THE FAT TAX-A NEW INITIATIVE IN AUSTRALIA

Why do the governments world over impose taxes on products and services? Obviously because they want to generate resources which can be spend for their economic and social development. By far taxes in the form of sales tax, value added tax, octroi, entry tax etc spread the net far and wide among the citizens and generate huge revenue for the governments. The concept of using taxation as a tool to regulate consumption is relatively a new phenomenon and most common examples are Cigarettes and alcohol products. It is true that both smoking and alcohol consumption are not considered safe and therefore taxes on them are frequently increased to make them costlier while reducing the overall consumption. While such a strategy seemed to have worked in the case of tobacco products, the result in the case of alcoholic drinks cannot be considered a success. In a recent report it was revealed that the high end Scotch Whiskey demand world over is rising rapidly though it is one of the costliest among spirit products! This approach was tried on foods also in Denmark where taxes were hiked on products considered highly unhealthy containing high amounts of fat and sugar. The result was not very encouraging because in the EU with a no restriction on inter country travel within the Community, Danish citizens had always access to cheaper products across the borders! Same strategy is now being thought of in Australia where plans are afoot to impose a "fat tax" on foods containing above a certain level of saturated fat. Here is a commentary on this new initiative to control obesity in that country where almost two thirds of the population is considered overweight. 

"The fat tax will apply to products containing more than 2.3 percent saturated fat. This will include but not be limited to oils, meats, cheeses, processed products, and fast foods. With 63 percent of Australians are overweight and nearly 22 percent of adults have high blood pressure, it is no wonder that such stringent actions are being put into action. The chief executive of the Heart Foundation, Lyn Roberts, said that more Australians were at risk of eating themselves to death. In order to boost the success of this new fat tax, eatforhealth.gov.au has published new dietary guidelines for Australians to follow, along with advice on choosing the right foods. In view of efforts like this, the fat tax is hardly as wicked as it first sounds. Sure, prices will increase, but the Australian population will learn how to manage their eating habits in a healthier way. Obesity Policy Coalition spokeswoman Jane Martin said policies encouraging physical activity and healthy eating appeared to stabilize, instead of increase, the numbers of overweight and obese children, but other efforts, such as this tax, were needed to reduce the numbers in the obese population. However, drawbacks to such a measure have been seen in Denmark as well as New York. When Danish officials attempted their fat tax, residents simply visited other countries to buy sugary beverages and fatty foods at an affordable price. When Mayor Michael Bloomberg attempted to restrict the sale of sugary beverages greater than 16 fl oz., residents protested and the law was never passed. These results may not necessarily be duplicated in Australia, as the country has established that more than half of its population is overweight and needs to urgently cut back on fat consumption".

Will Australia succeed where Denmark has failed? Probably yes because the nearest market to Australians is New Zealand which is about 2000 miles away. Government can also hike the import duty on such foods it considers as unhealthy. Desperate situation demands desperate efforts to address the problem and Australia really needs to tackle the "body bloating" syndrome now and here! One positive aspect of this policy orchestration is that the additional revenue generated is slated to be spent on subsidizing healthy foods which invariably cost much higher world over including Australia. It is an unprecedented tragedy that the consumer prices of unhealthy foods are declining significantly while that of healthy foods like fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grain products etc are showing an opposite trend putting them beyond the reach of more and more people who really need them to maintain decent health. 

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

BIOFUELS-THE DARK SIDE!

Fossil fuels appear to be entering its last phase if the current pace of its exploitation continues unabated to satisfy the energy needs of wealthy countries as well emerging economies. With no satisfactory alternate options available to replace non-renewable resources of energy so far, world is heading for an uncertain future. Of course there are many renewable sources being tried out including solar, wave, windmill, geothermal etc  with none of them coming any where near the petroleum fuels in terms of cost and performance. The Biofuels with so much promise till recently, might not be a solution as most sources from which they are derived also happen to be food resources consumed by millions of people and large diversion of these food materials tend to distort the food situation adversely affecting food security in the world. One of the food materials now being used as biodiesel, especially in Europe is based on spent vegetable oils coming from industry engaged in frying of foods. If recent reports are to be believed the demand for used palm oil is so high, the price commanded by this product is higher than that of virgin oil! What a paradox! Here is a expose on this ironical situation that is prevalent in countries like the UK.    

