Beyond organic foods and GMO labeling-Why are consumers ignoring the miseries of food workers?

Recent agitations by workers in food service sector in the United States for improving their working conditions and increased wages did not receive as much attention as it deserved raising the valid question whether the conscience of the world can really ignore this important human issues. What role consumers can play in forcing the hands of the industry in granting to its workers what is reasonable, equitable and justifiable? During the last few years consumer campaigns are focusing on issues like GMO foods and their safety, carbon foot prints of processed and packed foods, child labor involved in crop production, organic foods for safety, use of pesticides, health aspects of foods, environmental damage caused by food sector etc and consumers want all these information to be revealed on the package of each and every food item churned out by the industry. Fair enough because consumer as a citizen has a right to know what type of product he is buying. But what is missing in these campaigns is the extent of miseries and depredation to which the workers, pivotal in the manufacturing logistics. Many critics feel that such a narrative is no more conscionable and this issue must be addressed and consumers must demand that the products they are buying should have a "fair practice" certification to prevent the food industry from worker exploitation. Read further below to understand this conundrum.  

"There's a consumer psychology angle, too. Perhaps consumers are just selfish: many food-movement certifications help address self-oriented concerns— like organic produce being healthier, environmentally sustainable products saving the earth you live in, and non-GMO certifications ensuring a diet that's free of genetically modified organisms. A labor-friendly certification doesn't necessarily benefit the consumer in the way these other certifications do. That's only a partially satisfying answer, though — one that doesn't account for the altruistic motive behind cage-free and certified humane purchases, or fair trade. "The fact that there's a label on eggs gives people the opportunity to make a choice"
Another psychological explanation is that negative imagery is the most powerful driver of consumption choices. The popularized images or awareness of slaughterhouses and unsanitary production lines will drive buying where vague concepts like "a living wage" won't. Under that theory, the image of a product has to be tainted in public consciousness before consumers will shift to alternatives. Finally, there is a commercial explanation: companies have not offered consumers a choice for fair labor foods, restaurants haven't distinguished themselves as fair employers, and fair labor certifiers haven't penetrated the market sufficiently. Under that explanation, labor in food isn't a relevant question because there hasn't been a choice at all. "The fact that there's a label on eggs gives people the opportunity to make a choice, and I think that's why labeling is important," Bittman said. Most people don't get "the option of saying would you rather buy chicken where the people [in the] slaughterhouse are getting paid $12 an hour than where the people in the slaughterhouse are getting paid $8 an hour." If consumers had a significant opportunity to support fair labor food and restaurants, it's possible they'd do so. Each of these phenomena presents unique challenges — or perceived ones — for getting labor into our daily dietary choices. Nonetheless, solutions are sprouting. A new certification that includes labor as one of three key pillars has started making its presence known in stores. A new app that highlights labor-friendly restaurants has started to gain traction. The work of organizing and protest has started to force labor into everyday eating decisions. That national reckoning? It might be on its way.

A worker checks in on a beer in progress at the New Belgium Brewing Company (Hyoung Chang/the Denver Post via Getty Images)
If the profit motive is a main reason labor conditions are so poor, it might also be a reason they get better. Andrew Kassoy, Jay Coen Gilbert, and Bart Houlahan are three guys with an intimate understanding of the economic motivations. Kassoy spent 16 years in private equity, including his most recent stint as a partner in a $1 billion fund. Gilbert and Houlahan were cofounder and president, respectively, of the basketball apparel giant AND1. In 2006, they decided they'd had enough of the corporate life and united to launch the B Lab. One of the organization's projects is the certified B Corporation status, given to companies, rather than products, that pass muster on four impact areas: governance, workers, community, and environment. Kassoy came to the project after he became increasingly dissatisfied with the corporate world, where, he said, it often felt like "little else matters to anyone" besides size and money. The B Corp movement, on the other hand, seeks to use the "power of private enterprise to create public benefit." The status, unlike other certifications, is specifically intended to evaluate an entire business as ethically and environmentally sound. By brandishing the "B" logo, the theory goes, companies will differentiate themselves from the crowd as consumers, investors, and potential employees seek to support wholesome business. The number of companies buying into that theory is still relatively small — about 1,200 are B Corp certified — but many more want to know how they stack up. More than 20,000 companies worldwide now use the B Lab's impact evaluation metrics to monitor their business. The B Corp status isn't just for food companies, and it isn't just about labor — but it's currently the best resource for selecting labor-friendly food. Given the extant interest of the foodies in other concerns, a comprehensive standard might be the way to loop in labor. In fact, the commitment to an overarching certification is a response to the inadequacies of piecemeal movements. "Good businesses means a comprehensive, transparent view of a company's social and environmental impact," said Kassoy. That way you can avoid "unacceptable" situations where people are buying sustainable or organic lettuce but they "don't care who picked it." That multilayered approach, though, means B Corp certification can only be a proxy for a standalone labor certification for the food system. For example, companies can be better on environmental standards and worse on labor, and still become a certified B Corp. There is no minimum score on the "workers" component of certification, though Kassoy insists the B Lab "reserves the right to deny B Corp certification to any company that doesn't meet the values of the movement." Nonetheless, without a present alternative, the B Corp status is the best available avenue for incorporating labor consciousness into food purchases. It remains to be seen, however, whether producers and consumers are ready to embrace it: only about 100 food companies have attained B Corp status. The certification isn't attracting producers and driving behavior like organic and non-GMO movements have — and the companies that do are exhibiting some peculiar behavior. Take the two best-known food B Corps: Ben & Jerry's and New Belgium Brewery. Due to Ben & Jerry's sale to product giant Unilever in 2000, and New Belgium's rocketing popularity because of its Fat Tire brew, you can find both brands far beyond foodie hideouts. Neither have the certified B Corp logo on their packages, however. Instead, Ben & Jerry's flaunts its fair trade logo and boasts about happy cows and non-GMO ingredients. New Belgium notes its employee ownership in understated text on the front of the packaging, and its recyclability on the bottom. (The case of Ben & Jerry's omission is particularly confounding, since they go through an extra procedure to remain certified as a subsidiary of Unilever).

