"REVOLT AND REVULSION" AGAINST GM FOODS-CAN IT BE SUSTAINED?

The mass movement against production of genetically modified food crops is assuming critical proportion if recent reports about global protests organized against the perpetrators of these foods are to be believed. Though there is no substantial evidence about the so called advantages of GM crops, the "innovators" and developers of the GM seeds maintain that there is no evidence of any danger caused by their seeds. It is pointed out that more than 80% of foods eaten by the Americans to day contain GM food ingredients and the population there is still "surviving", though most of them are obese and disease stricken! One of the tall claims made by the monopolistic seed companies is that GM technology increases crop yield and therefore is imperative for meeting future food needs. This is a canard and safety authorities in the US are closing their eyes to the long term dangers posed by these "nature tampered" products! Here is the latest development vis-a-vis the universal anti-GM food sentiments across the world.

"Two million people marched Saturday across the United States and in more than 50 other countries in a protest against seed giant Monsanto aimed at calling attention to dangers posed by genetically modified food that it and other companies produce. Founder and organizer Tami Canal said protests were held in 436 cities in 52 countries. Genetically modified plants are grown from seeds that are engineered to resist insecticides and herbicides, add nutritional benefits or otherwise improve crop yields and increase the global food supply. Most corn, soybean and cotton crops grown in the United States today have been genetically modified. But some say genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment. The use of GMOs has been a growing issue of contention in recent years, with health advocates pushing for mandatory labeling of genetically modified products even though the federal government and many scientists say the technology is safe. The 'March Against Monsanto' movement began just a few months ago, when Canal created a Facebook page on Feb. 28 calling for a rally against the company's practices. "If I had gotten 3,000 people to join me, I would have considered that a success," she said Saturday. Instead, two million responded to her message. Together with Seattle blogger and activist Emilie Rensink and Nick Bernabe of Anti-Media.org, Canal worked with A Revolt.org ditigal anarchy to promote international awareness of the event. She called the turnout "incredible," and credited social media for being a vehicle for furthering opportunities for activism. Despite the size of the gatherings, Canal said she was grateful that the marches were uniformly peaceful and no arrests have been reported."

GM food companies are citing the support of people to their products as manifested by the narrow defeat of a proposal in November last in California for mandatory labeling of foods containing GM ingredients. What is not told is that the organized GM food industry invested $ 45 million to "brainwash" the electorate into believing that GM foods are "substantially" same as the natural counterpart from which they are evolved. The FDA of the US, not considered truly independent in taking citizen friendly policy decisions, being in the grip of the GM lobby and its political supporters, will never be pardoned for this condescending attitude if the future of American citizens is jeopardized in any way because of its lack of concern for their safety and indirect support to the GM food industry. Even the present President will not be spared for his broken promise about mandatory labeling of GM foods made during his election campaign. One can only hope that the new vigor with which the people are fighting the GM food lobby may eventually succeed.

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

ECO-LABELING-CONFUSION WORST CONFOUNDED!

India is a large country with 1.2 billion plus population with diverse culture and economic standards. Any thing to be done on a pan-India scale is fraught with insurmountable problems and only dedication, commitment, perseverance and high investment can show positive result at the ground level. In spite of good intentions and massive investments, the income gap between the rich and the poor is widening and poor people in the country are increasingly being mired in endless miseries and agony which do not seem to give them much hope about their future. Food is an area where the country has done reasonably well, at least with regard to production of staple grains like wheat and rice. Of course the story of oil seeds and pulses is one of many missed opportunities and billions of rupees are being spent to bring these foods from out side the country every year. The onus on the government to protect the food supply is indeed awesome and the special purpose vehicle created for the country's food safety is still in its formative stage trying to prove its mettle during the last 5 years. Unfortunately this outfit under the name Food Standards and Safety Authority (FSSAI) has been created with a heavy bureaucratic structure with doubtful capability for showing any dynamism at the ground level. As this agency is heavily dependent on the state governments with no authority to enforce its writ, the policies often do not get implemented. Here is a take on this important area of concern to the Indian citizen, viz how food is the food taken by him!

