Chicken and beacon more environment friendly than fruits and vegetables? Strange findings!

Science can be some times really mysterious in its findings and researchers who bring out scientific results through their efforts are also as mysterious as the subject they pursue. R & D is a hotly debated area because of bias attributed to many studies due to the dependence of such efforts on funding from sponsors most of whom have an agenda in getting results of their likings. There are also academic studies by researchers to obtain a university degree and many of their findings also may not reflect the true situation due to many factors. This is the reason why many advocate that scientific research in areas of public interest must be pursued in public funded research organizations which do not have any axe to grind while looking for results. It is not correct to brand all private sponsored research as "motivated" as there are many outstanding research institutions with very high credibility and scientific credentials. Carnegie Melon University is supposed to be such an organization and if they bring out some startling findings that fly against the currently accepted notions, one has to sit and listen to them. Recent claims by a group there regarding the green house gas emissions by vegetables being more than that by the beacon industry need to be taken seriously though prima facie they appear to be ludicrous. Here is a take on this controversial issue.  

"Vegetarians may be no greener than bacon-lovers, according to new research. In fact, lettuce eaters may be three times worse.

Looking at the way food is consumed in the United States, a student-professor team from Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in Pittsburgh concluded that following the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) recommended nutritional guidelines to eat more fruits, vegetables, dairy, and seafood is actually more harmful to the environment than a diet of typically "less healthy" foods.  "Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon," said Paul Fischbeck, professor of social and decisions sciences and engineering and public policy, in a statement. "Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken." Dr. Fischbeck and his co-authors, whose study appeared in the journal Environment Systems and Decisions, found that the USDA recommendations tended to have higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissionsper calorie than alternatives. Following the supply chain from growing to processing to transporting food, and onto store shelves and tables, as well as household storage, the researchers measured the strain on environmental resources in the form of energy use, water use, and GHG emissions.
Eating fewer calories and reducing weight was found to have a positive effect on the environment by shoring up energy use, water use, and emissions from the food supply chain by some 9 percent, according to the study. By comparison, eating the USDA recommended "healthier" foods – a variety of fruits, vegetables, dairy, and seafood – increased the environmental impact across all three categories the study examined: Energy use went up by 38 percent, water use by 10 percent and GHG emissions by 6 percent, according to the study. The initial findings of the study were "surprising", according to senior research fellow Anthony Froggatt at Chatham House, a think-tank unaffiliated with the research that is looking at the connection between meat consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Froggatt said in an interview with the Independent that it is "true lettuce can be incredibly water intensive and energy intensive to produce", but comparative exercises like the one performed by CMU can yield vastly different results depending on how the foods are raised or grown. "We usually look at proteins rather than calories, and as a general rule it is still the case that reducing meat consumption in favor of plant-based proteins can reduce emissions," he said.
Still, with global population ballooning, "we have a pressing need to eat better and farm better," Tamar Hospel, a food-policy columnist for The Washington Post, wrote last August.  Lettuce, Ms. Hospel writes, "has almost nothing going for it. It occupies precious crop acreage, requires fossil fuels to be shipped, refrigerated, around the world, and adds nothing but crunch to the plate," citing its high water content and relatively low nutritional value.  Michelle Tom, a co-author of the study, acknowledges the relationship between diet and environment is "complex."
"What is good for us health-wise isn't always what's best for the environment," she said in a statement. "That's important for public officials to know and for them to be cognizant of these trade-offs as they develop or continue to develop dietary guidelines in the future."

The Carnegie Mellon findings may contradict the soon-to-be-released USDA dietary guidelines which are expected to recommend more veggies and less meat consumption as part of a diet that's "more health promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impact than is the current average US diet," an advisory panel draft said, according to the Associated Press."

Common man can get highly confused because meat industry has been castigated across the world as polluting industry and raising meat animals involves waste of resources, the conversion efficiency of the animals vis-a-vis the "feeds into food" is recognized as poor. If so how can it be a relatively minor culprit in greenhouse gas emission? If the claims are true why the competent authorities who recommend several servings of fruits and vegetables every day, can assert that their production is more friendly towards environment protection compared to meat production? These findings raise several pertinent questions to which answers must be found sooner than later. How does this new finding affect the diets of more than 6 billion people living in this planet? Is the mankind better off by expanding meat consumption in the long run in stead of the persisting on the present high pitch campaign by almost all segments of the society to become vegetarians? Shunning of meat is a national priority in many countries and is it necessary for them to stop such policies believing fully the outcome of the above research? Though earlier studies were focusing more on protein cost which is always high in the case of animal products, the present comparison of calorie expenditure per unit of product may justify curbing production of fruits and vegetables but the million dollar question is whether the results of these limited studies can be confirmed by multi country studies supported by international agencies immediately to prevent unnecessary anxieties among consumers? 

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

Nutrition policy- Lack of it pushing India deep into health insecurity?

For quiet some time nutritional pundits have been warning the political class in India that too much obsession with supplying cereals to the poverty ridden population in the country cannot save them from debilitating health disorders due to inadequate consumption of protective foods like proteins, micro nutrients and fruits and vegetables. It is true that these critical nutrient sources are far too expensive compared to calorie supplying foods like rice. Even favoring rice over wheat or coarse cereals which are much more healthy, is a foolhardy policy from both health and agricultural perspectives. Paddy cultivation is a water intensive process and returns in terms of nutrition are not commensurate with the inputs. The so called Food Security Act about which the successive governments are tom-toming can only bring about a sustenance regime capable of preventing deaths due to gross hunger. There are some bright spots in this abysmal scenario in some states where egg, milk, pulses etc are offered at affordable cost. But these are far and few incapable of making any national impact. Here is another warning coming from a renowned nutrition expert about this fallacy being perpetuated by the government in Delhi. 

