   

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

HEALTHFUL FOOD PROMOTION-A NEW INITIATIVE

Eating out is a practice which is becoming more and more prominent in the life styles of people who have very little time to spend in the kitchen due to the pressure of work and other daily commitments. This trend has driven a fast paced development in the food service sector with fierce competition being the hall mark of this industry. Innovations like the Food Truk are also a part of this paradigm shift in the life styles of people on the move in search of more family income and pleasures of life. While the food processing sector is being hauled up for turning out foods which are not healthy causing much of the damage to the well being of the consumers, restaurant sector has not received that much attention from health critics regarding the nutritional quality of preparations served by them. Of course isolated attack on a few catering giants in the form of criticism of their unfair practices in alluring the kids with super sized serving proportions loaded with calories and fat, has not assumed any alarming magnitude still. State policies in cajoling the caterers to declare about the calories in the portion size served seem to be working and may players in this field do display prominently the calorie content along with their menu. Such progressive efforts are sought to be supplemented by voluntary organizations by encouraging the restaurants in in improving the "healthiness" of their offerings. Here is an example of such organizations which certify the restaurants which conform to nutrition standards for their products and disseminate the same among customers.    

"The USHFC will help consumers distinguish restaurants and other food service providers that are utilizing nutrition best practices; such as the use of fresh, seasonal vegetables and fruits, whole grains, moderate portions sizes, and minimally processed food and beverages with higher nutritional qualities, while decreasing the use of additives such as industrial trans-fats, sugar, sodium and MSG. In addition, foodservice providers will be credited for their use of environmentally friendly and humanely raised foods, as well as special dietary offerings such as children's menus, vegan, vegetarian, gluten-free, Paleolithic, and identification of common food allergens. "As a restaurant owner and chef, I feed people for a living, so I believe I have a responsibility to do so well and sustainably," said Chef Ris Lacoste, of RIS in Washington DC. "There are large variations in industry purchasing and preparation practices, and customers are increasingly looking for signs that indicate, 'this house cares.' We go to great lengths to find and use high-quality and healthful ingredients, so I enthusiastically support the efforts of the USHFC." The USHFC is developing programs to provide recognition, incentives and assistance to eating establishments across the entire spectrum of foodservice provision--from high-end restaurants, to fast-casual establishments and eventually school cafeterias, fast food chains, sporting complexes and military and other government foodservice providers. The USHFC initial programs are being modeled after other non-profit initiatives that have successfully incentivized corporations and independent businesses to align their practices with the interests of consumers". 

No wonder this approach is being widely acclaimed and many restaurants are vying for such certification and recommendation to increase their business. In a competitive market such positive actions can be the tipping point in garnering sizable growth and improved bottom line. As for the customers, this is a boon because currently they have no reliable system to discriminate between healthy restaurants and normal ones peddling jumbo sized and unbalanced foods with high calorie and fat content. More such efforts by organizations like the one above will spread the message that customers do care for the nutritive aspects of food preparations besides the culinary quality. It is the responsibility of the government to encourage such organizations which can be a watch dog safeguarding the interests and well beings of the citizens. The phenomenon of consuming meals away from home is bound to increase in the coming years and the restaurant sector will have more responsibility in ensuring the safety and quality of their preparations.  

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

NEW TOOL TO MEASURE INFLAMMATION DUE TO FOOD

Vast information about foods of various kind, especially the health benefits as being claimed by the manufacturers, can put any consumer, even if highly educated, into a state of confusion, hardly helpful in selecting right foods from the aisles of the supermarket. Government agencies have limitations in controlling or policing the industry and ultimately it falls on the shoulders of the consumer to decide which food is beat for him. Recent action by the EU in enforcing some order in health claims is a welcome move and rejecting more than 99% of the claims routinely printed on the labels generates some confidence among consumers that industry does not have unbridled freedom to mislead them. Development of a new analytical tool recently to test the healthiness or otherwise of foods developed for the market may go a long way to routinely assess the effect of any food on the inflammation will be a valuable tool for the industry as well as developmental scientists in the field of new product design. Here is a take on this new optical based test protocol which may become a common gadget in the coming years.