"But research carried out for Chatham House says that reaching the 5% level means that UK motorists will have to pay an extra £460m a year because of the higher cost of fuel at the pump and from filling up more often as biofuels have a lower energy content.The report say that if the UK is to meet its obligations to EU energy targets the cost to motorists is likely to rise to £1.3bn per annum by 2020. "It is hard to find any good news," Rob Bailey, senior research fellow at Chatham House, told BBC News. "Biofuels increase costs and they are a very expensive way to reduce carbon emissions," he said. The EU biofuel mandates are also having hugely distorting effects in the marketplace. Because used cooking oil is regarded as one of the most sustainable types of biodiesel, the price for it has risen rapidly. Rob Bailey says that towards the end of 2012 it was more expensive than refined palm oil. "It creates a financial incentive to buy refined palm oil, cook a chip in it to turn it into used cooking oil and then sell it at profit," "It is crazy but the incentives are there." 

What a ridiculous situation where biofuels are becoming more expensive than fossil fuels! Whatever advantage biofuels have, the ground reality does not give any optimism that they will become an effective substitute to the fossil fuels in future. Another worrying factor is whether use of biofuels will have any impact on the carbon emission which is being blamed for global warming. Probably world will realize sooner than later that biofuels from plant sources may never be feasible and man will have to fall back on microrganisms for production of fuels of future with low cost and practically no adverse effect on the food front. Research has already achieved adequate breakthrough in this area and it is a question of time before giant vertical bioreactors start producing single cell biomass from which fuel oil can be extracted using known processes.       

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

WHO WILL ASSESS THE HONESTY OF THE ASSESSORS?-THE FOOD SAFETY ISSUE

Over 7 billion people in this planet depend on a dozen or so food safety agencies, national as well as international to guide them to buy safe foods in the market. These include WHO, FAO, the FDA, EFSA, FSA of UK etc and these organizations are supposed to be staffed with unbiased experts in food toxicology, food chemistry, biochemistry, microbiology and other complimentary scientific disciplines. While under normal circumstances no one doubts the integrity of these experts, to day questions regarding their bias is raised too frequently to be ignored easily. Probably this has happened because of the enormous financial and political clout some of the multinational food giants wield over the governments in many countries. This results in distorted decisions, delayed decisions and no decision at all in many cases. Here is an account of the ground reality that exists to day in Europe and the serious question raised regarding the integrity of the agency that is supposed to sit in judgment over the safety data submitted by the industry which often goes in favor of the latter in majority of cases.

The incisive article below on the food sweetener aspartame precisely nails the problem of scientific decision making at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA accepts weak industry data claiming safety for a risky product, but relentlessly finds fault with and dismisses independent scientific studies that find risk. The 2012 study of Prof G-E Seralini and team on GM maize and Roundup is one example among many of a carefully designed and conducted study that found risk but which was dismissed by EFSA. Other examples include shedloads of independent studies showing risks from the plastics chemical bisphenol A, which EFSA dismissed in favour of a few industry-funded studies claiming safety. This asymmetric scrutiny is applied by EFSA on a regular basis, as confirmed in an interview with former EFSA GMO panel member Prof. Joachim Schiemann, who said of EFSA's scrutiny of the scientific literature on GMOs: "Of course, studies that describe potential negative environmental effects of GMOs are discussed particularly intensively."(http://www.gmo-safety.eu/news/622.efsa-members-gmo panel.html). According to a study by food policy expert Erik Millstone and colleagues, this practice is interpreted by the European public as an illegitimate support for the biotechnology industry on the part of the supposedly impartial risk assessor.  Millstone and colleagues state, "greater institutional care was taken to try to avoid false positives [when a study finds risk from a product that's really safe] than to avoid false negatives [when a study claims safety for a product that is actually not safe]. That implies that critical scrutiny has been applied in an asymmetrical fashion that prima facie seems difficult to reconcile with a precautionary approach". (Millstone E, van Zwanenberg P, Marris C, Levidow L, Torgersen H: Science in Trade Disputes Related to Potential Risks: Comparative Case Studies. Seville: European Commission; 2004.).  EFSA is not alone in this practice of asymmetric scrutiny of scientific studies: it's fairly universal among regulatory agencies worldwide. A major problem with EFSA, as Millstone says in the article below, is that many of the experts that write EFSA opinions have direct or indirect conflicts of interest with industry.

