Authentication of GMO free foods-Newly proposed Government certification to help consumers to choose such foods

Hardly a day passes without some one in some parts of the world speaking for or against genetically modified foods and their safety. Mankind had never faced such a divisive issue when it comes to food safety and GM foods have divided the world vertically into two sides, one favoring them and the other fiercely opposing the same. While many governments have refused planting of GM crops in their respective countries, USA is one of the most ardent advocates of GM foods, its safety authorities taking the stand that GM foods are "practically same" as the natural foods and therefore do not pose any safety hazards. Flowing out of this policy decision is the remarkable growth of GM crops industry in that country where more than 80% of the foods in the market are either made from GM raw materials or contain GM ingredients. Unfortunately the confidence of the citizens on the credibility of the US government agencies in charge of food safety is rather low and this had given birth to a vigorous and sustained campaign to force the food industry to compulsorily declare the presence of GM materials in packed foods as a matter of constitutional right. The powerful GM crop industry with a vice like grip on the law makers has been able to resist any mandatory labeling provision in the statute books. Recent attempt by the government in that country to provide a mechanism for those who want to declare their foods are free from GM materials appears to be a deflective strategy to evade the responsibility of promulgating orders that will require mandatory labeling of all GM foods. Here is a take on this interesting development which may have far reaching implications in that country.

"The Agriculture Department has developed a new government certification and labeling for foods that are free of genetically modified ingredients. USDA's move comes as some consumer groups push for mandatory labeling of the genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
The certification is the first of its kind, would be voluntary — and companies would have to pay for it. If approved, the foods would be able to carry a "USDA Process Verified" label along with a claim that they are free of GMOs. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack outlined the new certification in a May 1 letter to USDA employees, saying it was being done at the request of a "leading global company," which he did not identify. A copy of the letter was obtained by The Associated Press. A USDA spokesman confirmed that Vilsack sent the letter but declined to comment on the certification program. Vilsack said in the letter that the certification "will be announced soon, and other companies are already lining up to take advantage of this service." Companies can already put their own GMO-free labels on foods, but there are no government labels that only certify a food as GMO-free. Many companies use a private label developed by a nonprofit called the Non-GMO Project. The USDA organic label also certifies that foods are free of genetically modified ingredients, but many non-GMO foods aren't organic. Vilsack said the USDA certification is being created through the department's Agriculture Marketing Service, which works with interested companies to certify the accuracy of the claims they are making on food packages — think "humanely raised" or "no antibiotics ever." Companies pay the Agricultural Marketing Service to verify a claim, and if approved, they can market the foods with the USDA process verified label."

According to the above policy, individual manufacturers can get their claim of GM free product verified by USDA, the agency managing safety of agricultural products through a universally accepted methodology and the certificate issued will confirm their products are GMO free. While this is a welcome first step, it does not still obviates the need for declaring presence of GMO in foods that are made from such modified food materials. Probably the present attempt may be to regulate the current practices followed by some manufacturers in including on their label words like "GMO free" putting consumers in a fix as to whether it can be trusted. Though many such products declaring to be free from GMO are certified by non-government agencies, their credibility will be enhanced if such claims are verified and confirmed by government authorities. But there is a perception among impartial observers that this is a ploy by the government to hamper the enthusiasm of a major segment of the population agitating for mandatory labeling. This is confirmed by the proposals now being pursued by the federal law makers to prevent state authorities imposing regulations mandating for compulsory declaration. This raises questions regarding the role of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which is supposed to regulate packed and processed foods industry and it will be interesting to watch out how this is going to be played out. USDA certification must be accepted by FDA in the interest of the consumers and honest food manufacturers.though no one is still sure whether FDA will take a positive stand on this crucial issue. .

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

Stifling innovation-How can governments indulge in such unethical activities?

Ever heard of the term infanticide? That is sacrificing one's own child, whatever be the reason. Why should a parent commit infanticide? Is it because of the potential for the child to become more famous than the parent? Whatever be the reason it is ridiculous that such things happen in real life. Innovations are like children and scientists creating them are like parents to them. Like every parent, innovators also want their findings to be of benefit to the society. But in a quixotic development in the US, the very government which professes its strong commitment to science and technology is reported to have made attempts to "kill" a novel food product developed by a "daring" entrepreneur, through unfair means though there is no explanation forthcoming from the concerned authorities as to why they did it. The case pertains to the successful development of a product by a start up venture that can replicate the taste and other parameters associated with natural egg from poultry birds, based on alternate formulation not involving real eggs. The new product had all the desirable qualities associated with natural egg and could have saved millions of consumer dollars because it was cheaper and healthier than the real egg. Here is a take on this unusual action on the part of US government agencies vested with the responsibility of providing wholesome food to its citizens.   

