FOOD SECURITY AND GM TECHNOLOGY-WHAT IS THE CONNECTION?

The furious debate regarding the relevance and need for wide scale adoption of genetically modified crop technology world wide does not seem to be abating in spite of tons of scientific reports supporting as well as decrying this new agricultural tool emanating from many research institutions world over. Hardly a day passes without any publication coming out in this subject of intense interest for the consumer as well as policy makers. While the claim that GM technology can raise yield has not yet been conclusively established, it can cut down field losses due to some pests cannot be denied. Similarly long term safety of all GM crops is till uncertain though short term studies do not indicate they are harmful. Environmental issues are still to be sorted out as many fear that wide scale cultivation of GM crops can wipe out the native species over a period of time through contamination. Here is the latest on this subject which only adds to the already existing confusion. 

The US Congress adopted a clause in its 2013 agriculture budget bill that effectively bars the department of agriculture from any attempt to halt planting or harvesting a GM crop, even if the call comes from the judiciary, sparking outrage. India imposed a 10-year moratorium on field trials of GM crops in 2012. Organizations like Greenpeace and activists worldwide welcomed India's decision, but the IFPRI report describes it as a significant setback to food policy, and mainstream scientists argue that GM crops offer a way out of deepening food insecurity as growing conditions like the weather and water become compromised by climate change. IFPRI researchers P K Joshi and Devesh Roy note that the moratorium, "not based on scientific logic, will have negative effects on frontier research and demand-driven technology generation". The adoption of the US clause, nicknamed the "Monsanto Protection Act", was described by Greenpeace as a "sad day for democracy and the future of our food". Mark Bittman, a food writer for the New York Times, cites interviews with the Union of Concerned Scientists stating that GM crops purported to be weed- and insect-resistant are actually failing.  There is no reliable proof that GM crops are harmful to human beings. "That's not the same thing as saying that the potential isn't there for novel proteins and other chemicals to generate unexpected problems," Bittman writes, "which [is] why we need strict, effective testing and regulatory systems." The debate on GM crops is polarized between supporters and those who think it will have long-term impacts on biodiversity, possibly health, and lead to a takeover of food production by corporations like Monsanto. This has also been the case in Africa, where some countries have banned GM maize as food aid. Per Pinstrup-Andersen, 2001 World Food Prize Laureate and the author of a book on the politics of GM food, described India's moratorium as "nonsensical", and said it "reduces India's efforts to assure sustainable food security for its population". He is among the mainstream scientists who prefer to be open-minded on GM technology and believe that while it might not be the panacea to climate-proof plants, it is a tool with some potential to ensure food security in the coming decades.

There is some criticism about Indian Governments 2012 policy of imposing a moratorium on GM food crop cultivation though one cannot find fault with this step considering the rich diversity this country has vis--a-vis food and agriculture. The argument that such a policy will stifle research is misplaced because there is no stopping of research and development of this tool and if the scientific community can come up with GM foods based on "confined" research with safety questions fully solved, Government may be able to justify lifting the ban for the benefit of the country. Any attempt in introducing GM crops must satisfy the need to protect indigenous species through multiple gene pool collection and maintenance. No self respecting country can pass on the responsibility of developing such new technology to private sector monopolists like Monsanto or Cargil which can have potential danger of exploiting the farmers through stifling restrictions and restrictive patenting. Of course a rich country like the US has opted for a policy of protection to the GM seed industry in a big way with least concern to the well being of its citizens, third world countries should not mimic this strange country and opt for farmer and consumer friendly policies only.  

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

INDIAN AGRICULTURE-THE WRONG PRIORITIES AND THE CONSEQUENCES

Internationally India is one the top food importing countries in the world  with a substantial portion of its requirements of pulses and edible oils coming from outside its boundaries and though this situation is continuing since 3 decades no palliative steps have been taken by the governments ruling the country at different point of time except for pompous and meaningless statements. It is just laughable that a few private entrepreneurs are globe trotting trying to solve India's food problems through leasing out foreign lands, especially in Africa while the real answer lies within the country. Here is a fabulous critique on the misguided and senseless policy orchestrations being pursued by successive governments with limited farsightedness!  

