Can retailers sell date expired foods? In some places they can!

In India the consumers are by now used to see the label declaration on each sealed food packet which gives him an idea regarding the nature of the content inside. World over labeling has become common with each country having its own set of rules. Invariably such labels are supposed to provide a plethora of information that include nutritional matrix, serving size, date of manufacture, weight/volume, identification batch number and date of expiry. In some countries date of expiry is substituted with "best before buy" or "best before use" or "best before sell" dates, obviously a matter of confusion to many consumers. As law abiding citizens most consumers throw the food away if the food packet remains unused at home after purchase beyond the "best before use" date. Though some argue that the food is still edible past the date indicated on the label, no one will be willing to risk potential health hazards, as perceived by them based on their limited understanding. There are instances when shops do not remove date expired foods from the shelves, unwittingly or deliberately, and some consumers without reading the contents pick such "date expired" food packs. While in India date expired food packets cannot be sold, attracting punishment for violation, there some countries or regions within a country where selling "date expired" foods is not a violation of prevailing law.  Here is a report on such contradictions in an enlightened country like the US where there is no legal bar on selling such foods in the market.

"The FDA does require dates on medicine and infant formula because it said it can't guarantee the effectiveness or safety of those items past their expiration date. But it does not prohibit stores from selling expired products; that's up to state and local officials. Since Tennessee is what's called a "no date state," it's not against the law for stores to sell products past their sell-by date. That's why we are not naming the stores where we found expired products. Still, the state's agriculture department said it makes frequent, unannounced inspections at stores. "All food prep areas within the building are our main priority, and then after that we're looking at the back storage of the facility. We're looking at the cleanliness of the warehouse area and we're also looking at the cleanliness and the equipment on the retail floor," said state food inspector, Patricia Szappanos-Hart. The state inspects stores that sell food at least twice a year. Those with a score below 70 are re-inspected. "We look at dates as well, but with Tennessee being a 'no date state,' if we find items, we do some spot checking during an inspection, if we do find items out of date, we would use it as a discussion point with a manager. But with not having legislation within the state, it's not something that we can enforce," Szappanos-Hart said."

It can be argued that consumers are wise enough to avoid buying "date expired" foods but can a responsible government leave it to the conscience of the industry not to stock and sell such foods? If so why is any law required at all for controlling the industry vis-a-vis consumer safety? Can the industry be trusted to adhere to a set of voluntary guidelines instead of a set of mandatory rules? Probably we will be treading on a dangerous path if the world tends to move in that direction. It is ideal if the industry can be truthful about the safety of a food packed and declare positively that it is unsafe beyond a certain date based on scientifically proved data. But this unlikely to happen because such data are not available on many products. More appropriately two dates can be given, one "best before use till" and the other "not safe for use beyond". Recent developments speak of apps and instruments that may be available to the retailer as well as the consumer soon to assess the safety of products without opening the pack and if they become main stream tools, it will be a great boon!

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

MEAT PRODUCTS RECALL-"UNDECLARED" ALLERGENS MAIN CULPRITS

People in a country like India can never understand the logic behind frequent product recalls in the West citing safety reasons, as such a practice is rarely heard of in most developing countries. It is not that the foods made and retailed in these countries are repository of all virtues associated with quality and safety but absence of reliable, systematic and prompt reporting and documentation protocols in these countries allow almost all food poisoning cases to be swept under the carpet unless they are very serious involving high human casualties. In spite of tremendous progress achieved during the last two decades on surveillance and assessment technologies in the West, product recalls continue unabated mostly due to negligence with individual players and the safety authorities do not rule out such repeated recalls because of the impossible logistics involved in covering 100% of the industry. Against such a background, a trend is emerging where the reason for product recalls is shifting from microbial contamination to presence of dangerous allergens. As of now there does not appear to be any remedial regime to pre-empt such incidences except raising the awareness among the industry regarding the seriousness of such mishaps, intentional or otherwise.

Meat recalls during the first half of the year have taken on some unusual patterns. The number of recalls for pathogens found in beef, pork, and poultry has dropped off dramatically, while the recall of meat and meat products for allergens has spiked. And it's that increase in allergen-related recalls that worries Dr. Elisabeth Hagen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's under secretary for food safety. She announced Thursday that USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced Thursday was issuing instruction for its inspectors in an effort to stem the rise in undeclared allergens and other ingredients. "This rise is of particular importance to me both as a medical doctor and as a parent, especially as recent reports have shown that the number of children with allergies is on the rise," Hagen said. "FSIS will continue to improve its efforts to ensure that public health and labeling requirements are met. "FSIS reacted after seeing 27 recalls for undeclared ingredients in the first six months of 2011; 20 were the result of undeclared allergens. In the preceding two years combined, FSIS issued recalls for a total of 32 undeclared allergens.

