THE GREAT IMPENDING WATER SHORTAGE-FOOD, THE FIRST CASUALTY!

The importance of water in this Universe cannot be over emphasized. The whole human civilization prospered over thousands of years of history because of plenty of water sources accessible to them. With modern world built on unsustainable energy and water consumption levels in pursuit of material comforts, world seems to be running out of both these critical resources. While fossil fuel, the very foundation of modern industrialized society is fast dwindling with most sources getting exhausted due to over exploitation, water is also facing a similar situation. Though this planet boasts of abundant water all around, most of it is brackish in nature unfit for consumption or use for any productive purpose. Over exploitation of ground water and loss of rain water due to flow off into the ocean and destruction of natural lakes and water bodies, both the drinking water supply as well as irrigation water needs are dwindling fast, putting the future of humanity into a crisis mode. If the current trend continues, even production of food required to meet the bare minimum needs of man will be in jeopardy. Here is a commentary on the impending disaster if adequate measures are not taken now to meet the grim situation ahead.  

Allegations abound of manufacturers in developing countries depleting or damaging local freshwater to produce nutritiously dubious products, but, even where operations do not impact a community's supplies, can multinationals really justify creating water intensive foodstuffs for foreign markets when so many in the source nation lack clean water? Crossley suggests the issue is fundamentally an issue of rights. "We should not assume," he explains, "that we in the UK somehow have more of a right to the water that goes into producing our green beans or our tomatoes than those living in the [places] where they're grown." Aware that water scarcity presents real challenges, the cohort of companies looking to find solutions is expanding. In Britain, industry body the Food and Drink Federation launched the Every Last Drop campaign to focus on the practical steps that can be taken to conserve water, including tracking usage and reducing, recycling and reusing supplies. Food manufacturers "want to be responsible and do the right thing" insists Andrew Kuyk, the federation's director of sustainability. "What we eat in this country does affect the availability of water for domestic communities in Africa, South America, Australia or various other parts of the world – there is an inter-connectedness through global supply chains." Around a quarter of food and drink manufacturers in England and Wales have now committed to reducing water usage by 20% by 2020. But if they want to fully protect themselves against future water crises, they need to think about the whole of their supply chain, says Kuyk. "In some parts of Africa the combination of temperature rises and water scarcity will mean that some traditional crops may not be viable in ten years time. So if you are a chocolate manufacturer you need to start thinking: what are the potential alternative sources?" Many observers point to technological changes to help avert water crises. From genetic engineering and innovations in purification and desalination to novel changes to irrigation, recycling, piping and storage, there is reason to believe that water scarcity is not an "insoluble" problem, says Kuyk.But as long as water is cheap, the disincentive to invest in water efficiency may be too great. "If you can turn a tap on and get water for free, why would you spend £20,000 installing a piece of machinery?"
Drastic situation requires drastic remedies and mankind has no alternative but to reduce water consumption to a bare minimum besides taking measures to conserve water as much as possible. The recycling of used water cannot be brushed away and increasingly this is going to be a viable option. Similarly processing saline water to extract pure water is also emerging as an unavoidable necessity and countries like UAE, Israel have already proved that this route is feasible and desirable. There are highly efficient water technologies developed over the years and all it needs is a will and determination to take them up in a big way. The old concept that water is available plenty and can be had free will have to yield to new philosophy that it is a precious resource for which every one has to pay a price.

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

DRUGGED CHICKEN-A STAPLE IN CHINA?

China is fast growing as the capital of fraudulent food products manufactured both for exports as well as domestic consumption. While one will have laud the economic miracles achieved by this ancient country with in a short span of time, what is incomprehensible is why this country is not able to prevent food frauds taking place more and more frequently affecting its image abroad and health of its citizens. Some how countries like India and China are under estimating the innovative genius shown by food criminals who seem to be invariably one step ahead of the government! Latest episode of food fraud comes from some parts of China where chicken farmers are reported to be using banned drugs, antibiotics and non-permissible hormones to fatten their chicken, obviously to make fast money, ignoring the well being of the citizens. Here is commentary on this despicable practices going on unchecked in this country.

