Canteen Foods Association-An Australian idea for food service in schools

Discussion about school lunch programs is a part of the continuous effort to improve the attendance in schools as well as to provide more nutritious foods to children away from home because of economic as well as other social factors. canteens in the school premises is not a common phenomenon in India but almost all schools in the US as well as in Australia have privately run catering contractors who offer cheap subsidized foods to the students. Colleges in India, however have this privately run canteen system where students can spend their off time for having some light foods and beverages. But the type of products served in these canteens is not regulated though there is supposed to be an overseeing committee to enforce quality, hygiene and sanitation and good manufacturing practices. In Australia where there are about 3000 schools food is offered in the school premises by members of a coalition called Australian School Canteens Association which oversees buying as well as food service practices under the school foods policies of the government. Since unlike Indian canteens where most foods are prepared in house, in Australia processed products supplied by food products industry are offered in the canteens. Only those manufacturers who are approved can supply foods to these canteens, thus exercising some control over the quality and safety of products purchased by the students. This is an interesting situation worth consideration in other countries also. Read further about it below: 

"Big food companies are muscling in on the lucrative school canteen industry to promote and sell their products to students. The canteen association, ASCA, which uses its buying power to deliver savings to more than 3000 Australian schools and canteens, estimates the industry is worth almost $1 billion. Association chief executive David Edwards said food companies did not make huge profits in schools but used canteens to promote their products to young audiences. "It is an important business. Some companies do it for brand recognition. If kids buy their products when they are young then they will probably continue buying it as adults." The association represents about 750 canteens in Victorian government, independent and Catholic schools and tries to deliver savings to schools through its buying power. All profit is donated to charity. About three food companies approach the association every week hoping to strike a deal. Increasing the profits of canteens and ensuring products met healthy food guidelines were the association's main aims, Mr Edwards said. In 2013 the association severed its ties with Coca-Cola and switched to Schweppes because "they had a healthier range of products", he said. Freedom Foods struck a deal with the association recently to supply schools with nut-free snack bars, which have been awarded a score of four out of five under a new health star rating system. Marketing director Rebecca Carson said students were incredibly involved in their buying decisions, and she hoped the deal helped the company expand. "Not only are our bars healthy but importantly they are also nut-free. Allergies in schools are a huge issue." Students who bought the company's snack bars at the canteen could then ask for them to be included in their lunch boxes, she said.An education department spokesman said clear guidelines were provided to canteen operators about what should be offered through a traffic light system, which categorises food into three categories according to their nutritional value."

The allegation that big food companies with muscle and clout with the government can force the Association to buy their products without giving a damn to the health guidelines may be genuine because world over powerful industries do have the necessary wherewithal to influence policies through their links with political administrators. Such distortion can cause double damage due to not only supply of "bad" foods but also because of brand building potential through such exposure to these foods in the canteens. But if the Association can run without succumbing to supplier pressure that is the best thing the student community can have. In Australia fortunately there are clear government buying guidelines which stipulate that only foods with traffic light symbols on the labels of foods that imply high healthy scores can be catered in school canteens. Thus not leaving the freedom to the suppliers to buy and sell any food in the school precludes corrupt influences that can distort the system to the detriment of the student community. It is time in India also the existing canteens in all large schools and colleges are brought under one umbrella and responsibility for controlling the profile of products catered is vested in that organization which has to be privately or cooperatively formed for the purpose. It is imperative that over a period of time canteen food portfolio is altered to reduce the proportion of in-house made products and include more and more centrally manufactured branded food with assured health values. Industry must evolve a separate nutrition rating system and offer highest rated products to the school canteens. Government can also give a boost to local food industries by helping them to link with school canteens provided they can make products with high safety and nutritional ratings.

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

Claims put on food package labels- True, false and in between!

How truthful are the facts presented on the labels in packaged foods? Before criticizing the food manufacturers for being non-transparent in their label declarations, one must check the veracity of labels on products that are already on the market shelves. The tendency to boost up the sales is universal and no one can fault the industry if they promote their products honestly and truthfully. The problem arises when label declarations are fudged by vague statements and wholly inaccurate facts. In India the FSSAI, sitting in their cozy offices at Delhi seems to be concentrating more on licensing all and sundry including the "under the tree" food sellers though it is not clear what they are going to do with all the paper works involved in documentation associated with such mass scale "licensing". Indian market place is a thriving field for fraudsters, adultrators, cheats and "addressless" vendors to make a fast buck at the expense of the benign citizen. There are thousands of products with wrong labels, boosted up claims, distorted facts and unknown nature of contents. Many products are not even complete leaving out some of the vital information required to be printed to help the consumer. A recent report from the US indicates that mislabeling is not that widespread as in India though there is also a tendency to suppress some facts. Here is a take on that report.    

"Many packaged food items such as cereals, infant food, chips and more contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Some companies label their products; some do not. Still, some say their products are "natural," which can mislead customers into thinking that the food is free from GMOs. About 64 percent of Americans understand the "natural" label to mean "no GMOs." There is no evidence to prove that the consumption of food with GMOs causes illness, but many countries require food producers to label their products if these contain modified ingredients. The U.S. does not, however, require GMO products to be labeled this way. "Foods that are frozen, made from concentrate or homogenized are all required to be labeled. Why shouldn't products containing GMOs also be labeled?" says Jean Halloran, director of Food Policy Initiatives. Consumer Reports examined the number of food items that contain GMOs. The product testing organization also wanted to know if people relied on the packaging of certain products that suggest no GMOs. The group looked at 80 different packaged food items that contained soy or corn, which are the two most genetically modified crops in the U.S. The GMO measurement process involved examining at least two product samples, each from a separate lot. Consumer Reports then compared the test results with the packaging to confirm if food producers provide correct information. For a food product to meet the requirements of non-GMO, it should not have over 0.9 percent of genetically enhanced soy or corn. Following the European Union's standards, any food item with more than 0.9 percent of GMO should be labeled to confirm the product has GMOs. The tests found items that did not mention GMO in the packaging contained a substantial amount of ingredients modified genetically. Almost all food products labeled "natural" also contained a substantial amount of GMOs. However, products labeled "Non-GMO" or "No-GMO" met the required standards of non-GMO foods. "Until GMO labeling becomes mandatory, consumers who want to avoid GMOs should look for 'organic' or 'Non-GMO Project Verified' labels," says Urvashi Rangan, executive director of Consumer Reports Food Safety and Sustainability. Rangan also believes that products that say they are "natural" mislead customers and should be excluded from packaging."

One of the major transgression in the US concerns the failure of the industry to declare the presence of GMO ingredients in packaged food products beyond the level prescribed by international agencies. But this is a controversial area which is still being debated though common sense tells that GMO food ingredients can never be called natural. While a substantial segment of the population definitely want to shun GMO products, they have been made helpless by the spinelessness of the food safety agency in that country to discipline its food industry!

There is an urgent need to overhaul the labeling system throughout the world to bring in some uniformity and facilitate global trade with no disputes regarding the product identity and permissible claims that can be printed on the label.

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