"A US government-appointed agricultural body tried to crush a Silicon Valley food startup after concluding the company represented a "major threat" and "crisis" for the $5.5bn-a-year egg industry,according to documents obtained by the Guardian. In potential conflict with rules that govern how it can spend its funds, the American Egg Board (AEB) lobbied for a concerted attack on Hampton Creek, a food company that has created a low-cost plant-based egg replacement and the maker of Just Mayo, a mayonnaise alternative. In a series of emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (Foia), AEB staff, a US department of agriculture official and egg industry executives attempted to orchestrate the attack. The documents were obtained by Ryan Shapiro, a Foia expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Shapiro's Washington DC-based Foia-specialist attorney, Jeffrey Light, and passed to Hampton Creek.Just Mayo is just not mayo: FDA says eggless mayonnaise must change name. Among the efforts coordinated between the AEB, the USDA and the egg industry:
    * Outgoing AEB head Joanne Ivy advised Unilever on how to proceed against Hampton Creek after the food giant filed a false advertising lawsuit against its rival last year.
    * The Department of Agriculture's national supervisor of shell eggs joined the AEB in its attack on Hampton Creek, suggesting Ivy contact the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) directly about Just Mayo with her concerns. The FDA later ruled Just Mayo must change its name.
    * The AEB attempted to have Just Mayo blocked from Whole Foods, asking Anthony Zolezzi, a partner at private equity firm Pegasus Capital Advisors and self-described "eco-entrepreneur", to use his influence with Whole Foods to drop the product. (Whole Foods still sells Just Mayo.)
    * More than one member of the AEB made joking threats of violence against Hampton Creek's founder, Josh Tetrick. "Can we pool our money and put a hit on him?" asked Mike Sencer, executive vice-president of AEB member organization Hidden Villa Ranch. Mitch Kanter, executive vice-president of the AEB, jokingly offered "to contact some of my old buddies in Brooklyn to pay Mr. Tetrick a visit".
    * The AEB's research arm, the Egg Nutrition Center (ENC), tested the strength of Hampton Creek's patent for its egg replacer, Beyond Eggs, using a consultant, Gilbert Leveille. Leveille concluded that the patent was "not very strong and could be easily challenged with an alternate product", he said in an email to Kanter. "Were I in your position I would focus on nutritional quality and on the emerging science, much of which ENC has sponsored," Leveille wrote.
The emails, totalling 600 pages, show the AEB has become deeply concerned about Hampton Creek. The San Francisco-based tech company has attracted $120m in funding from some of tech's biggest names, including the Founders Fund, started by Facebook backer Peter Thiel, and Vinod Khosla's Khosla Ventures.

The AEB represents egg farmers across the US and its board is selected by the secretary of agriculture. This year the politically connected AEB provided 14,000 eggs for the White House's annual Easter egg roll and Ivy was photographed with President Barack Obama"

It is matter of shame for the wealthiest country on earth to adopt unfair means to subdue a new entrepreneur in the narrow interest of protecting the fortunes of the natural egg industry. The argument that encouraging strong competition to the natural egg might adversely impact the poultry industry resulting in loss of employment to a few people will not jell because establishment of a new industry that caters to the same market will also provide employment, thus becoming an employment neutral development. What is forgotten in this debate is that the formulated egg products are much more healthier than their natural counterpart in terms of lower cholesterol and other adverse health parameters. It is a curse for this country that most law makers are lobbyists for one industry or the other because of the political donations they receive which the Federal court had made legal. However these law makers are forgetting that their primary responsibility is to the voters who elected them rather than the lobbyists, reposing trust and confidence on their ethical credentials, integrity and seriousness to address the issues affecting them.

