MANDATORY LABELING OF GM FOODS-SOME PROGRESS IN THE US

It is not easy to forget the narrow defeat in the California Ballot Initiative last November suffered by those against GM foods for the proposition for mandatory labeling of these genetically manipulated unnatural foods. The tragedy is all the more painful when it is realized that voters who showed support to the extent of 80% during pre-poll surveys were swayed by massive infusion of funds by the GM food lobby to misinform and change the minds of many citizens. The contention of the GM food manufacturers is that genetic engineering does not "substantially" alter the nature of the food which is "practically" identical to the original crop which was manipulated to express or not to express some genes through biotechnological techniques. The very procedure to put to vote such life affecting proposals is not proper as it is the sacred duty of safety and regulatory agencies to take such decisions based on technical data submitted by the industry. Why are these agencies prevaricating is a mystery beyond comprehension by the common man, especially when it is known that more than 64 countries in the world have put in place laws that requires compulsory labeling of GM foods! In a sharp rebuke to the GM food lobby, the tiny state of Vermont in the northern part of the US had the "guts" to pass a law that requires all GM foods to be made and sold in that state to be labeled compulsorily.Here is a take on this encouraging development

"In a major victory for the food movement and consumer advocates, the Vermont House has voted 107-37 in support of legislation that would require foods that are genetically engineered (GE) to be labeled. This is the first-ever State House to pass a bill that would require that all GE foods to be labeled. "This historic vote shows that state legislatures are beginning to step up and support the overwhelming demand from consumers to label GE foods," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety. "Consumers nationwide are beginning to ask questions about the growing influence of chemical companies in food production. They are demanding the information necessary to make healthful decisions about the foods they serve to their families. We congratulate Vermont on taking this important step and thank these legislators for standing up to powerful special interest groups." Center for Food Safety (CFS) has been at the center of the fight to inform consumers about GE foods for over a decade. CFS provided legal testimony before the Vermont Legislature in 2005 and has maintained an active presence in the state, providing resources and expert legal and scientific advice to the citizens and lawmakers of Vermont. Sixty-four nations including China, South Africa, and all countries in the European Union currently require GE foods to be labeled. Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) last week introduced federal legislation that would require nationwide labeling of GE products. "Even though industry spent $45 million in California to fight Prop 37, the initiative lost by a very narrow margin. Progress on GE food labeling in states such as Vermont shows that the tide is turning. People are demanding their right to know how their food is produced and state legislatures are responding positively," added Rebecca Spector, west coast director of CFS".

What prevented the GM lobby from influencing the law makers is not known but it is reasonable to assume that Vermont being a small market for them they are prepared to sacrifice the business there. Who will be the sufferers if major manufacturers of processed foods start a market choking operation denying the citizens there free flow of foods into the market? Is there an alternative option for the state if no manufacturer is willing to sell any food without GM tainting? In a federal structure it will be difficult for a lone state to impose laws different from that exist in other states. It will be interesting to watch for further development in this war on labeling!

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

BAN TRANS FATS-THE NEW UNIVERSAL MANTRA!.

Realization that trans fats in foods eaten every day can be a major source of health hazard among consumers all over the world is driving many countries to come up with policies that will address this problem. Such policies vary from outright ban on the production of hydrogenated fats to prescribe maximum limits in processed foods. Declaration of trans fat content in package foods on the label which is becoming mandatory in most countries is considered to be one of most significant steps taken consciously in many countries giving an opportunity to the consumer to shun those products containing unacceptable levels of trans fats. Here is a critique on this issue which is pitchforked into international attention with WHO actively trying to evolve effective policies and programs to help its member countries.

Shauna Downs, lead author and researcher at the university's Menzies Centre for Health Policy said trans fats policies in Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea and the USA over the last two decades had proved effective in removing trans fats from the food supply. She said the study's findings were particularly relevant for low- and middle-income countries where such measures have been identified as a 'best-buy' policy for health - one that is expected to provide a high return on investment in terms of health gains."We found, for example, that a national ban in Denmark virtually eliminated trans fats from the food supply, while local bans in Canada and the USA were successful in removing trans fats from fried foods," Downs said. While some of the government policies we studied imposed voluntary self-regulation and others took mandatory measures, such as labelling, local and national bans on trans fats proved to be the most effective policies for removing trans fats. "Our findings show that these policies are not only feasible and achievable - they are also likely to improve public health." Trans fats - also known as trans fatty acids - are naturally found in dairy and meat products but are also generated by industrial processes to produce hard fats from vegetable oils. The industrially produced trans fats are also known as partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. Consumption of trans fats is associated with an increased risk of non-communicable diseases, including cardiovascular disease, such as heart disease, as well as stroke and diabetes. These partially hydrogenated vegetable oils are, however, widely used in the food industry and fast food outlets because they are cheap, have a long shelf life, are semisolid at room temperature - which makes them easier to use in baked products, and can withstand repeated heating. The World Health Organization (WHO) has called for the elimination of trans fats from the global food supply in response to the rise in the prevalence of non-communicable diseases and has identified it as a 'best-buy' public health intervention for low- and middle-income countries. This proposed policy measure was advocated in the Political Declaration of the High-level Meeting of the UN General Assembly on the Prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases in September 2011".

