Detecting chemical toxicity in foods-An "out of the box" approach

Food safety is a concern that affects the entire world and many advances in testing methods have enabled the food industry to improve the safety of the products made by it through deploying these advanced and highly sensitive analytical technologies and electronic instruments. A recent report from Hong Kong speaks of a.new assay technique that can detect a "thousand" toxins of different nature in any given sample. It sounds like a magic when the innovators say that the fish embryo they are using for testing give tell-tell visible signs of presence of toxins pretty fast. No doubt this is a welcome development that deserves appreciation if what they claim is true. Here is a take on this new claims by the developers of the new test protocol.

"A Hong Kong-based startup called Vitargent sees hope in a food-testing technology centered around fish embryos, which would enable scientists to detect contaminants and poisons in everything from food and beverages to makeup and body lotion.The test that they've developed using the tiny fish can allegedly detect more than 1,000 different toxic substances, a giant leap from existing processes that only give results for five to ten toxins at a time. Vitargent is using engineered embryos of oryzias—also known as Japanese ricefish or medaka—which either develop tumors or turn fluorescent in the presence of certain dangerous chemicals and other additives. In the presence of bisphenol-A, for example—the dreaded BPA your water bottle promises not to contain—the fish will light up like a glowstick, thanks to a jellyfish gene that's been spliced into their genomes. The company's founder and executive director Eric Chentold the South China Morning Post that the fish have a similar DNA structure to humans, and react the same way to toxins. Chen sees a huge opportunity for this chemical-detection method in China, and his company hopes to institute its testing regimen throughout the region. "Businesses are so creative they will add anything you can imagine to our food and drink," he told the Post".

Though the claims are highly impressive, proof of the same has to come from independent assessors out side Hong Kong. Probably since it is a commercial venture very little technical information would be available but testing the fish for its ability to detect different toxins can be easily verified by independent trials. Of course since it is based on the use of live fish embryo, there is a need to maintain an aquarium to breed Japanese rice fish for getting the embryos for use in the test. What is not clear is the type of toxins which are detectable using this test though BPA has been mentioned as one of the toxins that can be detected. This new test might have far reaching impact if it can detect presence of different pesticides or chemical toxicants like acrylamide or other leachates from the various packaging materials used by the food industry.

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

Are some foods more addictive than others? New findings with far reaching implications!

Can some foods be compared to alcohol, tobacco or psychotropic substances from the point of view of creating addiction?. A significant number of experts are veering around to the view that there are a few foods being manufactured by the food processing industry which are capable of inducing addiction and one suspects that the industry also is fully aware of this, exploiting this knowledge to develop more and more such foods for catering to the consumers vulnerable to addiction. If this is true can the industry get away with such sinister designs and will not they be liable for class action before the judiciary for suppressing such an evidence? We cannot forget how the cigarette industry was caught doing the same and what penalty they had to pay running into billions of dollars as reparation for destroying the health and lives of millions of people in the US. Food technology has evolved into a fine art to day and creating a food with right proportion of sugar, fat and flavor is very easy. This is what the industry seems to be doing world over to improve their bottom line! In such a situation what needs to be done to reduce such addiction which is playing with lives of people in countries like the US as manifested by obesity, diabetes, hyper tension, kidney diseases etc? Here is a critique on this important issue that is worth reading. 

"Are Americans in denial about symptoms of food addiction? But are these foods addictive?  Michael Moss, author of Salt, Sugar Fat, states: "I tried to use the "A" word sparingly because the industry argues convincingly that food lacks some of the technical definitions of addiction and narcotics. They prefer words like alluring, craveable, smackable. But the aim is the same, which is to create the perfect formula and amounts of salt, sugar and fat that will send us over the moon and make their products irresistible." (2) Moss reports, "There are estimates, of course, but we're averaging something like twice the recommended amount of salt. The best estimate of sugar is 70 pounds a year. We're averaging 11 percent of our calories [from] saturated fat, the bad one linked to heart disease, and the recommendation is to get it down to 7 percent or less." (2) New study reports that highly processed foods are shown to be addictive, leaving consumers with substance dependence symptoms and behaviors. The University of Michigan is hoping that their new study will help consumers make more informed decisions. The new study confirms what many people have suspected:highly processed foods like chocolate, pizza and French fries are the most addictive (3) This is the first study to examine which foods can truly be implicated in food addiction. This has recently become a growing interest due to rising obesity epidemic. Prior studies with animals showed that highly processed foods or foods with added fat and refined carbohydrates trigger addictive-like eating behavior.  Clinical studies performed with human subjects indicated that individuals eating processed foods meet the criteria for substance dependence. (3) U-M assistant professor, Ashley Gearhardt, explains that highly processed foods are known to be preferred for their taste, it has remained unknown whether these food elicit an addiction response. Unprocessed foods such as brown rice and salmon have not been associated with addictive behaviors. (3) Erica Schulte, lead author, explains that individuals with symptoms of food addiction or higher body mass indexes report greater difficulties with processed foods. "If properties of some foods are associated with addictive eating for some people, this may impact nutrition guidelines, as well as public policy initiatives such as marketing these foods to children," Schulte said. (3) Nicole Avena, co-author of the study, reports, "This is a first step towards identifying specific foods, and properties of foods, which can trigger this addictive response," she said. "This could help change the way we approach obesity treatment. It may not be a simple matter of 'cutting back' on certain foods, but rather, adopting methods used to curtail smoking, drinking and drug use." (3)"