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

Mechanical tenderization of meat-Safety apprehensions not addressed on priority

Meat products happened to be one of the most frequently contaminated foods in the US market and in spite of stiff guidelines and regulatory controls food poisoning incidences are becoming a constant source of concern to the safety authorities in that country. The industry is also mired in controversy on account of the frequent use of popular antibiotics in the feeds, contented to be for increasing the body weight of the animals during the growth stage. Obviously the antibiotics residues are bound to be in the meat derived from such animals and consequently incidence of infection can be expected to be less frequent. Still contaminated meat products make news in the US more and more frequently and there is considerable apprehension among the consumers regarding consequences of consuming infected meat products. Added to this worry is the use of newer technologies like mechanized tenderization which theoretically can increase the potential for contamination if proper precautions are not taken. Repeated attempts by consumer activists to force the meat industry to distinguish mechanically tenderized from conventionally processed products are being resisted by the processors and the safety agency seems to be willingly playing into the hands of the meat industry lobby by delaying the mandatory labeling requirement under one pretext or the other. Here is a take on this issue.

"For more than a decade, consumer groups and the U.S. federal government have been discussing the food safety concerns surrounding mechanically tenderized beef — steaks or other whole cuts that have been mechanically punctured with needles or knives to make them more tender for consumers. In the U.S., roughly one-quarter of whole beef cuts are mechanically tenderized. Mechanical tenderization of beef poses health risks because it transfers potential pathogens from the surface of the meat down into the center If the cuts are cooked rare or not thoroughly enough, the pathogens in the center may go on to sicken the consumer. A number of foodborne illness outbreaks have been connected to mechanically tenderized beef in recent years, including the 2012 outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 in Canada from XL Foods, which resulted in the largest beef recall in Canadian history. According to USA Today, at least five outbreaks in the U.S. have recently been attributed to mechanically tenderized beef, resulting in 174 confirmed illnesses and four deaths. The problem with tenderized beef is that without a label, it's impossible to tell whether or not a cut of meat has been tenderized, said Patricia Buck, executive director of the Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention (CFI). Anyone who might want to take extra precautions to avoid E. coli or other pathogens in their steak has no way to identify the additional risk without a label. That's especially concerning for children, the elderly, or any other consumers with weaker immune systems, Buck said. In a federal register notice from June 2013, the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) estimated that E. coli illnesses from mechanically tenderized beef ranged between 587 and 4,657 each year. Labeling that beef could prevent an estimated 133 to 1,497 of those illnesses, the agency said, which would translate into roughly $1.5 million in economic benefits from avoided illnesses each year. "When we're trying to reduce the prevalence of foodborne illness, labeling mechanically tenderized beef is one quick fix that has an actual impact," Buck said.'

It is not understandable as to why the industry is so fiercely opposing such consumer friendly labeling system forgetting that the very foundation of its business is built upon confidence and trust between them. Same trend is seen in the case of GM foods also where repeated attempts by the consumer organizations to label them are being rebuffed by the industry through means which cannot be considered fair. industry may claim that their products are perfectly safe but it is the inalienable right of the consumer to know what he is buying and therefore if he wants to know if the meat is mechanically tenderized he must know about it to take a decision to buy or not. If the law says irradiated foods, considered absolutely safe, need labeling why not mechanically tenderized meat products also? Further prevarication by the safety agencies cannot be condoned at all. 

V.H.POTTY

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

Food poisoning burden-Staggering cost for suffering from food borne infections

Improperly stored and processed foods can cause many diseases, some of them being fatal to humans. Food industry is expected to take highest precaution in handling foods intended for the market to avoid delivery of tainted foods with serious consequences and it must be said that most processors do a reasonably good job in ensuring consumer protection investing heavily in preventive practices to stop release of suspected products in the market. Unfortunately some undesirable practices and the diverse sources from where food ingredients are sourced from different parts of the world make it difficult to avoid occasional hiccups in the form of food illness among a small group of consumers. Traceability of contamination across the food supply chain is now a priority with the industry and if a fool proof system is evolved even when food contamination is detected the source from where it emanated can be ascertained for restricting the damage to the minimum. Excellent ,fast, and reliable techniques for testing food contaminants have further enabled the industry to take maximum care to ensure food safety. In the US where reliable system of documentation of food contamination incidences exists, the consequences in terms of economic damage to the country due to food pathogens are well illustrated as seen below: 

"Salmonella causes an estimated $3.7 billion each year in medical costs for Americans, according to the latest estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service. That figure places Salmonella at the top of the rankings for the15 most costly foodborne illnesses. USDA says it regularly updates its cost estimates for food borne pathogens to keep policy makers and the public informed about the relative impact of food borne illness.The top 15 foodborne pathogens account for 95 percent of illnesses and deaths related to food in the U.S.

