DECREASING SALT IN PROCESSED FOODS-NEW INITIATIVES

Salt's metamorphosis from an important food ingredient and a source of sodium essential for maintaining health into a detesting villain has happened during the last three decades. Incessant reporting in scientific and other publications about the harmful effect of salt on blood pressure, heart disease and kidney health has even turned the consumer against salt in daily diets. Though the actual nutritional need is no more than 1800 mg a day for a person, the palate demands much more than this for making the food tasty. After all consumption of 2000 kC of food cannot be in the form of bland materials and taste providers like salt make it easy for consuming many foods, which other wise are not palatable. Both national and international agencies are trying to limit salt consumption to no more than 5 gm a day though consumers find it difficult to restrict salt to such low levels. Against such a background efforts by scientists to develop technologies that will reduce salt content significantly in foods without compromising on taste is a welcome initiative. Here is a take on this burning issue. 

"Salt levels in crisps and snacks could be lowered without affecting the taste by altering the release profile of salt, according to a new study conducted by researchers at University of Nottingham, UK. In order to evaluate how salt from potato crisps is released and perceived in the mouth, the research team asked a panel of food testers to chew crisps for a specific number of times and hold in the mouth for a period of 60 seconds. The team evaluated the salt (sodium chloride) level in the mouth by collecting tongue swabs and screening them. It was identified that the salt levels peaked in the mouth 20 seconds after the chewing began, and panelists also reported that they experienced a significant increase in salt during this time, reported Foodnavigator.com.  According to researchers, this means that a majority of the crisp is swallowed even before the salt taste is experienced by the individual. The researchers are planning to develop a series of technologies to accelerate the delivery of the salt to the tongue. The new technologies will lower the salt release time to within 20 seconds, during which the crisps are usually chewed and swallowed, and hence, lower levels of salt would be required to get the same amount of taste. This idea could enable food manufacturers to produce healthier crisps with low salt levels and same taste profile, and the research could be extended to other areas of food science to achieve salt reduction in all snack foods."

There is another side to the salt story which does not subscribe to the majority view that salt is dangerous and feels that salt cannot do any harm at the level being consumed to day. It is true that for those who are affected by kidney disorders or high blood pressure need to be careful in salt consumption but for a normally healthy person is there any need to cut own on salt?. For centuries human beings have been eating salt and there have not been any large scale health disorders due to this. Probably salt alone cannot be blamed for the present day afflictions and drastic changes in the diet laying more emphasis on taste and flavor rather than nutritionally balancing it, may be the real cause for the present trend. Any how if scientists eventually succeed in developing low salt products without the consumer feeling about it when consumed, the effort is "worth the salt" for the health of most of the human beings.  

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

HFCS GOING THE BPA 'WAY"?-BOWING BEFORE THE CONSUMER

The poor High Fructose Corn Syrup! Commonly known as HFCS it is a hexose sugar just like glucose but it is perceived to be metabolized slower than the latter. It is also a normal metabolite in the body with all necessary enzymes present in humans to push it all the way to CO2 while generating energy. But there is a growing controversy regarding its alleged role in accumulating fat around the waist and many consumers seem to be convinced by this argument though not absolutely supported by much scientific evidence. That the processing industry has adopted it as the most economical sweetener in most of the packed food products has made the matter worse. Sustained campaigns by many activist organizations against use of HFCS seem to be affecting the business of the industry in a significant way and a trend is slowly emerging wherein many industrial players are either reducing its use already or contemplating doing so progressively to protect their business.

"First it was calories, then it was fat and sodium. Now, the latest health concern is high-fructose corn syrup. As the country deals with obesity issues, ingredients in food have come under increasing scrutiny, bringing some confusion to the marketplace but also opportunities for companies as they try to differentiate themselves in a competitive grocery store. Consumer concern has been getting a quick response from food companies, as many remove high-fructose corn syrup from well-known products, replacing it with cane or beet sugar. Sara Lee Corp. is the latest to jump on board, removing the sweetener from its two best-selling breads. Among the big-name products that already have undergone recipe overhauls are Hunt's ketchup, Gatorade, and everything in Starbucks' pastry case. High-fructose corn syrup, the widely used and historically inexpensive sweetener, has been getting a critical look from food scientists and many American families, due at least in part to books, movies, and studies looking at why Americans continue to gain weight. First lady Michelle Obama has said that she won't feed her daughters products containing the ingredient. Many medical and nutritional experts, as well as the Corn Refiners Association, say that all sweeteners are metabolized in the same way. A Princeton University study, on the other hand, has found that long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup does lead to abnormal increases in body fat, especially around the belly. Books such as The Omnivore's Dilemma have added to the debate, asserting that widespread use of high-fructose corn syrup is part of what's wrong with the American diet. And movies such as Food, Inc. have heightened many consumers' skepticism".

