INDIA BECOMING A MODERN DAY COLONIALIST?-MAY BE!

Colonialism is considered a dirty word in the modern world because of the exploitative nature of the relationship between the rulers and the vassals. British Prime Minister, representing the most powerful colonial power till the middle of last century, is reported have expressed his regret for the harsh regime it had used to rule the country for more than 3 centuries, while making a business cum friendship visit to this country recently! Who would have thought that in a reversal of history India itself, forgetting its past, could try to be a colonial power with a difference, the modus operandi being economic imperialism! That is what is being reported from Africa where earth's most impoverished people eke out a  miserable living due to abject poverty. In a recent report from Ethiopia, the economic muscle of Indian business enterprises has been unveiled which may be some what disturbing. Here is a take on this new issue that is confronting the world to day. 

Indian companies are among the biggest players in the land deals, with investments of over $ 5 billion, and leases over 6,00,000 hectares. Karuturi Global, a Bangalore-based agroproduce company has alone received 3,00,000 hectares. Claims by these companies and by the Ethiopian government that the deals are legal and entail no human rights violations, have been shown as false in a series of on-ground investigations. The Oakland Institute has meticulously documented the nexus of corporations, politicians, investors, and officials that has made the land-grab possible.It notes that there is no public consultation with local communities (much less their consent), many of whom find out that their pastures or fields have been sold off only when bulldozers arrive. Any form of resistance or even questioning is met with imprisonment, beating up, and even killing. Both private security companies and the Ethiopian government's own forces are used to protect the investors. And there is a total lack of environmental and social impact assessments in these deals. It is also stated sometimes that what Indian companies are doing abroad, is not the responsibility of the government. But this ignores the various ways in which the Indian government facilitates and supports such deals, not only through diplomatic channels but also financially (even if indirectly). For instance the Indian Export-Import Bank has pledged $640 million of credit over five years for Ethiopia's sugar industry, and the fact that Indian companies are getting the biggest deals for sugarcane plantations cannot be unconnected 

There is another perspective to leasing of land in undeveloped and under developed countries by business conglomerates from emerging economies like India and China. In theory putting fallow land into use for food production is a laudable act which deserves appreciation but if the local people suffer due to large scale displacement and loss of regular avocation, it cannot be acceptable and this seems to be what is happening in Ethiopia, a poor country in Africa where large acreage of land is being "cornered" by Indian business men with deep pockets in connivance with the local government. It is conceded that India has some scarcity of arable land and Indian agricultural entrepreneurs are known to be industrious and efficient. However if the fruits of their venture are exported massively where will the local population go for their food? This is where the national governments will have to be careful while opening the flood gates for foreign investment in agriculture through land leasing arrangements. An international legal frame work will have to be enforced when agricultural lands are leased out to rich landlords for raising land productivity and increased food production.  

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

SOME CRITICAL ISSUES OF CURRENT CONCERN IN FOOD

The strength of the often maligned food industry lies in its power to innovate as per the demand of the consumer but a major segment of this sector, knowing fully well that what they are doing is not justifiable measured by any yardstick ignore consumer susceptibilities in pursuit of quick money at high rate of returns to their investment. But a time has come when the industry cannot ignore the consumer community any more and it can afford to refuse to change this attitude only at its own peril. It is a question of time before the governments all over the world start putting stringent restrictions to force the change in favor of the citizens. As yet another new year has dawned, many pundits warn that time is running out for the industry to mend its ways. The three most challenging issues that will confront the stake holders in this food "game" are considered to be cutting down food wastes, humane animal handling including raring them and more transparent labeling for better understanding of the products offered. Here is an observation by one of the critics regarding these issues.

"This year we saw the "end" of Twinkies, the explosion of caffeinated foods, and even DIY marshmallows. But in my opinion, three food issues of great importance finally made it into mainstream American consciousness in 2012, giving us hope for real change in the food system.  Food waste, humane animal treatment (including antibiotic use) and food labeling all took the leap and are now common household topics. And in all three cases, people are using the Internet and a host of apps to discuss these topics, to educate the public and to inspire each other to act, and buy, better."

Though it has been in the public realm most pundits agree that the food waste could be as high as 35-50% of production globally, precious little could be achieved in reducing such colossal waste, in spite of the ground reality that almost 30% of the world population go to bed hungry due to uncertain accessibility to basic foods. Similarly the failure of Californian voters to force the industry to improve the labels through more transparent disclosure does not lessen the gravity of the labeling crisis that is confronting the consumers. Reports after reports, the pitiable conditions in thousands of animal and poultry farms and the inhuman way they are handled and butchered can put to shame even the fiercest beast, namely the Lion which does not have any feeling towards its prey! These three problems will definitely come to the fore during the year 2013 and one can only hope that significant progress will be achieved in all these areas through the sustained efforts of consumer activists and animal protectionist organizations. 