The 15 costliest foodborne pathogens are as follows:
    1. Salmonella – $3.7 billion; 1,027,561 total cases; 19,336 hospitalized; 378 deaths
    2. Toxoplasma gondii – $3.3 billion; 86,686 cases; 4,428 hospitalized; 343 deaths
    3. Listeria monocytogenes – $2.8 billion; 1,591 cases; 1,173 hospitalized; 306 deaths
    4. Norovirus – $2.3 billion; 5,461,731 cases; 14,663 hospitalized; 149 deaths
    5. Campylobacter – $1.9 billion; 845,024 cases; 8,463 hospitalized; 76 deaths
    6. Clostridium perfringens – $343 million; 965,958 cases; 438 hospitalized; 26 deaths
    7. Vibrio vulnificus - $320 million; 96 cases; 93 hospitalized; 36 deaths
    8. Yersinia enterocolitica - $278 million; 97,656 cases; 480 hospitalized; 29 deaths
    9. E. coli O157 – $271 million; 63,153 cases; 2,138 hospitalized; 30 deaths
    10. Vibrio (all other non-cholera species) - 17,564 cases; 83 hospitalized; 8 deaths
    11. Shigella – $138 million; 131,254 cases; 1,456 hospitalized; 10 deaths
    12. Cryptosporidium – $52 million; 57,616 cases; 210 hospitalized; 4 deaths
    13. Vibrio parahaemolyticus – $41 million; 34,664 cases; 100 hospitalized; 4 deaths
    14. E. coli non-O157 – $27 million; 112,752 cases; 271 hospitalized; 1 death
    15. Cyclospora – $2 million; 11,407 cases; 11 hospitalized; zero deaths

Deaths accounted for the greatest costs incurred from food poisoning. For example, the 378 deaths attributed to Salmonella accounted for 89 percent of the total cost associated with the pathogen, despite Salmonella's 0.04-percent death rate. Other costs incurred can include medical costs, time away from work, and the societal willingness to pay to prevent deaths, USDA said. "Cost estimates of food borne illnesses have been used in the past to help inform food-safety policy discussions," the agency noted, "and these updated cost estimates will provide a foundation for economic analysis of food safety policy."

Why such colossal damage happens only in the US is some what puzzling but one can get a clue when the reporting systems regarding food safety incidences elsewhere in the world is examined. In most developing countries there is very little data base to look at when any comparison is to be drawn with the record of the US in safety vigilance. In most of the developed countries there is reliable data base though they may not be as meticulous as that practiced in the US. Probably WHO of the UN can help those countries not having data recording system vis-a-vis food poisoning to set up the same with a little bit of economic and technical help which will go a long way in tackling food related diseases through scientific surveillance and rapid response regime.

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

Who will "supervise" the supervisors- A dangerous regulatory system!

Is accepting "hospitality" from the industry one is supposed to supervise an acceptable practice from an ethical angle? It depends on what is meant by the word hospitality. According the English dictionary it denotes the relationship between the host and a guest and may involve "friendly reception and generous entertainment" . Here again there is ambiguity regarding reception and what type of entertainment is provided. One thing is clear that a government employee or a person contracted to inspect food processing facility cannot be considered a guest since it is a part of a regulatory system where "quid pro" considerations are irrelevant. How sincere a person can be in accepting hospitality from a company where he has been deputed to find whether safety norms are scrupulously followed  or not? It is like giving a judiciary functionary hospitality probably to get a favorable judgment from him which is blasphemy! This is what is happening with US Department of Agriculture whose personnel deputed to over see safety of processing facilities at different places are reported to be allowed to accept hospitality from the company supposed to be hauled up for violations! How trustworthy could that system be and how can consumers repose confidence in such a system, especially at a time when there is a backlash against many questionable practices by the industry being reported in that country? Read the report below and feel how sad such a situation can be when it comes to the common man who trusts the government to protect his health through powers conferred on it. 