"
The agency is working to bring on board about 55 million people engaged in various food businesses and register them with the organisation by February 2014, Chandramouli said. Currently, only one million licences have been issued to food and beverage operators. To check and maintain food standards, FSSAI is in the process of setting up testing laboratories, he said. "Our aim is to have at least one laboratory in each state initially. Later, we plan it to increase this to at least one lab for every 20 districts in the next five years," he added. There are currently 72 government laboratories, which are to be upgraded during this period. Simultaneously, 33 new such testing centres will be set up. On food imports, Chandramouli said: "Our country imports lot of food items now. Though there is no fixed figure available, but Rs2-3 lakh crore of foods come to India every year." "We don't have food and safety standards in the country which deal with food products across the spectrum. For this, we need to get the state governments and other stakeholders on board," Chandramouli said, adding implementation of the FSSAI Act continues to remain a challenge".

The above report laments about lack of allocation of funds to FSSAI during the 12th Plan and one is afraid that this could as well become an excuse for non-performance or under performance.It is common knowledge that the quality of food made in India and imported at great cost is suspect because of grossly under developed infrastructure and shortage of critical personnel to run the monitoring program sincerely and effectively. With legal system delaying trials of food fraudsters for years, many are able to get away with blatant violations of existing laws and wide spread adulteration.  One of the excuses trotted out for under performance is lack of standards available to enforce but this argument cannot be sustained when it is realized that international standards under FAO-WHO as well by different global organizations are in place for thousands of foods which can easily be adopted till domestic-specific ones are evolved. FSSAI seems to be over obsessed with licensing and wants more than 55 million food handlers to be brought into its licensing system! Is it practical? What next after registration? Does it have adequate capability to undertake surveillance of these players regularly? Millions of home scale processors, cottage units and micro enterprises cannot be expected to register with FSSAI which is both time consuming and cumbersome. Since the retailers who sell the food articles are all licensed by local civic authorities, it is easier to make them accountable vis-a-vis quality of food sold by them. The onus of selling safe food must be put on these retailers who must be punished if he peddles bad food even unintentionally. Such an environment will starve the fraudsters of a market eventually. No doubt a body like FSSAI is a necessity for the country but it must be made to work hard and diligently for the welfare of the common man.  

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

AT LAST AN ANGEL APPEARS FOR TRANSPARENCY IN LABELING IN THE US!

By now world over it has become a common belief that the fight between the consumer and the Biotech Industry turning out monstrous GM foods is an unequal one and the latter can never win this "war" for justice. It was only recently that Californian voters were "bribed" through a 45 million dollar brain washing blitzkrieg to defeat narrowly an innocuous proposition calling for mandatory declaration of use of GM ingredients in food products like all other countries in this planet do! Massive march of common men and women from New York to Washington D C last year to appeal/beg/beseech their President to ask the food industry to come clean on use of controversial GM food ingredients in American foods seems to have no effect on the politicians in that country who are under the mesmerizing influence of the Biotech industry! Against such a background the bold decision taken by a large food retailer in that country to break ranks with the apologists of GM foods is music to the ears of millions of American citizens who are overly concerned about the health of the future generations fed on a wide spectrum of GM foods. Here is a take on this important development.

"A. C. Gallo, president of Whole Foods, said the new labeling requirement, to be in place within five years, came in response to consumer demand. "We've seen how our customers have responded to the products we do have labeled," Mr. Gallo said. "Some of our manufacturers say they've seen a 15 percent increase in sales of products they have labeled." Genetically modified ingredients are deeply embedded in the global food supply, having proliferated since the 1990s. Most of the corn and soybeans grown in the United States, for example, have been genetically modified. The alterations make soybeans resistant to a herbicide used in weed control, and causes the corn to produce its own insecticide. Efforts are under way to produce a genetically altered apple that will spoil less quickly, as well as genetically altered salmon that will grow faster. The announcement ricocheted around the food industry and excited proponents of labeling. "Fantastic," said Mark Kastel, co-director of the Cornucopia Institute, an organic advocacy group that favors labeling. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, the trade group that represents major food companies and retailers, issued a statement opposing the move. "These labels could mislead consumers into believing that these food products are somehow different or present a special risk or a potential risk," Louis Finkel, the organization's executive director of government affairs, said in the statement. Mr. Finkel noted that the Food and Drug Administration, as well as regulatory and scientific bodies including the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association, had deemed genetically modified products safe. The labeling requirements announced by Whole Foods will include its 339 stores in the United States and Canada. Since labeling is already required in the European Union, products in its seven stores in Britain are already marked if they contain genetically modified ingredients. The labels currently used show that a product has been verified as free of genetically engineered ingredients by the Non GMO Project, a nonprofit certification organization. The labels Whole Foods will use in 2018, which have yet to be created, will identify foods that contain such ingredients".