It is unfortunate that the population affected by allergens is growing rapidly for which no one knows the reason. There are clear guidelines about the declaration of the presence of any of the 8 allergenic ingredients listed and even when the same machinery is used for processing such ingredients it must be declared on the label. While this trend is a consolation that microbial contamination controlling protocols are increasingly becoming reliable, the allergen problem needs utmost attention to bring it under control.

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

DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS-TIMELY CRACKDOWN OF THE FAULTING INDUSTRY

Is it not a crime against humanity that man, in his greed to make a fast buck, tries to harm himself by hawking foods with spurious claims of health improvement while actually these products do more harm than good. Why is that every one is helpless to stop this unbridled commercialism in spite of knowing fully well the consequences? Lack of will and legal restraints, probably can be cited as reasons for such inertia in fighting this evil. Is it not a paradox that the very agency that is supposed to protect the consumer throws up its hands expressing a sense of helplessness? While market products are tested routinely and found dangerous by the monitoring agency, except for expressing its concern, nothing worthwhile seems to be happening to arrest this trend. The story of health supplements in the US is indeed interesting to read and here is a take on that.

"Since 2007, the FDA said, it has found nearly 300 products marketed as supplements that contain potentially dangerous or illegal ingredients, most of them sold as diet, weightlifting or sexual enhancement aids. "These tainted products can cause serious adverse effects, including strokes, organ failure and death," FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg said in a statement. "The manufacturers selling these tainted products are operating outside the law." FDA officials did not immediately offer specifics on the number of people thought to have been harmed by tainted supplements. Unlike drugs, dietary supplements don't have to be proven safe before being sold, and manufacturers have wide latitude to make health claims. The FDA's letter notes that manufacturers and distributors are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with the law and provided an e-mail address,TaintedProducts@fda.hhs.gov, to collect tips on suspect activity. Five major trade associations – the Council for Responsible Nutrition, Natural Products Assn., United Natural Products Alliance, Consumer Healthcare Products Assn. and American Herbal Products Assn. – joined the FDA on a press call to publicize the crackdown. The FDA letter described a laundry list of prohibited ingredients: "FDA laboratory tests have revealed an alarming variety of undeclared active ingredients in products marketed as dietary supplements, including anticoagulants (e.g., warfarin), anticonvulsants (e.g., phenytoin), HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (e.g., lovastatin), phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (e.g., sildenafil), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (e.g., indomethacin), and beta blockers (e.g., propranolol)."

What is amusing is that trade associations whose members are indulging in such activities have taken correct position, at least in the public that they would "fight" the menace jointly with the government! How realistic is such posturing and what can be expected to come out of such "declarations". Of course to a large extent, the consumers are to be blamed for walking into the trap with their eyes wide open, though human weakness for succumbing to "seduction" is the root cause for this cascading epidemic. One can only hope that the threat of severe action against manufacturers as well as the traders who indulge in promoting unsafe products would have salutary effect. If this is the fate of a country with most powerful safety agency in the world, how about countries like India where breach of safety protocols is more a rule than an exception!

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

MOBILE PHONES-A MAJOR SOURCE OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES?

After the computer key board, it is the turn of mobile phones now to receive critical attention from the pathologist community and if they are to be believed the ubiquitous mobile phone can be a serious source of microbiological hazard to users. It is understandable that the hand held mobile phone which is more or less a personal item of inventory can have accumulation of microorganisms derived mostly from the owner of the phone. The type of microbes and their density on the phone will depend on the personal hygiene and sanitation of the user and same can vary enormously. As this electronic gadget cannot be cleaned regularly except by wiping to remove dust, over a period of time there can be considerable accumulation of micro organisms on different parts on the surface. Touch phones are marginally better because they do not have the regular number buttons as seen in normal phones which can harbor considerable number of microbes. Therefore the recent report by a survey study in the UK highlighting the microbiological status of mobile phones should not come as a surprise.