Interestingly some of these agencies are so indebted to the industry that they are totally blind to the welfare and safety of their constituency, viz the consumers. Witness the struggle going on in the US where a substantial segment of the population want clear declaration of presence of GM ingredients in foods marketed, under their "right to know" what they are eating, on the front of the pack. The President as well as the law making bodies in that country continue to dither without taking any decision lest they will adversely hurt the interests of industry! Even assuming that GM foods are absolutely safe, what harm is there if the same is declared on the label like what is in vogue in other countries which have cleared some of the GM foods. It is easy for the US to do this because if such a law is enforced to day more than 85% of the products in the market will carry such a declaration! An unintended consequence of such a policy of procrastination on the part of the governments, will be to discourage honest scientists from pursuing independent studies in food safety area, lest they will be targets for unfair criticism by the industry and fellow scientists who may be on the pay roll of the industry! Consumers world over must rise against such a situation and take non-violent action to impress on the industry that it cannot ignore their interests any more.

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

MOVE OVER SYNTHETIC SWEETENERS, HERE COMES STEVIA!

Stevia sweetener is making waves these days riding on a success unparalleled in the history of non-nutritive sweeteners. Food industry seems to be bowled over by the potential this sweetening ingredient can have in the coming years, its biggest asset being the "natural" tag it can claim as it is derived from the Stevia plant leaves through well known aqueous extraction process with no residue problem. Why there was so much delay for this sweetener to catch the attention of the industry and allow others like aspartame, saccharine, sucralose  etc to dominate the markets, till remains a mystery because the product was in the market for the last 30 years. Stevia industry, if one can call it so, was sustaining because of patronage from a single market, viz Japan and it was only after 2008 that it was recognized as a good sweetener. Probably approval by FDA of the US could have tilted the scale in favor of Stevia and the market got further strength after winning approval from the EU last year. Stevia industry has become an organized one with about a dozen players sharing the market and if FAO projections are to be believed this sugar substitute may capture more than 30% of the market within a few years. No wonder that more and more investors are entering this field hoping to catch a significant part of the pie and establish successful business. Here are some details about the Stevia industry as perceived by one of the latest entrants in California, USA.   

"The pace of new stevia product introductions is staggering, as more than 500 new products were introduced world-wide in 2011 alone. Some have experienced considerable success, such as Coca-Cola's Vitaminwater Zero brand that achieved approximately $110 million in sales in its first year. This success has occurred despite the industry still being in its infancy. To date, more than 85% of U.S. consumers still have never purchased food and beverage products that contain stevia. But, consumer awareness of stevia is rising fast, with the percentage of consumers that know of stevia growing from 32% in 2009 to 57% in 2011. Such rapidly increasing consumer recognition bodes well for stevia's continued success and market growth. This is especially true now that regulators in all major markets have approved its use, which no longer holds back the market potential of what many consumers and industry insiders have long considered the "holy grail" within the sweetener market. Jubilation over the success of new stevia products and the approval of stevia in the U.S. and Europe should be tempered with reasonable expectations. With over 10 stevia manufacturers world-wide, not every company will be an overnight success, and current growers and processors of stevia may fall victim to new market entrants, sophisticated new technologies, and an overall modernization and globalization of a fragmented industry that was formed more than 30 years ago and has until now principally catered to consumers in Japan. Technical challenges also exist that could eventually present obstacles to the rapid growth and expansion of the stevia market".

It is remarkable that the source of Stevia sugar known for centuries has remained in obscurity till about 3 decades ago and the search for non-caloric sweeteners because of wide prevalence of diabetes and obesity, brought to the fore its usefulness . Rest is history! The open arm welcome by the US food industry which is turning out thousands of products incorporating this ingredient either to replace natural sugar and HFCS or partially substitute them reflects its ready acceptability and the success story is likely to repeat in Europe also after the approval it got last year. America is a country where one third population is obese and more than 50% are over weight and probably Stevia can be considered God-sent considering the dire need of the population to cut down on calories for their very survival. There are even suggestions by really concerned health experts to blend natural sugar with Stevia to increase the sweetening intensity of the former and market the same as a low calorie sweetener. With Stevia boasting of a 300 fold sweetness compared to natural sugar, the scope for such products is unlimited and governments world over must consider favorable policy interventions to encourage such innovative products. The added bonus will be sparing of millions of acres of land, presently being used for cultivation of the water intensive sugar cane and sugar beets, for growing other more nutritionally beneficial crops.  