Critics refer to the phenomenon as "regulatory capture" — when government inspectors become overly influenced by the industry they regulate. While the accusation is lobbed at many federal agencies, some say USDA is especially vulnerable because it's charged with enforcing the law at facilities that also pay for its services."It's a risk USDA would be more prone to that sort of capture," said Sebastien Pouliet, an Iowa State University economics professor who specializes in food safety. Unlike the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the USDA provides grading, certification and verification services intended to improve agricultural companies' marketing of a variety of farm products, he said. In effect, these processors are the USDA's customers, Pouliet said. "There's sort of a conflict of interest." USDA's Office of Communications did not respond to several requests for comment. More than 2,000 employees of the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service grade, audit, certify and inspect $150 billion worth of food a year. USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service employs more than 8,000 people who inspect about 150 million livestock carcasses and 9 billion poultry carcasses a year. In the case of Snokist Growers, the company hired the Agricultural Marketing Service to grade its canned applesauce so the product could be used in school lunches and USDA food programs. Alguard said she and other inspectors were told to prevent the old applesauce from being sold to USDA, but to disregard the problem in Snokist's products intended for the public. "My boss wanted to keep them happy," she said. "He's there to keep the income flowing into his office so he can stay employed." The applesauce policy contravened an agreement the agency had with FDA to report food safety issues, she said. In 2011, some school children were sickened by Snokist Growers' applesauce, which prompted an investigation by FDA. The illness turned out to be caused by defective cans that allowed pathogens to survive, but Alguard said she told FDA inspectors that moldy bins of applesauce were regularly being reprocessed when they showed up at the plant. "I just knew it was my chance because my boss wasn't going to do anything about it," she said. "They were stunned, to say the least."The FDA's investigation concluded that the mold released toxins into the applesauce that could cause health problems even if the product was heated during canning.

One of the reasons for such undesirable practices creeping into the regulatory system is the onus put on the industry to pay for the expenses of inspectors deputed as the government claims it has no money to meet such expenditure! Is it not a pity that World's most powerful country has no money to spend on citizen's safety vis-a--vis food processed and marketed in the country but spends trillions of dollars on arms race, space exploration and dominating other countries. This is a country where life style diseases like Obesity, Diabetes, Heart Disease are widely prevalent and the country has no money for dealing with these scourges! Some of undesirable practices being followed by the industry resulting in millions of food poisoning incidences can be attributed to this sham of a process called "inspection". Unfortunately most of the law makers in that country are captives of the powerful industry which sabotages any thing coming from the government intended to safe guard the interests of the citizen! Can any one solve this mega puzzle?

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

ORGANIC FOODS-WHAT REALLY THEY ARE!

No doubt organic foods definitely score over normally grown commercial crops when it comes to safety to the consumer how ever to hawk this food as a panacea for all the health problems the world faces to day is nothing but a hype. One must understand that farmers owe much to the use of synthetic fertilizers and chemical pesticides if they are boasting of much higher land productivity as compared to 5-6 decades ago and it is unlikely they will abandon this practice in the foreseeable future out of economic considerations. It is true that organic foods do fetch a higher price in the market but it is doubtful whether the additional income will ever compensate them for the high yields they can get under the mainstream agricultural practices in vogue to day. On the part of the consumer, there are unrealistically high expectations regarding the virtue of organic foods but there is wide gap between such expectations and ground reality. Here is an expose on this important issue which must be read by every consumer patronizing organic foods.

"You may think you know everything about your organic food -- but you don't. There are major misconceptions about this $35 billion industry. Here are the five biggest myths about your organic food.

1. Organic products are 100% organic.

The United States Department of Agriculture, or USDA, isn't a zero tolerance regulator. For any multi-ingredient "organic" product you pick up, from Wal-Mart  (NYSE: WMT  ) to Whole Foods Market  (NASDAQ: WFM  ) , only 95% of its contents have to be certified organic. For the USDA, it's a matter of convenience and feasibility. Testing for 100% full compliance of anything is a regulator's worst nightmare. Additionally, some ingredients simply don't have organic options on supply. The USDA does note, however, that investigative eaters can take a closer look at the ingredients list; if a specific ingredient is labeled as "organic," then it is. And for those American agricultural complex skeptics, the European Union has its own 95% rule.

2. Organic crops aren't fertilized.

There's more to your organic arugula than meets the eye. Fertilizers are used to replace necessary soil components that constant cropping removes. Nitrogen and phosphorous, specifically, are two main ingredients in the fight for fertilizer.
While the USDA forbids farmers to use sewage sludge (yes, this is actually a common non-organic addition) or synthetic fertilizers on their organic fields, they're free to use most other fertilizer types. Among the more recognizable additives are animal manure, compost (which can include animal materials), and ash.