"The human body is complex, and designing a miniature artificial gastrointestinal system proved to be extremely exacting. The solution provided by researchers at EPFL ultimately took the shape of a two-level chip, whose levels are connected via a porous membrane. The upper level, which represents the intestinal wall, is made of a homogeneous layer of cultured epithelial cells. The lower level represents the circulatory system and is made up of immune system cells, and in particular macrophages. The macrophages' job within the human body is to keep it clean: when they encounter any potentially dangerous agents they release molecules such as cytokines that activate other immune-system cells. The NutriChip platform uses CMOS high-resolution optical sensors developed by Sandro Carrara's team in the EPFL's Integrated Sytems Lab in order to precisely detect and measure cytokine production by the immune cells that are on the other side of the layer of intestinal wall cells. These measurements, which are performed using fluorescence, show exactly how much inflammation is caused by a given food".

How far such tools become popular depends on the sincerity of the industry in ensuring the well being of the consumers because of the prevalent trust deficit that exists in the minds of consumers regarding the true intentions of industry in making products that are healthy in stead of being tasty. But a time may come when safety agencies can insist on al foods being non-inflammatory as tested by the nutriChip system as being developed now. Whether the industry will concur with such tight regulations remains to be seen. But if consumer pressure is mounted in an organized way, there is no reason as to how the industry can continue its resistance to measures like this in the interests of the consumer.

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

THE DAY OF RECKONING FOR GM CROPS-REACHING THE DEAD END?

GM foods are facing enormous consumer resistance due to the "trust deficit" that exists to day between the GM food producers and the consumer, mainly because of the "opaque" manner in which the former work. While the safety of GM foods has not yet been established beyond a shadow of doubt, its potential environmental hazard is yet to be realized widely. It is another matter that 80% of the processed foods consumed in the US contain one or more of GM food ingredients, without the consumer ever knowing about it! The emerging consumer awareness about the uncertainties inherent in GM foods is putting pressure on the industry to declare the presence of GM ingredients in packed foods as a part of the label. Though the GM food lobby is powerful enough to deflect criticisms, the recent report that even they are rattled by the emergence of weedicide resistant weeds which seem to have adversely affected the crop yields. Here is a take on this new development with far reaching implications.

"This is a complex problem," said weed scientist David Shaw in remarks to a national "summit" of weed experts in Washington to come up with a plan to battle weeds that have developed resistance to herbicides. Weed resistance has spread to more than 12 million U.S. acres and primarily afflicts key agricultural areas in the U.S. Southeast and the corn and soybean growing areas of the Midwest. Many of the worst weeds, some of which grow more than six feet and can sharply reduce crop yields, have become resistant to the popular glyphosate-based weed-killer Roundup, as well as other common herbicides. Monsanto Co's Roundup worked well for many years. It became prevalent with the commercialization of "Roundup Ready" crops Monsanto developed to tolerate the weedkiller, making it easy for farmers to treat their fields. But now super weeds have developed a resistance to Roundup, and farmers are scrambling to figure out how to combat their weeds. "We don't have that next technology. We have to get back to the fundamentals," said Shaw, who chairs a task force that is working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on how to tackle weed resistance problems. Several farmers spoke out about their struggles at the summit, as did experts from the USDA and crop consultants. "This is our number one issue," said Arkansas crop consultant Chuck Farr. "It is a challenge every day, every field." Harold Coble, an agromist and weed scientist with the USDA, called the problem of weed resistance a "game changer" and said farmers must become more versatile. Too many have simply been relying on the chemicals for too long, he said.

Whether the above development will restrain further growth of the GM food industry is some thing to be watched in future. Already the cost of GM seeds and the high cost of cultivation of such crops are impediments for the growth of the industry. Promised yield increase using GM seeds is not happening in many places where cultivation of GM crops has been popular for some time. If the GM technology innovators are not able to find a solution to this emerging dangers, there is every likelihood of farmers reverting to conventional agricultural practices which may sound the death knell for the GM crops industry.  

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