THE GREAT GLUTEN SURGE!-WHY PICK ON THIS HUMBLE PROTEIN?

In the US a new fad by the name "Glutenphobia" seems to be emerging for reasons not easily understood. Whether people are being mis-educated by the gluten free food products industry which had invested billions of dollars in developing hundreds of new products devoid of gluten or due to genuine experience of feeling better by avoiding gluten is a mystery which has to be probed further. What is intriguing is why scientists are not coming forward to categorically say that Gluten is harmless to people without any history Celiac disease or bring out any fact that implies this protein in any other human ailment. WHO has a role in demystifying the confusion surrounding Gluten through transparent studies involving human beings. Here is a commentary on this crazy trend in the US which speaks volume about the unimaginable clout food industry enjoys to day!  

"Around the beginning of 2012 this thing starts to rise, and it has yet to peak," Balzer says. "Right now 29 percent of the adult population says, 'I'd like to cut back or avoid gluten completely.' "Indeed, he says, people in his biweekly survey of 1,000 people were more likely to say they're trying to go gluten-free than to say they're dieting. That's interesting, since less than 1 percent of people have celiac disease, according to the National Institutes of Health. Those people can't tolerate gluten, a protein in wheat, rye and barley. For them, avoiding gluten is the only way to avoid painful gastrointestinal problems and other symptoms caused by this autoimmune disorder. But if the other 28 percent of people don't have celiac, why are they trying to shun gluten? It could be that they're sensitive to gluten. As we've previously reported, a small number of studies have found that people who don't have celiac can still have difficulties digesting gluten. Or they could just think it sounds healthful.

Occasionally there are reports by individuals that their undefined or non-diagnosed  health problems are relieved by avoiding Gluten in their daily diet though such claims have no scientific basis. If gluten free food products are tastier or more appealing to the consumers, such facts should be brought to surface through scientifically controlled sensory studies. Of course it is very difficult to predict consumer behavior. The example of the so called energy drinks, loaded with caffeine which is doing roaring business in spite of reported deaths among those consuming this beverage, is an example of wrong consumer perception regarding connection between health and food. Or for that matter the defeat of the proposal in California for fair labeling of GM foods is still an enigma with no rhyme or reason! If the rising demand for gluten free products in the US is driven by the industry with vested interests claiming non-existing advantages, it is time this bluff is rebutted by those responsible for consumer well being.   

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

THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES-THE NEW TARGET OF GLOBAL FOOD GIANTS

Is the experience of consumers in rich countries like the US of any guidance to developing countries and emerging economies in the realm of processed food and its relation to citizen's health? One single lesson that may have very high relevance will be to keep away processed foods as being churned out in wealthy countries like the US as much as possible if consumer health is not to be compromised. If over weight, obesity, CVD, cancer, blood pressure and other life debilitating illnesses are any indication of the health of a nation, developing countries are much better off, probably because of relatively low intake of commercial foods from the industry as a part of their diet. It is now being reported that giant food companies that control almost in fifth of world market for processed foods are feeling the pinch in expanding their business in most wealthy countries with practically zero population growth and almost saturated markets. To overcome the present business stagnation, multinational companies are targeting countries like China, India and other neo-economic powers to make their over riding presence in the coming years. Here is a take on this disturbing development which must concern all those interested in safeguarding their health.

Moodie and colleagues say that the food and drink industries should be treated like the tobacco industry - as companies with too much of a vested interest in the sale of unhealthy products to help curb the epidemic of disease. They must have no role in the formulation of national or international policy, they say. "Regulation, or the threat of regulation, is the only way to change these transnational corporations. The industry must be put under pressure if it is to change." The researchers were unable to find any health benefit to industry involvement in voluntary regulation or public-private partnerships. Industry documents, they say, reveal how companies shape public-health legislation and avoid regulation. They build "financial and institutional relations" with health professionals, non-governmental organisations, and national and international health agencies, says the paper. They distort research findings and they lobby politicians to oppose health care reform. Huge multinational companies dominate sales worldwide. "The frequently used term 'competitive market' suggests a wide variety of traders; however, the most powerful corporate sectors of the world's food system are increasingly concentrated to the point of oligopoly. "For example, in the USA, the 10 largest food companies control more than half of all food sales. Worldwide, this proportion is about 15% and is rising rapidly. More than half of global soft drinks are produced by large transnational companies." The multinationals are now moving in on the developing world, the researchers say. "Saturation of markets in high-income countries has caused the industries to rapidly penetrate emerging global markets, as the tobacco industry has done. Almost all growth in the foreseeable future in profits and sales of these unhealthy commodities will be in low-income and middle-income countries [where consumption is currently low]."

Recent aggressive action of multinationals like Walmart and others in gaining entry to India is primarily due to the above perception and it is sad that pliable governments are succumbing to this strategy without realizing the long term consequences of allowing these predators into their country. In theory there is no harm in providing a free environment to all players engaged in food manufacture but in practice food ventures need large investments and gestation periods to become viable. Most local entrepreneurs with limited resources are bought out eventually creating a virtual monopoly shared by a few foreign players. With weak kneed safety policing regime in countries like India, these MNCs become "Lord of all they purvey" with no control on them! It is time people hold the government and the governing class responsible for such unhealthy policies and bring some sanity in promulgating consumer friendly policies.