What is the truth? Logically HFCS has to get metabolized like glucose and a naturally occurring fructose containing product cannot have any undesirable effect on human body. How ever one of the critical questions raised in this controversy is whether HFCS can be considered as a normal fructose source as it is a product derived from corn by hydrolysis and isomerization reaction to increase the fructose content using industrial enzymes. In contrast sucrose contains glucose and fructose in equal concentration to which human body is accustomed. Whether high concentration of fructose impairs the normal carbohydrate metabolism in the body is not precisely known. The situation is similar to bis-phenol A (BPA) controversy now being faced by the packaging industry and may countries are rushing to ban this artifact chemical supposed to be leached into the food from the package causing some harm to the consumers. Though there is no conclusive proof that BPA really poses any hazard at levels it occurs in processed and packed foods, many industry players are voluntarily shunning the packaging materials with potential for contamination from this chemical. While as a general philosophy use of natural materials and consumption of natural foods are ideal, the modern society cannot live without processed foods and all such products are presumed to be put in the market after weighing the risk-benefit aspects while formulating.

V.H.POTTY

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

THE "SALTY" OBSESSION-WHERE LIES THE TRUTH?

Voluntary reduction of salt in processed foods by the industry without coercion by the government is a dream being pursued in many countries with practically no impact on the issue. That salt intake, if reduced significantly can help in cutting down of mortality due to health disorders like CVD and others is well known but the common citizens does not seem to have much control on the problem in countries where they depend more and more on processed foods. Industry is reluctant to cut the use of salt in many products because of serious apprehensions regarding the acceptability of these salt-reduced products in a fiercely competitive market. There are reports that in some countries voluntary efforts by the industry in reducing use of salt have yielded results, albeit at a slow pace but experts believe that only mandatory and restrictive policies can expedite the goal. Here is a typical case of the bead industry in Australia where voluntary salt reduction assurances were not effective.

"Although various targets had been outlined and it had been agreed by the industry by 2009, a recent research has shown that the level of salt in the nation's bread supply has not undergone any changes in the last four years. A study had been carried out by the Sydney-based George Institute for Global Health (GIGH) which showed that there had been some reduction in the salt levels of some of the bread makers while for some other products it had increased with the net effect of no change. "Less than half of the bread products on Australian supermarket shelves currently meet the sodium target (400mg/100g) established by the government's food and health dialogue", the reports said. Between the years 2007 and 2010, there has been no change in the average sodium levels in Australian bread products. This report also puts forth the names of the best and worst bakers on their effort to reduce salt".

It is not clear as to why bread industry is being accused of not reducing salt since a product like bread contains very little salt but more serious culprits are snacking and restaurant industries which are responsible for a large part of salt ingestion by the people. Also not clear is why the bread industry cannot reduce the salt levels because salt is not a significant ingredient that can influence the quality of the end product. While the bread industry can be forced to cut down drastically on the use of salt, what about the consumer who is likely to go for that ubiquitous "salt sprinkler" on the dining table to satisfy his taste buds? What can be done to persuade him not to consume too much salt in his every day cuisine? The only answer is "education" and unless a wider awareness about the dangers of too much salt in food is dinned into their ears, no worthwhile results can be expected in achieving universal goal of salt reduction.

V.H.POTTY

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

LISTERIA INFECTION-NEW FOOD SAFETY CONCERNS

Listeria poisoning episodes are frequent in many western countries and foods worth millions of dollars have to be recalled from the market because Listeria scare. That Western consumers are more susceptible to Listeria poisoning is a puzzle which does not have answer still but it is possible that many past episodes are linked to consumption of cold foods or foods which have not been pasteurized allowing the pathogen to be dormant and strike under favorable conditions. Listeria is rarely a threat in most tropical countries as foods are invariably over cooked and share of processed/refrigerated foods is minuscule in the daily diet of the population. One of the mysteries surrounding Listeria pathogenesis is why it affects some people while others escape from its infection. Some idea on this issue seems to have been gained by recent studies being carried out in UK and the reason attributed this phenomenon is the remarkable adaptability of this microorganism to different host environment and food composition.