"The current nutritional status in India is the result of policy deficit in several critical nutrition-related issues and lack of implementation even where policies exist,  Veena S Rao, adviser to Karnataka Comprehensive Nutrition Mission (KCNM), has said. Speaking at the 47th national conference of Nutrition Society of India (NSI) here on Friday, Veena said, "Food and agriculture are logistically related to nutrition. India does not have a national food policy per se but it does have a policy and mission for public distribution and making food grains accessible and affordable to the poor. Recently, the Food Security Act (FSA) has been superimposed upon the public distribution system (PDS). But both PDS and FSA primarily address subsistence and not nutritional security." She observed, "The present food policy emphasises on distribution of cheap rice under PDS as against the more nutritive wheat, coarse grains etc. It is increasing under-nutrition and micro-nutrient deficiency and also led to a shift in agricultural patterns."

It is a mad situation where citizens have to pay a price of more than Rs 150 per kg of any pulse which normally contains about 23% protein. There was a time when pulse was the most affordable protein source to low income and vegetarian population and if there is price distortion happening now, where can these people go for their protein needs? Per unit of protein, milk protein costs a prohibitive Rs 600 per kg, egg protein costs about Rs 600 per kg and meat protein may cost any where from Rs 1200-Rs 2400! Pulses provide proteins at a cost of Rs 400 per kg not much cheaper than milk or egg proteins in to day's market situation! Is it not a distortion which will have serious implications on the health of a significant percentage of population who cannot afford the protein foods because of economic considerations? Why is that India during the last 25 years, in spite of a series of pulse and oil seed missions, devouring crores of public exchequer money, not able to alleviate the shortages of these commodities, necessitating imports worth billions of dollars year after year? The situation is getting bad to worse with no far sighted vision evident among the present day policy makers. Why is that we continue to subsidize crops like sugar cane, tobacco, coffee, arecanut etc while not doing enough for pulses and oil seeds? A million dollar question that does not seem to bother any body in this country! 

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

From Soda to milk-What a climb down!

Backlash from the consumer community and sociological groups who have been berating the soda industry for the unhealthy beverages being produced, marketed and made popular among kids through over drive promotional activities. Some of the major players seem to be seeing the writing on the wall, viz there is no future for this industry and if they continue to indulge in this business, a day may not be too far way when they will face consumer wrath of Himalayans proportions and possibly face massive class action suits for economic reparation to the consumers for the health damage caused by these unhealthy drinks as in the case of cigarette industry two decades ago. Though global production of soft drinks is more than 20 billion (bn) cases valued at about $ 300 bn, USA alone accounting for about 50% of this, the ever declining trend of sales has been a cause of worry for many of the major players in this segment of industry. In USA alone the sales of soda are declining on an average 1-3% every year since 2004, an alarming signal indeed. This has probably been the reason for the new found love of this industry to nutritious and healthy products like value added milk based beverages. Here is a take on this important turning point in the fortunes of soda industry as is being reported.

Soft-drink giant the Coca-Cola Company will soon be launching a new version of milk branded as Fairlife.  The launch is planned for later this month, with sales to begin nationwide next year. "Purely nutritious milk" states the slogan under Fairlife's name on the containers. The company's optimism is riding high for this new lactose-free product, which boasts of containing 50-percent more natural protein, 30-percent more natural calcium, and 50-percent less sugar than ordinary milk. During a global consumer conference last month, Sandy Douglas, president of Coca-Cola North America, predicted that "it will rain money" once Fairlife gets established in the marketplace. Even so, he acknowledged that it will take considerable investments in the milk business and several years before that happens. "We'll charge twice as much for it as the milk we're used to buying in a jug," he said during the conference. Conventional prices for milk in a gallon jug vary but typically hover around $3. According to Fairlife's website, the new product will be sold at a similar price to value-added milks such as organic and lactose-free. It will offer skim and 2-percent milk varieties, plus a sweetened chocolate milk. The calorie count in a glass of 2 percent is 120; in a glass of skim, 80. "The premiumization of milk" is how Douglas described this new approach to marketing— a challenge to anyone looking at the declining sales of fluid milk in the United States. Back in 1975, when everyone was encouraged to drink three or four glasses a milk a day "for the sake of your health," per-capita consumption of beverage milk and cream was 262 pounds, according to figures from USDA. But with increasing concerns about obesity and the adverse health effects of sugar in their diets — along with other beverage options such as flavored water and non-dairy almond and soy milk — Americans are drinking less milk. By 2012, per-capita consumption of beverage milk and cream had fallen to 195 pounds. And, according to some industry gurus, milk sales will continue to drop, which is certainly not a rosy picture for the industry.

If consumers think that this is a genuine realization on the part of the soda industry, they better listen to the logic for opting for milk based products as made clear by them. They are simply following the trend of higher and higher awareness about health and nutrition among the consumers who want more healthy products than soda for which they are prepared to pay a higher price. This willingness to pay extra for health boosting milk products is the key to the new thinking on the part of the soda makers. As milk is one of the top most nutritive products available to man and since plain fluid milk is invariably shunned by kids, the soda makers see in this emerging situation a golden opportunity to make a fast buck. In the words of some market pundits "there will be raining of money" for the industry if right products with health value are positioned before the consumer. Who can resist buying a milk product with higher protein, higher calcium, significantly less sugar compared to "run of the mill" colored and flavored milks now in the market! While this development may be encouraging, one has to be watchful to see what ingredients these super technology companies will use while designing their new products to make them extremely appealing to their target users, viz kids.

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

Calories restricted diets-Do they ensure good quality life also besides longevity?

Man's search for longevity is endless and no one has yet found the magic bullet that will ensure or guarantee a life at least up to 100 years. Among the most talked about regime to live long is the notorious Calorie Restriction diet (CR) being promoted by some segments of health experts  and many consumers seem to be convinced about its efficacy. But CR is not scientifically proved to be capable of extending one's life span without contracting some of the most debilitating diseases that afflict mankind to day. It is true that in animal experiments with short duration using Rhesus monkeys, supposed to be similar in their metabolic system to that of man, the longer life span was reported when CR was used but the same conclusion was also found to be untrue by other similar studies. Here is a critique on this subject which has far reaching implications either way. 