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

WHOLE WHEAT PRODUCTS-FLAVOR VS NUTRITION

Those who eat wheat bread have ever wondered why they prefer it over products from other grains? Probably they might not have any clue and even the wheat scientists were not clear about this puzzle till recently. While consumption of bread from refined wheat flour, called in India as Maida, is predominant world over, its real reason was that traditionally for centuries only good raising and crust can be obtained during baking of bread only when gluten content is high (after removal of bran and germ). It is only recently there was a craze for whole wheat bread considering that it is rich in bran, fiber and many healthy phytochemicals. Of course bakers had to struggle with right recipe and ingredients to come up with a bread from whole wheat flour that can ensure desirable crumb and crust texture and right color. One of the discoveries which unfolded recently is that the extraordinarily appealing aroma of bread comes from the bran which contains the chemical Ferulic acid. The so called "Hot Bread" shops exploit this aroma to attract customers who can see the bread making process and receive the freshly baked bread right out of the oven! Here is an interesting exposition about Ferulic acid's role in fresh bread aroma. 

"What makes whole wheat bread a lot more appetising and tasty -- it just boils down to controlling the amounts of ferulic acid (FA), a compound found in wheat bran. Devin G. Peterson and colleagues from the University of Minnesota explain that whole wheat flour includes all three layers of the grain - bran, germ and endosperm - while refined flour is mostly endosperm. Wheat flour is also rich in fibre and phytochemicals which lowers cancer, heart, obesity and diabetes risks and is more health giving than its refined white counterpart, the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry reports. Peterson and team focused on ferulic acid. When they added it to white flour dough, the bread tasted and smelled like wheat bread. Understanding these chemical reactions could help bakers make healthier bread more appetizing, the study suggests, according to a Minnesota statement. Despite wheat bread's benefits, many consumers choose white bread because they prefer its taste and aroma. Peterson wanted to find out how one specific compound prevalent in whole wheat flour impacts its taste and aroma".

This study should not be a basis for bakeries to incorporate chemically extracted Ferulic acid in refined wheat flour to mimic the aroma of whole wheat based bread products. All said and done whole wheat is much more superior to commercially manufactured white flour in terms many desirable nutrients and industry should not be allowed to get away through such nutrition depleting process of making bread through addition of Ferulic acid to flours devoid of useful nutrients. It is a good thing that bakery industry is increasingly realizing  the ground reality about consumer thinking and must strive to satisfy their desire for products which are as nutritious as possible. After all a sizable population in this planet has bread and bakery products as staple foods and their health is closely linked to the nutritive value of these products.  

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

AFTER HORSE MEAT NOW COMES FISH WITH FALSE LABELS!

Who has not heard of the recent adulteration episode in Europe where horse meat was used to extend the beef content in hundreds of products labeled as beef? Though the ramification of such wide spread food fraud is limited to economic cheating, it does not make such products dangerous or unhealthy to the consumers. Paradoxically horse meat is no way inferior to beef though many sources do contain residues of some performance enhancing drugs which may pose some hazard. Close on the heels of this episode comes the news that American consumers are facing a similar situation vis-a-vis fish products. It was shocking that almost one third of market samples of fish products claimed to be based on Red Snapper, a much valued fish species, were made with other varieties with little or no resemblance to the former! Here is a take on this mislabeling practices widely prevalent in United State of America.    

"That tempting seafood delight glistening on the ice at the market, or sizzling at the restaurant table in its aromatic jacket of garlic and ginger? It may not be at all what you think, or indeed even close, according to a big new study of fish bought and genetically tested in 12 parts of the country — in restaurants, markets and sushi bars — by a nonprofit ocean protection group, Oceana. In the 120 samples labeled red snapper and bought for testing nationwide, for example, 28 different species of fish were found, including 17 that were not even in the snapper family, according to the study, which was released Thursday. The study also contained surprises about where consumers were most likely to be misled — sushi bars topped the list in every city studied — while grocery stores were most likely to be selling fish honestly. Restaurants ranked in the middle. Part of the problem, said the study's chief author, Kimberly Warner, is that there are quite simply a lot of fish in the sea, and many of them look alike. Over all, the study found that about one-third of the 1,215 fish samples bought, from 2010 to 2012, were mislabeled."Even a relatively educated consumer couldn't look at a whole fish and say, 'I'm sure that's a red snapper and not lane snapper,' " she said.