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

PROCESSED FOODS-RECURRING SAFETY DOUBTS!

The most frequently asked question by the consumers world over is whether commercial foods marketed by the processed food industry are really safe for short term as well as long term consumption? It is a tragedy of Himalayan proportion that no safety agency whether national or international is willing to say these foods are "absolutely" safe! Of course such a situation is understandable considering the complex composition of foods and enormous cost of running longitudinal safety studies on each and every ingredient used while processing. But the fact that consumer is not "protected" fully must sink in and there is nothing like an absolutely safe food. Consumer must weigh in the relative risks of enjoying a food or not consuming it at all before taking a purchase decision. At least those products coming under the supervisory regime of safety agencies carry lesser risks provided the market monitoring is done with vigor and efficiency. Here is a "caustic" comment on the safety of processed foods which tells its own story!

"Those unpronounceable ingredients listed on food packages are all tested, regulated and safe, right? When a company adds a new additive to its food, they have to ask permission first, don't they? According to a review by the Pew Health Group's Food Additives Project, the answer is a resounding, "No!" Of more than 10,000 chemicals allowed in human food as of January 2011, a third were approved by those with a vested interest. Either the product manufacturers themselves or the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association Expert Panel gave them a stamp of approval. The other two-thirds got the blessing of one of the agencies charged with regulating additives. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) looks after pesticides. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has responsibility for all other chemicals.It is easy to do the math. Double-blind, peer-reviewed studies are costly. Testing the safety of a new chemical requires longitudinal studies. Even those are not enough since chemicals never interact with the body in isolation. Tracking one chemical at a time or even narrow combinations is an imprecise method. So it is very difficult to be sure if something is safe or not. Neither the EPA nor the FDA has the budget for major research projects. That leaves us in industry hands. Their version of the "precautionary principle" could probably be defined as, "a rule meant to keep our profits healthy unless we are caught making people sick, in which case we will find legal means for avoiding responsibility."

In defense of the regulatory agencies, it can be said that they are doing a job as best they can under financial and infrastructural constraints imposed by the democratic governments which have many other priorities. What is reprehensible, however, is playing to the money power of the industry in bending rules or "looking the other way" when there are adequate scientific basis for hauling the defaulters and violators. It is true that industry is allowed to use thousands of chemical additives, many unnecessary, in the name of technical necessity. No wonder consumers are increasingly turning towards organic food industry which has a better hold on the chemicals used in their products. While in countries with poor food industry base people consume high proportion of unprocessed foods with their diets predominated by these components. In contrast in many wealthy countries the proportion of processed foods in the daily diet can be as high as 80% making them more vulnerable to food related safety episodes too frequently. As there are no uniform international norms practiced by all countries, such a situation is likely to persist for a long time to come.

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

  

FOOD LABELING-SUGAR CONTENT UNDER ATTACK

The front of the pack labeling regulations are supposed to help the consumers to understand better about many aspects of the contents inside including nutritive value. However due to practical reasons there is a limit as to how much information can be loaded on the labels and there are doubts regarding the effectiveness of the present regulations. In a country like India such declaration printed in English has very little value as majority of the population are English illiterate and the information provided probably does not serve the consumer community much. Still the current labeling practices do serve a purpose in documenting the nature of the product for quality and safety agencies to administer food laws. Having established beyond a shadow of doubt regarding the role played by sugar in progressively deteriorating health status of human beings in many countries, knowing the sugar content in a product helps the consumer to pick and choose those with least sugar levels among processed food products. One of the new proposals now being considered to improve the effectiveness of labeling involves declaration of "added sugar" in the product during processing. Whether this will serve any purpose or how added sugar can be distinguished from naturally present sugar are issues which require to be deliberated before implementing the same. Here is a take on this new rumblings in the food processing sector with a potential to polarize the stakeholders further in the coming months. 