Caloric restriction, defined as reducing calorie intake by at least 30 percent, has gained a cult following since it was first studied in the 1930s. Scores of people swear that by dialing consumption way down, and eating far less, you can gain vitality and longevity. And while studies cited by the National Institutes of Health report that caloric restriction (often referred to as "CR") did have some positive effects on health in rhesus monkeys, the NIH announced in 2012 that it has not been shown to boost overall longevity. (These findings conflicted with those published in 2009, which found that caloric restriction did, in fact, extend life in monkeys.) The final word on these studies has yet to be published. But I don't believe we need to wait for it. If you want to live a longer, better life, portion control plays a role, sure— but the reason I'm not one for the CR diet is because I believe you should be far more focused on what's ON your plate, rather than what isn't. The danger inherent to the idea of caloric restriction is the belief that simply consuming less food is enough to fend off chronic disease and give you optimal health— without much concern for the food itself. If this were true, we'd all be able to eat cheeseburgers and french fries in smaller portions every day and call ourselves healthier. If you put emphasis on what you're not eating rather than what you are, you're missing the mark. A great example of what I mean is the popular diet program Weight Watchers and similar plans such as Nutrisystem, which completely flop in terms of nutritional benefits. They certainly restrict your daily caloric intake and you may lose weight, but with Weight Watchers, you could still end up eating a slice of pizza at each meal and stay within your allotted "points" for the day. You're still consuming a high-carbohydrate, low-nutrient diet— essentially an inflammatory diet— and this puts you at risk of all the top killers, including cancer, heart disease, and even Alzheimer's disease and dementia later in life. Eating a limited number of calories does not necessarily equal a health-promoting, life-extending diet.

The point raised by the above commentator about the inadequacy of many calorie restricted formulated diets with respect to some of the vital nutrients required by the body is very valid. No one can expect to lead a quality life by consuming 30% less calories ( about 1400 calories per day) if the diet is made of junk foods with empty nutrition. After all man does not live on calories alone and nutrients like proteins, essential fatty acids, vitamins and minerals are required at certain minimum levels to ward of ill health and infectious diseases. All said and done there is no effective substitute to living a disciplined life, eating a mixed diet that includes adequate calories, proteins, vitamins, minerals and fiber. Physical activity that moves the limbs and the body regularly besides other routine activity in life is a prerequisite for a good quality life. People must realize without delay the cardinal principle that there is no short cuts to maintain their health and they must go through the drill of adopting balanced diet and regular exercise day in and day out.

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

Nutrition Quotient-A new tool for empowerment of mothers?

Awareness about quality, nutrition and safety of food eaten every day can be very reassuring for a house wife when it comes to managing a house hold with growing children and aged seniors. Media sources do offer a variety of information on food but often some of them are contradictory putting us in great doubt about our knowledge in this area. So is the Internet source where contradictions are galore on every aspect of food. Now comes a new source of information via the Internet that can be accessed by every aspiring mother for testing her knowledge about food and update the same constantly. Information is a "power" that if understood properly and used effectively can empower women who take great care in bringing up a family. The new tool of assessing the knowledge about food, christened as Nutrition Quotient (NQ) is designed by as alliance of Indian Dietetic Association, Indian Medical Association, All India Institute of Medical Sciences with the food industry. As a voluntary education program this is most apt for willing mothers and others interested in upgrading their food information base through interaction with experts on the Internet. Here is a report on this interesting initiative which is timely and appropriate.

"Tetra Pak recently launched the Right to Keep Food Safe initiative in Jaipur, as part of which, a seminar was held for mothers to equip them with information to make important decisions related to food safety and health. Present here was actress Aditi Govitrikar, who said, "As a mother, I need to become more aware about good nutrition and safe food habits. I congratulate Tetra Pak's efforts and recommend every mother be part of the Right to Keep Food Safe initiative." The mothers present at the seminar were shown the Nutrition Quotient (NQ) website - a first-of-its-kind online programme on food safety, nutrition and packaging developed by experts from the Indian Medical Association, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Indian Dietetics Association and National Dairy Research Institute. Mothers can log on to the website (www.nutrition-quotient.com) and test their own nutrition quotient.  Diet consultant and nutritionist Ritika Samaddar said, "Mothers know that it's important to provide nutritious food. But rising incidents of adulteration and lack of proper understanding justify the need for access to better information. I am certain these initiatives will go a long way in doing just that."  Tetra Pak South Asia Markets communications director Jaideep Gokhale said, "Our vision is to make food safe and available everywhere for everyone, through our aseptic processing and packaging technology. As a responsible industry player, we are proud to launch the Right to Keep Food Safe initiative and the NQ programme so that mothers become more aware and make safer and healthier choices for their families."

Nutrition and health are closely inter related and even among experts there is no unanimity on certain areas of this subject. Both Tetra Pak and Nestle are giant food industries selling machinery and a variety of branded products all over the world. Their involvement may prima facie raise some doubts regarding the reliability and truthfulness of NQ assessment besides their motives in supporting such an initiative. But linking with government and quasi government agencies in developing this concept may, to some extent, lend respectability to the program. A better informed mother can be more effective in checking food industry and food service industry from producing and marketing unhealthy foods. A well informed mother can also be a source of enlightenment to the household as far as hygiene, sanitation and safe eating practices are concerned. 