Here again nutritionally it could make very little difference whether the product is based on Red Snapper or any other fish as long they are edible. But such practices are considered unethical and amounts to cheating those who ardently love Red Snapper as a fish of their preference. While during olden days there was hardly any tool available to detect such adulteration, advent of gene testing readily offers a convenient route to differentiate between various living species. Adulteration is one of the oldest professions and no matter how diligent the consumer is, it will continue as long as there is attractive "bonus" for the fraudsters. No wonder costly products like Olive oil, Caviar, Honey, Saffron, Coffee, Tea etc attract adulterators like flies to a piece of jaggery, the basis being higher the cost more will be the profit!

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

THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES-THE NEW TARGET OF GLOBAL FOOD GIANTS

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

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

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





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

POULTRY PROCESSING-HAZARDS REMAIN IN SPITE OF NEW INSPECTION REGIME

The much touted new safety regulations supposed to ensure better protection to American consumers does not seem to be of much significance if those experienced inspectors with hands-on experience in policing the industry are to be believed. On the contrary the situation is likely to become worse because lot of trust is being placed on the industry for self inspection and self regulation. On one hand the inspection regime does not have adequate technical personnel to man the fast moving processing lines to do justice the spirit of safety inspection due to paucity of funds. On the other hand the industry is being allowed to to speed up production lines up to three birds a second to oblige their insatiable thirst for higher productivity and profitability. Here is a take on this emerging scenario in the US poultry industry which does not bode well for the future.

USDA's proposed rule to "modernize" the poultry inspection system would allow plants to speed the inspection line up to 175 birds per minute — that gives inspectors about a third of a second per bird to check for feces, tumors, defects, disease or other factors that could make consumers sick. (Read more on the rule and see what an animated version of one carcass per third of a second actually looks like here). Conventionally, plants could run poultry lines as fast as 140 carcasses per minute, but there were at least four FSIS inspectors on the line responsible for 35 birds each. Painter says that at the plant he's currently stationed at, which is participating in HIMP, the line was averaging up to 181 birds a minute with two plant-employed sorters and Painter at the end of the line. He says: "There's no humanly way possible two people can look inside 90 birds a minute." After the proposed modernization rule was published, USDA told the plant to cut its speed down to 175 birds per minute, Painter reports. Not that that makes much of a difference. "It's totally hands-off inspection," he told me. "Actually, it's not inspection, it's visualization. If you can't touch them, how can you inspect them? You can't even see inside the carcass." So, how can a plant meet basic food safety standards with less inspection? One way is dousing the poultry in chemicals. In fact, Painter told me that USDA encourages the use of chemicals. One chemical is called per acetic acid, an antimicrobial agent used to reduce the risk of food-borne pathogens salmonella and campylobacter. The problem is that after the carcasses are sprayed down with per acetic acid and then put in the chiller, depending on the chlorine concentration of the chiller, "it can be like having a bucket of bleach under your nose," Painter said. He said that it's not unusual to hear from poultry plant workers who say they're becoming ill after exposure to the chemical combination. "These chemicals keep getting pumped into the plant, but they don't increase ventilation," he said. Painter predicts that if current line speeds stay in place, he thinks plants will increase their reliance on chemicals to make up for inspection gaps. Painter said he'd "bet my last nickel on it." Tony Corbo, senior lobbyist for the food program at Food & Water Watch, said he and his colleagues suspect that poultry plants manipulate the levels of chemicals depending on when FSIS conducts salmonella testing. Testing kits are sent directly to the plant, not to the inspector, Corbo told me, so the plant gets a convenient heads-up. So, while USDA says that the new "modernized" inspection system is leading to reduced rates of salmonella, Corbo said plants can easily manipulate their systems to prepare for FSIS testing. He also noted that while industry says the chemical residue left on the poultry is fairly small, "I don't think anyone's doing any long-term testing to see if that's the case." In 2011, Corbo filed a Freedom of Information Act request to view data coming out of the HIMP plants. He found that plant-employed inspectors, as opposed to FSIS inspectors, where not upholding food safety standards. According to a Food & Water Watch news release, "the records show that bile, sores, scabs, feathers, and digestive tract tissue are often not being properly removed from chicken carcasses." Corbo said that the overwhelming majority of noncompliance reports coming from HIMP plants and filed by FSIS inspectors are for fecal contamination in the cavity of the bird. But if the FSIS inspector can only truly inspect a small fraction of the carcasses that speed by on the line each day, "we don't really know how many of those carcasses actually got into commerce," he said. "Essentially, the attitude of the industry is that chicken isn't something people eat raw…it has to be properly cooked," Corbo said. "They're saying it's really the responsibility of the consumer, which we think is ridiculous. The industry has a responsibility here too. …(With this proposed rule), we're essentially leaving it up to one (FSIS) inspector at the end of the line and chemicals to prevent food-borne illness from entering the food supply." Painter, who himself is struggling with health problems he believes stems from food tainted with salmonella or campylobacter, says he's not optimistic that there's enough opposition to stop the proposed modernization rule. His advice? "Wash it, clean it, cook it thoroughly." "I've worked for poultry prior to working for (USDA)," he said. "I'm not anti-industry…but we can't expect a plant to regulate itself when a dollar value is involved."

