POWER OF INDUSTRY LOBBYING-THE US SITUATION

Food industry can be applauded for many of its pro-consumer activities including developing and offering new products that help millions of families to save precious time in the kitchen through the convenience factor built into such products. Unfortunately the confidence and trust reposed by the consumers on the sincerity of the industry seem to be disappearing fast during the last 2-3 decades as the same have been misused by the industry to build an economic clout unchallenged by any organized government in most countries and in that process indulge in many practices considered unsafe by dispassionate experts. Latest to come to surface is the blatant pressure exerted by the meat industry to allow them to use some chemicals which were banned earlier in the US. Here is a take on this tragic episode which can be a forerunner for many such pro active policies, hostile to the citizen but friendly to the industry for considerations other than merit.  

According to Courthouse News Service (CNS), sodium benzoate, sodium propionate, and benzoic acid will now be permissible for use in preserving and treating meat and poultry products, despite having been previously banned. FSIS has long been of the persuasion that major food corporations would attempt to use such additives to "conceal damage or inferiority in meat and poultry," but the agency's view has apparently changed. After Kraft submitted its own company-funded trials claiming that the three preservative chemicals are allegedly safe, and that they supposedly cannot be used to disguise sub par meat and poultry products, the USDA suddenly changed its mind about them. This is all according to its mouthpiece, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which made the announcement recently about the change. "Kraft submitted data collected from its in-plant trials and from scientific studies that show that these substances do not conceal damage or inferiority, or make products appear better or of greater value than they are under the proposed conditions of use," says FSIS.

The case of safety-suspect Genetically Modified foods still rankles millions of consumers as the industry is allowed to develop and market such foods without the consumer ever knowing about it through the front of the label declaration! There are many such instances, especially in the US where many law makers are beholden to the industry for favors shown to them during election time. The US government had the temerity to even give protection to the industry from legal challenges on what they do vis-a-vis GM foods! At this rate the food industry in this country may succeed in re-introducing many banned chemicals under the pretext that they are found safe under questionable in-house, biased research findings. Viewed against this the citizens in other developed countries like those in Europe, Japan or Canada are more fortunate in having governments much more sensitive to their interests than this "most powerful" county in the world!
  

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

MEAT PRODUCTS-THE ANTIBIOTIC USE REALLY HURTS THE CONSUMER?

Use of antibiotics in raising food yielding animals is a subject courting intense controversy and no one knows the real situation at the ground level. Two important arguments one hears against wide scale use of a number of antibiotics by the animal food industry are that it makes many pathogens that cause disease in humans become more resistant to use of antibiotics when used against diseases and more than 80% of the US production of antibiotics goes for incorporation in animal feed stock. Both the above claims are sought to be debunked by a report which recently appeared in the media which makes some sense. Here is a take on this critique on antibiotics and animal food industry.  