To be fair to the industry it must be argued that they have to look for decent returns for their investments and efforts in the form profits by creating a market for their products and after all they can sell only products consumers demand. Whether one likes it or not, organoleptic quality of foods has been the single most driving force as far as product development programs are concerned and launching a product is invariably precede by a market acceptability study trying to gauge the reaction of the consumer. Until recently consumer always decided whether a product is acceptable based on his perception regarding over all flavor including color, taste and texture and only now health aspects are coming into focus with demands being made on the industry to make healthier foods. If foods like chocolates, pizza and others with high sugar or fat or salt content are really addictive as being made out to be, there must be restrictions against their manufacture and marketing. Can any country treat foods like alcohol and regulate their sale without impinging on the rights of the consumer to decide what he wants to eat from among the products that pass the quality and safety standards prevailing there? One has to only recall the experience of the government in New York which tried to restrict the size of bottle sizes of soda which was rejected by the courts there as violation of personal freedom! Similarly look at the resistance that is emerging in the US for a simple proposal to include extent of added sugar to a product by the processing industry on the nutritional label and it is unlikely that similar efforts in reining in food industry will ever succeed!

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

Taxing the food-A retrograde step by governments in India

Whether in ancient kingdoms or in modern democracies, taxation is a genuine tool to garner resources for the development of the Society at large. But who ever is ruling a country must exercise caution and wisdom in choosing the basket of items to be taxed and at what rate. India to day is considered vibrant democracy with the governing fraternity being for the people and by the people. If so indiscriminate taxation regime can be nothing but suppression of the aspirations of people. This is what has been happening in the country with successive governments refusing to go by the wishes of the people not to tax their foods. If the industry is to be believed the present General Sales Tax GST) regime, being pushed through, wants to impose 20% tax on foods which is nothing but a cruel joke in a country where poor people predominate in the population. While lot has been said about "Right to Food" by the political class it is not realized that right to access food cannot be "at any cost"! The plea by the industry to reduce the food taxes to 4% is very reasonable and if the present government prides itself as a "responsive and responsible" one it must heed to this well reasoned suggestion. Here is a take on this contentious issue. 

"Preferred policy option should be imposed on food processing sector, keeping GST rate not more than 4% and farm sector should be kept outside the scope of GST, said Sharad Jaipuria, President, PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The likely implementation of GST at more than 20% on food processing sector would not only impact the sector adversely but also hit the economic and social sentiments of the country, said Jaipuria. The food processing industry is still at a nascent stage of development in our country as only 2.2% of food output is processed in India as compared to 78% in Philippines, 65% in the USA and 23% in China. At this juncture, high rate of GST will slow down the growth trajectory of food processing sector in India. Further, as food comprise a major part of the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) which is nearly 14.3%, an increase in tax on food items will adversely impact WPI leading to higher inflation in the country, he said. We believe since food constitutes a large portion of the consumer basket of lower income households, any tax on food would be regressive in nature. Further, extending GST to food processing sector will also cause difficulty in view of the fact that production and distribution of food is largely unorganized in India, added Jaipuria. On global front, most of the countries tax food at a lower rate keeping in view the considerations of fairness and equity. Even in countries such as Canada, UK and Australia where food constitute a relatively small portion of the consumer basket, food is taxed at zero rate.  While in some countries, food is taxed at a standard rate which is as low as 3% in Singapore and Japan at the inception of the GST. Even in international jurisdictions, no distinction is drawn on the degree of processing of food. Hence, the benefit of lower or zero tax rates should also be extended to all food items in India regardless to degree of processing, he said."

It will be easy for the government to brush aside such suggestions branding industry as not adequately patriotic to help the government  in refurbishing its treasury but the citizens in this country will eventually punish the government if does not remove all taxes on food materials, whether processed or raw. There has been and still a procession of politicians going to foreign countries on some pretext or the other but never seems to learn good things of benefit to the citizens there. If food is not taxed in countries like Canada, Australia and the UK why should it be taxed in our country? On one hand successive governments never get tired of proclaiming from the top of their perch that agroindustries must be promoted as it provides more employment per unit investment while in successive budgets taxes are neither removed nor reduced but invariably increased What an anachronism! Can we expect from the present Finance Minister, when he presents his budget in February next to start the process of reducing the food taxes progressively, to eventually achieve zero taxation in 5 years? Pray God for good sense prevailing over him in the next 3 months! 

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

CHEMICALS IN FOOD-SAFETY IS NO BODY'S BUSINESS!

The sturdiness of man against all odds in sustaining himself is a remarkable natural trait ever since his advent on earth, say 40,000 years ago. In ancient world it was fight against fierce carnivorous animals and fight for food in competition with them which provided the challenge. To day the odds are same, the only difference being that hundreds of chemicals finding their way into the foods in the name of processing and preservation may be slowly killing him in stead of the quick kill happening to the Paleo man during fighting with wild and ferocious animals. While enemy in old days was clearly visible, the unsuspecting chemicals in the food added deliberately are silent and invisible slow killers. Here is a shocking revelation about the way chemicals are added to foods by the processing industry while the so called safety authorities either close their eyes or are unaware of this practice.