It takes courage and conviction to swim against the tide and the action of this retail chain is all the more praise worthy considering the stakes involved. Of course they are truthful in stating that their action is guided by the desire of most of their customers who wanted such labeling and their business is expected to expand by 15% within a short span of time. One point that may disappoint some is the time frame given viz 5 years to bring about this changed policy. It has to be admitted that unilateral action in putting GM label on products made by hundreds of suppliers is not an easy task and the 5 year time frame appears to be reasonable if this aspect is considered. The unfortunate American consumer must be happy that such a trend is visible during their life time, after giving up any hope that the GM food industry would ever oblige them by making the labeling truly transparent as the law has intended.

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

SOME CRITICAL ISSUES OF CURRENT CONCERN IN FOOD

The strength of the often maligned food industry lies in its power to innovate as per the demand of the consumer but a major segment of this sector, knowing fully well that what they are doing is not justifiable measured by any yardstick ignore consumer susceptibilities in pursuit of quick money at high rate of returns to their investment. But a time has come when the industry cannot ignore the consumer community any more and it can afford to refuse to change this attitude only at its own peril. It is a question of time before the governments all over the world start putting stringent restrictions to force the change in favor of the citizens. As yet another new year has dawned, many pundits warn that time is running out for the industry to mend its ways. The three most challenging issues that will confront the stake holders in this food "game" are considered to be cutting down food wastes, humane animal handling including raring them and more transparent labeling for better understanding of the products offered. Here is an observation by one of the critics regarding these issues.

"This year we saw the "end" of Twinkies, the explosion of caffeinated foods, and even DIY marshmallows. But in my opinion, three food issues of great importance finally made it into mainstream American consciousness in 2012, giving us hope for real change in the food system.  Food waste, humane animal treatment (including antibiotic use) and food labeling all took the leap and are now common household topics. And in all three cases, people are using the Internet and a host of apps to discuss these topics, to educate the public and to inspire each other to act, and buy, better."

Though it has been in the public realm most pundits agree that the food waste could be as high as 35-50% of production globally, precious little could be achieved in reducing such colossal waste, in spite of the ground reality that almost 30% of the world population go to bed hungry due to uncertain accessibility to basic foods. Similarly the failure of Californian voters to force the industry to improve the labels through more transparent disclosure does not lessen the gravity of the labeling crisis that is confronting the consumers. Reports after reports, the pitiable conditions in thousands of animal and poultry farms and the inhuman way they are handled and butchered can put to shame even the fiercest beast, namely the Lion which does not have any feeling towards its prey! These three problems will definitely come to the fore during the year 2013 and one can only hope that significant progress will be achieved in all these areas through the sustained efforts of consumer activists and animal protectionist organizations. 

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

GM FOOD LABELING-THE WAR IS HOTTING UP!

The mandatory "front of the pack labeling" is intended to respect the right of every citizen to know what is inside a food pack and compare the same with what is offered by others in the market. Almost all countries have labeling regulations with little variations but basically the objectives remain the same. While consumers whole heartedly welcomed such initiatives for the benefit of the community at large, it is the industry which consistently and aggressively resists such regulations, fearing an adverse impact on its financial health. If food industry appears on the wrong side of the consumer family it is because of such gross insensitivity to the well being and sufferings of the very consumers who after all provide its "bread and butter". The on-going war on mandatory GM labeling policy being put on the ballot initiative in California, USA for eliciting majority opinion is being furiously resisted by the industry and millions of dollars are being invested to defeat the proposal. It is very difficult to imagine the reason for such a negative attitude of the industry, considering that what is being asked from them is to declare if their products contain genetically altered ingredients. After all there are many processors who do not use GM ingredients in their products and an opportunity "window" opens up for the consumer to buy those products if labeling is insisted upon. Here is an interesting critique on the subject and consumers all over the will be looking for a massive endorsement of the policy initiative in California.