Sound food policy should be a priority for India, on track for the world's largest population by 2025. India has also achieved status as a major food exporter with rice, wheat and buffalo beef. Indian policies emphasize minimum support prices for farmers and subsidized crops for the poor, but these in turn spur food inflation, price volatility, overproduction of grains and overworked land. The government purchases about one third of all cereal output, yet pro-cereal policies hinder production of non-cereals like fruits, vegetables and dairy products, which benefits other export nations like Canada or Australia. Despite misgivings by economists, a food security bill guaranteeing low prices for more than two thirds of India's population is winding its way through parliament. "The end result of these policies will be India's forced integration into global agricultural markets, not only as a grain importer, but also as a leading buyer of non-cereal commodities," explains Deepak Gopinath, director of a research service on emerging markets. Global markets won't provide special pricing for India's poor.

Is it not rue that the country is being burdened by unwanted surplus food grains which neither serves domestic food security nor the export business of the country. Endless encouragement to a section of farmers who over utilize the resources of the country on non-priority food as well as non food crops has resulted in gross shortage of health protecting foods like fruits, vegetables and pulses besides raising their price beyond the reach of most citizens. To day in most urban markets no fruit is available, with the exception of Papaya, at a price less than Rs 50 per kg with fruits like apple pomegranate, strawberry etc commanding prices above Rs 100 per kg. Similarly almost all vegetables are sold at prices ranging from Rs 30 to Rs 60 per kg! Ironically the farmers who grow them are reported to be getting only a fraction of the consumer price, a major portion of it being gobbled by the so called middlemen! Unfortunately GOI does not seem to be unduly concerned and there is not yet any evidence that this issue will be addressed seriously in the near future. GOI is obsessed with only grains, formulating schemes after schemes to supply these commodities practically free to the population incurring huge subsidies draining the exchequer. Under these circumstances no one knows what lies ahead for the citizens of this country under political masters who cannot see any thing beyond their nose (or purse?). 

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

BAN TRANS FATS-THE NEW UNIVERSAL MANTRA!.

Realization that trans fats in foods eaten every day can be a major source of health hazard among consumers all over the world is driving many countries to come up with policies that will address this problem. Such policies vary from outright ban on the production of hydrogenated fats to prescribe maximum limits in processed foods. Declaration of trans fat content in package foods on the label which is becoming mandatory in most countries is considered to be one of most significant steps taken consciously in many countries giving an opportunity to the consumer to shun those products containing unacceptable levels of trans fats. Here is a critique on this issue which is pitchforked into international attention with WHO actively trying to evolve effective policies and programs to help its member countries.

Shauna Downs, lead author and researcher at the university's Menzies Centre for Health Policy said trans fats policies in Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea and the USA over the last two decades had proved effective in removing trans fats from the food supply. She said the study's findings were particularly relevant for low- and middle-income countries where such measures have been identified as a 'best-buy' policy for health - one that is expected to provide a high return on investment in terms of health gains."We found, for example, that a national ban in Denmark virtually eliminated trans fats from the food supply, while local bans in Canada and the USA were successful in removing trans fats from fried foods," Downs said. While some of the government policies we studied imposed voluntary self-regulation and others took mandatory measures, such as labelling, local and national bans on trans fats proved to be the most effective policies for removing trans fats. "Our findings show that these policies are not only feasible and achievable - they are also likely to improve public health." Trans fats - also known as trans fatty acids - are naturally found in dairy and meat products but are also generated by industrial processes to produce hard fats from vegetable oils. The industrially produced trans fats are also known as partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. Consumption of trans fats is associated with an increased risk of non-communicable diseases, including cardiovascular disease, such as heart disease, as well as stroke and diabetes. These partially hydrogenated vegetable oils are, however, widely used in the food industry and fast food outlets because they are cheap, have a long shelf life, are semisolid at room temperature - which makes them easier to use in baked products, and can withstand repeated heating. The World Health Organization (WHO) has called for the elimination of trans fats from the global food supply in response to the rise in the prevalence of non-communicable diseases and has identified it as a 'best-buy' public health intervention for low- and middle-income countries. This proposed policy measure was advocated in the Political Declaration of the High-level Meeting of the UN General Assembly on the Prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases in September 2011".