3. Your organic meat grazed for grub.

Organic meat was once an organic animal. But that doesn't mean that Mr. and Mrs. Moo spent their days grazing in the grass. While the USDA requires that animals spend at least 120 days a year munching away on organic pastures, just 30% of its nutrition must come from the pasture itself. And in the off-season, 100% of its sustenance can come from organic feed.

4. Organic farmers don't use pesticides.

As with fertilizer, organic farming isn't as far off from conventional agriculture as some would think. A 2010 poll showed that a whopping 69% of those surveyed believe organic crops grow up big and strong sans pesticides. While the USDA does have a three-page long list of prohibited synthetic pesticides, there are over 20 chemicals that make the cut. Even more worrisome, current organic regulations don't include any limits on usage, meaning less effective approved pesticides can be piled on to organic farms, creating a cadre of potential health and environmental issues of their own.

5. Organic farming is environmentally friendly, tastes better, is healthier, and will improve your sex life.

OK, so maybe that last one applies more to vegetarians than organic eaters, but the point remains. There's a lot of hype around organic food, and it's important to remember that, in terms of rigorous evidence, causal inferences are few and far between. As organic farming becomes increasingly mainstream, a lot of its original attributes aren't nearly as applicable.

On the environmental front, intensive large-scale organic operations can be much worse for the environment than your local farmer who uses synthetic fertilizer once a year to keep production levels competitive. Likewise, personal perceptions on taste and health may actually be little more than a placebo effect, helped along by a fast-growing $35 billion dollar organic industry that wants you to buy their product.
Organic agriculture is an exciting opportunity for the future of food. But knowing the hard facts of organic food will help you to be the best, most informed consumer you can be."

The organic food industry market may be worth $ 110 billion to day , expected to grow by 16% annually ( CAG) to an astonshing figure of $ 212 billion by the year 2020! USA alone is reported to be consuming more than 40% of the global production and USFDA by far is the most liberal country with less stringent standards and safety specifications for raising organic crops. Whether organic foods are absolutely free from unnatural chemicals, synthetic growth inputs and pesticides, still it is the best bet for avoiding human induced food related health afflictions which are prevalent to day.

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

ANTIBACTERIAL UMBRELLA-WHAT IS THAT?

Increasing episodes of Listeria monocytogenes contamination of animal based products like meat are causing serious concern, especially in retail super markets where meat muscles are sliced before serving to the consumers. As these slicers can harbor this pathogenic bacteria, transmission from serving to serving becomes a reality posing safety risks. L.monocytogenes happens to be one of the most versatile pathogens that can thrive even at cold temperatures if right moisture conditions prevail and almost 20% mortality is being attributed to infection with this pathogen, young and the elderly being highly vulnerable. What is interesting is that incidence of L.monocytogenes contamination occurs more frequently at the retail preparation level while factory processed products are comparatively safer. Though there are powerful chemicals that can kill the bacteria, their use in meat is restricted by food laws and use of chemicals invariably taint the product affecting the flavor and taste. Recent report that bacteriophage preparations specific to L.cytogenes are highly effective in sanitizing the meat products is a welcome news that is going to give relief to the retail Deli meat industry. Here is a take on this important development.   

"To comply with the regulation, Deli Brands initially used lauric arginate and a smoke derivative, but that created "issues with our process," Tew says. Next the company tried injecting sodium lactate and sodium diacetate into the meat products, but that caused flavor issues and increased processing costs substantially. Then, when USDA approved Listex as a processing aid in May of 2011, Tew and his colleagues were able to resolve their dilemma. "We started using Listex about 18 months ago on all of our whole-muscle cooked products," Tew says. "We found that by using Listex as a surface treatment with sodium lactate and sodium diacetate in the carrier solution, we improved our products' flavor profile, reduced our processing costs, and significantly increased our shelf life — to as long as 70 days. And because it's a processing aid, Listex does not have to be listed in ingredient statements, which means we didn't have to change our product labeling." Developed by Micreos Food Safety, Wageningen, The Netherlands, Listex is a culture of bacteriophages (or phages for short) that effectively eliminate Listeria monocytogenes. As phages occur in nature, are specific to their target bacterial species, do not affect desirable bacteria in foods or in the human gastrointestinal tract, and do not alter the finished product's organoleptic properties (such as taste, texture and color), Listex is listed by the Organic Material Review Institute, meaning it can be used in processing of natural and organic foods. Listex is one of the most cost-effective interventions on the market, says Dirk de Meester, Micreos' business development director".