"This November, Californians will vote for or against Prop 37, the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act. The outcome of that vote will likely determine whether the U.S. will one day join the nearly 50 other countries that allow their citizens to choose between genetically engineered and non-genetically engineered food through the enactment of laws requiring mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms(GMOs). The election is three months away, but the battle lines were drawn months ago. Lining up against the consumer's right to know — and throwing plenty of money into the fight — is a long list of industry front groups, food conglomerates and biotech companies. Near the top of that list is the powerful Washington, DC-based Grocery Manufacturer's Association (GMA), a multi-billion-dollar trade association. The GMA represents America's $1.2 trillion "Big Food" industry, led by supermarket chains, Monsanto and other biotech companies, animal drug companies, multinational food manufacturers, and junk food restaurants — all of whom rely on the use of dangerous chemicals, pesticides, animal drugs, and GMOs to produce cheap, contaminated food".

One natural question that arises out of the above situation is why the industry is opposing the transparency sought to be achieved through the new labeling policy when there are divergent views regarding the safety and environment dangers posed by GM foods. If irradiated foods, with tons of safety studies concluding that they are safe, needs to be labeled under American law, why not GM foods? A logical question that must replied by those opposing GM labeling proposal. It is amusing to note the stand taken by the antagonists of the proposed policy of compulsory labeling regarding the impact of such a move on the future of Biotechnology as if this modern wonder science is restricted to only developing GM foods! One important consideration about this issue is regarding the logistical difficulties that may arise once California voters approve the proposal because California is one of the 50 states in the US and food industry will have to either declare GM foods for entire country or separate labels need to be printed on products made and marketed in that state. Probably Food and Drug Administration deserves blame for this dilemma as this agency has shirked its responsibility by not passing such a law with national foot print, applicable to the entire country, probably bowing to the lobbying power of the GM food industry giants..

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

GM FOODS-THE GREAT LABELING WAR!

Labeling regulations which are in force in many countries have been evolved to provide useful information to consumers regarding the nature of foods sold, its nutritive value, expiration date, price per unit and any others of relevance. The system currently in vogue has served admirably in most cases though there are rumblings from some quarters seeking more information about the foods marketed. The information provided is mostly confined to the products and no one questions the nature of technology used to prepare the foods. One of the exceptions to this rule was made in the case of irradiated foods where some countries insist on declaring irradiation process on the label. The endless campaign to compel the food industry to declare whether a particular food is made through genetic engineering technology or whether the product contains ingredients made by genetic manipulation is running its course in countries like the US where a massive procession was taken out by antagonists of GM foods to the Office of the President of that country demanding compulsory labeling of such foods. This is a very controversial subject with no unanimity regarding the safety of GM foods on a long term basis with opponents and supporters marshaling "evidence" in support of their stand. While the food safety authorities in the US has not changed its stand taken in 1992 that GM products are safe to consume, there are many states which are taking initiatives to force their local governments to impose such labeling restrictions. The State of California, considered one of the most progressive states in the US is considering  compulsory labeling regulations based on a referendum to be carried out soon to seek people's view. If passed by a majority, no food industry can sell any product containing GM food ingredients in that state. It will be interesting to watch the developing situation which will shape the future of GM foods in the US. Here is take on this controversial subject.     