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

HUNGRY FOR CALORIES OR HUNGRY FOR MICRO NUTRIENTS? THE GLOBAL PARADOX

What is hunger? How does one feel hunger? How can one satisfy hunger? Very complex questions eliciting different responses from different experts, each looking at this phenomenon from their own perspectives. Many administrators feel that by supplying adequate quantity of food  the problem hunger can be solved! But nutrition and health pundits do not agree with this approach because such a simplistic solution does not take into consideration the vital needs of human body vis-a-vis micro nutrients such as minerals and vitamins. Take the case of India where a misguided political class came up with the idea of a food security act to confer upon its citizens the right to access food at low cost and if the assumptions of the government are to be taken seriously, there would be no hunger when citizens are provided cereals practically free of cost. Unfortunately the hunger does not not seem to be coming down in spite of all these freebies and India ranks a lowly 120th position in the Global Hunger Index with just about 8 countries worse than it. Imagine India being worse than its neighbors like Nepal and Sri Lanka! Whether this "good achievement" is due to government efforts or through statistical jugglery is a matter of speculation. The distinction between calorie hunger and nutrient hunger makes a lot of difference as good healthy individual with maximum human productivity can be ensured only when nutrient hunger is also eradicated eventually. Here are some data released by some international agencies recently highlighting the position in India and 127 other countries which offers some clue regarding the direction India is going in dealing with hunger among its population.  

"Is it possible to have food on your plate, but still go hungry? Yes, is the answer, according to the latest Global Hunger Index, compiled by German World Hunger Aid together with the Irish aid and development organization Concern Worldwide and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). "Eight hundred million suffer from not having enough to eat, so it is quantity, it is calories," said Shenggen Fan, general director of IFPRI. "But 2 billion people suffer from lack of micronutrients." "The question is the timing, how soon the people will die. So lack of food, particularly lack of calories, can lead to death very quickly," Fan said. "But the lack of micronutrients is equally damaging."

It has to be borne in mind that India is a huge country with a large population but low income levels which restricts many of its citizens access to food whether good or otherwise and it calls for herculean effort to lift those who are still impoverished above the poverty line. How far the statistics by the government agencies can be relied upon to draw any conclusion about the extent of poverty prevalent in the country is any body's guess! Indians are known to be reluctant to share their true personal information to statisticians surveying for such data for various reasons. If one takes the example of income tax paying population in the country, almost 90% of those who qualify for IT payment escape the net by suppressing their income and never filing their returns regularly.The farming community is in distress because of the nonviable land holdings and uncertainties of weather as most of them rely on rains to raise their crops. If any tangible improvements are to be realized, land consolidation is a prerequisite which only can make agriculture an income generating avocation. Can any government do this? Do they have the courage to think in this direction leaving aside the politics of vote consolidation? Sending condolences and paying ex-gratia payments to farmers committing suicide due to unbearable debt burden cannot achieve any thing. As long as this situation does not change, India is consigned to the bottom of the GHI for decades ahead.

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

TRAINING OF TRAINERS-SPREADING FOOD AND NUTRITION AWARENESS

Food, nutrition, health, eating habits and sanitation are subjects which are usually confined among experts and scientists. Inculcating healthy eating is a responsibility shared equally by the parents of growing kids at home and by the teachers in schools where kids go at least 200 days an year. The big question is how far the parents and teachers know about these subjects and poorly informed and ignorant parents and teachers cannot be expected to teach the children correctly and adequately. Going further down, only adequately exposed children can become good parents of tomorrow who in turn can transfer their knowledge and experience to their kids. Thus school teachers are the vital cogs in the education of kids vis-a-vis food related issues. The FDA of USA and the teachers' association in that country are doing wonderful work in training teachers for such a job so that they can train the children in making them practice eating good foods with high nutrition content and adhering to scientific hygiene and sanitation habits. Read further below to understand fully the implications of the program being undertaken in America to train the school teachers.  

"One way to teach kids about food safety and nutrition is to teach their teachers. That's the idea behind a training program the Food and Drug Administration has been running for the past 15 years. "Science and Our Food Supply" is a week-long program held in the summer that brings together teachers from all over the country who teach biology, chemistry, food science and health. Its aim is to improve food safety and nutrition education in schools using a curriculum co-developed by FDA and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), which looks at the science behind issues such as foodborne illnesses.The participants learn about the journey of food from farm to table, basic microbiology techniques, FDA's role in regulating products, new research on food safety, nutrition and nutrition labeling, and food allergies. This year, 32 teachers from 22 states participated and then returned to their own schools to teach the curriculum to students and hold day-long sessions to train their fellow teachers."

It is rather a mystery as to why Indian education planners are ignoring this respect, considering that children form their habits fairly early in their life and undesirable and inappropriate habits imbibed early in life will be difficult to be changed later. A body like NCERT in India can do wonders by introducing basic concepts of food and its allied aspects in text books designed for school going kids at the age of 5-8 years and undertake a national endeavor of training teachers through short term abridged programs at the national, regional and state levels. It can always depend on scientific bodies like CFTRI, DFRL, NIN, NIFTEM. Universities etc to provide experts in transferring the technical information to teachers through well designed programs, especially during vacation times when teachers do not have much teaching load. This is the only way to transform India into "Swacha Bharath" , as being propagated by the present Prime Minister of the country.  

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

              

DAMNING THE PICKLE!-INDIA'S HYPERTENSION PROBLEM

Pickles and chutneys are part and parcel of Indian diets from time immemorial wile papad is a totally an Indian creation. What is common for these products is the high salt content and since the close linkage between salt and hypertension came to surface these high salt products are receiving close scrutiny from health and nutritionists. During the last few years there have been questions regarding the future of the industry which churn out these products and even this blogger had published a piece on the future of pickle industry in India. While these developments are being driven by the scientific finding that salt intake has to be drastically reduced to prevent the hypertension and cardiac epidemic sweeping through many countries with high salt consumption spreading further taking a heavy toll of human lives. So far no standards are presently available in India with regard to optimum level of salt that can be consumed by Indians under the Indian conditions. But a recent expose on the subject which is referred to below, calls for reducing the salt intake from the reported level of 6-8 gms by 15-20% that can prevent thousands of death due to disorders like hypertension, CVD and Kidney ailments. Here is a take on this issue.     