On December 18, China Central Television (CCTV), the country's national television station, reported
that several Shandong-located chicken farms fed antibiotics and hormones to chickens every day 
to reduce their death rate and quicken their growth. Hormones, antibiotics and antiviral drugs,
were all fed to the chickens to compensate for the unsanitary conditions in their cages,
according to the CCTV report. The owner of one of the farms says he gave the chickens
at least 18 kinds of antibiotics. Within a mere 40 days, the chickens' weight would surge
upward of 3 kg. To make matters worse, the chickens were found to be  given drugs banned
by the State Food and Drug Administration of China (SFDA). According to the report, some
chickens were fed anti-biotics two days before slaughter.China's poultry raising regulations state that chickens cannot be given drugs at leastone week before being slaughtered to ensure the drugs are no longer in their systems. Two such farms in Gaomi  and Pingdu, both in east China's Shandong Province, sold their chickens to a slaughterhouse  in Pingdu, which belongs to Liuhe Group, the company that provides chicken to the China
division of Yum Brands of Shanghai, which owns the KFC fast food chain. Yum's logistics center then
delivered the chicken to its fast food stores, said the report.Companies belonging  ;to Liuhe Group
also fabricated feeding logs for their chicken farms and produced quarantine qualifications without
 conducting any tests, said the report. On December 21, the Shanghai Food and Drug Administration
conducted a food safety check at KFC outlets. It found that one of 32 samples taken from eight
batches of Yum Brands' raw chicken was suspected to be contaminated with the anti-viral medicine amantadine, which is banned for use in food. The Shanghai food and drug authority
has asked Yum to recall related products fr omits KFC restaurants&nb sp;and has launched a citywide
inspection of KFC outlets. Yum Brands Inc., the world's largest restaurant group, is believed to have known

about the antibiotics in its chicken as far back as 2010. Beijing Review was unable to reach

Yum Brands for comment. McDonald's and the Japanese fast food chain Yoshinoya have also been embroiled in the chicken scandal. On December 23, the Beijing Animal Inspection authority uncovered that
23 restaurants or food companies bought chicken from Liuhe Group, including Yoshinoya.
Some dishes incorporating chicken have been withdrawn from sale at Yoshinoya restaurantsin Beijing,
reported the Xinhua News Agency. On December 26, McDonald's admitted that the Liuhe
Group was its secondtier supplier.It claims to have stopped using raw chicken from Liuhe since December 18. During a press conference held on December 25, Bi Meijia, spokesman for the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), said that relevant poultry raisers and processors have been shutdown
and are currently under investigation. The MOA has dispatched a group ofexperts to Shandong
Province to inspect the matter, he said.

Globally food adulterators and fraudulent players are having a swell time in making money by cheating the consumers and the regulatory agencies through very innovative techniques and higher the prices of food products larger seems to be margins for this industry! Olive oil, Saffron, Honey, etc are prime candidates for fraudulent practices and due to many reaons they are able to get away without being detected and pinished. Milk is another food item attracting adulterators in droves and this is an example of how such activities are sustained for decades in every part of the world. Imagine the genius of these criminals in India where milk is made without the help of a cow or a buffalo but using chemicals like urea and detergents! Probably people, especially in poor and developing countries may have to live with this evil till adequate resources are available to them to create required infrastructural facilities to check, uncover and bring to book those indulging in food related criminal activities.

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

COFFEE VS SODA-THE EMERGING TREND

Modern America is considered the consumption capital of soda (say cola drink), the much hated sugary drink with caffeine, phosphoric acid and caramel color. Compared to any other nation in this planet Americans can boast that their per capita consumption of soda is the highest in the world and some time one wonders whether soda consumption and power go hand in hand! It took quiet some time for these super rich nation to realize that soda consumption can be dangerous to the health of their citizens and what New York did recently to ban large sized soft drinks through retailers is a right step in the right direction to curb consumption of sugary drinks. Now comes the news that there is a distinct trend emerging where brewed coffee is being increasingly being favored in preference to soft drinks. Here is a commentary on this new development that may have some implications on the health of the population in that country.

"And that makes sense. New survey data from the NPD group, which tracks trends in what Americans eat and drink, finds that 18- to 24-year-olds are turning to coffee, rather than caffeinated sodas, as their pick-me-up of choice. In 2002, about 25 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds reported drinking coffee sometime within a two-week period. But by 2012, the percentage of young adults drinking coffee in that same time frame hit 39 percent. For evidence of this trend, I hit a coffee shop near the campus of George Washington University, which is just a Metro-ride away from NPR headquarters here in D.C. In mid afternoon, I found a packed house. "This is nothing for two o'clock in the afternoon," senior Arturo Lichaucho tells me. Often times, the line is out the door and around the block, he explained, and lots of students hit the coffee shop before hitting the books in the late afternoon. The students I chatted with gave lots of reasons for a steady coffee habit, including increasing demands on their time that lead to less sleep, and the 24/7 culture of overstimulation. And why not drink more coffee? Recent studies link coffee consumption to a range of good health effects, including decreased risk of dementia and decreased risk of depression among women.
But experts say there is one downside that's often overlooked: Coffee consumption can get in the way of a good night's sleep. "Our data has shown that a brewed coffee contains much more caffeine than a cold cola beverage" says Bruce Goldberger, a toxicologist at the University of Florida. The Center for Science in the Public Interest took a look at several popular items and analyzed their caffeine content. It found that a 12-ounce cup of coffee from Starbucks contains about 260 milligrams of caffeine, which is about five times more than a 12-ounce can of Diet Coke".