Voters will soon decide whether to make California the first state in the country to require labels on products such as sweet corn whose genes have been altered to make them resistant to pests. Proposition 37 promises to set up a big-money battle pitting natural food businesses and activists against multinational companies including PepsiCo,Coca-Cola and Kellogg. Backers and opponents have already raised nearly $4 million combined for campaigns to sway voters, an amount that's likely to swell into the tens of millions of dollars as the November election approaches. So-called GMO foods — those made from genetically modified organisms — have been declared safe by U.S. regulators. But concern persists about the unforeseen consequences of this laboratory tinkering on human health and the environment. The outcome in California could rattle the entire U.S. food chain. An estimated 70% to 80% of processed foods sold in supermarkets could be affected, industry experts said, along with a variety of fresh fruits and vegetables. The measure qualified for the California ballot with nearly 1 million signatures; labeling in the state could set a precedent that's followed nationwide. "This will be a big fight," said Shaun Bowler, a UC Riverside political scientist specializing in initiatives. "This is a popular issue because people are very afraid of the words 'genetically engineered.' And the people who sell this stuff are worried about losing sales." Backers of the initiative are encouraged by a pair of recent national opinion surveys showing that about 9 out of 10 consumers support labeling. A California-specific poll, released Thursday by the Business Roundtable and the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, showed Proposition 37 has an almost 3-to-1 ratio of support, with 64.9% of prospective voters favoring it, compared with 23.9% opposed. 

Why the US alone is resisting this labeling demand is some what unclear though strong lobbying by GM food giants with billions of dollars at stake may be behind this anachronism. Over 50 countries have compulsory labeling rule for GM foods and nothing untoward has happened during the last few years such restrictions were in force. The fact that GM food labeling controversy has become a political foot ball match between the States and the Federal Government is making the situation more dicey. It is not clear how similar propositions to label GM foods never got majority support in some 20 states where balloting had taken place during the last few years. Whether California balloting will break with the past remains to be seen but if pre-referendum polls of overwhelming support from the people, are to be believed, food industry in the US will have to work out a different strategy to market their food products in that state since  almost 80% of foods in that country are based on GM ingredients.

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

HOW NATURAL IS NATURAL? A NEW DILEMMA!

With the consumers disenchanted with the processed foods that dominate the market, food industry seems to be changing its strategy to retain the customer base through new labeling tricks. Every one likes everything that is natural. Right? Here is where the industry finds solace and a new approach in marketing is emerging. It is the fear of the unknown that drives people to natural foods and this is also the basis on which organic food industry is flourishing to day. If the FDA of the US is to be relied upon a food can be called natural if no added color, flavor or synthetic substances but whether such a simplistic view can satisfy the aspirations of the consumer vis-a-vis the term natural. A critical question that begs an answer is what if a natural food undergoes modern day processing when some additives like thickeners, sugar, salt, etc are added? If a natural juice is to be produced what one has to do is just squeezing the edible portion of the fruit to get the juice but to get uniformity of the product, derived from fruits of different sweetness, color and flavor, industry is forced to add certain ingredients, mostly natural substances which does not affect the original quality in any way. While this may be perfectly in order what is being objected to is to use the word "natural" on the label. Why not blend juices of different lots to make the final product really natural with minimum quality variation. In the US where there is a powerful legal lobby, such a situation provides an opportunity to haul the industry to the courts for mislabeling. Here is a take on this subject which provides an interesting insight into the working of food industry in that country.    

"In approximately 20 lawsuits, the first one filed in New Jersey, lawyers claim the company adds chemically engineered "flavor packs" to its juice, making it taste the same year-round. On Thursday, lawyers will come together in Washington to argue before a panel of judges about where the lawsuits should be heard as a group. Tropicana declined to comment but said in a statement that it is committed to full compliance with labeling laws and to producing "great-tasting 100 percent orange juice." The orange juice lawsuits are just the latest disputes over "all natural" claims. Over the past several years, a number of major national brands have been attacked for what consumers have called deceptive labeling. Tostidos, SunChips, Snapple and Ben & Jerry's ice cream have all faced similar attacks. The lawsuits have become common enough that the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents more than 300 food and beverage makers, had a panel that discussed the topic as part of a conference in February. Lawyers representing food and beverage companies have told their clients to be wary. Part of the problem, lawyers agree, is that consumers are looking for healthier products, and companies have responded by creating and branding their products as "all natural." The Food and Drug Administration, the agency that oversees packaged food labeling in the United States, has no definition of what counts as "natural." As long as a food labeled "natural" doesn't contain added color, artificial flavor or synthetic substances, the agency doesn't object. That's not enough guidance, some lawyers said. "The whole natural issue is a mess," said Michael Jacobson, the executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based food safety and advocacy group that helped get the makers of 7UP and Capri Sun to stop making natural claims about their products. Jacobson and others say the FDA's lack of guidance has left lingering questions. One question has been whether a product with high fructose corn syrup, which is made by processing corn but does not occur naturally, can be labeled natural. That was the issue in a 2007 lawsuit over Snapple drinks. Snapple has said it no longer uses high fructose corn syrup in products marked "all natural," and a New York judge ultimately ruled in Snapple's favor and closed the case last year, but other lawsuits are still questioning the use of the term".