Experts say that Indians consume up to 6 to 8 grams of salt daily, while the Indian health ministry hypertension guidelines say that only 2.4 grams is recommended. It isn't excess salt intake alone that heightens an Indian's chances of getting hypertension, it's also the Indian build. "Indians have thinner blood vessels than Caucasians, leading to different salt sensitivity among the two groups. Hence, the Indian blood vessel's ability to handle salt is lower than others," said Joshi, who practises at Lilavati Hospital in Bandra. A study done in Chennai in 2007 found that an increased intake of 1.5 to 2 grams of salt was associated with an increase in high and low blood-pressure by approximately 1mm Hg (the unit to measure blood pressure). "The risk of cardiovascular disease rises with blood pressure throughout the normotensive (normal) blood-pressure range and almost 60% of coronary heart disease events and 45 to 50% of strokes occur in those with high normal blood-pressure," said the study conducted by Dr V Mohan of Chennai.Any reduction in salt intake brings about a healthy change as far as hypertension is concerned. The Chennai study, which was published in JAPI (Journal of Association of Physicians of India), found that a reduction in intake of sodium by 1.2 grams daily would lead to a 50% reduction in the number of people requiring anti-hypertensive therapy. The lower intake could also mean a 22% reduction in the number of deaths due to stroke and a 16% reduction in the number of deaths due to coronary artery disease. Incidentally, if one sticks to the traditional Indian diet, hypertension wouldn't be such a problem. Dr Jagmeet Madan, principal of the SNDT College for Nutrition, Juhu, said, "If you stick to the traditional Indian diet, you will never go higher on salt." The problem creeps in when additions creep in to the Indian thali. "Adding chutneys, pickles and papads sends the salt balance haywire," she said. So, processed foods should be kept as "sometime foods" instead of everyday foods.

In India every data has to be viewed with suspicion for its veracity and same is true with regard to salt consumption also. Earlier there were reports that Indians consume on an average 12 gms of salt every day though this information also must be the guess work of some statistcians without doing any representative field survey. In developed countries where commercially processed foods constitute almost 80% of daily diet salt consumption is sought to be controlled through regulating salt in such foods either voluntarily or through mandatory rules. There are campaigns in some countries to sensitize citizens regarding the dangers of high salt consumption and consciously reduce daily intake gradually to levels considered safe. One often wonders whether salt is really as dangerous as being made out currently because for centuries pickles, chutneys and papads were being consumed regularly with no significant health hazards. How this situation has changed now? Is it because of ignoring the traditional foods Indians have been consuming for long and switching over to more and more factory processed foods with high salt content? Food industry world over are known to use the trioka of salt, sugar and fat to make consumers food addicts leading to many of the modern day life style disorders like obesity and others. Now that civilization has come so far depending heavily on processed convenient foods with doubtful health credentials, it is better to be more cautious in consuming food ingredients like salt and follow the guidelines for keeping one self healthy!   

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

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

DOES THE COLOR OF LABEL INFLUENCE CONSUMER CHOICE?

Industry seems to have struck a goldmine in green color which seems to be misleading the consumer that products  printed with nutrition information against a green background are healthier than others. Internationally green color is associated with cleanliness and consumers do show a tendency to believe all that has a green certification which symbolizes positive things, This a very disturbing finding and regulators need to have a closer look at this phenomenon to modify labeling rules in future. Here is a take on this new revelation.

"The color of the label is obviously irrelevant. But  green nutritional panels — which now adorn Snickers, M&M's, and other candies made by Mars – appear to fool shoppers into thinking they're buying something that's more healthful, according to a research paper published last month in the journal Health Communication". "Cornell University professor Jonathon Schuldt conducted experiments that found not only that green labels increase the perceived healthfulness of foods, but that such misunderstandings were particularly prevalent among those who place high importance on healthy eating. "The green calorie labels buffer relatively poor nutrition foods from appearing less healthful among those especially concerned with healthy eating," said Schuldt, who thinks it's high time that the government stepped in to bar such trickery. "As government organizations including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration consider developing a uniform front-of-package labeling system for the U.S. marketplace, these findings suggest that the design and color of the labels may deserve as much attention as the nutritional information they convey."

Probably more restrictions are needed regarding the color background the industry can use while printing nutrition information on the label. At present even a poison can be packed in green colored container with its attendant implications. If necessary use of green labels can be reserved for good products which are healthy and balanced based on scientific data. Already in countries like India green dots allowed to be printed on one corner of the label to denote that the contents do not contain any ingredients derived from animals. Similarly gren traffic signal type presentation is proposed in some countries to discriminate between healthy and not so healthy products. 

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

ANOTHER STUDY ON ORGANIC FOODS-FINDING OUT THE OBVIOUS!

A critical question one may ask regarding organic foods is why people are paying a premium price and buy them? Typically the answer could be that they are safer and more nutritious than commercially produced produced products using a variety of chemical substances including antibiotics. However very few people really believe that organic foods can be more nutritious, their faith on them being anchored on safety and there is a strong reason for that. Organic food industry is one of the most rigidly regulated sectors with well laid guidelines and strict procedures to avoid chemical contamination of any sort, be it from fertilizers, water, soil, crop protecting chemicals or any other source and strong certification procedure by expert agencies make them more attractive to consumers, giving the much needed confidence. in a recent study, it was brought out that organic foods are not more nutritious (which was already known) and less likely to contain man made chemical substances (also known earlier) and the findings as contained in the following report may not be that exciting.  