From what I have been reading lately, it appears to me that the next big fight over agriculture's ability to provide consumers with plentiful, safe and affordable meat and poultry products will focus on the use of antibiotics in animals raised for food. And it also appears to me that the information being provided through media outlets is not designed to inform, but to misinform and play on the public's lack of detailed knowledge about the use of antibiotics in animals raised for food. And it also appears to me that the main thrust of the attack will be eliminating the use of antibiotics needed to maintain healthy animals in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs. Eliminating antibiotics to control or prevent infections in our herds and flocks will eliminate many CAFOs and drive up the cost of protein to the point where many will have to look elsewhere for this portion of their diets. And many opponents of the use of antibiotics in animals say: "And that would be a good thing." So is the agenda to protect me from multi drug resistant bacteria or is it to reduce the amount of animal products we consume? To try and answer that question I want to supply the readers with some facts, facts that I will provide links for and can be repeated time after time as the truth, if anyone cares to listen to you. First of all, a statistic often repeated by the crowd calling for change is that 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. are used in animals. The 80 percent number is meant to be a distraction from the real truth. In truth, the numbers posted on the FDA's website, titled 2010  SUMMARY REPORT on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals, are in total kilograms of drugs sold. The listing is not indicative of what the antibiotics were used for, nor is it an accurate reflection of illnesses treated vs. prevented, etc.
For instance, a 2,500 pound prize bull with pneumonia is going to be treated with a much larger dosage of an antibiotic than an 8 pound newborn with the same bacterial infection. But the numbers are the best we have for animal antibiotic use, so I will be using them today. For human use of antibiotics, the same caveat about weight applies. The antibiotic numbers sold for human use that I will use for this discussion come from a letter to Congresswoman Slaughter from the FDA dated April 19, 2011, citing the IMS Health, IMS National Sales Perspectives data Year 2009.
According to the FDA report, 28 percent of all antibiotics sold for animal use in 2010 were Ionophores.  Ionophores have never been approved for use in human medicine. Several other drugs sold for use in animals are also not approved for use in human medicine. When they are combined with the Ionophore total, the percentage of antibiotics sold for use in animals but having no place in human disease treatment reaches 45 percent.
The largest class overall of antibiotics sold or distributed for use in animals in 2010 was the tetracycline class.  This class accounted for nearly 42 percent of total sales. Tetracycline use in human medicine comprises about 1 percent of the total amount sold based on weight. Tetracycline used to be widely prescribed, but is now limited in use to treating the sexually transmitted disease caused by Chlamydia, Mycoplasma infections and Rickettsial diseases like Lyme and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever. For these illnesses, there are antibiotics far superior to tetracycline. These other antibiotics, generally in the class called Macrolides, are the first line of therapy.

The above report raises serious questions regarding the role and credibility of scientists, the USFDA, the USDA and others involved in educating consumers regarding the truth vis-a-vis antibiotics use by animal food industry. If logic is the guiding factor the contention by the author of above critique sounds more convincing than the off-the-cuff opinions and views of critics who deride the practice of antibiotics use by the animal food industry. Another issue is that antibiotics in feed increases the yield of meat which is a desirable practice and no one should have quarrel on that unless it is proved unhealthy to the humans. Now that this controversy has been raked up there is a need for scientific clarity and make a revisit of the issue by those in power controlling the destiny of the food industry through their executive authority. 

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

COST OF IGNORING A TECHNOLOGY-THE CANADIANS ARE PAYING FOR IT

What type of logic it is that what is good for Americans is not good for Canadians? That seems to be essence of the continued refusal or obfuscation on the part of Canadian safety authorities to allow irradiation process for sterilization of ground meat products. Ionizing radiation generated under controlled conditions is directed to the foods to be sterilized in a closed atmosphere for varying duration, the time and dosage varying from product to product. Damage to the DNA of the pathogenic organisms is beyond repair making them incapable of multiplication, eventually leading to their death. In spite of significant consumer perception that irradiated food will emit harmful radiation affecting their health, persistent consumer education has enabled the industry to process over half a million tons of food products every year using irradiation technology. Almost 50 countries have permitted food irradiation with all international agencies including FAO and WHO certifying the safety and efficacy of food irradiation process. If this is so why should the Canadian government is prevaricating on this issue? Here is a report on this issue coming from Canada.

