NUTRITION LABELING-TIME FOR A REVISIT?

The purpose of printing nutrition information about a particular food product on the pack is to help consumers understand the health value of the food inside. It must be admitted that the food labeling vis-a-vis nutrients present in a food has helped millions of consumers to make right choice based on their limited understanding of the science of nutrition and health. According to one survey almost 50% of the buyers in the US regularly read the nutrient profile on the pack before making their choice which is remarkable considering that the shopping time and number of trips to the market are progressively decreasing because of their economy driven life style. FDA of the US is a role model for many countries in fashioning their regulatory regimes and therefore the attempt by this premier agency to overhaul the labeling system after 20 years will have a chain effect across the world. Details about the intention and plans of FDA can be had from the excerpts referred below.

"Nutrition FDA may revise 20-year-old standards for food and drink nutrition labels The Food and Drug Administration says knowledge about nutrition has evolved over the last 20 years, and the labels need to reflect that. As the agency considers revisions, nutritionists and other health experts have their own wish list of desired changes. The number of calories should be more prominent, they say, and the amount of added sugar and percentage of whole wheat in the food should be included. They also want more clarity on how serving sizes are defined. "There's a feeling that nutrition labels haven't been as effective as they should be," says Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "When you look at the label, there are roughly two dozen numbers of substances that people aren't intuitively familiar with." For example, he says, most of the nutrients are listed in grams, the metric system's basic unit of mass. Jacobson says people don't really understand what a gram is. Michael Taylor, the FDA's deputy commissioner for foods, says 20 years ago "there was a big focus on fat, and fat undifferentiated." Since then, health providers have focused more on calories and warned people away from saturated and trans fats more than all fats. Trans fats were separated out on the label in 2006. The nutrition facts label "is now 20 years old, the food environment has changed and our dietary guidance has changed," says Taylor, who was at the agency in the early 1990s when the FDA first introduced the label at the behest of Congress. "It's important to keep this updated so what is iconic doesn't become a relic."

The basic premise for revisiting the labeling regulations is that the nutrition science and health science have brought out a plethora of new information which in many cases run counter to the present precepts and practices. One of the most pressing needs is to meet the anxiety of consumers regarding the sugar content in a product though total sugar declaration is part of the present label rules. What is distinctly to be brought out is the extent of sugar added by the manufacturer to make the product and clarify what type of sugar has been added. The implication of HFCS in obesity related diseases is well known to the laymen and such distinction can allay the fears while buying a sugar sweetened product. Similarly a distinction is necessary between natural dietary fiber and added fiber as there is a significant difference between these two categories when it comes to its effectiveness. In many wheat based products invariably the refined flour with practically no nutrients left after milling, is used  where as the consumer would like to know from the label how much whole wheat flour is added in such products, if at all. It is difficult to meet the entire aspirations of the consumer and health activists as limited space is available for printing all the details. But an earnest attempt must be made to make the label as informative and transparent as possible. 

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

ENERGY DRINKS UNDER THE SCANNER-WHAT IS ITS TRUE WORTH?

During the last few years carbonated soft drinks and other sugary beverages have seen their market progressively shrinking or the growth rate very disappointing. The most pressing issue vis-a-vis their consumption is the presence of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) which was linked to development of obesity and health disorders, though no clinching evidence to support this accusation has surfaced yet. Whether it is HFCS or natural sugar, nutritive sweeteners if consumed abundantly can cause undesirable health consequences against which consumers need to be cautious. The very basis of the policy of New York civic authorities to ban sale of over sized sugary beverages is based on the perception that citizens must be restrained at least indirectly from over consuming these "fattening" drinks. Another contentious issue is presence of caffeine in some products like Cola beverages which is claimed to be an intoxicant that can cause damage to children and pregnant women folks. The new breed of drinks being marketed by the Energy Drinks sub-sector of beverage industry has escaped the regulatory regime, especially with regard to caffeine and some of the other ingredients used and its surprising growth is some what a mystery. While the caffeine content is about 3 times more in Energy Drinks as compared to that in soft drinks, the products are usually supplemented with Taurine and B-vitamins and the target consumers are athletes and sports persons, obviously suggesting that energy drinks are helpful in restoring energy and boosting the performance. Though these drinks were having a free run without being challenged by the food safety authorities during the last few years, they are now coming under the scanner after the reported death of a girl due to arrhythmic heart failure after consuming energy drink. Here is a take on these emerging developments.