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

NEW EU INITIATIVE FOR WASTE REDUCTION-A PROJECT FOR AFRICA

Food losses where ever it occurs is a blot on the management efficiency in the agriculture and food sectors for which both food scientists and the governments must take the blame. According to estimates being made on food losses from the field to the fork, they can be as high as 50% of the production, sufficient to feed one more planet like the Mother Earth! Why is that such losses take place year after year since long and nothing much has been done to address this issue more seriously? Compared to the situation obtaining in the developed world where excellent infrastructure and modern storage technologies are employed for preserving food, it is the fate of the poor countries to suffer massive losses in the field as well as during post harvest handling, processing and storage, the major reason being their economic handicap for investing on technology and infrastructure. This situation is sought to be addressed in a limited way by the recent undertaking of a collaborative development project aimed at reducing losses of some crops in parts of Asia and Africa. The European Union must be lauded for its small initiative in this area by banding together scientists from different countries under an umbrella University in the UK. Here are a few details about this project with some far reaching implications.  

"The 3-year project GRATITUDE ('Gains from losses of root and tuber crops') brings together 16 project partners from Ghana, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Portugal, Thailand, the United Kingdom and Vietnam. It received close to EUR 3 million of funding from the 'Food, agriculture and fisheries, and biotechnology' Theme of the EU's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). Led by scientists from the University of Greenwich's Natural Resources Institute in the United Kingdom, the project partners aim to find new ways of reducing waste during the production of food crops vital to families in parts of Africa and Asia. Another aim of the project is to develop new products such as snack foods from the crops, and seek new markets. The fact that the consortium is made up of partners from both academic and business will help meet this aim. Cassava and yam are important food security crops for approximately 700 million people worldwide, and their post-harvest losses are significant. These losses can be physical or economic, through discounting or processing into low-value products, or can result from bio-wastes. By reducing such losses, the role these crops play in food and income security can be enhanced. Post-harvest physical losses are exceptionally high and occur throughout the food chain. Losses in economic value are also high, for example, cassava prices can be discounted by up to 85% within a couple of days of harvest. The project will also focus on improving how waste such as peels, liquid waste, and spent brewery waste is used, so that higher value products can be produced for human consumption, including snack foods, mushrooms and animal feed. At the moment, growers can lose up to 60% of yam and 30% of cassava during the processing of the crops after harvesting through rotting, poor storage, transport and price discounts. The researchers hope to reduce these losses by implementing better storage and processing techniques to reduce waste and turn it into something of value". 

If one recalls the efforts in India to cut down on food wastage, an important lesson to be learned is that mere development and availability of a good technology does not ensure that this is widely adopted by the farmers and others concerned. More important these technologies need to be adapted to the field conditions, farmers trained extensively and effective monitoring ensured for the continued practice of these measures to create any impact. Till recently many agro-industries corporations at the state level were in existence to link up with the farming community for providing needed inputs for agri operations. But these government enterprises were allowed to wither away for want of greater attention and work efficiency. Unless such organizations endowed with the task of helping the farmers to practice best scientific methods to prevent losses, it is unlikely that these massive losses can be prevented to any meaningful extent.

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

WEALTH AND HEALTH FROM WASTE-NEW DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMS

Industrial wastes generated during processing of foods pose problems of disposal and in many countries anti-pollution laws forbid letting them out of the factory without reducing the BOD and solids content to very low levels. Take for instance the condition in a fruit processing unit where hardly 40-50% of the fruit is utilized for preparing various products and the waste generated include the solid wastes as well as enormous volume of water that need to be disposed off. While solid wastes have some demand for use as cattle feed, the liquid waste has very high BOD and requires to be treated for reducing its pollution load. It is in this context that any attempt to economically utilize these wastes will be beneficial to the industry. The international program recently launched with India as as partner to beneficiate the food industry wastes is indeed laudable provided the results are utilizable by the industry in these partner countries freely without any intellectual property restrictions.