What worries some health pundits is the possibility of increased levels of caffeine consumption as coffee contains significantly higher levels of this intoxicant. Caffeine is a natural component of beverage crops like coffee, tea and cocoa and beverages based on these crops have been consumed for ages without any adverse consequences. However an issue that needs consideration is whether at the moderate levels of coffee consumed during yesteryear it has any ill effects at all whereas to day there is a tendency to over consume that can result in undesirable impact on health. Advent of decaffeinated coffee was thought to lessen the impact of caffeine on human health through high consumption of this stimulant beverage but it appears there are not many takers for this version except for medically impaired conditions. Is it not time ripe for the WHO to come up with a universal safe upper limit for caffeine for the sake of millions of people who are addicted to coffee? If appropriate guidelines are forthcoming from competent sources, coffee consumers may yet moderate their coffee drinking habit to stay below the danger mark vis-a-vis caffeine.  

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

ALLERGIC FOODS AND COMPULSORY BOARDING-A NEW LIABILITY CHALLENGE!

Imagine the awesome responsibility one has when undertaking catering to thousands of people with different health conditions and diverse vulnerabilities to some food constituents. Take for example gluten allergy which affects millions of people when they consume wheat based food preparations or for that matter those consuming peanuts containing products with allergy for the same. There are many consumers with some GI tract disorders who will have to depend on restrictive diets for their very survival. Naturally to serve to their requirements, without really knowing their problems is next to impossible. How many caterers are aware of such dietary restrictions with which people live with? Can they be held accountable if some mishaps occur when such consumers get sick after consuming food preparations served by them?. These are questions with far reaching implications. A recent report about a canteen in a University refusing to serve special foods to students with such disabilities became an issue of serious concern all around. Here is the gist of this episode from which public catering organizations have to learn a lesson.

"The settlement with Lesley University, reached last month but drawing little attention, will require the Cambridge institution to serve gluten-free foods and make other accommodations for students who have celiac disease. At least one student had complained to the federal government after the school would not exempt that student from a meal plan even though the student couldn't eat the food. "All colleges should heed this settlement and take steps to make accommodations," says Alice Bast, president and founder of the National Foundation for Celiac Awareness. "To our community this is definitely a precedent." Under the agreement, Lesley University says it will not only provide gluten-free options in its dining hall but also allow students to pre-order, provide a dedicated space for storage and preparation to avoid contamination, train staff about food allergies and pay a $50,000 cash settlement to affected students. "We are not saying what the general meal plan has to serve or not," Hill says. "We are saying that when a college has a mandatory meal plan they have to be prepared to make reasonable modifications to that meal plan to accommodate students with disabilities."

Food industry in general has adopted label declaration as a means of forewarning of consumers regarding the likelihood of presence of even traces of one or the other allergens which are about eight in number recognized at present. Probably this would pre-empt any likelihood of legal action by those becoming sick by consuming these foods. But catering is a different proposition and at present there does not exist any system of forewarning. Probably it is time that at least they display prominently those preparations containing any allergic components. The case reported above did result in punitive damages against the caterer but the reason for that was compulsory boarding rules preventing the students from accessing foods outside. Hostels and such other dedicated facilities should have a flexible policy that will allow inmates to take foods outside if their medical conditions demand. Alternately arrangements ought to be made for preparing special foods meeting their requirements.    

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

BOTTLED WATER INDUSTRY-THE WANING FORTUNES!

Is bottled water a basic necessity of day to day life? An interesting question that may elicit different answer from different people. If this question is asked of any citizens in India, the answer definitely will be in the affirmative. Why? Because there is hardly any source of water in India that can be considered safe for drinking without causing water-borne diseases like Hepatitis B or jaundice! In countries like the US or in Europe piped water supply can be depended upon for safety and bottled water at best may be only for convenience for carrying around where ever one goes. No wonder that not providing potable water in almost all so called protected water supply regimen in urban areas, GOI has opened up a great invest opportunity to thousands entrepreneurs to set up shop, peddling so called potable water! While some are genuine processors there are many fly-by-night operators fleecing the citizens by selling bottled water of dubious quality and safety. A global movement seems to be in early stage of growth which calls for banning of bottled water in many cities and other public places and encouraging drinking from public outlets from where potable water of assured quality is ensured. There is a report about a civic body in Italy which has banned bottled water and instead has branded its piped water with guaranteed quality and safety! Here is a take on this new movement with far reaching implications.