"If you are shocked to learn that industrial chemicals are routinely in the food you are feeding to your family, you will be even more shocked to read about a study published this week in the professional journal Reproductive Toxicology by researchers from the Pew Charitable Trusts — which funded the work — and the Environmental Management Institute. Problems in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food programs look even worse than the problems I know so well from EPA! After extensive research into what manufacturers add to our food, the researchers report that about 1,000 additives are in the food supply without the FDA's knowledge. And, for those additives the FDA does actually know about, fewer than 38 percent of more than 8,000 FDA-regulated additives — including those manufacturers intentionally add directly to food and materials that may come into contact with and contaminate foods — have a published feeding study. (Feeding studies comprise the basic toxicology test — the first test a scientist would do to evaluate the safety of a chemical additive.) For direct additives, added intentionally to food, only 21.6 percent of the almost 4,000 additives have undergone the feeding studies necessary for scientists to estimate a safe level of exposure, and the FDA databases contain reproductive or developmental toxicity data for only 6.7 percent. It appears the FDA and the food industry were often making safety decisions by comparing one chemical to another rather than doing an actual toxicology study. In making such decisions, they were building a house of cards based on assumptions and unsupported extrapolations instead of direct scientific evidence. How has the oversight of our food regulations gone so terribly wrong? The researchers have a few insights. First, many chemicals were grandfathered into the system in the 1950's, and so they are in our food supply without information on their safety. Once a chemical is cleared for use in foods, the clearance is forever, so there are no requirements or incentives for a manufacturer to support additional testing. And, under the outdated U.S. Food Additives Amendment of 1958, the FDA doesn't even have the authority to require testing if it has questions about a chemical. Also, industry can self-determine if its chemical food-additives are Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS), and therefore free from the usual regulatory requirements for food additives. If the industry makes a GRAS determination, it is not even required to notify FDA that it has put the new GRAS additive on the market. Allowing industry to determine the safety of the chemicals it creates is a textbook example of the fox guarding the chicken coop. Last week, many of the same Pew researchers published a report in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Internal Medicine showing that "financial conflicts of interest are ubiquitous" in the industry-driven process leading to determining that a chemical is GRAS. In that article, Pew reports that all — that's 100 percent — of the members of expert panels that review food additives to make GRAS determinations have financial relationships with companies that manufacture the food additives being reviewed".

If whatever has been said in the above critique is true, is humanity hurtling towards calamity in a few decades from now with all people suffering from one or the other health disorders lowering the quality of life dramatically compared to what they were about 100 years ago? One can only pity for the future generations to come as they are being consigned to a life of ignominy by the reckless actions of those who live to day! Of course there are a few people who are still aware of these contradictions and thanks are due to them for spawning the organic food industry which does not use chemicals in raising any crop or processing it into edible preparations. Unfortunately such people are far and few at present to make any impact but there is the promise that organic food consumption is growing albeit slowly which will leave at least a few people with normal health to carry forward the torch of human civilization! 

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

SELF SUFFICIENCY IN FOODS-CAN THIS BE POSSIBLE FOR ALL COUNTRIES?

If every country in this planet wants to attain self sufficiency in food, is it technically and logistically achievable? Such lofty ideals are good to be proclaimed while the ground reality will tell a different story. Food pundits and policy experts tend to debate endlessly whether this planet will have the capacity to produce sufficient foods to meet the minimum food needs of every denizen if the population grows at the current pace but there is no unanimity on this issue with many predicting food famine and deprivation in in a few decades' time from now because Mother Earth cannot support huge jump in production even if there are some dramatic technological breakthroughs in the coming years. GMO lobbyists have their own answer and they aver that gene manipulating technology can increase food production very significantly though there is very little hard evidence to support their over optimism! Set against this bleak scenario, the lamenting of British policy makers about the dependence of this country on imported foods is rather amusing. Here is a take on this new fear being expressed in the UK regarding its food future. 

"Falling self-sufficiency means Britain produces less than two-thirds (62%) of the food the country consumes, down from 75% in 1991, the National Farmers' Union said. If all the food produced in the UK in a year were stored and eaten from January 1, the "cupboard" would be bare by August 14, the NFU has calculated. Farmers are calling for support from politicians, the public and food industry to back British farming and help them produce more. NFU president Peter Kendall said the UK could not simply go around the world chasing the cheapest deal on food. "To think that today's date would signal the time when our domestic food supply runs out is frankly alarming. It says to me that we must act," he said. "Right across the board farmers have a fantastic natural capacity to produce more British food, given the right market signals and the confidence to invest. We have the right technologies to produce more from less, with precision farming helping to target fertiliser and crop protection products within centimetres. "Laser technology can even pinpoint an individual weed, improving accuracy and efficiency. Crops grown under cover help to lengthen the season for our British fruits. "But there is more to do to empower our farmers to enable them to make the most of our natural resources and feed our growing nation." He urged the Government to help create an environment where farming businesses could invest, to address market failures and iron out price volatility to ensure the food chain can increase supplies".

It was assumed that the World has become a village with no borders under liberalized economic regimes and free trade protocols worked under the aegis of WTO. If this is really so, why should the UK government worry about import of foods from other countries with surplus production? Is it because of fear of inferior and relatively unsafe foods which may find their way into the country? With hardly any surplus land for agriculture how can a geographically small country like the UK can expand cultivation? Talking about technological innovations there is a limit for achieving incremental production and putting in place farmer supporting policy initiatives is unlikely to achieve much. Probably the UK must think in terms of encouraging their farmers to go out to countries where land utilization is relatively low due to many reasons and lease out land, deploy most productive modern production technologies and bring the same for the consumption of its citizens. If India can do this why not the UK. The inter dependence of countries on each other cannot be wished away under noble patriotic fervor. As for safety adequate mechanisms are available to ensure the same with sound management systems and intense vigilance. 

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

FOODS THAT INTERFERE WITH DRUG ACTION-NEW FINDINGS!

In an alarming report food-drug interaction is claimed to be a serious concern that deserves much more attention and focus in future. Who ever will suspect that Grapefruit consumption can cause problem to those who take regular medications for managing life style diseases like blood pressure which can even pose life threatening risks in some cases? After all citrus fruits in general are considered a valuable source of Vitamin C and many health boosting phyto chemicals and if the reports are true, there is an urgent need to open up investigations for bringing out such dangers with regard to other foods also. Here is a gist of the findings of some scientists which deserve serious attention by nutritionists and medical community alike.