Manufacture of hydrogenated fats which are plastic in nature is slowly being faced out because of the tendency to form trans fats from unsaturated fatty acids during catalytic hydrogenation process. Alternate technologies are now available that can make plastic fats so necessary, especially in many baked products, and therefore there must be put in place a universal ban against manufacture of such fats. Against such a backdrop it is not clear why some nations including India are still dilly dallying on banning their production. If trans fats are bad for consumers in rich countries like the US and in Europe who can afford healthy foods why it is acceptable in countries like India where poverty and ill health are rampant? It is the bounden duty of any responsible government to protect its citizens from hazards posed by food industry through coercive measures if that is what it takes to discipline the industry. 

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

YET ANOTHER WEIGHT LOSING "FORMULA"- DOES IT MAKE ANY SENSE?

With explosive information generated on practically every aspect of day to day life by scientists around the world, it is becoming increasingly difficult for common man to separate grain from the chaff to discern what is factual and what is fiction! Here is a typical report of a person narrating his experience vis-a-vis consuming a strange diet to make himself happy. What can one make out of this seemingly ridiculous claim?

"Rob Rhinehart has found a way to stop eating. Tired of spending time, money and energy on preparing meals, this young American decided to find a new way to survive without actual food. He created a unique mixture called "Soylent", which contains nothing but the elements the body needs: iron, vitamins, fat, calcium and dozens of other nutrients. This is minimalism in eating: Nothing in this beige milkshake-like beverage can be identified as coming from any recognizable food. Rhinehart followed a strict Soylent diet for several weeks and was amazed by the results of the experiment. He felt and looked healthier, and saved money and time. You can read the whole story on his website, and even find the recipe to make your own Soylent shake. Rhinehart describes food as the "fossil fuel of human energy", a geopolitical issue that rules the world, dividing North and South, the starving and the obese. After water, we all need food. So will this invention solve the world's food problems? Rhinehart might forget something here. First, abandoning traditional meals would be to lose a huge part of our culture. Most, if not all people enjoy eating traditional food too much to stop. But Rhinehart objects that with the money you save with Soylent, you will be able to eat a fewer but better meals in the week, and to go out to restaurants more often too. To add to these cultural problems, this liquid diet might lack some essential elements, such as certain microbes or minerals, that can only be gained by eating a diversity of food. It may be that a mixture of Soylent and traditional food could solve these nutritional issues. If you are interested in the experiment and would like to try it, you can subscribe on http://soylent.me/. And of course tell us about your experience!"

The author of the above claim seems to be turning the entire nutrition science upside down with absolutely no data to support except his own so called experience. Like many other diets like Atkins, South Beach etc this also may attract a few people desperate to lose weight, ultimately ending up in a mess with serious health repercussions. Fortunately this diet has not yet become a basis for a thriving industry and therefore may not attract the attention of safety experts and regulators. One may recall another claim made by an Indian recently that he was consuming only used engine oil for 15 years with apparently no ill effect on his heath! Such reports tend blur the border between fiction and reality. If governments all over the world want to discourage such mavericks trying to push their agenda, probably to further their craze for attention, laws ought to be placed to bring them to books for the sake of the Society at large. After all there have been and will be many gullible citizens to swallow such claims in their pursuit for short cuts to attain what they want, believing these outrageous claims!   
  