Even the best companies have been sheepish about boasting their labor record. King Arthur Flour is the highest-rated food B Corp on labor issues, and was named in the top five of any B Corp on worker impact in 2014. Katie Walker, a spokesperson for the company, described working at King Arthur as the "complete polar opposite" of the normal food industry standard — and given her description of work life, it's hard to contest. King Arthur, a company of 388 workers at the busiest times of the year, starts with a minimum hourly wage for full-time workers of $11.25 an hour (Vermont's minimum wage is $9.05 an hour; New Belgium's lowest wage for non-temporary workers is $12 an hour) in addition to stock ownership. King Arthur and New Belgium are 100 percent employee-owned companies, operating an employee stock ownership plan where employees are given ownership stocks of the company as part of their pay package — and can retain that influence over the company until they leave or retire and sell those shares back. In these types of companies, you aren't likely to find the type of pay disparity you see in fast food, nor the abysmal working conditions, because employees retain more power and are often more integrated in the decision-making. More worker-friendly conditions are a natural result. "

It is not that one has to brand the whole industry as inhuman because there are many players who are magnanimous in providing their workers with more than what law is required of them. Aggressive labor unionism has earned many workers in other industry sectors high wages and perquisites but should we be waiting for the food workers also to be aggressive to get a decent wage and a conducive working condition? There is the famous story of a diamond processing industry in Gujarat where each worker is treated like a family member and benefits are showered on them that can move the hearts of even a die hard capitalistic industrialist! Food industry workers are not asking for favors of such a magnitude but are craving for a decent wage that can give him and his family a decent living standard. While it may too much to expect that every label should carry the fare trade practice, what is practical is to certify companies based on their treatment  of the workers. Probably certifying agencies like ISO could incorporate provisions for auditing the worker treatment conditions so that consumers will have a means of satisfying himself that he is consuming a product made without exploitation of the labor. While arriving at what is equitable to the workers, caution needs to be exercised not to go overboard in showering them with unjustifiable compensation packages that may impinge on the price of the product to the consumer.  

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

Changing perceptions about fast food restaurants-How long the new trend will last?

Fast foods and junk foods are almost synonymous and both of them are set to decline their influence on American consumers in the coming years, if a perceptible trend noticed  among younger population regarding their food preferences is any indication. Hamburgers, Hot Dogs, French Fries are all iconic in the landscape of the "eating out" consumers but there appears to be a fatigue developing among the people regarding the desirability of consuming them if they have to avoid life style diseases like CVD, Blood Pressure, Diabetes, Obesity etc. Constant exposure of the younger generation consumers to the "cause and effect" of junk food eating, emergence of organic foods as a major player in the market and greater awareness about the health advantages of fruits and vegetables seem to be persuading them to shun junk foods and fast foods. California where the "vegetable" revolution is taking shape a number of chain restaurants are attempting to offer stiff challenges to the well established fast food giants by attracting more and more clients offering them tasty foods based on vegetables stressing that they are great in quality and safety though the health advantages are not over sold. Here is a commentary on this development which may be a fore runner of what will happen eventually around the world in the coming years. 