The very mention of virus (bacteriophage) evokes some apprehension among consumers as they are causative agents for many deadly diseases mankind has been facing for centuries but bacteriophage preparation developed in the Netherlands is a harmless product that does not affect friendly and beneficial microgenome of humans, being highly specific to L.cytogenes. Industry seems to have accepted the technique of using the bacteriophage preparation for surface treatment which provides a protective umbrella to preempt contamination from L.cytogenes. As it is not considered an ingredient in the processing, there is no compulsion to declare the same on the front of the label of the pack. 

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

THE MEAT "TRIMMINGS" DEBATE-ARE THEY SAFE?

Meat industry seems to be having frequent problems regarding the safety of some of their products and during the last few years it is pilloried by one scandal after the other, The inhuman abattoir practices and use of antibiotics liberally were two of the most serious issues that caught the attention of the consumers during the last 2-3 years. Frequent contamination episodes further caused huge embarrassment to the industry. The most recent incident concerns the practice of making ground meat, which was found to be fraught with the risk of contaminating the product with E.coli. It concerns use of trimmings from the cows, recovered from layers nearest to the skin, for admixing with the normal meat for achieving lower cost of production. However according to some safety experts these trimmings being close to the skin are often contaminated with pathogens and hence pose greater risk to the consumer. Here is a take on this latest controversy.

"[Trimmings are] taken from the outermost part, and they happen to be the fattiest part of the cow," says Moss. "So they're put into a centrifuge which spits out the protein parts of the material." The term "pink slime" was in fact initially coined by a U.S. Department of Agriculture official Moss met who had seen the "bright pink, aqueous" stuff in a plant. Sounds pretty unappetizing, but there is some appeal to the material: mainly its price. "In the meat industry, there's something called least cost formulations," says Moss. "Companies will mix and match trimmings from different parts of the cow and different suppliers to achieve the perfect level of fatness. This material is ... slightly less expensive." Cheap it may be, but because it comes from the outermost part of the carcass, it's also more susceptible to contamination than other cuts of meat. That's because it could come in contact with the cow's hide, which could have excrement containing pathogens like the dangerous forms of E. coli. The industry tries to purify the material with gaseous ammonia, which raises the alkalinity to a level that E. coli can't tolerate, Moss says. USDA's food safety division says this method is effective. And the company that manufactures it says it also has a rigorous testing system in place. But Moss' s reporting has shown that school food officials have found the bad kind of E. coli in the material where they least expected – the trimmings. "It's entirely approved by USDA ... and accepted as school lunch as a component in the ground beef they purchase," says Moss. "So far they've been holding pat on the safety issue. They're satisfied that their testing program and the way they handle and cook beef is entirely safe for kids." None of the fast food companies — McDonalds, Taco Bell and Burger King — that decided to stop buying trimmings mentioned safety concerns, either. And even if it's been banished from a lot of fast food burgers, the material is probably still in a lot of ground beef sold at the grocery store. Except it's impossible for consumers to know that since USDA doesn't require meat companies to label whether ground beef includes trimmings.

First reported in products distributed to schools under nutrition programs, trimmings seem to be a part of all products made from ground beef meat used in many main stream products by the food industry. Though use of trimmings is not banned and found safe by the authorities, industry voluntarily stopped supplying products containing trimmings to the schools. However no one knows whether these trimmings form significant portion of ground beef being used by the industry as a whole. Though some major players have already announced discontinuing with this practice, there is no way a consumer can know whether the products in the market still contain trimmings in the absence of any compulsory label declaration. Fortunately, most of the meat industry players do process these trimmings scientifically killing all pathogens though there may be some exceptions which get noticed. There is no way the authorities can clamp down on these practices as they are perfectly legal, at least as of now.