The fruit can cause overdoses of some drugs by stopping the medicines being broken down in the intestines and the liver. The researchers who first identified the link said the number of drugs that became dangerous with grapefruit was increasing rapidly. They were writing in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. The team at the Lawson Health Research Institute in Canada said the number of drugs which had serious side effects with grapefruit had gone from 17 in 2008 to 43 in 2012. They include some drugs for a range of conditions including blood pressure, cancer and cholesterol-lowering statins and those taken to suppress the immune system after an organ transplant.Continue reading the main story "Start QuoteOne tablet with a glass of grapefruit juice can be like taking five or 10 tablets with a glass of water" Dr David Bailey. Chemicals in grapefruit, furanocoumarins, wipe out an enzyme which breaks the drugs down. It means much more of the drug escapes the digestive system than the body can handle. Three times the levels of one blood pressure drug, felodipine, was reported after patients had a glass of grapefruit juice compared with a glass of water. The side effects are varied depending on the drug, but include stomach bleeds, altered heart beat, kidney damage and sudden death. Dr David Bailey, one of the researchers, told the BBC: "One tablet with a glass of grapefruit juice can be like taking five or 10 tablets with a glass of water and people say I don't believe it, but I can show you that scientifically it is sound. "So you can unintentionally go from a therapeutic level to a toxic level just by consuming grapefruit juice." The report said: "We contend that there remains a lack of knowledge about this interaction in the general health care community." They added: "Unless health care professionals are aware of the possibility that the adverse event they are seeing might have an origin in the recent addition of grapefruit to the patient's diet, it is very unlikely that they will investigate it." Other citrus fruits such as Seville oranges, often used in marmalade, and limes have the same effect. Neal Patel, from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society said: "Grapefruit isn't the only food that can cause issues, for example milk can stop the absorption of some antibiotics if taken at the same time. "Although some of these interactions may not be clinically significant, some may lead to more serious outcomes.

Inter disciplinary interactions among scientists are increasingly becoming more and more relevant in the light of the above findings. Already mankind is facing a health crisis due to shifting dietary habits with predominance of calorie rich foods, over use of antibiotics and use in feeds to animals, emergence of more and more virulent pathogens resistant to most antibiotics known to day, wide scale food contamination episodes linked food and environmental deterioration. If drug-food interactions become a serious concern, a total rethinking may be necessary on future life styles, if a major calamity is to be averted.

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

VULNERABILITY TO ALLERGY-A PREDOMINANT URBAN PHENOMENON?

Allergies can be caused by food as well the environment one lives in and in many cases it can be life threatening. Children are generally the victims of allergy which increases in severity as they grow. There are remedies which are available to deal with allergic reactions but ideally keeping away from situation that poses risk of allergy can be best solution. While in the case of food, it is somewhat easier to stay away from those containing known allergens, which are about 8 in number how can any one anticipate environmental hazards that also may trigger allergy? If a recent study on allergy is any indication, urban environment is more dangerous when it comes to food allergies though common sense tells that environmental induced allergic reactions should be more serious in such places. This is understandable considering the multitude of chemicals present in urban surroundings due to high population density and and all associated human activities.  For example emissions from heavy vehicular traffic that is a feature of urban living contain many chemicals in minute quantities that can be the cause of allergy. It is a logical finding that those living in rural areas where the environment is relatively cleaner the incidence of allergy is significantly less. But the report that urban children are more vulnerable to food allergy is indeed revealing. According to the authors of the study the reason for this could be the presence diverse microorganisms in rural environment o which children there are exposed, may be responsible to make them sturdy and resistant to allergy triggering. Here is a gist of the study that has brought to surface this interesting information.

"Study results showed that 9.8 percent of children in urban areas have food allergies as compared to 6.2 percent in rural communities. The states with the highest prevalence of food allergies in children were Nevada, Florida, Georgia, Alaska, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and the District of Columbia. "We have found for the first time that population density has an impact" Gupta told the Chicago Tribune. "The big question now is what in the environment is the trigger?" Some researchers believe that the many pollutants found in urban areas may trigger the development of allergies while exposure early in life to bacteria common to rural areas may protect against hypersensitivity to allergens. Still, finding the answer to the "trigger" question is no short order and food allergies are a growing health problem. According to 2011 research by Gupta, an estimated 5.9 million children under the age of 18 now have a potentially life-threatening food allergy. Severe allergic reactions that can lead to death include a drop in blood pressure, trouble breathing and swelling of the throat. And despite the geographic disparity between occurrences of food allergies, severe food allergy reactions are not confined to one area. The study showed food allergies are equally severe in regardless of where a child lives. Nearly 40 percent of all the children in the study had a severe or life-threatening reaction."This is really important to note," Gupta told Food Safety News. "There may be less food allergies in rural areas, but if you do have a food allergy, you still have an equal chance of having a severe, potentially life-threatening reaction. Gupta advises parents to always report a child's allergic food reaction to his or her doctor so the child can be prescribed medication to prevent a life-threatening situation".