Labeling on front of the package is an important means of informing the consumer about the nature of the contents inside the sealed pack which is a constitutional right of every citizen under freedom of information provision. Consumer reposes so much confidence on the government of the land to protect their rights and violation of this trust ought to be frowned upon. If the industry is allowed to get away with breaking this trust, hauling them before the judiciary is a perfectly valid action. On the other hand allowing the legal attorneys to entice the consumer to go to court to extract fat compensation on silly score also cannot be justified. In the present case one is not sure whether using the term natural on juices without adding water or other unnecessary additives is such a crime deserving judicial intervention. Industry must also introspect as to the need to use the term indiscriminately as long as the product conforms to the standards laid down in the statute books. what the regulators can do is to tighten the standards without giving any scope for misinterpretation by the industry.

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

MORE TRANSPARENCY IN MEAT LABELING-NEW US INITIATIVE

It has been a mystery as to why meat products made in the US never had labels declaring the nutritional content while all packed foods carried such information on the front of the pack  conspicuously. Interestingly most safety episodes that occurred in the country had their origin in the meat packing houses, probably because of failure to follow strictly the recommended slaughtering and handling practices by the industry. While nutrient composition may not have anything to do with product safety per se, it still serves the purpose of persuading the consumers to ponder over the implications of consuming meat products because of the presence in them of cholesterol and saturated fat besides total lack of fiber. It is gratifying to see that the above anomaly is sought to be rectified by the authorities concerned through mandatory notification. Here is a take on this development.   

"US consumers will now have convenient access to important nutritional information about the raw meat and poultry products they most frequently purchase, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Under a new FSIS rule, packages of ground or chopped meat and poultry, such as hamburger or ground turkey, will now feature nutrition facts panels on their labels. Additionally, 40 of the most popular whole, raw cuts of meat and poultry, such as chicken breast or steak, will also have nutritional information either on the package labels or on display to consumers at the store. "Providing nutrition information on meat and poultry products in the store gives shoppers a clearer sense of the options available, allowing them to purchase items that are most appropriate for their families' needs," said Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Elisabeth Hagen. "These new labels mark a significant step in the agency's efforts to help consumers make more informed food purchase decisions."  The new nutrition facts panels will list the number of calories and the grams of total fat and saturated fat that a product contains. For example, consumers will be able to compare the calories and fat content for ground turkey versus ground beef, or for pork chops versus chicken breasts, right in the store. Additionally, a ground or chopped product that includes on its label a lean percentage statement, such as "85% lean," and is not considered "low in fat" also will list its fat percentage, making it easier for consumers to understand the amounts of lean and fat content in a particular product. Consumers will no longer have to guess which products fit their diets". 

The anomaly in the food safety monitoring system in the US can be attributed to the fact that two distinct agencies are involved dealing with safety aspects, USDA and FDA and synchronization of the rules between them is happening too slowly allowing the meat and poultry industry to take liberty with the quality and safety of products they make. Besides inadequate inspection of processing facilities due to shortage of qualified personnel is great handicap faced by the enforcement agency concerned. Politicking with food safety between the two major parties is adding further uncertainty to the situation. While one party is totally aligned with and committed to the interests of food industry over riding consumer concerns, the other is not bold enough to think or plan any thing to resist the lobbyists who exercise enormous influence on the political class in general. The new mandatory labeling regulations for meat products therefore can be considered a huge success to the harried citizens of this country. 

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