It is understandable that industry has to increase productivity very significantly to meet with the ever increasing demand of the consumers for chicken meat and products derived from it. But compromising the safety of these products, whatever be the excuse, cannot be condoned under any circumstances. Increased use of chemicals like per acetic acid and high levels of chlorine can be counter productive, besides being dangerous for the consumer as ell as the personnel working in the plant. Frustration experienced by the inspecting personnel is reflected in their advice to the consumers that they should not trust the industry and in stead take appropriate measures for cleaning and cooking the material at their home! The danger is magnified when it is realized that feces-contaminated poultry meat stored in kitchen refrigerators can pollute other food materials like fruits, vegetables, milk etc causing much more damage eventually.

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

SUGAR IN FOODS-THE WRITING ON THE WALL!

Health pundits are becoming increasingly concerned that all efforts to rein in food industry from making high sugar products and persuading consumers to cut down on sugar consumption are proving to be ineffective during the past two decades. From time to time there have been strident voices advocating stringent action against food industry which is raking in billions of dollars by churning out such sugar sweetened products after realizing the weakness of humans to sweet tasting foods. Whether there is any unanimity or not on this issue, excess sugar intake has been unequivocally implicated in many diseases which debilitate human beings reducing the quality of life for millions, with mortality rate progressively climbing up! Here is the latest scientific documentation that seems to justify clamping down on the food industry through coercive policies to restrict added sugar in processed foods. 

"As currently formulated, Coke, Pepsi, and other sugar-based drinks are unsafe for regular human consumption," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "Like a slow-acting but ruthlessly efficient bio-weapon, sugar drinks cause obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. The FDA should require the beverage industry to re-engineer their sugary products over several years, making them safer for people to consume, and less conducive to disease." In a 54-page regulatory petition filed today with the FDA, CSPI details the substantial scientific evidence that added sugars, especially in drinks, causes weight gain, obesity, and chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and gout. In particular, a growing number of clinical trials have found that people who are assigned to drink sugary beverages gain more weight than those assigned to drink sugar-free beverages. Other clinical studies found that high-sugar diets increase triglycerides, LDL ("bad") cholesterol, and liver fat. "If one were trying to ensure high rates of obesity, diabetes, or heart disease in a population, one would feed the population large doses of sugary drinks," said Walter Willett, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. "The evidence is so strong that it is essential that FDA use its authority to make sugary drinks safer." Willett is one of 41 leading scientists and physicians who signed a letter to FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg in support of the petition. Willett and his colleagues have conducted epidemiology studies that strongly link consumption of sugary drinks to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and gout. Soda and other sugar drinks are the single biggest source of calories in the American diet.Americans, on average, consume between 18 and 23 teaspoons—about 300 to 400 calories worth—of added sugars per day. Teens and young adults consume half again more than the average. About one-fifth of adolescents aged 12 to 18 consume at least 25 percent of their calories from added sugars, according to the government's 2007-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. About 14 million people of all ages consume more than one-third of their calories in the form of added sugars. The FDA classifies high-fructose corn syrup, sucrose, and other sugars as "generally recognized as safe," or "GRAS" in agency parlance. To be GRAS, there must be a scientific consensus that the ingredient is safe at the levels consumed. CSPI's petition contends that the current scientific consensus is that added sugars are unsafe at the levels consumed. The petition asks the FDA to determine what level of added sugars would be safe for use in beverages, and to require those limits to be phased in over several years. The petition did not propose a specific safe level, but notes that several health agencies identified two-and-a-half teaspoons (10 grams) as a reasonable limit in a healthier drink. In 1982 and again in 1988, the FDA committed to undertake a new safety determination if sugar consumption increased, or if new scientific evidence indicated a public health hazard. Both of those conditions have been met, which CSPI says obligates the FDA to act".

If there is a convincing perception that sugar including High Fructose Corn Syrup is becoming a public hazard, governments in any responsible country is duty bound to take pro-active steps to protect its citizens from the consequences of such practices of the industry. While the evidence is clear regarding the ill effects of sugar, what is lacking is the will to restrain the organized industry which seems to have a vice-like grip on the governing class in most of the countries where it has predominance! One cannot but agree with the suggestions in the above critique that upper limits for sugar in foods and beverages must be enforced sooner than later.

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