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

THE SUGAR "CIRCUS"-A QUESTIONABLE GOI DECISION

Decontrol of sugar from the clutches of GOI was on the card for the last one decade though a vacillating government was not able to take courage in its hands due to political reasons. The recent announcement that the GOI would free the politically powerful sugar industry from the levy policy, whereby mills are forced to sell their products as per the quota fixed from time to time decides by GOI, must be a music to the industry. Whether this new policy will be accepted by the states will have to be seen because they are bound to buy the sugar from the industry at market prices for supply through the PDS at subsidized prices, expecting to be reimbursed the difference by the Center. Whether this is a industry friendly policy or the one that is favorable to the citizen is a matter of conjecture though prima facie industry is going to be largest beneficiary under the new policy. The new policy which is just approved may still be stillborn and one has to wait and see whether it will be implemented in toto. Here is a take on this new significant development.

"According to a mechanism approved by CCEA, states will now purchase sugar from open market through a transparent bidding process and sell it cheap through ration shops. The difference between the two prices will be borne by the Centre, but with a cap of two years. "According to our estimate, the current market price of sugar is Rs 32 per kg, while the price under the public distribution system (PDS) is Rs 13.50 per kg. This difference between these two prices will be paid to states. For this, the Centre will bear an additional subsidy burden of around Rs 2,700 crore," Food Minister K V Thomas told reporters after the meeting. He also assured there would not be any increase in the retail sugar price, as ample sweetener was available in the market. However, if the difference between market price and ration price rises during two years (up to September 2014), the extra burden would have to be borne by states. The sugar season runs from October to September." 

It is rather intriguing as to why GOI is so much fixated on a commodity like sugar which is now considered as "white poison" by the health experts and which has made a country like the US a morbid one with obesity and diabetes widely prevalent. While under the proposed Food Security Bill a substantial segment of country's population is being guaranteed of their basic needs of food calories through heavily subsidized grains which is understandable to some extent, subsidizing sugar cannot be justified in any manner considering that it is not an essential food for survival.  If one extends this logic there is no justification under any "National Agricultural Policy" in wasting precious land, water and other resources on sugar cane which is depletes the soil of its natural nutrients fast. A more logical alternative option could be to divert most of the land presently being cultivated with sugar cane for producing pulses and oil seeds in a phased manner.  

V.H.POTTY

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

POWER OF INDUSTRY LOBBYING-THE US SITUATION

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

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

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

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

FOOD HAZARDS-FILTHY KITCHENS AND UNSAFE SERVICE

Does the "Name and shame" strategy that is in force in some country really desist the eateries from indulging in food preparation practices and service that are considered unacceptable by known safety standards? Obviously not if the experience in Australia is to be considered. According to safety authorities there almost 10% of the eateries fail the hygienic tests carried out by them raising serious concerns about the well being of the consumers. Here is take on this issue which may be of relevance to many countries like India where consumer protection situation continues to deteriorate over the years. 

"The first full release of data from the Food Authority's Name and Shame register reveals that more than 3500 of the 36,000 eateries inspected across the state failed hygiene tests.The first full release of data from the Food Authority's Name and Shame register reveals that more than 3500 of the 36,000 eateries inspected across the state failed hygiene tests. One in 10 restaurants and cafes across NSW have been fined for food safety breaches, from preparing meals in filthy kitchens to failing to control bug infestations. More than 1000 of the 8042 penalty notices issued in the past five years related to cockroach infestations, rodent activity and droppings in commercial kitchens. Unsanitary food preparation areas, dirty equipment and lack of easily accessible hand-washing facilities made up nearly half the offences. The data, obtained under freedom of information laws, also revealed that since 2008: City of Sydney Council was home to state's most hazardous kitchens with 820 fines". 

If a relatively rich country like Australia with almost 100% literacy can face such a situation what chance others with large population of illiterate citizens like India has to put in place a workable system to discipline the catering industry? The FSSAI in India is a toothless organization with a paper tiger like status and it is very apparent that neither the  quality standards nor the safety parameters set by this bureaucratic organization evoke ant fear or respect among the industry players. It is time that the safety monitoring infrastructure and testing facilities are strengthened immediately and the degree of punitive punishment is raised to instill a deterrent effect on the violators.

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