"17 studies in humans and 223 studies of nutrient and contaminant levels in foods met inclusion criteria. Only 3 of the human studies examined clinical outcomes, finding no significant differences between populations by food type for allergic outcomes (eczema, wheeze, atopic sensitization) or symptomatic Campylobacter infection. Two studies reported significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children consuming organic versus conventional diets, but studies of biomarker and nutrient levels in serum, urine, breast milk, and semen in adults did not identify clinically meaningful differences. All estimates of differences in nutrient and contaminant levels in foods were highly heterogeneous except for the estimate for phosphorus; phosphorus levels were significantly higher than in conventional produce, although this difference is not clinically significant. The risk for contamination with detectable pesticide residues was lower among organic than conventional produce (risk difference, 30% [CI, －37% to －23%]), but differences in risk for exceeding maximum allowed limits were small. Escherichia coli contamination risk did not differ between organic and conventional produce. Bacterial contamination of retail chicken and pork was common but unrelated to farming method. However, the risk for isolating bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics was higher in conventional than in organic chicken and pork (risk difference, 33% [CI, 21% to 45%])".

It is true that organic food industry hardly commands 2-3% of global food market and probably clocking a reasonable annual growth, slightly higher than the normal food industry. But the faith in the safety of organic foods cannot be shaken easily as common sense tells the consumer that they are definitely superior to present day main stream food industry because chemical inputs during growing or processing are scrupulously avoided. Talking about nutrition the conventionally marketed foods many be contain more nutrients as most of them are fortified with a variety of substances like vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, essential amino acids and essential fatty acids. How far these external addition are utilized by the body is another matter, fit for a debate! 

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

HEALTHFUL FOOD PROMOTION-A NEW INITIATIVE

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

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

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

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

ORGANIC FOODS-ARE THEY REALLY SUPERIOR?

Though organic foods are gaining popularity across the world, the real reason for a paradigm shift in the consumer perception of normal foods marketed to day may not be based on reasons which are being touted by the organic food industry. There appears to be a grouse on the part of the general food industry that consumer is being hijacked by the protagonists of organic foods through unsustainable claims like superior nutrition and other benefits. Here is a commentary on this perceived feelings of food industry in general about the situation prevailing to day in world markets.

As consumers we are increasingly disconnected from how our food is produced and supplied. New ideas and belief systems related to food are exploiting this disconnect and nowhere is this more true than organic food. In his new book, Organic Production and Food Quality: A Down to Earth Analysis Professor Robert Blair uses the latest scientific research to separate the truth from unproven beliefs. 'Organic Production and Food Quality' is the first comprehensive book on how organic production methods influence the standard of our foods, while comparing this to the perceptions of consumers and the demands of the global food industry. Based on the latest scientific findings and the results of food monitoring programs in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand Blair explores issues consumers raise about organic food including quality, safety and "healthfulness" compared to conventional food. "The internet is rife with unsubstantiated claims from the organic industry, and the media tends to have a negative impact on consumer perceptions about food," said Blair. "Thanks to food scares such as BSE or the controversy over GM foods more and more consumers began buying organic food. This resulted in a radical shift in food retailing, the expansion of the organic industry and the supply of organic foods at farmers' markets, supermarkets and specialty stores." In contrast the recent announcement by the UK Food Standards Agency that organic foods are nutritionally similar to conventional foods may reverse consumer perceptions, as will the higher cost of organic food when budgets are tight. Blair agrees with the conclusions of the UK FSA, as does an important sector of the European organic industry.

It has to be admitted that organic foods possibly can never be nutritionally superior except in a technical sense because the way the organic crops are raised is founded on the philosophy that they should be safer for the consumer as synthetic chemicals are rarely permitted for increasing production or protecting them. It is not that conventional agriculture cannot deploy the same techniques used by organic food farmers but the cost is bound to rise making the products much more costly. Let the organic food industry restrict its promotional efforts to focus on safety rather than nutrition. This is a fair way of clearing the confusion that prevails among consumers.

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

INDIA'S GRAIN HARVEST-QUANTITY VS QUALITY

Government of India (GOI) appears to be gloating over the performance of the farmers in achieving a record production of food grains this year, as being predicted by its expert forecasters. Whether this has happened because of GOI or in spite of it, is a million dollar question. Interestingly if there were shortfalls, GOI would have blamed failure of rains or trotted out some other excuse while farmers' success story is promptly touted as its own with no sense of shame!  A closer look at the statistics of production at the disaggregated level will reveal a different story. While wheat and other cereals except coarse grains have shown higher production, it is alarming to see the production of pules and oil seeds dipping to dangerous levels with decreased production to the extent of 10-15% and the aam aadmi cannot but shiver looking ahead what is in store for him in the coming months vis-a-vis the the availability and cost of these vital foods. If GOI cannot bring about a positive change in the nutrition quality of grains produced by increasing the production of oil seeds and pulses, it has no right to claim that it is working for the interests of aam aadmi! If this is not a failure of GOI agricultural policies, what else it can be? Here are the details of this sad story coming out of GOI's own backyard!

"The government's food grain storage woes have turned more acute, with food grain production for 2011-12 estimated at an all-time high of 252.56 million tonnes, almost 3.1 per cent more than that the previous year's production. This may help provide a minor boost to India's economic growth in the previous financial year, estimated at 6.9 per cent. While releasing the third advanced estimates of agricultural production in 2011-12, Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar said storing such huge quantities of grain was a concern. "The overall food grain production is good. The only problem is storage," Pawar told reporters, adding the issue was being addressed by the food ministry. Pawar had recently urged Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to call a high level meeting of all stakeholders to discuss the storage problem. He had said if the issue was not resolved, it might affect the morale of growers. According to official estimates, the country's food grain stocks are expected to rise to 74 million tonnes by June-end, compared with the available storage capacity of about 64 million tonnes".