"America's interest in locally sourced and healthy foods has spurred a boom in farmers markets and farm-to-table restaurants and has expanded organic produce at the supermarket. Now, a number of upstart chains trying to tap that interest are taking aim at traditional fast food by moving leafy greens and fruits to the center of the plate.
These rapidly expanding restaurants want to revolutionize the fast-food industry, bringing healthy fare to the masses who typically don't shop at Whole Foods. At the same time, they are stealing customers from stalwarts such as McDonald's.The most bankable word in food service is fresh.- Restaurant consultant Aaron Allen These chains, several based in California, see a juicy opportunity in the Golden State, with its bounty of health-obsessed diners interested in the latest food fads. Such chains make up just a tiny fraction of the $200-billion fast-food industry in the United States. But analysts predict this sector will boom as health-conscious consumers ditch the burger and fries in favor of quickly prepared healthy meals. "The most bankable word in food service is fresh," said restaurant consultant Aaron Allen. Many are rethinking the fast-food experience beyond food. At some, you'll find real china replacing paper dishes and foam cups for in-house eating. There are cushy chairs and communal tables, not plastic ones that are nailed down. Several offer beers from local breweries and menus that change with the seasons. "People want to eat more vegetables that are nutritious and unprocessed," said Greg Dollarhyde, chief executive of Santa Monica-based chain Veggie Grill. "The big trend now is make it better for me, but I don't want to give any flavors up." Many of these restaurants cater to salad skeptics or meat lovers who shy away from anything green or overly healthy. "I don't like saying the H word because that's going to turn people off," said Mike Donahue, co-founder of Lyfe Kitchen, which has expanded to 13 locations since opening its first restaurant in Palo Alto in 2011. "I tell our people they have got to start every message with, 'Tastes great, tastes great, tastes great. And oh, by the way, it is good for you.'"

There is this Soup Plantation chain where customers can pick up at least two dozens of salad combinations selecting from a range of vegetables and adjuncts which can have a variety of flavors and taste when assembled on the plate. Similarly there is the Veggie Grill chain which strategically plans its marketing to attract clients without overs selling the health claims. All these new players are exploiting the strength of organic food and locally made food movements to carve out for them selves a viable market which if the present growth is any indication will sideline many of the existing fast food chains in attracting customers in the coming years. Innovative design of eating places and use of china wares provide a different eating experience compared to the staid ambienc associated with many of the established fast food chain restaurants. When one looks at the present trend, credit must be given to the good old Subway restaurants which offer, though through a fast food format, some of the most healthy menus predominantly based on vegetables. No doubt this is a welcome development for Americans who face a bleak future caught between the juggernauts of fast foods, junk foods, GMO foods and heavy meat based foods.    

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

ORGANIC FOODS-WHAT REALLY THEY ARE!

No doubt organic foods definitely score over normally grown commercial crops when it comes to safety to the consumer how ever to hawk this food as a panacea for all the health problems the world faces to day is nothing but a hype. One must understand that farmers owe much to the use of synthetic fertilizers and chemical pesticides if they are boasting of much higher land productivity as compared to 5-6 decades ago and it is unlikely they will abandon this practice in the foreseeable future out of economic considerations. It is true that organic foods do fetch a higher price in the market but it is doubtful whether the additional income will ever compensate them for the high yields they can get under the mainstream agricultural practices in vogue to day. On the part of the consumer, there are unrealistically high expectations regarding the virtue of organic foods but there is wide gap between such expectations and ground reality. Here is an expose on this important issue which must be read by every consumer patronizing organic foods.

"You may think you know everything about your organic food -- but you don't. There are major misconceptions about this $35 billion industry. Here are the five biggest myths about your organic food.

1. Organic products are 100% organic.

The United States Department of Agriculture, or USDA, isn't a zero tolerance regulator. For any multi-ingredient "organic" product you pick up, from Wal-Mart  (NYSE: WMT  ) to Whole Foods Market  (NASDAQ: WFM  ) , only 95% of its contents have to be certified organic. For the USDA, it's a matter of convenience and feasibility. Testing for 100% full compliance of anything is a regulator's worst nightmare. Additionally, some ingredients simply don't have organic options on supply. The USDA does note, however, that investigative eaters can take a closer look at the ingredients list; if a specific ingredient is labeled as "organic," then it is. And for those American agricultural complex skeptics, the European Union has its own 95% rule.