"Why has the Canadian government not approved the irradiation of ground beef to allow consumers the choice of buying regular or irradiated ground beef?In March 1998 the Canadian Cattlemen's Association (CCA) submitted a petition to Health Canada and according to a 2000 press release it was very optimistic that approval would happen in a timely fashion. This was a reasonable expectation by the Association because in 1997 on the basis of extensive scientific studies and the expert opinions in the United States, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the irradiation of red meat for the control of food borne pathogens. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) which is responsible for ensuring that meat products are safe, wholesome and properly labelled published its ruling in 1999. "Today Americans are consuming about 18 million pounds of irradiated red meat per year, and experiencing a rapidly growing demand to over 35 million pounds of fresh irradiated produce", according to Ron Eustice the former Executive Director of the Minnesota Beef Council. In fact for years, pioneering companies Omaha Steaks, Schwan's and Wegmans are proud to offer their customers a choice with the added food safety benefit that irradiation offers to already great-tasting beef products and hamburgers. Meanwhile in Canada we wait, denied the choice that American consumers have. Why? In the Canadian Report of the Independent Investigator into the Listeriosis Outbreak (July 2009) where 22 lives were lost, it noted "Irradiation has been proven to be the single most effective method of eradicating bacteria and it does not alter appearance, taste or texture of foods.". Yet it also stated that "Despite its many advantages, this proven technique is unlikely to be adopted by food processors without a major consumer education program." The Consumers Association of Canada commissioned a study to take the pulse on the subject of food irradiation early in 2012. While irradiation is relatively unknown in Canada, Angus Reid Public Opinion found, when Canadians polled in the survey were given a brief explanation of the process, most said they would support having irradiated food at the grocery store as a choice. The problem is that as few as 10 highly infectious E. coli O157:H7 microscopic germs can sicken and, perhaps, kill you. The manufacturing facility may be as clean as a surgical suite, and the government inspected company can take extensive samples— yet we are missing a kill step for the pathogens. So, where is the irradiated beef? Without the Canadian government approval, irradiation technology, which could have prevented economic harm to the food industry and could have prevented illness and death, cannot be used!"

The American policy of permitting the use of Irradiation Technology but insisting on declaration of the same on the label, probably, will be a via solution for this Catch 22 situation. World over use of irradiation technology must be encouraged because of its immense potential to prevent food losses and food poisoning episodes due to newly emerging virulent spoilage vectors. After all world has seen billions of dollars of investment in evolving and safety clearance of hundreds of irradiated products during the last 6 decades and this effort should not go waste by a continued mindset of resistance to the universal deployment of this clean technology. That will, to some extent, give salvation to the souls of all those who perished from the first atomic bomb dropped in Japan during World War II, thereby demonstrating the will of the mankind to use atomic energy only for peaceful uses that benefit it.

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

THE GREAT FOOD "TAMASHA" IN THE US-WHAT A TRAGEDY!

"Small is beautiful" is a famous saying that set the policies of many countries in promoting small and micro enterprises during the last millennium. But the world seems to have turned on its head with the emergence of "oligopoly" that controls the food market in countries like the US. The Americans boast that theirs is a country with unlimited choices of foods to the consumers who can pick and choose from over 50000 products offered in big and well organized super market outlets, may be literally true but a close critical look will reveal that these products are made by a few players with deep pockets and political power to sabotage any well meaning policies considered good for the consumers. The very fact that more than two thirds of the 300 plus million population in the US are either obese or overweight tells its own story regarding the track record of these handful of giant transnational companies. Fast disappearing breed of small and family farmers because of the onslaught of powerful corporate players further limits the choice of the consumer who is forced to "eat" what is offered and not necessarily what is good for him. Here is a critical commentary on this disturbing trend which is spreading across the world with unabashed capitalism spreading its wings.   

"Just five companies account for almost half of supermarket food sales in the United States. And what about the food those companies offer us? Let's take meat. A meal is not a proper meal without it, at least for 97 out of 100 Americans. Just four companies provide us with 79 percent of our beef, 65 percent of our pork, and 57 percent of our poultry. So, no matter what kind of meat we have for dinner, most likely it comes from the same handful of companies: Tyson,JBS, Cargill, Smithfield. You can never decide which bacon to bring home? Armour, Eckrich, Farmland, Gwaltney, John Morrell, Smithfield – all owned by Smithfield. So, market power is consolidated in the hands of a few multinational corporations. What does this mean for the food we eat and the people who produce it? They explain: Control of our food supply has been wrenched from independent farmers and ranchers in the corporate boardrooms of agribusiness giants. Since 1980, four out of 10 farmers who raise cattle and nine out of 10 who raise hogs have gone out of business.Under this Darwinian survival of the fittest model, control of most production is now in the hands of large corporations. But farmers still raise cows, and pigs, and chickens, right? Yes they do, say the professors, who recently also co-authored Slaughterhouse Blues: The Meat and Poultry Industry of North America, but "most of them don't really own the animals they raise. Virtually all the chickens sold in the United States are grown under production contracts to a handful of companies, who own the birds from egg to supermarket."