The situation becomes more pathetic when it is conceded that the MSP policy of the government is attracting farmers to dump their grains at the doorsteps of FCI which has no idea where the newly procured grains are going to be stored! It is known during the last few years that precious little has been done to establish a sound storage infrastructure for long term and safe storage of procured grains. Every citizen in this country has to hang his head in shame when it is universally known that the food grains stored in FCI grain storage structures are of very low quality with substantial portion unfit for human consumption!. In stead of finding ways and means to remedy this situation, the great policy paralysis and bureaucratic inertia at the government level is continuing to bleed the nation grievously. It is time that government takes proactive steps to address these woes through concrete action rather than indulging in bald and meaningless proclamations without any substance.

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

   

SEAWEED CULTIVATION-WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL?

It is not understood why seaweed is considered as a food since it has practically no nutrients worth crowing about. There is no protein, no fat, only 1 gm carbohydrate per 10 gm, only 4 calories per 10 gm but still people are reported to be consuming it as a food in their regular diets. Indonesia which produces the largest quantity vie with others like Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Japan, Korea, Taiwan etc. If the following report is to be believed there is nothing as nutritious as Sea weed! Here is the startling claim by some new "growers" of this muti cellular algae in the West.   

"Spend time talking to Charles Yarish and Paul Dobbins, and you'll start to believe seaweed farming could be the answer to some of the world's most intractable problems. For starters, it could provide a highly nutritious, sustainable food source to a hungry planet; it could be transformed into biofuel that removes heat-trapping carbon dioxide even as it cleans offshore waters of pollutants; and it could create environmentally friendly economic opportunities for coastal communities including Long Island Sound. Cultivation of this "virtuous vegetable," as Dobbins has dubbed it, is a multimillion dollar worldwide industry, supplying key ingredients for medicines, cosmetics, fertilizers and food products ranging from sushi wrappers to ice cream thickeners. Dobbins is president of Ocean Approved, a year-old kelp farming company on the Maine coast, that sells frozen kelp to restaurants and speciality food stores, growing the sinuous green ribbons in about 8 acres of offshore beds supplemented with plots tended by local shellfishermen and lobstermen".

It is true Sea weed is a valuable source of widely used food additives Alginate, Agar and Carrageenan. loved by the food industry for their water retention characteristics, emulsifying ability and viscosity/texture modification potential. With low fat food products in great demand these sea weed derivatives are valuable ally of the industry because of their fat sparing effect. As it is a type of marine algae capable of growing on coastal areas where plenty of light for photosynthesis, access to brackish water and some sort of attachment point, growing of Sea weed is an avocation common in coastal areas of East Asia. In ideal areas the Sea weed growth can extent many miles into the deep sea. Calling it a "virtuous vegetable" is some what far-fetched though it contains appreciable chlorophyll pigment inside the cell. Its use as a food additive is increasing exponentially providing big opportunities to people having access to sea coasts.

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

PULL BETWEEN PROFIT AND HEALTH-THE HOBSON'S CHOICE!

Every country in this Planet is on the horns of a dilemma regarding the right mix of policies that will protect the consumers without sounding the death knell for the food industry which manufactures all types of food products to "satisfy" the consumer. While consumers rely on the national safety vigilance system to "discipline" the industry in terms of the quality and safety of the products in the market, who will be responsible if the very same consumers become "sick" by over eating and gluttony? How can any one blame the industry if it responds to consumer needs and turn out products meeting their expectations while making money in the process? Is it justified to ask the industry to give more importance to health promotion than to the needs of the palate? In a fair competition one who satisfies the consumer most will win the game and that is what every player is trying to do. Of course governments with their vast powers can provide a level playing field by including restrictive conditions that promotes health and insist that the industry works within the frame work laid out. Here is a critique on this issue by a discerning analyst which reflects the ground realities in the food sector. 

'Flavoring is an incredibly important component of creating processed foods, because it allows the industry to create products with the flavors of delicious high-quality ingredients, despite none being present.  The better a product tastes, the more likely we will be to buy it, so it's no wonder that creating these flavors is a big business. As the 60 Minutes story reveals companies use sugar, fat, salt, and other flavors created in chemistry labs, that human biology craves, to create pleasurable experiences for eaters.  Employees of the company, out on a trip to look for the next new flavor for soda, admit to Safer that they are trying to create flavors that are irresistible and addictive. For this reason many in public health argue that the processed foods industry is a big part of the reason for our world's obesity epidemic.  Processed food companies make more money by selling more products and they do this by designing these items to be irresistible.  Consuming more processed foods of course means more calories and that leads to weight gain.  This is why many public health advocates would like to place limits on companies' abilities to use sugars, fats, and salt in their foods. I doubt however, that many would argue that food companies want consumer to be overweight.  Weight gain instead, is simply an unintended consequence of maximizing sales through the creation of cheap, high calorie, hyper-palatable addictive foods.  Safer asks Givaudan VP of Global Strategy and Business Development, Bob Pellegrino, about this issue.  Referring to obesity, Safer asks if the food industry wants his company to create flavors so that people want more.  Pellegrino answered, "I don't think it's creating a desire for moreness, as well as it's a desire for memorability, so that people will repeat the purchase of the product and enjoy them."  Do you see the difference?  I don't either".

It is not that industry does not play the role of a truant in many instances by their surreptitious promotional activities, misleading advertisements, unrealistic and bloated claims, focused targeting of kids etc. But if there is a framework or set of guidelines to be followed by the industry, applicable to all, there is less likelihood of the industry getting the bad name as is happening now. Industry cannot take a simplistic view that consumers must take the responsibility for their health through appropriate selection of good foods and practicing adequate exercise in stead of leading a sedentary life style and this way bad foods will disappear from the market shelves in no time! The situation is becoming increasingly alarming when many foods rich in sugar, fat and salt are being considered an addictive similar to tobacco and alcohol. A global consensus has to emerge regarding the mandatory "healthy" food practices based on to day's knowledge about food and its effect on life style disorders like CVD, Diabetes, Hypertension, Cancer, etc.

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

THE "STAR" SYSTEM FOR FOOD LABELING-WILL THIS WORK?