"The findings from a sample of dozens of phones by Which? magazine suggest 14.7 million of the 63 million mobiles in use in Britain today could be potential health hazards, reports the Daily Mail. Hygiene expert Jim Francis, who carried out the tests, said: "The levels of potentially harmful bacteria on one mobile were off the scale. That phone needs sterilising." The most unhygienic phone also had 39 times the safe level of enterobacteria, a group of bacteria that live in the lower intestines of humans and animals and include bugs such as salmonella. It boasted 170 times the acceptable level of faecal coliforms, which are associated with human waste. Other bacteria including food poisoning bugs e.coli and staphylococcus aureus were found on the phones but at safe levels. Which? researcher Ceri Stanaway said: "The bugs can end up on your hands which is a breeding ground and be passed back to your phone. They can be transferred back and forth and eventually you could catch something nasty. "What this shows is how easy it is to come into contact with bacteria. People see toilet flushes as being something dirty to touch but they have less bacteria than phones. "People need to be mindful of that by observing good hygiene themselves and among others who they pass the phone to when looking at photos, for example." Which? has previously found that some computer keyboards carry more harmful bacteria than a lavatory seat".

While no one would have any quarrel with the scientific data generated by the study, there does not appear to be any reason for undue alarm because mobile phones are used more or less exclusively as a personal possession, not shared with others. Whatever microorganisms detected on each phone are from the person who owned it and therefore they are unlikely to pose any risk to that person who could be immune to them. Probably thousands of phone booths and cyber kiosks that work in India are more dangerous as more than 100 persons, on an average, with different health conditions use the telephone instruments daily and possibilities of spread of infection are far greater under such environments. Studies like the one cited above will have to be viewed in right perspective without causing alarm to the general public.

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

THE "TOXIC" WORLD- HOW SERIOUS IS THE DANGER?

The hazards of modern life are exemplified by the recent revelation that man has to face more than 80000 chemicals during his life time with exposure limit varying depending on the environment where he lives and the food he eats. The latest finding that a few chemicals play a much more aggressive role in health damages is indeed startling and now is the time to seriously think about avoiding them at any cost.

"A growing body of research is linking five chemicals -- among the most common in the world -- to a host of ailments, including cancer, sexual problems and behavioral issues. We encounter them every day -- in plastic bottles, storage containers, food wrap, cans, cookware, appliances, carpets, shower curtains, clothes, personal care products, furniture, television sets, electronics, bedding, cushions and mattresses. In short, every room in almost every house in the United States is likely to contain at least one of these chemicals, many of which did not exist a century ago. They are bisphenol A, or BPA; phthalates; PFOA; formaldehyde; and polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PDBEs. Tests reveal most of us now carry them in our bodies, but are they putting our health -- and the health of our children -- in jeopardy?"

It is easier said than done when one speaks of avoiding the every day risks posed by these hazardous chemicals. While food industry can progressively shift to organic foods, what about the others? There are many areas consumer can take control of himself by avoiding such products which are not absolutely essential in his day to day life while governments can be forced to be more stringent in regulatory controls of use of dangerous chemicals in frequently used consumer products.

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

"USE UNTIL PROVEN UNSAFE"!-CHEMICALS IN FOOD AND WATER

Use of chemicals in foods for various purposes is an area of concern for many. Every body likes to believe that the foods offered in the market are safe for consumption and some have the philosophical attitude that there is nothing like absolute safety in any endeavor man undertakes. In spite of safety assessment protocols becoming more and more stringent day by day, lack of consensus amongst scientists still allows many chemicals to be used in food processing for different reasons. The new realization that these omnipotent chemicals would have debilitating effect on humans in the coming years if continued to be used, is prompting many responsible scientists and administrators to revisit the issue of safety and drastically cut their use unless proved safe beyond any shadow of doubt.

"By now, there are more than 80,000 industrial chemicals in commerce, but there is no available health information for roughly 62,000 of them. Meanwhile, many of these chemicals are finding their way into our food, air, water and common household products. For this very reason, the Maryland General Assembly acted just last month to restrict bisphenol-A (BPA), a suspected carcinogen, from baby bottles, and toxic flame retardants from food crates and other products. Fortunately, the President's Cancer Panel presents us with comprehensive, common-sense solutions going forward. In addition to raising awareness, the panel recommends tightening regulation of chemicals that may cause cancer. One suggestion is to ensure that a chemical is safe first, rather than continuing the dangerous practice of assuming that a chemical is "innocent until proven guilty." Changing this practice could also have a profound impact on the rates of asthma, learning disabilities and reproductive disorders, which are all increasingly linked to chemical exposure".

The BPA issue is a classical case where the manufacturers of containers use a cocktail of chemicals including BPA and still adamantly stick to their stand that the chemical does not pose any hazard, though voluminous scientific data have confirmed beyond doubt the dangers posed by it. Fortunately many big time processors have voluntarily shunned use of BPA tainted packing materials, probably afraid of any likely consumer backlash. There must be a universal agreement to weed out many additives used for cosmetic changes in processed final products. Health is more important than the brief pleasure one may get consuming a product incorporating many additives for the sake of improving appearance, aroma and texture. Fear of competition is forcing the industry to resort to technological gimmicks for "improving" products and get a higher consumer acceptance. A level playing field can be provided by banning many of the existing additives with even slightest of doubt about their safety, for use in foods. .