Scientists at University College in Cork, Ireland, have deciphered at least part of the puzzle behind Listeria's virulence and unpredictability. Although many foods can be at least mildly contaminated with Listeria, its sometimes deadly outbreaks are relatively rare. Researchers have long wondered why it is that some people can eat Listeria-tainted food and remain healthy, while others become ill. The answer, the Irish scientists found, may lie in Listeria's ability to adapt itself to its host environment (Hill, C. Presentation to the autumn meeting of the Society for General Microbiology, September 6, 2010. Nottingham, UK). In fact, the bacteria became completely resistant to stomach acid. Through what Dr. Hill called a "clever set of chemical reactions," the Listeria combined one molecule of glutamate with one molecule of acid and effectively neutralized the acid."If you take Listeria growing at neutral pH, in a neutral food, and drop it into stomach acid, it's wiped out instantly," said Colin Hill, PhD, DSc, professor of microbial food safety at University College. "But we found that if you take the exact same strain and shifted it to a mildly acidic environment, not so acid that it would kill it, the bacteria sensed the change, and it changed." "If we both sat down and had some mildly acidic food contaminated with Listeria, and you also ate a food high in glutamate and I didn't, you'd become ill and I wouldn't," Dr. Hill said. "This does seem to fit with some of the foods that have been correlated with listeriosis, but of course we can't deliberately prove the theory." These findings make controlling Listeria much more complex. "It's difficult to set an absolute number of Listeriabacteria that is safe in food," said Dr. Hill. "One level may be perfectly safe in one food and not so safe in another. This is a very rare disease, so we're not suggesting that people avoid foods with higher levels of glutamate just to protect themselves from listeriosis. One possibility may be to develop less 'risky' diets for high-risk individuals, like young babies, pregnant women, and immunocompromised people."

The role of glutamate in the manifestation of Listeriosis is also quite significant and the unpredictability of the consequences of Listeria infection can be a worrisome factor for the food industry in general. Any abstract number of CFU of Listeria spp in foods, considered dangerous, may have little relevance if the unique ability of this bacteria to survive and navigate through the stomach environment without any significant destruction is taken into consideration. Future standards will have to keep in mind this factor and probably no one standard may fit all the foods. A food for thought for safety agencies!

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

PHTHALATES AND OZONIZATION-UNKNOWN HAZARDS

Use of plastics in the day to day life of human beings has become so omnipotent that one cannot imagine the effect of a future ban on these ubiquitous material on the quality of life. While the chemicals used in manufacturing plastics pose safety problems of different dimensions, especially in food contact applications, the near intractability of plastics present an entirely different problem to the environment. Increasing safety concerns are making the manufacturers more and more cautious in reducing likely toxic effects of migrant chemicals from plastics, the eventual drying up of fossil fuel wells will force the industry to look for more sustainable sources for making acceptable substitutes. One of the widely occurring leached chemicals from plastics in the environment, Phthalates are biologically immune to degradation and can accumulate in future to intolerable levels with grave health debilitating effect. The Ozone treatment which is becoming a standard disinfection technique was expected to destroy Phthalates. But recent findings that the oxidative artifacts from these contaminants may pose some hazard is some what disturbing.

"Phthalate esters or phthalates are widely used to improve the flexibility and softness of PVC resins, cellulose and other polymers. However, because of their high levels of production and utilisation, leached phthalates have become persistent organic pollutants in aquatic environments. Several of these chemicals have been classified as endocrine disrupters by the World Health Organisation. Some of the most frequently identified phthalates in environmental samples are short-chained esters such as diethyl phthalate (DEP), which originates from discharged waste water and leaching from plastic products. Studies have also shown that DEP is difficult to degrade biologically and photochemically. The release of DEP into water environments is therefore an emerging issue for public health. Advanced oxidation technologies such as the ozone process are widely used in drinking water and waste water treatment because of their strong oxidation and disinfection capabilities. The ozone process could have potential for the elimination of DEP in water. However, some highly persistent unknown by-product peaks of DEP formed during oxidation have been detected and some by-products are thought to remain in solution. There is therefore a need to examine the DEPozonation degradation pathway".

Though the above report does not still cause any panic because of the inconclusive nature of the studies, it is necessary to get to the bottom of this issue through more studies. Phthalate contamination is a man-made problem and in the long run it is better if the use of these chemicals in plastics are progressively shunned and the industry is bound to work in this direction once the full ramifications of the impact of Phthalates become apparent. With the pace of research and development on biodegradable plastics picking up rapidly, synthetic materials made from fossil fuels can be expected to decline significantly in the coming years.