The American Bakers Assn. objects to the plan, saying (among other things) that since added and natural sugars are chemically the same, to enforce the labels the FDA would have to be able to inspect companies' recipes and they don't have the authority to do that. At the FDA website, you can read about the FDA's proposal and view comments that have been submitted. The National Dairy Council says such labels could lead to consumer confusion and unintended consequences, such as people avoiding nutritious foods that have sugars added to make them more tasty. They note that you can already see how much sugar is in food from the info on food packages right now. The National Milk Producers Federation worries about consumer confusion too. The Sugar Assn. recommends the study is not done, for a variety of reasons: They say the effect of added sugar on obesity is overstated, the FDA wouldn't have the regulatory power to act on this info, and that "it is in the public interest that FDA maintain its focus on the prominence of calories, maintain its science-based positions regarding added sugars labeling, and not further confuse consumers by adding unwarranted information to the [Nutrition Facts Panel]." And so it goes on … the National Confectioners Assn.opposes the research, the American Beverage Assn. opposes it.......while......on the flip side, the American Heart Assn."strongly supports the inclusion of added sugars on the Nutrition Facts Label" and writes that "In addition to the AHA, the 2010 Dietary Guidelines, MyPlate.gov, and countless other sources of dietary guidance recommend that consumers limit consumption of added sugars. Yet this can be difficult to do because added sugars are not currently included on the Nutrition Facts label. While 'sugars' is listed, the Nutrition Facts label does not distinguish between naturally occurring sugars such as those found in fruit or milk, which are associated with other important components inherent to foods such as vitamins and minerals, and added sugars, which are not." The Center for Science in the Public Interest is for the study, The Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at Yale University is for the study too. It is, of course, true that people can be misled if they overly focus on one particular facet of a food and that current labels on food packages are very good at helping us get confused that way. "Low-fat" items can contain just as many calories as higher-fat foods, and "organic" processed foods can be just as junky as any other kind, and just because Lucky Charms are made with whole grains, that does not make them a health food.

In a society where daily diet is made of processed foods as high as 70-80%, extent of sugar added by the industry during formulation may be critical and is controllable either voluntarily or by mandate. In such an environment declaration of added sugar can at least make the processor sensitive to the level of sugar incorporated and there is a possibility that voluntary reduction can be achieved. This is already happening with respect to salt and there is no reason it cannot happen with sugar too. It is not understandable as to why sugar needs to be added in high concentrations when many products can be still palatable at sugar levels of 10-15%. The current proposal to force the processors to declare the extent of sugar added can even set in motion competition among the processors to reduce added sugar as much as possible to gain consumer patronage. Technically it may be difficult to estimate in a finished product how much sugar has been added but as the processor knows the truth he can be forced to declare the same. While voluntary declaration of added sugar can be immediately enforced, monitory regime can be thought of later when reliable and simpler techniques are available for differentiating between natural and added sugar.  

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

PROGRESSIVE SALT REDUCTION IN FOODS-TRICKING THE CONSUMER

Salt is considered a "poison" according to many health pundits and left to them selves probably they would have banished this palate tickling food ingredient from this plant long ago! But every one does not contribute to this 'hair raising" threat posed by salt as claimed by the experts citing many reasons for taking such an apprehensive view. Though salt intake 1000 years ago was reported to be hardly 0.5 gm per capita per day, to day it has ballooned into more than 8-10 gm a day and hence the red flag being raised against salt. There are many studies linking salt to a plethora of diseases like CVD, hypertension, kidney ailments etc, but the jury is still out regarding a final conclusion, most evidence being only circumstantial and based on animal studies. Different countries are trying out many strategies to persuade the food processing industry to cut down salt levels in their products but the impact is not considered very significant so far. There appears to be considerable reluctance on the part of many governments to put in place mandatory regulations that would force the industry to come up with products with lesser salt. Psychologists, knowledgeable about human mind feel that salt reduction can be achieved if the industry adopts a strategy to reduce salt slowly over a period of time without the consumer ever knowing about it. It appears human palate cannot perceive small changes in levels of salt up to a minimum limit beyond which they may react negatively. Probably this offers a "painless" way of salt reduction in processed foods.    

"Another widely used option to reduce levels of salt, but one which is generally not advertised to consumers, is the use of a gradual reduction of salt (stealth). This approach is being applauded by organizations, such as the UK Food Standards Agency and World Action on Salt and Health (WASH). Using this approach, consumers' palates will adapt to the lower level of salt, as the salt is very gradually reduced. This approach will depend on brand loyalty, ensuring that consumers do not switch to brands containing higher levels; thus, an industry wide approach would be required for some products. The rate by which to reduce salt is uncertain. Many companies have successfully used a stepwise reduction rate of 5%, but the specific approach will be dependent on food type and initial salt level (products with higher initial salt content are likely to achieve higher reduction levels)". 

This salt reduction strategy already being utilized by some in the food industry involves only gradual reduction but without actually replacing the sodium with anything else, unlike many others trying to partially substitute salt with non-sodium salty compounds that will reduce the sodium load on the body. How ever the results so far has been not very dramatic and this strategy can work only in certain cases, that too up to a limited extent. Ultimately a level of salt reduction will be met whereby a loss in overall flavor will be perceived by the consumer.  This poses a problem, as an apparent change in flavor by the consumer runs the risk of failure to repurchase the food item.  Generally food manufacturers, especially those owning reputed brand names, are unwilling to utilize a strategy that will negatively impact the taste and flavor of the product.  Therefore, extensive analysis of the effect of the salt reduction on sensory acceptability is vital.  Additionally, removing sodium without a replacement could negatively impact the product if salt plays a functional role such as microbiological, texture, water-retention etc. In a fiercely competitive market, unless every player go by the commonly accepted rule for limiting salt based on a time schedule, there will always be black sheep violating such understanding for reaping temporary benefits. That is where an international or national policy for compulsory salt reduction, in consultation with the industry, has the advantage providing a level playing field to all.

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