"When students at the University of Vermont resume classes on the snow-covered Burlington campus Monday, something will be missing: bottled water. UVM is the latest university to ban on-campus sales of bottled water. At one of UVM's recently retrofitted refill stations, students fill up their reusable bottles with tap water. For many of the 14,000 students and staff on this campus, topping off their refillable bottles is an old habit."It's much more convenient to fill up your water bottle at a water fountain than to buy bottled water," says Mikayla McDonald, a recent graduate, who a few years ago helped to launch the campaign that led to UVM's ban. McDonald hopes it will reduce waste. But for her, it's not just about changing behavior on campus. "Bottled water is a symbol of our culture's obsession with commodifying things that should be public trust resources," she says. In that spirit, a few other American colleges have restricted or banned the sale of bottled water to promote sustainability. But the University of Vermont is the largest public institution to do so, and that development disappoints beverage companies.
"I think they're concerned because it's such a radical step," says lobbyist Andrew MacLean, who represents local water and soft drink distributors in Vermont. He agrees with the students' environmental goals, but he thinks an outright ban restricts free choice and will ultimately fail. "The factors that will result in more materials getting out of landfills is going to be a cooperative effort promoting strong recycling," he argues. But at least one New England town says recycling isn't enough to keep plastic bottles out of its waste stream. Concord, Mass. — perhaps best known for its role in the American Revolution — joined the student movement this month, outlawing the sale of single-serve plastic water bottles in its stores".

Branded bottled water is considered a big blessing for millions of Indians who have no accessibility to safe potable water due to suspect quality of water supplies all over the country. Whether resource crunch or apathy is responsible for thousands of urban entities to shirk their responsibility to establish viable water supply schemes in their township is a matter of debate. It was only recently that Karnataka High Court pulled up the government for the apathy it has shown in not regulating the bottled water industry by aggressive overseeing to ensure the products conform to ISI standards  but knowing the apathy of the government no honest citizen expects any thing dramatic to come out as a result of such strictures from the judiciary! The manufacturers of domestic water treatment equipment are laughing all the way to their banks because of high demand for their gadgets from millions of households who do not want to jeopardize their health by drinking unsafe "government water"!

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

BLOOD PRESSURE-A SOUPY REMEDY!

From time to time claims are made regarding the virtues of one or the other foods on improving the human health. While some of them are put on the Internet or published in periodicals, good as well as not so good in reputation, with no bad intention, many of them are half baked claims with no scientific basis, probably for publicity. There are also many findings in Ayurveda medicinal system highlighting the usefulness of many traditional foods in alleviating some of the common afflictions visiting humanity at large. What is problematic is translating the results into reality in many human beings with different metabolic and physiological features. It is very true that one man's food may be another man's poison! Recent claim that a soup preparation popular in some parts of the world, can combat blood pressure is some what amusing considering that even if true, practically it is not possible to make and consume this product day in and day out. Here is a gist of the above claim. 

'A regular bowl of gazpacho soup, made up of a range of super foods including tomato, cucumber, garlic and olive oil, could be the key to beating high blood pressure, a research has found. Experts found that even though the cold Spanish dish contains salt, which people with high blood pressure are told to avoid, those having it regularly saw their BP levels drop, Daily Express reported. The soup, the experts believe, could be used to help prevent the condition, reducing the risk of developing hypertension by as much as 27 percent. The latest findings- by scientists at the University of Barcelona and published in the journal Nutrition, Metabolism & Cardiovascular Diseases- have major implications for millions of Britons blighted by ill health due to high blood pressure. The research, into the effects of a Mediterranean diet on people at high risk of cardiovascular diseases, looked at 3,995 people taking gazpacho".

There are hundreds of diet components that may have different effect on different metabolic functions in human body and in the modern world where one in five people consume one drug or the other for protection from diseases like CVD, blood pressure and diabetes, what effect such food preparations will have on their net well being, is a million dollar question begging for an answer! Same is true with vegetables, herbs, fruits and other natural food materials recommended by different "experts" for combating a number of ailments. For a normal healthy person these products may not bring any harm but for those health compromised population such prescriptions can be a one way route to disaster and they must seek a specialist's advice before changing the regular diet believing thousands of claim made in the literature.

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