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

RAW EGG CONSUMPTION-HEALTH RISKS

It is not too often one can see in a film the hero swallowing fresh eggs directly after breaking but such a picture conveys the image of a strong man. That raw egg is not readily digestible is a known fact because of the presence of anti-nutritive factors in it which are temperature sensitive and therefore are inactivated during cooking. It is rarely that one thinks of serious consequences of microbial contamination on the egg surface that can prove fatal in some cases. As for food products manufacturers egg presents safety challenges to be overcome before clearing the processed products for consumption. It is a different story in the kitchens of many house holds where fresh preparations are made from raw eggs for family consumption. Here lies the danger and the warning by health authorities is timely to prevent any food borne illness'

"With so many traditional recipes calling for uncooked egg - mayonnaise, caesar salad, eggnog, carbonara, never mind the simple joy of dunking toast in soft-boiled eggs - what can we safely do with raw eggs? Simply put, raw eggs can carry salmonella, bacteria that can cause serious food poisoning, even death. But to be fair, any raw food can be contaminated. After all, salmonella is what triggered the massive peanut butter recall last year. The Food and Drug Administration is pretty clear on the matter, telling people eggs should be fully cooked until both the yolks and the whites are firm. They tell people not to eat or even taste any foods that may contain raw or undercooked eggs".

The difference between industry and the domestic kitchen is that the latter lacks reliable pasteurization facilities for making the egg melange safe from pathogens. Indian consumer could be far more vulnerable to egg borne illnesses because of the indifferent environment in the poultry farms, use of sun-dried fish meal in the feeds, non-existence of washing and sanitizing facilities and improper storage and transportation systems in use. Of course that is why Indian egg is the cheapest in the world too!

V.H.POTTY

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

THE VITAMIN D "UPDATE"-MORE UNCERTAINTIES

Relatively little is known about the impact of Vitamin D supplements being peddled by the industry making diverse health claims, none of which has been proved conclusively with impeccable clinical trials. Knowing the limitation of our knowledge of this vitamin, coordinated studies are now being undertaken with human subjects to bring out the real facts. Vitamin supplements are not desirable for normal healthy humans. Many believe that taking them regularly can only help boost the financial health of the pharmaceutical industry and not the consumer. This has been proved by a few scientific studies. Taking a balanced and diverse diet can provide all the necessary essential nutrients and those who want to take these supplements must do so only after confirming deficiency through reliable analysis of their blood.

"People most at risk for vitamin D deficiency are older, have diabetes or kidney disease, stay indoors or have darker skin. African-American teenagers are at particularly high risk, possibly because in addition to their dark skin, they are less likely at that age to drink milk or play outside. The scientific community continues to debate the optimum level of vitamin D. In general, people are considered to be deficient if they have blood levels below 15 or 20 nanograms per milliliter. But many doctors now believe vitamin D levels should be above 30. The ideal level isn't known, nor is it known at what point a person is getting too much vitamin D, which can lead to kidney stones, calcification in blood vessels and other problems".

With processed milk fortified with vitamin D in many countries, it is unlikely that normal consumers would encounter deficiency of this nutrient. When exposure to sun for just 15 minutes is adequate for generating the needed Vitamin D in the body where is the necessity for most of the people to take Vitamin D supplement or foods fortified with the same for a healthy life.

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

BIOTECHNOLOGY CROPS-"THIRST" FOR HERBICIDES

One of the avowed objectives of evolving new crop varieties through biotechnology intervention is to reduce use of chemicals for crop protection. Thanks to the innovative efforts of biotechnologist many GM crops have been able to thrive without use of chemical insecticides. Unfortunately reduction in the use of pesticides was more than offset by increased use of herbicides in the cultivation of GM crops. The statistics of chemical application so meticulously compiled in the US can give a clue as to the flip side of GM technology. ,

"The groups said research showed that herbicide use grew by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008, with 46 percent of the total increase occurring in 2007 and 2008. The report was released by nonprofits The Organic Center (TOC), the Union for Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS). The groups said that while herbicide use has climbed, insecticide use has dropped because of biotech crops. They said adoption of genetically engineered corn and cotton that carry traits resistant to insects has led to a reduction in insecticide use by 64 million pounds since 1996.Still, that leaves a net overall increase on U.S. farm fields of 318 million pounds of pesticides, which includes insecticides and herbicides, over the first 13 years of commercial use".