"Primarily, the project focuses on utilising the molecules generated from food processing waste of mango, pomegranate, orange and rice bran. The ingredients have been used to develop aqua feeds and bakery items like biscuits, jams and jellies. In this regard, upscaling the research for the industry will be the next step in the right direction, since in India, a number of food companies are looking at the possibility of maximisng their potential.  Dr D Seenappa, chief scientific officer (IF) and university head, animal sciences and fisheries, inland fisheries division, UAS, Bangalore, informed FnB News, "The project is all about identifying and introducing innovative and industry-relevant approaches for the valorisation of fruit and cereal (rice bran) wastes. This is being currently achieved through holistic conversion into functional and health-benefitting beverages, foods and aqua feeds by means of environmentally and economically sustainable protocols and technologies. Production of food processing waste is being minimised and has helped to build a synergistic research programme between the EU and India to serve the future knowledge-based economies." Peel wastes of mango, orange, pomegranate and rice bran in powdered form have proven to show high levels of carotenoids, polyphenols, pectins, high fibre and carbohydrates. These have demonstrated health benefits with high antioxidant and immunity resistance properties. Peels which are been sourced from the food processing industry have been characterised, stabilised and assessed to be converted into powder form by food chemical engineers and scientists, according to Dr Seenappa. In addition, prebiotic and probiotic effects of the peels are evaluated. Mono dose products like fruit paste, snack foods, enriched beverages, breakfast cereals and biscuits have already been developed. From the EU, seven countries - Italy, the UK, Spain, Hungary, the Netherlands and Germany - have teamed up professionals with domain expertise in food and chemical engineering. India has five partners represented by the North East Institute of Science & Technology (NEIST), Jorhat, Assam, with the Indian scientific coordinator as P K Goswami; Euro India Research Centre (EIRC), Bangalore; University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore; Nature Fresh Logistics Pvt. Ltd, Pune; and Vaighai Agro Products Ltd, Madurai".  

The above project is neither the first one nor the last on waste utilization processing and there are good technologies already available in many areas that are being used to day by some industries improving their economic performance significantly. Pectin from apple wastes, essential oils from citrus wastes, alcohol from molasses, triacontanol from sugar cane mud, mango seed fat extraction, color fractions from beetroot, blue grape peel and others, rice bran oil extraction, wheat germ recovery for tocopherol rich oil, orange fruit fiber, oat bran for high fiber food, etc are classical examples of waste processing industry. One can hope that the new multi nation project will come out with technically and economically viable processes to supplement the present pool of such technologies.  

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

THE POWER OF "SEEING" THE QUALITY-A FOOD TESTING DEVICE FOR CONSUMERS

It is the ultimate dream of any consumer to be equipped with the power to see through the nutritive benefits of packed foods as the trust between the industry and the consumer is continuously being eroded due to frequent food related health afflictions all over the world. According to some reports the nutrition labeling practices being followed by a major segment of food industry are suspicious in the eyes of the consumer because of lack of transparency in the working of the industry in general. Claims not sustained by irrefutable scientific evidence are the order of the day and it is no wonder that the EU food safety council rejected more than 98% of the label claims submitted by the industry last year! Development of a spectrometer that can be used by a lay man for gauging nutritional quality of a packed food offered for sale in the supermarket, as reported recently, if true may be a powerful tool in the hands of the consumer. Here is a take on this exciting development.    

'A new spectrometer is being developed that will allow consumers to gauge food quality, where they physically purchase it, before they buy it. The device is very small, very inexpensive, and may be able to be installed in smartphones. The researchers envision consumers being able to hold their smart phone above a product, activate the app, choose the food type in question from within the app, and the device will make its recommendation. The device measures starch, water, sugar, fat, and protein content within consumer products. The device works by seeing several centimeters below the surface of the outer packaging of the product, reflecting different wavelengths of light near the infrared range with different intensities. Commenting on the device, Dr. Heinrich Grüger of the Fraunhofer Institute for Photonic Microsystems IPMS in Dresdent, where the device is being developed, said, "We expect spectrometers to develop in the same way that digital cameras did."

There can be many a slip between the cup and the lips but the very possibility that such a tool can be feasible is itself some solace for the much harried consumer who has no where to go if not satisfied by the service provided by the industry. Whether the figures recorded by this gadget will have any legality is a question that will emerge once its use becomes widespread. Even other wise use of the spectrometer for selecting foods which are superior to others will itself provide some teeth to the consumer in demanding better products. It will make every industry to think twice before fooling around with nutritional content figures on the label. Hopefully truthful labeling practices may thus be achievable over a period of time after the advent of this new instrument.  

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

FOOD FROM "CLONED" ANIMALS-THE LABEL CONTROVERSY!