The role of microbes in making children less sensitive to allergens, as suggested by the scientists in the above study is really significant and many recent studies have brought out the beneficial effects of human microbiome in health that offer logical explanation for this perception. Another variable factor is the exposure of children to restaurant foods and processed products containing many chemical additives and whether this also plays a part is not known. Food allergy is a manifestation of reaction to certain specific proteins present in the food and there is no permanent remedy presently available. Also to be noted is the fact food allergy has a strong genetic factor as children borne to families having a history of allergy are more likely to inherit the same. On the other hand if urban environment is the major culprit for increasing incidences of allergy in urban areas and consequent development asthma and other respiratory ailments, what practical methods can be envisaged to ameliorate the situation? In spite of all claims that environment safety agencies are monitoring the quality of air in major urban settlements, it is doubtful whether the standards and enforcement practices are adequate to meet the emerging challenges. The hypothesis that exposure to microbes during early child hood may lessen the chances of food allergy is a good lead worth pursuing to reach a logical conclusion on this issue. In many cases gut microbes belonging to different species help in digestion of proteins significantly leaving very little peptide residues that can be absorbed to elicit allergic reaction. The well organized multi institutional research projects initiated in 2007 by National Institute of Health in the US on human microbiome can be expected to bring out lot of information on the role of microorganism in food allergy reactions.

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

NEW FOOD CONTAMINANTS-ARE THEY ALARMING?

To the plethora of chemicals humans ingest in the day to day life here comes another one which was recently found to be in some food products and the environment around. HBCD as it is named by the organic chemists has not yet been conclusively proved to be harmful at concentrations found in meat, milk and fish, though further studies only can reveal the extent of danger posed by this substance. What is interesting is that HBCD levels in the house hold environment is much higher than that is found in some of the foods tested so far and the implication of this finding cannot be comprehended as of now. Though government safety agencies "think" that the current situation does not warrant any alarm, it is difficult to take such assurances at their face value and sooner the issue is resolved better it will be for the consumer community. Here is a take on this new developments which needs priority consideration by the health experts for further consideration.

"A new study from researchers at the University of Texas School of Public Health has revealed that flame retardant chemicals were found in many samples taken from popular food items. While less than half of the tested food products had detectible levels of the chemical called hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), 15 out of the 36 items tested positive. HBCD is used in polystyrene foam in the building and construction industry and can be found worldwide in the environment and wildlife, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. It has been highly toxic for aquatic organisms, and shown to have troubling effects on animal populations. "The levels we found are lower than what the government agencies currently think are dangerous," study author Dr. Arnold Schecter, a public health physician at the University of Texas School of Public Health in Dallas, told WebMD. "But those levels were determined one chemical at a time."

What is of serious concern is its possible role as an endocrine disruptor, capable of adversely affecting the functions of hormonal system as a whole and the Thyroid function in particular. The dangers of careless and indiscriminate disposal of plastics into the open which ultimately end up in the water bodies are obvious when it has been pointed out that HBCD is found mostly in foods derived from animals and fish which consume contaminated water and vegetation containing this toxic chemical. Endocrine disruptor chemicals are becoming more and more prominent these days because of their suspected role in causing many diseases due to interference with functions of the hormonal system in human body. Besides some of them have been implicated as obesogens, responsible for hijacking the fat metabolism leading to the obesity syndrome in most people. In the light of these findings, more serious attention needs to be bestowed on such chemicals which creep into the food system at sun-ppb levels with enormous potential to cause havoc on human health.   

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

HEALTHFUL FOOD PROMOTION-A NEW INITIATIVE

Eating out is a practice which is becoming more and more prominent in the life styles of people who have very little time to spend in the kitchen due to the pressure of work and other daily commitments. This trend has driven a fast paced development in the food service sector with fierce competition being the hall mark of this industry. Innovations like the Food Truk are also a part of this paradigm shift in the life styles of people on the move in search of more family income and pleasures of life. While the food processing sector is being hauled up for turning out foods which are not healthy causing much of the damage to the well being of the consumers, restaurant sector has not received that much attention from health critics regarding the nutritional quality of preparations served by them. Of course isolated attack on a few catering giants in the form of criticism of their unfair practices in alluring the kids with super sized serving proportions loaded with calories and fat, has not assumed any alarming magnitude still. State policies in cajoling the caterers to declare about the calories in the portion size served seem to be working and may players in this field do display prominently the calorie content along with their menu. Such progressive efforts are sought to be supplemented by voluntary organizations by encouraging the restaurants in in improving the "healthiness" of their offerings. Here is an example of such organizations which certify the restaurants which conform to nutrition standards for their products and disseminate the same among customers.    

"The USHFC will help consumers distinguish restaurants and other food service providers that are utilizing nutrition best practices; such as the use of fresh, seasonal vegetables and fruits, whole grains, moderate portions sizes, and minimally processed food and beverages with higher nutritional qualities, while decreasing the use of additives such as industrial trans-fats, sugar, sodium and MSG. In addition, foodservice providers will be credited for their use of environmentally friendly and humanely raised foods, as well as special dietary offerings such as children's menus, vegan, vegetarian, gluten-free, Paleolithic, and identification of common food allergens. "As a restaurant owner and chef, I feed people for a living, so I believe I have a responsibility to do so well and sustainably," said Chef Ris Lacoste, of RIS in Washington DC. "There are large variations in industry purchasing and preparation practices, and customers are increasingly looking for signs that indicate, 'this house cares.' We go to great lengths to find and use high-quality and healthful ingredients, so I enthusiastically support the efforts of the USHFC." The USHFC is developing programs to provide recognition, incentives and assistance to eating establishments across the entire spectrum of foodservice provision--from high-end restaurants, to fast-casual establishments and eventually school cafeterias, fast food chains, sporting complexes and military and other government foodservice providers. The USHFC initial programs are being modeled after other non-profit initiatives that have successfully incentivized corporations and independent businesses to align their practices with the interests of consumers". 