The findings reinforce the feeling that when it comes to changing agricultural practices, a holistic approach can only provide the right answer whether such changes have a better risk-benefit ratio in the long run. Some of the herbicides are more dangerous than the traditional pesticides and what long term risks these new chemicals, present as residues in the crops, pose for the health of the farmers and the consumers is yet to be ascertained.

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

TAKING MORE CALORIES-THE NEW UK "MANTRA"!

Current wisdom that seems to be prevalent in the world is that rich countries are consuming more food than they really need and the consequences are there for all to see in the form of expanding waist lines, bulging tummies, increasing life style disorders amongst the population there. During the last one decade, some sense has prevailed on them that the culprit is consumption of high calories in the form of fat and sugar through processed foods. Conscious efforts individually and collectively are being made to cut down calories and reduce consumption of sugar and fat. It is baffling, therefore to see a country like the UK suggesting increased consumption of calories as is being reported.

"Weight conscious individuals, who religiously stick to the advised 2,000 calories a day limit for women and 2,500 for men, could be depriving themselves of food unnecessarily, the study suggests. In a major review of the official calorie advice, researchers found that these amounts could be raised as much as 16% from the guidelines developed in 1991. And this is because nutrition experts under-estimated physical activity levels in the UK and set advice on energy intake too low. A 16% increase would boost an adult's daily limit by as much as 400 calories - equal to eating a regular cheeseburger or two packets of ready-salted crisps, according to food industry bible The Grocer".

The sedentary life style that prevails now with the advent computers and the Web naturally calls for a reduced calorie intake for most of the people while there can be some engaged in heavy work requiring higher calories which they must be taking already. The logic of such a stand is hard to understand but ultimately it is the people who will decide what and how much they eat. Probably food processing industry would be the happiest lot as this raises hope for greater demand emerging for their products.

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

INTAKE OF TRANSFATS-VOLUNTARY EFFORTS

Trans fats which are generated as an artifact in food processing can be a serious health hazard if not controlled by the industry. Use of hydrogenated fat by the industry, especially in bakery products, has been found responsible for the presence of trans fats in many processed foods. Trans fat is implicated in some of the modern life style health disorders like coronary heart disease and realization of this has prompted the food safety authorities to make it mandatory to declare quantitatively the extent of its presence on the label of food products.

"In a report published on Friday, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has shown that intake of trans fatty acids (TFAs) from manufactured sources has declined in the Australian and New Zealand population by 25-40% since 2007. The report has been welcomed by the Australian Food and Grocery Council and has convinced health ministers that regulation is not required at this point in time. FSANZ Chief Scientist Dr Paul Brent said this means that total intake of TFAs is now estimated to be 0.5% to 0.6% of total dietary energy, which is well below the WHO goal of 1%".

What is striking is that reduced intake of trans fats amongst the populations in these two countries has been achieved purely because of voluntary efforts without any compulsion from the concerned regulatory authorities. Probably other countries can also follow the example set by the food industries there and improve their image as a socially responsible sector caring for the consumer!.

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

A 'FAT' TAX-WILL IT WORK?

Many policy options are being considered in different countries to discourage consumers from gorging on high fat foods which are incidentally are cheaper and tastier than nutritious foods. Fast food joints are banned near residential areas in some places in the US but the effect of such forceful denial of these high calorie density foods to craving consumers and hypothetically tackle the rampant obesity epidemic at best is marginal as has been brought our by some studies. Latest attempt to impose higher taxes on fast foods to make them costlier is an option being considered in some countries.

"Cheap, abundant corn enables mass production of economical, aggressively marketed beef and pork. The corn syrup that sweetens soft drinks and candy oozes from the same source. That's why it's so cheap to be fat and -- comparatively -- so expensive to be thin. In response, a comprehensive preventive health strategy should shift subsidies away from corn toward the production of fresh fruits and vegetables as well as organic farming, so healthier, more natural foods become as accessible as Happy Meals and tax fast food, soft drinks, and packaged foods high in processed fats and sugars to decrease demand for unhealthy food. A study published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine recommends a tax on "sugar-sweetened beverages," projecting that for every 10 percent rise in price, consumption of soft drinks would decline a corresponding 8 to 10 percent, leading to weight loss and reduced health risks".

If history has some thing to offer, it is that making a product costlier does not deter the consumers from going for it as seen in the case of cigarette or alcohol. During the last 7-8 decades prohibition as a policy to prevent people from consuming alcoholic beverages failed miserably all over the world and to day governments themselves are selling liquor products in the name of preventing spurious and unsafe products that can harm the citizens. It is debatable whether that is the real intention of the governments or it is the massive revenues generated by this line of business!

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