Ever since Dolly the Sheep, was created by the biotechnology wizards through cloning process in 1996, there have been fierce debates regarding the safety of meat and milk derived from the off springs of cloned parents. Even to day there is no unanimity on this controversial issue and consumers are left in the lurch by not providing accurate and reliable information on the subject. Recent reports that American consumers have been eating food products manufactured from cloned animals for the last two years without them knowing about it, do raise ethical and moral questions regarding the role of the safety authorities in that country. A democracy always flourish when there is transparency in what ever the government is doing and here is a perfect example of a country considered a stalwart in democratic form of governance cheating its citizens by not being honest, sincere and transparent when it comes to GM foods or Cloned animal derived products. European countries fare much better in this respect as they are considering imposing compulsory labeling of such products as and when they are permitted to be marketed after conclusively proving their safety. Here is a take on this latest development in cloned animal products.

"Food safety representatives from the European Parliament's Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee (ENVI)  told the European Commission in February they want a bill regulating animal cloning within a year. ENVI has insisted that meat or milk products from the offspring of clones be labeled and traceable. Unfortunately, meat or milk from cloned animals in the US will not be labeled. Some say "is not labeled" because we are already eating it. In 2008, the FDA ruled that products from clones and their offspring will not be labeled because they are "no different from food derived from conventionally bred animals"--the same thing that was said about rBGH-produced milk.  Nevertheless, the FDA asked producers to "voluntarily keep milk and meat from clones out of the food and feed supplies until we finish assessing their safety." Key words: asked and voluntarily. But a 2010 demonstration in England over possible unlabeled and illegal food from clones in that country revealed that clones may already be on the American dinner plate-- with US food consumers being the last to know. The BBC, while reporting on the British cloned herd, said that cloned products have been in the US food supply for two years. Who knew? Jim McLaren, president of Scotland's National Farmers Union, concurred and told the press, "If you go to the US or Canada you will almost certainly be consuming meat and dairy products from cloned animals at every turn." Margaret Wittenberg, global vice-president of Whole Foods Market,  agreed. United States customers are "oblivious" to cloned products in the food supply, she verified to the BBC. "You don't hear about it in the media. And when you do tell people about it they look at you and say 'you're kidding! They're not doing that are they? Why would they?'" Whole Foods says it bans the sale of cloned products. When Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was asked point-blank, during a 2010 trade mission in Canada, if "cloned cows or their offspring have made it into the North American food supply,' he put no fears to rest. "I can't say today that I can answer your question in an affirmative or negative way. I don't know. What I do know is that we know all the research, all of the review of this is suggested that this is safe." So much for informed public officials. An FDA report written in collaboration with Cyagra, a Pennsylvania-based clone company, seeks to put public fears at rest over the brave new food. Not a big surprise since Cyagra, boasts about selling clone products to US butchers (who presumably sell to customers) and about its employees regularly dining on cloned products, say British new sources. Since the first cloned mammal, Dolly the sheep, was created, cattle, horses, goats, pigs, and mice have been cloned, as well as dogs and cats, a mouflon sheep, a mule, and a racing camel. In fact, cloning doesn't even make headlines anymore. But lengthy reports from both FDA and  European Food Safety Authority raise questions about the safety of milk and meat from cloned animals and their offspring, their welfare and protection from suffering and the soundness of the cloning process. Why not let food consumers vote whether they want to support such food with their forks, say US and European consumers, by simply labeling them? END"

Why is this happening repeatedly in this particular country? How can the US which has substantial conservative population which abhors abortion as a strategy for family planning condone the sufferings and distortions taking place among cloned animals? When Dolly was created it took 277 aborted attempts and only one could survive! Look at the policy paralysis that has overtaken the American government when it comes to taking any decision against the powerful industry lobbies. First it was GM foods which were permitted under severe pressure from the powerful food and biotech industries. In spite of massive protests against the present policy of not making label declaration of GM foods compulsory, there does not appear to be any hurry on the part of the government to change the policy soon. Now comes the news that the safety authorities are ignoring the wide prevalence of food products in the market made from cloned animals during the last two years. Does this not amount to total insensitivity to the feelings, apprehensions and aspirations of people at large? If irradiated foods have to carry labels declaring the process used, why is that same rule cannot be applied to GM foods and Cloned animal foods? Is there any rationale or logic? Is the government in the US for the people or for the all powerful industry lobbyists? One can only sympathize with the agony and dilemma faced by the US consumers due to thoughtless policies and actions of their government!

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