No wonder this approach is being widely acclaimed and many restaurants are vying for such certification and recommendation to increase their business. In a competitive market such positive actions can be the tipping point in garnering sizable growth and improved bottom line. As for the customers, this is a boon because currently they have no reliable system to discriminate between healthy restaurants and normal ones peddling jumbo sized and unbalanced foods with high calorie and fat content. More such efforts by organizations like the one above will spread the message that customers do care for the nutritive aspects of food preparations besides the culinary quality. It is the responsibility of the government to encourage such organizations which can be a watch dog safeguarding the interests and well beings of the citizens. The phenomenon of consuming meals away from home is bound to increase in the coming years and the restaurant sector will have more responsibility in ensuring the safety and quality of their preparations.  

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

NEW TOOL TO MEASURE INFLAMMATION DUE TO FOOD

Vast information about foods of various kind, especially the health benefits as being claimed by the manufacturers, can put any consumer, even if highly educated, into a state of confusion, hardly helpful in selecting right foods from the aisles of the supermarket. Government agencies have limitations in controlling or policing the industry and ultimately it falls on the shoulders of the consumer to decide which food is beat for him. Recent action by the EU in enforcing some order in health claims is a welcome move and rejecting more than 99% of the claims routinely printed on the labels generates some confidence among consumers that industry does not have unbridled freedom to mislead them. Development of a new analytical tool recently to test the healthiness or otherwise of foods developed for the market may go a long way to routinely assess the effect of any food on the inflammation will be a valuable tool for the industry as well as developmental scientists in the field of new product design. Here is a take on this new optical based test protocol which may become a common gadget in the coming years.

"The human body is complex, and designing a miniature artificial gastrointestinal system proved to be extremely exacting. The solution provided by researchers at EPFL ultimately took the shape of a two-level chip, whose levels are connected via a porous membrane. The upper level, which represents the intestinal wall, is made of a homogeneous layer of cultured epithelial cells. The lower level represents the circulatory system and is made up of immune system cells, and in particular macrophages. The macrophages' job within the human body is to keep it clean: when they encounter any potentially dangerous agents they release molecules such as cytokines that activate other immune-system cells. The NutriChip platform uses CMOS high-resolution optical sensors developed by Sandro Carrara's team in the EPFL's Integrated Sytems Lab in order to precisely detect and measure cytokine production by the immune cells that are on the other side of the layer of intestinal wall cells. These measurements, which are performed using fluorescence, show exactly how much inflammation is caused by a given food".

How far such tools become popular depends on the sincerity of the industry in ensuring the well being of the consumers because of the prevalent trust deficit that exists in the minds of consumers regarding the true intentions of industry in making products that are healthy in stead of being tasty. But a time may come when safety agencies can insist on al foods being non-inflammatory as tested by the nutriChip system as being developed now. Whether the industry will concur with such tight regulations remains to be seen. But if consumer pressure is mounted in an organized way, there is no reason as to how the industry can continue its resistance to measures like this in the interests of the consumer.

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

THE DAY OF RECKONING FOR GM CROPS-REACHING THE DEAD END?

GM foods are facing enormous consumer resistance due to the "trust deficit" that exists to day between the GM food producers and the consumer, mainly because of the "opaque" manner in which the former work. While the safety of GM foods has not yet been established beyond a shadow of doubt, its potential environmental hazard is yet to be realized widely. It is another matter that 80% of the processed foods consumed in the US contain one or more of GM food ingredients, without the consumer ever knowing about it! The emerging consumer awareness about the uncertainties inherent in GM foods is putting pressure on the industry to declare the presence of GM ingredients in packed foods as a part of the label. Though the GM food lobby is powerful enough to deflect criticisms, the recent report that even they are rattled by the emergence of weedicide resistant weeds which seem to have adversely affected the crop yields. Here is a take on this new development with far reaching implications.

"This is a complex problem," said weed scientist David Shaw in remarks to a national "summit" of weed experts in Washington to come up with a plan to battle weeds that have developed resistance to herbicides. Weed resistance has spread to more than 12 million U.S. acres and primarily afflicts key agricultural areas in the U.S. Southeast and the corn and soybean growing areas of the Midwest. Many of the worst weeds, some of which grow more than six feet and can sharply reduce crop yields, have become resistant to the popular glyphosate-based weed-killer Roundup, as well as other common herbicides. Monsanto Co's Roundup worked well for many years. It became prevalent with the commercialization of "Roundup Ready" crops Monsanto developed to tolerate the weedkiller, making it easy for farmers to treat their fields. But now super weeds have developed a resistance to Roundup, and farmers are scrambling to figure out how to combat their weeds. "We don't have that next technology. We have to get back to the fundamentals," said Shaw, who chairs a task force that is working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on how to tackle weed resistance problems. Several farmers spoke out about their struggles at the summit, as did experts from the USDA and crop consultants. "This is our number one issue," said Arkansas crop consultant Chuck Farr. "It is a challenge every day, every field." Harold Coble, an agromist and weed scientist with the USDA, called the problem of weed resistance a "game changer" and said farmers must become more versatile. Too many have simply been relying on the chemicals for too long, he said.

Whether the above development will restrain further growth of the GM food industry is some thing to be watched in future. Already the cost of GM seeds and the high cost of cultivation of such crops are impediments for the growth of the industry. Promised yield increase using GM seeds is not happening in many places where cultivation of GM crops has been popular for some time. If the GM technology innovators are not able to find a solution to this emerging dangers, there is every likelihood of farmers reverting to conventional agricultural practices which may sound the death knell for the GM crops industry.  