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

"APPETIZING" AROMA-HEALTH HAZARDS FROM COOKING

Who does not like a deep fried or broiled or grilled food with the aroma emanating during the preparation stimulating the entire gastronomic system in the body? Though it is known that foods tending to become brown or black during cooking generates artifacts with potential for carcinogenic damage, consumers do not seem to be bothered about the long term consequences to their health while enjoying the indulgence. What is shocking is the revelation that the very process of cooking can cause damage to the environment posing some health risks even to people exposed to the suspended particles present in the smoke. This is similar to the cigarette"smoking" where those nearby inhaling the fumes can have deleterious health effect.

"As you stroll down restaurant row and catch the wonderful aroma of food -- steaks, burgers and grilled veggies -- keep this in mind: you may be in an air pollution zone. Scientists in Minnesota are reporting commercial cooking is a surprisingly large source of a range of air pollutants that could pose risks to human health and the environment. The study was the topic of debate at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society in San Francisco. At the meeting, researcher Deborah Gross said commercial food cooking is a known source of air pollutants, as it releases gases and tiny solid particles into the air; cooking at home releases the same pollutants, but in much smaller quantities. "While that mouth-watering smell may whet our appetites, it comes from the emission of smoke from the cooking process into the air that we breathe," Gross said in a press release. Research conducted in the U.S. during the past decade has shown that cooking is by far the largest source of airborne particles generated in the home. Exposure to high concentrations of cooking-generated air particles is common and any negative health effects could be widespread".

In some countries regulatory agencies are already swinging into action to pre-empt any major injury to the community by making installation of catalytic converters mandatory in commercial cooking facilities. Fatty foods cooked at high temperatures, especially in open flames, can generate unacceptable levels of aerosol particles. It is estimated that during cooking of 1000 kg of hamburgers, 25 kg of emission is caused while similar chicken products can generate 45 kg of smoke. It was not long ago that the Americans sponsored a program for the third world countries to either phase out the wood or charcoal fired open hearths or chulas or modify them to reduce smoke substantially through liberal financial support, claiming that almost 18% of global CO2 generation is caused by these traditional stoves. This is while ignoring the enormous quantity of emission caused by billions of Hamburgers, grilled meat preparations produced commercially and millions of charbroiler grates working at the homes of its citizens!

V.H.POTTY

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

"NATURAL" CHICKEN- A REALTY CHECK

With consumers clamoring for foods that are safe for them, the processing industry has to be doubly careful in avoiding practices that may raise questions concerning their adverse impact on the quality of products offered. If organic foods industry is able to capture a significant portion of the market for processed foods, the blame lies at the door steps of the main stream industry which ignored consumer concerns for too long. The use of antibiotics, artificial hormones and other unnatural inputs during production and processing of meat products has considerably alienated the consumer. The latest irritant is the indiscriminate use of salt in chicken processing which has attracted wide spread criticism even from within the industry. American food industry seems to be insensitive to such criticisms as reflected by the following report.

"Americans consume over 20 billion pounds of poultry annually; the California Poultry Federation estimates that the percentage of chicken injected with sodium has increased from 16 percent to more than 30 percent. The Federation is advocating for stricter labeling laws because most of its members do not use sodium or water injections in processing. Increased sodium consumption can lead to serious health concerns. According to a recent study from the University of California at San Francisco, reducing sodium intake by 1,200 mg per day, the equivalent of one-half teaspoon of salt, could lead to a decrease in the number of heart disease cases. The study also finds that reduced sodium intake could save in health care costs".
What is intriguing is that the present level of knowledge in the field of food technology is sufficient to preempt use of salt to preserve chicken though technologies involved may be marginally costlier to deploy. The hyper response to food safety issues by the American public because of the spate of food poisoning episodes that were reported during the last few years might be the reason for the chicken industry to use salt considered effective in preventing bacterial infection. In deploying any technology industry must weigh the risks and benefits arising there from before adopting the right one. In order to insure against possibility of some contamination due to negligence at the shop floor, is it justifiable to put to risk the lives of millions of consumers who will be affected by high sodium in the product?