Manufacture of hydrogenated fats which are plastic in nature is slowly being faced out because of the tendency to form trans fats from unsaturated fatty acids during catalytic hydrogenation process. Alternate technologies are now available that can make plastic fats so necessary, especially in many baked products, and therefore there must be put in place a universal ban against manufacture of such fats. Against such a backdrop it is not clear why some nations including India are still dilly dallying on banning their production. If trans fats are bad for consumers in rich countries like the US and in Europe who can afford healthy foods why it is acceptable in countries like India where poverty and ill health are rampant? It is the bounden duty of any responsible government to protect its citizens from hazards posed by food industry through coercive measures if that is what it takes to discipline the industry. 

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

ALCOHOL DRINKS-NEED FOR MANDATORY LABELING

The compulsory labeling of any thing that goes into the body has been very effective as a means of consumer education and conveying the nature of the contents in an unambiguous manner. Different countries follow different rules but packed food materials always have information negative as well as positive which enable the consumers to make a correct decision in choosing the right products from the retail shelves. It is another matter that lot of unsubstantiated health claims are made on such labels by some manufacturers. Normally all foods made in the organized sector of food industry can be expected to be safe and of good quality, conforming to the specifications laid down in the statute book. While food and medicines are covered under statutory labeling rules, alcoholic beverages belong to a group that is not required to conform to such rules but demands are emerging to cover these products also. Few countries have introduced such labeling regulations though most such practices are voluntary, agreed upon by the industry on its own volition. Considering that alcohol is more a drug than a beverage, the declaration must be clear regarding the negative consequences of consuming alcohol. Besides its debilitating impact on liver, alcohol is also considered a human carcinogen deserving utmost caution by the consumers. Australia is currently debating on this issue and in what form the ultimate decision will come is not certain as of now.

In Australia, as in many other countries, alcohol is not labelled in the same way that food is. So it's exempt from the usual requirements for anything else you take into your body, which are required to have labels listing all ingredients and composition from a nutritional viewpoint. That's a peculiarity that has come out of history but it doesn't make sense because you are taking in calories or kilojoules into your body when you drink. In recent weeks, DrinkWise, which is an industry-funded social aspects organization, has come out with voluntary standards on labelling, which they hope 80% of the industry will follow. And yesterday the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation (AERF)released a report calling for a Government-imposed health warning label system. Their proposed label is much more detailed and much more rigorous than what is currently being implemented by the industry under the DrinkWise initiative. The AERF recommends rotating five warning labels because one of the problems with warning labels is that you get very used to it after a while – as you do with anything else you see every day – and you don't notice them. If you change the message periodically and if there are a variety of messages being displayed, then people are much more likely to notice them and go on noticing them. The main precedents for this kind of labelling is on cigarette packaging but there is another example for alcohol warning labels in Sweden. Every advertisement for alcohol in Swedish newspapers has to dedicate an eighth of its area to a health message. And there are 11 warning messages to choose from, put forward by the Swedish public health institute.

While on the issue of labeling, it is amusing to see bottled water manufacturers faithfully declaring on the label zero values for all the nutrients. Since water is not a nutrient as per the definition, there is no need for pure water to be labeled highlighting its nutrient contents. But when it comes to alcohol more than the nutrition, the label has to convey in no uncertain terms the ill effects of consuming alcohol on human body. Though some believe moderate dose of alcohol is good for health, jury is still out on this claim and drinking being an addiction, it is better to be a teetotaler until such times conclusive proof is on the table regarding its absolute safety. As in the case of smoking, alcohol beverages must carry danger warning leaving the choice to the consumer as to how much risk one can take while taking alcohol.

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