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

MULTI AGENCIES VS SINGLE AGENCY FOR FOOD SAFETY ENFORCEMENT

One of the prime claims of achievement, made by the Ministry of Food Processing Industry, GOI was that it was instrumental in creating the food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) by integrating various central agencies dealing with this subject in different ministries. It is another matter that the "Authority" lacks real authority to enforce discipline in the food market, the fraudsters and adulterators still ruling the roost! It is very true that, for any organization to show its efficiency, it requires some time and the food industry seems to be optimistic that FSSAI would be able to show results soon. Whether the recent FSSAI surveys across the country that highlighted the prevalence of wide scale adulteration in milk and other foods, (already well known?) is a forerunner of more deterrent actions in future remains to be seen. Diagnosing a disease is a different ball game compared to surgical intervention to remove the malaise detected. According to international reports the much heralded FDA, USDA inspection system for meat and animal products and supervising agency for imported foods are likely to be merged, hoping for more effective safety compliance by the industry. There appears to be critics as well as supporters for the new proposal and here is a take on this new development.    

"FSIS regulates by inspection and enforcement. Their daily presence in nearly every single meat and poultry plant in this country is mandated by law and funded by Congress. They can shutter a plant simply by having the inspectors not show up for work. FDA regulates by education and writing Good Manufacturing Practices and suggesting policies to follow when producing food. Foods like sprouts, cantaloupe, peanut butter and shell eggs come to mind. And FDA inspection is either by a state entity, a third-party auditor paid by the company or themselves when an outbreak is recognized. The FDA has no mandate in inspection or audit frequency, and very little in funding to do so. And therefore they very rarely inspect or audit unless a disaster mandates it. This is not to say one agency is better than the other. They are very different entities, and the laws that they follow are very different also. To blend them into one might be like mixing oil and water".

People are always apprehensive about mergers creating monopoly and power centers not responsive to their problems and same fear is influencing the views on the proposed merger also. One need not agree with the critic above that the new mega dispensation would be worse than the fragmented players controlling food safety administration. As long as the new agency created is answerable to the elected body and if adequate built-in protection is provided for preventing hegemonic tendencies, there is no reason why the integrated system cannot work more efficiently than several independent agencies under different departments.

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

FRESH PRODUCE CONTAMINATION-INDUSTRY-UNIVERSITY INITIATIVES

Episodes of contamination of fresh produce with bacterial pathogens and the attending adverse consequences are becoming increasingly common in many wealthy countries and the impact of such incidences of contamination is more with people in these countries because of two reasons. First the immunity level of the population to several pathogenic bacteria encountered in foods is relatively low, making them easily susceptible to their effect on health. Second the habit of consuming fresh produce like lettuce, broccoli, tomato etc in salad preparations is a part of their food culture making them highly vulnerable to food poisoning more frequently from these sources. It is against such a background one has to appreciate the action taken recently in the US to launch a public-private research initiative worth about $ 10 million to evolve technologies which can pre-empt such risks in consuming salad vegetables produced in different regions. 

"To fund the study, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is providing a $5.4 million, three-year grant and produce industry partners are kicking in nearly $4 million in in-kind support. The University of Maryland will be working with Ohio State University, Rutgers University, University of California, Davis; University of Florida, University of Delaware, USDA and the FDA. In its news release, UMD said agriculture producers are already testing for pathogens in irrigation water, fertilizers and other soil amendments, as well as in produce just before and after harvesting. Some 200,000 separate tests will be analyzed by the researchers. The team will conduct a series of controlled experiments by region to gauge how various practices affect levels of pathogens. "Producers, processors and consumers must be assured that the good practice standards apply to their region - that what works on a big farm in California, makes sense on a couple dozen acres on the East Coast," Buchanan said. "No group's protocol will be approved and enforced without scientific validation," Buchanan added. "The science must be solid enough to withstand domestic legal challenges and international trading disputes." He emphasized: "Guidelines, standards and regulations need to be based on solid science or we'll end up with legal wrangling rather than safer salads."

The collaborative project will have far reaching implications because whatever remedial measures are developed, they will have much better chance of getting accepted by the user industry with least reservation. The industry has been using certain techniques to ensure pathogen-free salads and these also will be subject to validation independently to confirm or modify such practices. Though some industry has been pleading to allow irradiation for pasteurizing fresh meat, clearance was not forthcoming from the authorities concerned due to apprehension that the processors may pass of low quality food products after irradiation as prime quality ones, defrauding the consumer. Many countries have a lesson to learn from the above project which only can solve common industry safety problems affecting the society at large. This mode also effectively utilizes the tremendous knowledge that is bottled up in the universities for the good of the nation.

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