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

HAZARDS OF FROZEN FOODS-CONSUMER MUST ENSURE SAFETY

Product recalls are becoming increasingly frequent in countries like the US and the most recent one involved ground beef and beef patties to the extent of 270 tons made by a single manufacturer. Though not proven conclusively, it is suspected that this product was contaminated with the virulent form of E.coli that can be fatal to vulnerable consumers. Interestingly the consignment was inspected by USDA and found safe. It is a dicey situation for the industry as well as the regulators since the product was tested as per the protocol and cleared but still two consumers died after consuming the product from this manufacturer. Probably real facts in these cases may never be known and industry will continue to be blamed for the episode.

"Infection with E. coli O157:H7 can have a wide range of effects, from mild intestinal discomfort to death. The New Hampshire resident who died of it contracted hemolytic uremic syndrome, a disease that attacks red blood cells and can cause kidney failure. The New Yorker who died was an adult from Albany County who had several underlying health problems, The Associated Press reported. While thorough cooking can kill E. coli O157:H7, it is dangerous even in microscopic doses and can be spread from utensils or cooking surfaces to other foods".

Interestingly by the time recall process started most of the products have crossed the "sell by date" mark though thousands of house holds might still be holding some of the packs in their freezers. What is intriguing is, when frozen products are invariably consumed after cooking, how can the offending organism can survive to cause any damage. It is known that virulent E.coli can cause harm even in microscopic doses and cooking has to be sufficient to obtain 100% kill. Probably inadequate cooking could have caused the the present food poisoning.

V.H.POTTY

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

BPA SCARE-MORE FOODS TAINTED

The BPA scare has again crept into public attention after the recent publication by an NGO that indicted many foods containing this obnoxious chemical in measurable amounts. All foods which were found to have BPA were canned products and same was known for quite some time. The tainting of the contents in the can occurred because the epoxy linings used while fabricating the cans had BPA as one of the constituents. How ever no other foods have been reported to have BPA making the problem less acute. Alternate lining compounds are now available to replace BPA containing linings and over a period of time this problem is likely to dissolve itself.

"A consumer advocacy group's analysis of canned goods has found measurable levels of the chemical additive bisphenol A (BPA) across a range of foods, including some labeled 'BPA free'. Children eating multiple servings of some of the tested food would get doses of BPA "near levels of that have caused adverse effects in several animal studies," according to the survey by Consumers Union, a non-profit organization that publishes Consumer Reports. PLURAL CQ The group said its findings bolster the case for banning BPA from use in materials that come in contact with food and beverages, such as can linings, baby bottles and sippy cups, the group said in a letter to Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Margaret Hamburg. An FDA spokesman had no immediate comment but noted that a review of existing evidence about BPA's health effects is nearly complete and that Hamburg will "make a decision how to proceed" by the end of the month. BPA is a plastic hardener and a component of epoxy resin. Some studies have linked the chemical to reproductive abnormalities and increased risk of cancer and diabetes, and several governments have prohibited the sale of baby bottles made with BPA".

Another consoling factor is that the heath danger due to BPA has been demonstrated so far in only animal studies which help in warning about possible dangers in humans also. It is tribute to the industry that it was able to respond quickly to the findings and alternative options for containers as well as feeding bottles have been developed.

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

SUPER MARKET HYGIENE-PEEPING BEHIND THE SCENE!

Consumers world over are dazzled by the bright, shiny and impeccable appearance and ambiance which are hall marks of a well run super market. In a country like India, people seem to have overwhelmingly taken to super market culture and the small scale vendors still survive because of restrictive investment policies of GOI. The major difference between a super market place and the traditional grocer is that lot of pre-opening operations take place before the super market doors are open for the day. As the consumers' proximity and exposure to products displayed is very close, there has to be extra caution to keep the place clean all the time. Controversy has arisen now regarding the type of chemicals used for sanitizing the place and the health hazards posed by such practices.

Sanitation workers feel that not only they are exposed to dangerous cleansing chemicals, even the products on the shelves could get contaminated during the cleaning process. "According to the EPA, one-third of cleaning products today include ingredients that have a negative impact on indoor air quality and human health. These may include carcinogens, asthmagens, skin and eye irritants, and endocrine disruptors associated with cancer, reproductive disorders and other health issues According to the union, 6% of janitors are actually injured by the chemicals they use in supermarkets. Just as it made no sense for the public to unknowingly accept the spraying of DDT and other toxic chemicals on the food that ended up on America's dinner tables, consumers are unlikely to accept toxic chemicals in the supermarkets where they buy their food".

Can such a situation arise in India in future?. Possible, if organized sector of retailing is able to grow and capture a significant percentage of the market and the country should watch closely the experience of others facing the problem now. This will help in evolving a deterrent regime that will ensure safety for the workers as well as the consumers.

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