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

DIOXINS IN FOOD-INDUSTRY VS REGULATORY AGENCIES

That industry is invariably averse to any strict surveillance against some of their questionable practices and will never agree, if given an option, in making any standards stricter has been known. There are hundreds of instances in the history of food industry during the last hundred years to prove the point that voluntary action for making the food safer and healthier never worked and expecting this sector to do so in future can be only a wishful thinking. Look at the latest instance of the industry lobbying against making safety limits for dioxins more stringent under some pretext or the other probably fearing adverse impact of such life saving food standards on its business. Here is a take on this vital issue that promises to become a new area of confrontation between the safety authorities and the industry allied with powerful farming lobby in USA. 

'Farmers and the food industry are trying to kill a proposed safety standard for dioxins, chemicals that can cause cancer and are widely found in meat, seafood and dairy products. Industry groups say a daily exposure limit for dioxin proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency isn't justified and could unnecessarily scare consumers away from meat and milk products. An individual could ingest more than the proposed daily limit of dioxin in a single meal, the groups say. "The implications of this action are chilling," they said in a recent letter to the White House. "EPA is proposing to create a situation in which most U.S. agricultural products could arbitrarily be classified as unfit for consumption." The proposed standard would not by itself trigger any regulations on farmers or food companies, but the government could later recommend measures, including restrictions on the content of livestock feed, to reduce the amount of dioxins that people could consume. The dioxin limit is the latest health and environmental issue that has pitted the Obama administration against industries who claim they're being subjected to unwarranted, job-stifling rules and regulations. "Dioxin is one of the most notorious and most studied chemicals," said Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst with the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization. "The industry is trying to change the definition of what is safe to avoid any further scrutiny."

Is it not unfortunate that even the farm sector, propped up by big farmers, has ganged up with the processing industry for the sake of protecting their turf ignoring the well being of the consumers who after all provide the "bread and butter" to them? It is forgotten that when risk impact is measured the benefit of doubt has to be given to the consumers and commercial players have to abide by agencies like World Health Organization and others responsible for fixing "goal posts" for consumer safety. Is it not a pity that food processing industry, already being hauled up for promoting unhealthy foods causing many life style diseases, is bent on repeating its past mistakes endangering the lives of the hapless consumer? One can only hope that better counsel will prevail on them to fall in line with universal safety regimes in stead of blind opposition to enforcement protocols based on sound science.

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

"COCAINE EFFECT" OF FOODS-LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Remember how much money the the tobacco industry had to shell out after the class action through legal efforts in the US to pin down the industry which deliberately suppressed information that implied the addictive nature of tobacco? It is true that tobacco industry, in spite of this set back, still continues to have sizable "practitioners" who just refuse to see the writing on the wall and continue to indulge in smoking what ever the price of the product! One can only say that this most unfortunate and illogical. During the last one decade there have been compelling evidence that food industry also is going the "tobacco way", if scientific studies in multi lateral institutions are taken seriously. The main culprit is the main stream processed foods containing high levels of sugar and fat manufactured and marketed by the industry targeting youngsters and adults alike. How far this trend will continue with the industry in a denial mode remains to be seen and probably time is running out for it to self discipline the members to bring about significant changes in the product portfolio from the present one. Here is a comprehensive commentary on this phenomenon that must receive attention policy makers all over the world. 

"Cupcakes may be addictive, just like cocaine. A growing body of medical research at leading universities and government laboratories suggests that processed foods and sugary drinks made by the likes of PepsiCo Inc. and Kraft Foods Inc. (KFT) aren't simply unhealthy. They can hijack the brain in ways that resemble addictions to cocaine, nicotine and other drugs. "The data is so overwhelming the field has to accept it," said Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. "We are finding tremendous overlap between drugs in the brain and food in the brain." The idea that food may be addictive was barely on scientists' radar a decade ago. Now the field is heating up. Lab studies have found sugary drinks and fatty foods can produce addictive behavior in animals. Brain scans of obese people and compulsive eaters, meanwhile, reveal disturbances in brain reward circuits similar to those experienced by drug abusers. Twenty-eight scientific studies and papers on food addiction have been published this year, according to a National Library of Medicine database. As the evidence expands, the science of addiction could become a game changer for the $1 trillion food and beverage industries. If fatty foods and snacks and drinks sweetened with sugar and high fructose corn syrup are proven to be addictive, food companies may face the most drawn-out consumer safety battle since the anti-smoking movement took on the tobacco industry a generation ago".

What can any one under such compelling circumstances? Will a blanket ban on "bad" foods work? Can raising taxes on high sugar and high fat foods be a remedy to the problem? Educating the consumer to avoid obesity causing foods is easier said than done! Suggestion to punish obese people through social boycott is just ridiculous, even to think of! The reported cost of supporting the obese population is staggering indeed. Probably evolving an ideal frame work for healthy food profiles within which all manufacturers will have to design their products and punishing those who violate these guidelines through high taxation may be considered in consultation with all stake holders.

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

SALT OR TOBACCO- WHICH IS THE GREATER VILLAIN?

For quite some time in the past alarm bells were ringing regarding the potential health risks posed by intake of salts beyond a certain limit and it is universally accepted that high salt can be injurious causing life threatening disorders like CVD, Blood Pressure and Kidney damage. Where there is no unanimity is regarding how much salt consumption can be dangerous. The problem is further complicated by the relative consumption of processed foods compared to home cooked products which vary from country to country. While there can be "forced" restrictions on salt content in processed products turned out by the industry, how can any meaningful reduction of salt can be achieved in the home cooked foods as well as on the dining tables across the world?. According to the latest reports emanating from British scientists, salt can be as dangerous as tobacco smoking and there must be global action to curtail salt consumption to save precious lives of people where ever they are and the UN system is being implored to take a pro-active role in this health protecting endeavor.