Labeling of food packets containing processed food products of different nutrient content is intended to be a transparent mechanism of communication from the processor to the consumer. Unfortunately the science of human nutrition is so vast and ever changing, even food scientists find it difficult to decipher the real meaning of figures printed on food packets regarding their nutrient content. Credit must be given to the safety agencies that the labeling details are changed some time depending on new data emanating from time to time to make them truly informative. However consumers often fail to grasp the significance of the nutrition information affecting his capacity to make the most appropriate choice and it is here that suggestions are made to present the information on a graphic mode or symbol mode which are easily grasped. The traffic signal system of using colors like red, amber and green is being experimented with by some countries and it may take some time to arrive at any decision regarding its effectiveness and drawbacks. In the latest proposal coming from the US the star system is being recommended and probably it may be superior to other systems. Here are the details as being reported.

"The Energy Star program makes it easier for consumers to pick appliances. Now the Institute of Medicine is recommending the government create a similar system for foods and drinks sold in the grocery store. In a new report, the IOM — an independent group that advises the government on health policy — recommends instituting a front-of-the-package rating system that gives foods zero to three points, depending on their levels of saturated and trans fats, sodium and added sugars. Those were chosen because they "are the components of diet most closely linked to chronic-disease risk," said Alice Lichtenstein, vice-chair of the IOM committee and a professor at Tufts University, at a press conference today. Foods with too-high levels of any one of those components would get no points. The ratings would be displayed using stars, check marks or some other icon. In addition, all foods would have the amount of calories per serving displayed on the front of their packages — and a serving would be a familiar household measurement, such as a slice or a cup. The familiar nutrition facts label on the back would continue to include additional information. Ellen Wartella, chair of the committee and a professor at Northwestern University, said at the press conference that while there are many factors that influence what and how Americans eat, "there's a clear disconnect" between the dietary guidelines for better health and what people actually eat. Providing raw information alone isn't enough, she said, and so the committee is recommending the FDA and USDA consider a "shift in strategy" that encourages consumers "to purchase healthy foods and beverages."

The traffic light system seems to have run into some incongruities with some bad products being given the green signal while a few good foods are branded as red ones. The star system of grading foods has the added advantage that similar categorization exists in regard to electrical energy efficiency grading and people are already familiar with it. It does not require much of an education to understand that higher the number of stars a product gets better it is supposed to be. Probably the nutrient content presently in vogue can be dispensed with and replaced with simple iconic classification like "starring" the product based on its nutrition and health value. There will be some problems with some products and such discrepancies can be sorted out through consensus. Fact still remains that such quality and safety grading will be much better than abstract figures contained in the nutrition labels, making no sense to most consumers. A moot question is whether industry will adopt such a system voluntarily or it should be made mandatory. If it comes into vogue as an option, there will be lot of confusion in the market with some adopting it and others not serious about putting the same into practice. On the other hand a mandatory enforcement will automatically weed out manufacturers peddling junk foods while those making good foods have better chance of success.

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

THE POTATO "PROTEST"- REPURCUSSIONS OF POLICY CHANGES

Potato consumption in the world has remained steady more or less during the last 5 decades, though it is a staple commodity for some population in some parts of the world. Global average per capita annual consumption of 33 kg does not qualify potato to be a staple food commodity and nutritionally it cannot be termed superior to staple grains like wheat, rice, maize etc. It is considered more as a vegetable, though its high starch content of about 50% (fresh weight basis) may be an anachronism. But Potato is indeed a cheap vegetable preferred for feeding programs in the schools in the US and school lunch program covers more beneficiaries for the limited funds provided. It appears that the US government wants to restrict the quantity of potato in such programs for reasons not very clear. While nutritionally such a policy change may not have any significance, the potato growers are apprehensive about the economic impact such a decision will have on the industry. USA hardly accounts for about 7% of global production which is dominated by China with a production of more than 70 million tons and surplus potato from the US cannot find a place in the international market because of cost constraints. Here is case which amplifies the close nexus that exists among farmers, industry and the government and any one of these stake holders upsetting the equilibrium that exists now can have snow balling effect on the domestic front. Here is a take on this issue.

"As of 2008 there were an estimated 76 million students in U.S. schools. Potato farmers have to be looking at this proposed change as a meaningful threat to consumption. The ripple through agriculture will be significant. The decision will impact acres and affect farmers, potato processing companies and food service companies. Not to mention school lunch programs and school district budgets. School districts are running the numbers, knowing that potatoes are a relatively inexpensive vegetable source. Results show that replacing potatoes in school lunch programs will further run up costs on meal programs that are already under-funded. The districts see the USDA change as an unfunded government mandate that puts added budget pressure on a system that can ill afford it. But the case isn't closed yet. The National Potato Council and other industry groups have been providing information about the nutritional profile of potatoes when they are correctly prepared, and apparently the message is starting to get through. The USDA has agreed to take another look at their proposed rule change. There's no question what potato farmers across the U.S. are feeling about the USDA's proposed changes to school lunch guidelines. It will have an unprecedented impact on the entire potato industry. What's most difficult about a situation such as this is the fact that so much is out of the farmers' control. One federal policy change to one federal program would impact millions of Americans and cost untold millions of dollars in lost production and increased school lunch costs. The nutritional impact of a change limiting potato consumption in schools is arguable and negligible. Potato industry groups have done a good job of proving that. However, the economic impact of such a change would be significant. Situations like this show just how far reaching our federal farm and food policy really is".

In one way the US government must be lauded for linking the growth of agriculture to the market and providing assured outlet for the produce from the farms. Potato is a good food though there is nothing in it that can qualify this tuber as a nutritiously superior food. As a calorie provider Potato can be a component of any diet which needs supplementation with other nutrients adequately. Restricting its level to 100 gm does not make much sense because this small quantity can provide less than 100 calories while a school meal program requires about 300-400 calories. How the "potato war" as being enacted now will end remains to be seen.

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