Energy drinks remain a tiny part of the carbonated soft drinks market, representing just 3.3 percent of sales volume, according to the industry tracker Beverage Digest. But while soda consumption has flagged in recent years, energy drinks are growing by leaps and bounds. Last year, sales volume for energy drinks rose by nearly 17 percent, with the top three companies - Monster, Red Bull and Rockstar - each logging double-digit gains, according to Beverage Digest. The drinks are often marketed at sporting events such as surfing and skateboarding, popular among younger people. The levels of caffeine in the drinks have raised worries. Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration caps the amount of caffeine in soda to 0.02 percent, there is no such limit for energy drinks. "The FDA could easily say energy drinks are soft drinks," said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which advocates for food safety. But he noted that the FDA cap was established about 60 years ago, long before energy drinks came to the market. In general, the level of caffeine in energy drinks (160 milligrams in 16 ounces) is about half that in the same amount of brewed Starbucks coffee (320 milligrams), according to CSPI. But compared with soda such as Coca-Cola,energy drinks have more than three times as much caffeine. That could be problematic for younger consumers who may guzzle them without realizing how much caffeine they're consuming, Jacobson said. The other risk is that kids would drink it at parties along with alcohol, he said. As for the other ingredients energy drinks often tout - such as taurine or B vitamins - Jacobson said it's mostly for marketing purposes and that they serve no real function. "They say it serves as a detoxifying agent or that it improves mental performance," he said. "That's malarkey."

Justification for marketing such drinks is based on the fact that brewed coffee provides much more caffeine per drink compared to that ingested through energy drink. What makes the energy rinks more risky is that the major target group is youngsters who rarely take coffee and volume of energy drink consumed tends to be high frequently. Total quantity of caffeine consumed via energy drink could be significantly higher, especially during sports events and athletic gatherings and therefore some sort of regulation needs to be put in place sooner than later. Also claims made because of addition of Taurine and B-vitamins do not make any sense, as they are not based on science or clinical evidence.

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

INDIAN SUGAR-PREPARING TO ENTER THE WORLD MARKET

Though sugar is a much despised food and beverage ingredient being implicated in many health afflictions, there does not seem to be any let up in the demand for this commodity from users all over the world as reflected by the high prices prevailing in the global market. This is in spite of the fact that there has been a marked shift from white sugar to High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) in most of the processed foods in many developed countries because of price advantage. Probably demand pull is coming from the direct consumers such as families, candy makers, restaurant sector and others who do not accept HFCS as a sweetener. India is the major country that produces sugar from cane, its production being the largest in the world. But sugar "politics" can be intriguing as the stake holders like politicians, sugar cooperatives and large users can distort the picture with disastrous consequences. Though sugar is considered "unhealthy" GOI guarantees adequate supply to consumers through policy orchestrations that holds the industry on a tight leash. It was in 2009 GOI imposed ban on sugar export to prevent "unrest" amongst the people as there was considerable dip in the domestic production of sugar. Suddenly India finds itself saddled with surplus sugar this year and the export policy has been revisited with clearance for export of limited quantities on a "quota" basis. What impact it will have on global sugar prices remains to be seen.

"Sugar exports are set to begin next month with the government likely to expedite the processing of applications from sugar mills for release of about 5 lakh tonne of sugar for exports . It is likely that the release order for export of sugar under the open general license will be phased out over a period to ensure that substantial quantity of sugar does not get exported at one go. "We now expect to have enough leeway to accommodate all stakeholder obligations even as we allow industry to export to strengthen their finances," an official in the know said. Last week, food minister Sharad Pawar suddenly upped, for the first time, sugar estimates for this year by 1.5 million tonne to 25 million tonne, at par with industry estimates . Large exports from India could swiftly depress global sugar prices, frittering away the very advantage that the sugar mills and exporters from here hope to gain . This is the first time in nearly 15 years that the Indian sugar industry finds itself in a position of projected plenty even while the global market is experiencing supply tightness and firm prices. Raw sugar has risen to a 29-year high in New York on the apprehension that India may not allow too much exports. White, or refined, sugar for March delivery closed at $751.10 a tonne on NYSE Liffe in London by October end. The industry expects to produce nearly 25 million tonne of sugar this year and given the temptingly high prices outside, it is loathe to miss the chance to export and firm up its bottomline expeditiously".

Looking from another angle, India must feel happy that it can call shots in the world sugar market and as GOI wants to maximize the returns from exports, a "programmed" release of quota is being planned. There are already grumblings amongst sugar producers regarding the low quantum cleared for exports and it is unlikely that most of them will be benefited by this "liberalization" policy. The average price of sugar in the international

market is around Rs 32 per kg almost on par with the ruling domestic price. As such there may not be much benefit from exports though the country can earn some foreign exchange. The sugar policy of the GOI has never been based on realistic considerations and industry-friendly government invariably tries to maximize the returns to the sugar mills through control on its release into the market every month. It is a paradox that under the free market economy being promoted in the country, the sugar industry prefers a control regime to prevent any price crash that would benefit the consumers at large. There is an apprehension that sugar cane milling will become unprofitable if a free market is allowed to flourish because of depressed consumer prices.