"Writing in the British Medical Journal they say a 15% cut in consumption could save 8.5 million lives around the world over the next decade. The report says practical steps to reduce consumption should be drawn up without delay. If voluntary measures do not work, the food industry should be compelled to cut salt levels, it says. The report - by researchers at the Universities of Warwick and Liverpool - says that after cutting tobacco consumption, getting people to eat less salt would be the most cost effective way to improve global health. The researchers say there is a "consistent, direct relation between salt intake and blood pressure". High blood pressure in turn is linked to heart disease, stroke and kidney problems. They point to the US, where cutting salt intake by a third would save tens of thousands of lives and save up to $24 billion annually in health care costs. But with 70% of deaths from strokes and heart attacks occurring in developing countries, the report says the impact of reduced intake would be global".

No doubt any meaningful action taken in this regard requires global cooperation and an agency like WHO under the UN system is eminently suited to take the much needed initiative. Probably even WTO could be brought into the picture for imposing a ban on trading in foods containing salt beyond a limit agreed upon. Mean while it is time R & D efforts are accelerated to evolve suitable and affordable salt "equivalents" that can be safe for humans, for use by the industry as well as at home.

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

SHELF-LIFE OF FOODS-A NEW ADVISORY WEBSITE

Wastage of food is a matter of concern when one realizes that there are millions of people in many parts of the world who have to go to bed hungry due to their inability to access the required food because of many factors. Families in many affluent countries throw away good foods as a matter of habit without realizing the implications of such enormous wastes. It is not the argument that people should not enjoy a good meal as they have the right and the resources to access such foods but exercising moderation in buying foods can prevent such avoidable wastes. The labeling system that is mandatory for the industry to follow also contributes to food wastage in its own way because the warranty provisions imply that expired food products are not safe to eat. Some time back the food minister in the UK appealed to the consumers not to throw away foods just because the warranty period was over. But is it practical to expect the consumers to follow such appeals which fly in the face of the principle that expiry date is printed based on the perception of the manufacturer that all foods have definitive shelf life?. The logic in advocating use of date expired food is based on the fact that it only applies to the eating quality and not safety. Against such a backdrop, the initiative by a retired professor in the US to operate a web site that can be of help to consumers in clarifying many issues vis-à-vis food safety.

Somewhere along the path toward food safety, we often make a detour toward obsession. An obsession that compels us to throw out food before we really have to. And that, in turn, costs us money. Before we blame ourselves, let's not forget that the habit is enabled by all those "Use By" and "Sell By" and "God Forbid You Eat This AFTER" package label dates, not to mention recent headlines of good food gone bad. The challenge: How to be a food-savvy cheapskate versus a food-sickened cheapskate. A new Web site wants to help ShelfLifeAdvice.com delivers bushels of articles on the topic: how to store food, save food, clean food, freeze food and, yes, clarification of those dates on packaged and fresh foods. The brainchild of retired professor Ethel Tiersky and her son, Howard, the site also features links to lots of Web sites, and it has a board of advisers of food-safety pros from across the U.S. A recent lead article was titled, "Soft Cheese: A Delicious Delicacy or a Menace?"

Though such initiatives are welcome and the promoters are to be admired for their novel venture, how far it will solve the day to day problems faced by the consumers in handling processed foods is some what uncertain. Of course if the foods bought from the super markets are handled with care and caution they can definitely last much longer than the warranty date because shelf life of each and every food is determined under some standard conditions and projected for room conditions. In principle if foods are stored under low temperatures, their life can be extended significantly. Whether chemical spoilage or microbial growth, the rate of change in the food is slowed down considerably at lower temperatures, hence the longer shelf life. Ultimately the consumer will have to decide based on flavor and taste of the product to decide whether it is acceptable or not. Similarly most foods if heated beyond a temperature of 70C can be expected to be safe from pathogens.

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

MOVE OVER MEDICINES, FOOD CAN DO A BETTER JOB!

The publishers of Readers Digest are one of the strong advocates for using various foods for curing some of the diseases like Diabetes. Literature is abundant with information, many based on tradition and experience, that highlights the suitability of many day to day foods in preempting as well as curing different health afflictions. How ever with the Allopathy system of medicine taking a strangle hold on the modern society, it takes lot of courage and conviction for any one to switch over from Allopathy to food based treatment of diseases.

"Hundreds of thousands of doctors across the country would love to stop writing prescriptions for expensive drugs, and instead send you home with a list of foods that can ease arthritis... lower blood pressure ... improve cholesterol... fight diabetes and more -- but they're afraid. Why? Because big pharmaceutical companies and insurance giants pressure your doctor to do everything "by the book." So no matter how much they may want to tell you to fight disease with foods -- their hands are tied. But the reality is, somewhere in the world, the health problem you're suffering from today has been solved. Not by drugs. Not by surgery".

"Here is the good food news that you've been waiting for...You can successfully treat dozens of medical conditions with the "medicine" on your fork! That's because FOOD CURES proves once and for all how easily you can treat everything from colds to cancer just by eating certain superfoods every day. What's more, all the food that you can use to feel better, live longer and healthier, is really easy to come by – or already in your kitchen! So, indulge in the FOOD CURE revolution right now! Gasping for asthma relief? Tired of living with migraine pain? Concerned about blood sugar swings? Simply look up your specific medical condition and look beyond your medicine cabinet to find the cure right here".

Though the above piece of writing sounds more like a promotional exercise with the sole purpose of selling the publication cited, there is some truth in the saying that "food is thy medicine". The difficulty for common man to practice what is preached by the proponents of using foods as cure for some diseases is the dilemma whether the synthetic drugs should be shunned altogether when the food route is adopted or food therapy can supplement the drug regime. This is where clear scientific findings only can bring about the much needed clarity on the subject.

V.H.POTTY

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