SUGAR LADEN "HEALTHY" FOODS!-INDUSTRY'S NEW STRATEGY

Any responsible country will spare no efforts to make the lives of its citizens safe from many dangers lurking around them including unsafe foods. In balancing the citizen's right and his well being, reasonable restrictions will have to be put in place on the former so that the public place becomes more secure for the society in general. In the case of food also every country has a legal frame work within which only food handlers, traders and processors will have to work. Lately there appears to be a bias in favor of the industry players in allowing many foods to be made and marketed by them which are patently unhealthy if the scientific yardsticks are strictly applied. Food products containing unusually high levels of sugar and fat are becoming the mainstay of the industry which is exploiting the weakness of consumers to these palate tingling offerings and over a period of time get hooked on to these life threatening products. The result is the wide spread prevalence of food related human disorders like CVD, Diabetes, Hypertension, Kidney ailments etc and there is almost a unanimous view that to day's Obesity epidemic associated with many wealthy countries is mainly due to over consumption of such foods while physical activity of individuals is declining rapidly. Governments are usually reluctant to displease the industry by mandatory restrictions and depend more on persuasion for voluntary action by the manufacturers for improving the health credentials of the products they make and sell. According to the experience in several countries such voluntary actions agreed to by the industry is often a sham and only lip service is made to mislead the governments as well as the consumers. Here is a critique on this on going "ping pong" game between the government and the industry leaving the consumer a silent spectator!

"The nation's largest food and beverage companies are under renewed attack for what critics see as misleading ads for obesity-promoting foods, especially ads aimed at kids. "The trickery that we're trying to stop includes General Mills' false claims that some of its corn-syrup- drenched products are 'natural,' and Coca-Cola Company's deceptive health claims about its Vitaminwater (which would be better called Sugarwater)," the Center for Science in the Public Interest said Wednesday in a release launching its "Stop the Lying Labels" campaign. Industry representatives counter that they have worked to make their products healthier - just as critics have demanded. "Since 2002, we have introduced more than 20,000 new product choices with fewer calories, reduced fat, sodium and sugar, and more whole grains," the Grocery Manufacturers Association said in an e-mail. "We have voluntarily adopted strict advertising criteria" through the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative."

One of the strategies of war is to give an inch if peace can be brought which may not make any significant loss to the one who makes such a gesture and food industry also seems to be adopting this practice if their promises and performance are closely monitored. There are thousands of products made by the industry which contain very high amounts of sugar, fat and salt and to buy peace with the consumer activists and reluctant government safety agencies either the concentration of these ingredients is marginally reduced or a healthy ingredient is included in the recipe! High pressure promotional campaigns are undertaken to highlight the "sacrifice" made by the industry by changing the "established formula" of the products! It is like adding a drop of "Elixir" to a chalice of poison and claim that the product is better than the original poison!  Probably food industry will learn only when consumers start putting pressure on the industry by banishing unhealthy products from their buying basket and force the government to discipline the industry leaving no option but to make only healthy products. In this endeavor grading of foods based on some scientifically valid scale and printing easily recognizable icons on the label can go a long way to use the consumer force to weed way unhealthy products eventually.

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

MANDATORY LIMITS ON "UNHEALTHY" INGREDIENTS-IS IT POSSIBLE?

What is the purpose of the "Front of the Pack Labeling " regulations which are in vogue in most of the countries across the world? The simple answer is to achieve "transparency" in food quality and safety parameters for the benefit of the consumer. The next question is whether it is really effective? Here the answer is yes and no! While the consumer gets a broad insight into the product contained in the pack, for a layman most of the information provided does not make much sense. Besides effectiveness of any law depends on the way it is monitored and implemented and here the governments in many countries have failed their citizens. There might be many reasons for this situation but it is a reality one must face. Nutrition labeling is often touted as a successful way for consumer education and improvement of consumer health. This is at best a long shot based on the perception that "some thing is better than nothing"! In countries where literacy levels are high such labeling practices may be more relevant and naturally consumers there are demanding more transparency. Latest in this saga is the demand by some experts to regulate the industry with statutory limits being imposed for "bad" nutrients so that only healthy foods are marketed. The demand by Australian Heart Foundation based on some scientific and ground realities to force the industry to make only healthy foods is contained in the following report. 

The National Heart Foundation of Australia is today calling on the Australian Government to enforce mandatory nutrition targets for the food industry to make our processed foods healthier. The call follows the release of the Heart Foundation's new paper, Effectiveness of food reformulation as a strategy to improve population health, which reveals: * removing 15-25% of the salt in Australia's processed foods over 10 years, could avert 5,800-9,700 heart attacks and 4,900-8,200 strokes every year a mandatory approach to salt reformulation is twice as cost effective and averts twice the burden of disease compared to a voluntary approach even a modest salt reduction (1-3grams per day) in the population's diet is shown to have potential health benefits. Heart Foundation CEO, Dr Lyn Roberts, said excess salt, saturated fat and trans fats found in processed foods were causing an unnecessary national heart health crisis. "We know processed foods are now a large part of the Australian diet and often contain hidden and excessive amounts of salt, saturated fat, trans fat and energy," Dr Roberts said. Government enforced mandatory targets for all processed food products would be far more transparent and effective at improving health than the voluntary opt-in approach we've seen to date. "Setting maximum levels of unhealthy ingredients in all processed foods will ensure food manufacturers make their products healthier, making a huge difference to our nation's health." Reformulating current and new processed foods involves manufacturers reducing the unhealthy ingredients such as salt, saturated fat and trans fats in their products and increasing the healthy nutrients such as dietary fibre, wholegrains, fruit, vegetables and unsaturated fats.

More interesting is another demand that food products churned out by the industry must be redesigned to enrich them with healthy ingredients like dietary fiber, unsaturated fatty acids, fruits, vegetables etc. How far the authorities in that country will go to accommodate this demand depends on consumer pressure. Also to be borne in mind is whether it is technically feasible to design products to meet the new standards which may be evolved for more healthy and less risky foods in future. Voluntary action being preferred by the industry may be effective to a limited extent as there might be many black sheep among them not adhering to such guidelines. Therefore Governments have the responsibility to force the industry to change its outlook for the benefit of their citizens. Best way to achieve the objective is to form a consortium of government, industry, consumer activists, health experts and food technologists to advice the authorities regarding the standards that are feasible and achievable on a long term basis.

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