It has to be conceded that any investor pumping in money for taking up a manufacturing venture must be assured of a decent return on his capital but this has to happen under an environment where equity is the hall mark with every one, small and big getting equal opportunity. This is not what is actually happening as those with big money invariably buy out the smaller fish with highly tempting terms. Which small investor can resist the temptation of selling his venture if prices offered are 50-150% of the real value? While main stream food production and processing industry has been monopolized by a few giants, it is apprehended that organic food industry, evolved to escape from the risks inherent in most products offered by the modern processing sector, will also be eventually assimilated by the latter through economic aggression. Developing countries must shun such a model and put in place constructive policies and frame works to nurture small enterprises and ensure protection from the marauding poachers. Those countries clamoring for foreign investments in food processing and retailing with open arms, must guard against the transformation of their food sector into the ugly food scenario that predominates in the US where the powerful industry lobby is dictating terms to the government regarding what is good for the citizen!

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

MEAT PRODUCTS AND ANTIBIOTICS-THE LABELING GAME!

Increased emergence of bugs resistant to some of the commonly used antibiotics for treatment of serious diseases in human beings is a cause for alarm globally. While part of the problem can be attributed to the indiscriminate prescription by physicians of all hues and colors to treat any and every fever with strongest antibiotics available in the market, meat industry has to bear the major burden for such a situation because of large scale use (or mis-use?) of antibiotics in raising meat animals. It is scandalous that more than 80% of the antibiotics produced in the US goes for feeding meat animals, under the pretext that meat so produced will be safer from pathogens like Salmonella, virulent E.coli and others. However a reality check shows that antibiotics are used to improve the production economics as the animals grow faster using less and less feed inputs. The hapless consumer, in spite of his yearnings to consume antibiotic free meat products does not have ready access to such products because most of the meat produced comes from farms which liberally use antibiotics in their day to day operations. Here is a take on this vexatious issue that seems to be caught between the powerful meat lobby and aggressive consumer activists organizations.  

"Currently, there is no labeling standards for drug free meat products, but until there is, the researchers say, foods labeled "organic" are, by definition, required to be antibiotic-free. In addition, they say consumers can generally rely on labels that explicitly say "no antibiotics," but should be wary of terms like "natural," "antibiotic-free," "no antibiotic residues" and "no antibiotic growth promotants," as these terms can be misleading. But a coalition of agricultural advocacy organizations – including the American Meat Institute, the National Cattleman's Beef Association, the National Chicken Council, the National Pork Producers Council and the National Turkey Federation -  do not agree that there is a problem. "The research is clear that the contribution of using antibiotics in food-animal production to the human burden of antibiotic resistance is quite small, if it exists at all," the coalition said in a letter to Congress in June".

It is a shame that the government in the world's most powerful country, viz the US is unable to come to the rescue of its citizens through restraining policies that will discourage the meat industry from using antibiotics recklessly. Adding insult to injury, the powerful meat lobby does not concede the point that its large scale use of antibiotics is responsible for the drug resistance encountered in may pathogen infections, in spite of massive scientific evidence to the contrary! What prevents the US authorities in insisting on compulsory labeling of antibiotic treated meat is indeed baffling, the only charitable interpretation being its vulnerability to the lobbying power of the meat industry. Though consumers have an alternative in organic meats, the fact that they cost heavily compared to normal meat excludes many of them with limited income from patronizing such expensive products. Access to safe food is a fundamental human right and no government can shirk its responsibility in ensuring the same, no matter how powerful the food industry may be!    

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