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

RETURN OF THE "SUGAR"-WHO IS WINNING THE WAR?

There are thousands of treatise on the supposedly bad effect of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) consumption on health of humans and literally a ravaging war has been brewing on this corn based, man made sweetener which was linked to obesity epidemic. The high decibel condemnation of HFCS made sure that average consumer would start shunning products containing this sweetener. The first casualty of this orchestrated campaign was replacement of HFCS with sugar by the Cola beverages in the UK last year. Now comes the news that "damned" HFCS is turning out to be a big money spinner and many products after replacing HFCS with sugar are claiming "superior" value for their products! Read the current trend in HFCS vs Sugar "war" in the world capital of HFCS production as reported recently.

"Books, movies and news articles linking America's obesity epidemic to high-fructose corn syrup have made consumers increasingly wary of the sweetener. Some food manufacturers are responding by switching back to sugar in some products, including Heinz ketchup and Wheat Thins.The change is most visible in the realm of highly sweetened, highly advertised beverages. From Pepsi Throwback and Heritage Dr Pepper to Gatorade and Snapple, sugar is making a comeback - if only in hype-seeking "limited edition" batches. Many consumers cheer the move for reasons of taste. But some see drinks made with sugar as healthful, and that has some obesity experts worried. "Many consumers think, 'If I consume soda or a candy bar, and it has regular sugar, it's healthy,' " said Barry Popkin, a nutrition professor at the University of North Carolina's Gillings School of Public Health. "And that's the danger, because they're equally bad." "Equally bad? This from the man who helped get the whole high-fructose corn syrup rebellion rolling. In a 2004 commentary in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Popkin and two co-authors noted that the sharp rise in high-fructose corn syrup consumption in the United States since 1970 mirrored the rise in the nation's obesity rate. "When we wrote the article six or seven years ago, we speculated high-fructose corn syrup might be worse" than sugar, Popkin said. "It was picked up by the blog world, and it became folklore that high fructose was poison." In the years since, research has shown that the body metabolizes high-fructose corn syrup differently from sugar. Some studies indicate that the syrup can have damaging effects on the kidney and liver. But strictly in terms of calories and, by extension, obesity, he said, the products are equally bad". "People think [sugar] is better and it's not better," said Dr. Benjamin Caballero, professor of nutrition at Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health. "Fructose has 4 calories per gram. Sucrose has 4 calories per gram." It's the super-sizing of sweetened drinks, not the sweetener in particular, that is probably to blame for super-sizing Americans, Caballero and other experts believe. The average American consumes about 97 pounds of various sugars - mostly high-fructose corn syrup and refined cane and beet sugars - each year, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data. That's up from about 85 pounds a year in 1970. A lot of that comes in the form of sweetened drinks. Liquids account for one in every four calories Americans consume, and the number of calories consumed each day has increased by 300 in the past 15 years, Caballero said". "Switching to sugar-sweetened sodas will do nothing to reverse that trend, nutritionists say. But it is helping the sugar industry snatch back some market share it's lost since the syrup's introduction in the 1960s. "There are 100-plus products that advertise on their packaging they don't contain high-fructose corn syrup," said Andy Briscoe, president of the Sugar Association, a trade group representing beet and cane sugar growers in 18 states. He maintained that scientific studies have found a link between high-fructose corn syrup consumption and obesity. He also said that sugar is a more natural product than the syrup, created in a highly complex process that involves changing molecular structures". "Consumers are coming back to simple products, and when they look at the ingredients on the packaging, it [sugar] is one they recognize and can feel good about," he said. "It's all natural, it's only 15 calories [per teaspoon], it's been used safely for over 2,000 years and, oh, by the way, it's a sweetener you can pronounce." He added: "We're not saying it's the new health food." Makers of high-fructose corn syrup have struck back with a public relations campaign, including advertising and a Web site, SweetSurprise.com".

"The site prominently quotes a 2008 American Medical Association report: "Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose are so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose." "While scientific consensus seems to be in the high-fructose camp, books such as Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and films such as "King Corn" have brought more consumers into sugar's corner. Even people who aren't struggling with weight issues of their own have been taken by the story line: Warped American farm policies, which make high-fructose corn syrup cheap and plentiful, have warped American bodies".

There is no way any one can come to a definitive conclusion as to whether HFCS is really the cause of all the health problems America is experiencing to day because the lobbies representing both HFCS and Sugar are powerful with deep pockets capable of pushing their agenda irrespective of any consumer concern. For them, making money is more important than protecting the health of their customers, the hapless citizens in that country!

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