2. Organic crops aren't fertilized.

There's more to your organic arugula than meets the eye. Fertilizers are used to replace necessary soil components that constant cropping removes. Nitrogen and phosphorous, specifically, are two main ingredients in the fight for fertilizer.
While the USDA forbids farmers to use sewage sludge (yes, this is actually a common non-organic addition) or synthetic fertilizers on their organic fields, they're free to use most other fertilizer types. Among the more recognizable additives are animal manure, compost (which can include animal materials), and ash.

3. Your organic meat grazed for grub.

Organic meat was once an organic animal. But that doesn't mean that Mr. and Mrs. Moo spent their days grazing in the grass. While the USDA requires that animals spend at least 120 days a year munching away on organic pastures, just 30% of its nutrition must come from the pasture itself. And in the off-season, 100% of its sustenance can come from organic feed.

4. Organic farmers don't use pesticides.

As with fertilizer, organic farming isn't as far off from conventional agriculture as some would think. A 2010 poll showed that a whopping 69% of those surveyed believe organic crops grow up big and strong sans pesticides. While the USDA does have a three-page long list of prohibited synthetic pesticides, there are over 20 chemicals that make the cut. Even more worrisome, current organic regulations don't include any limits on usage, meaning less effective approved pesticides can be piled on to organic farms, creating a cadre of potential health and environmental issues of their own.

5. Organic farming is environmentally friendly, tastes better, is healthier, and will improve your sex life.

OK, so maybe that last one applies more to vegetarians than organic eaters, but the point remains. There's a lot of hype around organic food, and it's important to remember that, in terms of rigorous evidence, causal inferences are few and far between. As organic farming becomes increasingly mainstream, a lot of its original attributes aren't nearly as applicable.

On the environmental front, intensive large-scale organic operations can be much worse for the environment than your local farmer who uses synthetic fertilizer once a year to keep production levels competitive. Likewise, personal perceptions on taste and health may actually be little more than a placebo effect, helped along by a fast-growing $35 billion dollar organic industry that wants you to buy their product.
Organic agriculture is an exciting opportunity for the future of food. But knowing the hard facts of organic food will help you to be the best, most informed consumer you can be."

The organic food industry market may be worth $ 110 billion to day , expected to grow by 16% annually ( CAG) to an astonshing figure of $ 212 billion by the year 2020! USA alone is reported to be consuming more than 40% of the global production and USFDA by far is the most liberal country with less stringent standards and safety specifications for raising organic crops. Whether organic foods are absolutely free from unnatural chemicals, synthetic growth inputs and pesticides, still it is the best bet for avoiding human induced food related health afflictions which are prevalent to day.

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

ECO-LABELING-CONFUSION WORST CONFOUNDED!

Ever since mandatory front of the pack labeling became a part of the processed food industry landscape, debates continue unabated regarding the sufficiency or otherwise about the information provided on these labels by the manufacturers. Consumers are always happy to get as much information as possible on the label which will help them to make judicious choice while doing their purchase. While the major aspects of labeling cover information with regard to nutrition, weight, manufacturing date, expiry date etc, increased consumer awareness about sustainability issues, water wastage, carbon emission, energy usage etc, appears to be generating an entirely new labeling initiatives broadly called ecolabeling.  As consumers seem to be appreciating such an initiative, ecolabeling is becoming an important consideration in a fiercely competitive market. Unfortunately the ecolabeling field is getting too much crowded with all and sundry offering such certification based on different standards without any uniformity.

"Growing consumer awareness of food production methods and sustainability issues has led to the rise in recent years of ecolabels in the food industry; over 200 seals and logos currently represent some ecological, ethical, ingredient or sustainability attributes in the global food industry. That number is expected to rise in 2013, and the mushrooming number of ecolabels could have adverse consequences, according to specialty research consultancy Organic Monitor. The company will present its latest findings on the global market for ecolabeled food and drink at the upcoming Sustainable Foods Summit. Organic products comprise the bulk of the estimated US $75 billion ecolabeled food and drink market. Most sales are from Europe and North America, which have legally protected organic logos. However, many new organic labels are being introduced in Asia, Latin America and other regions – over 84 countries have introduced national standards for organic products, with most having separate organic labels. The lack of harmonization between these standards is leading to multiple certifications and an exponential rise in organic ecolabels".

Organic foods movement which started about two decades back has achieved tremendous success because of the consumer perception that commercially produced foods by the mainstream industry was ignoring the environment and safety of the citizens while marketing their products. Most ecolabeling to day is focused on such consumers who are more concerned about sustainability of many activities in the day to day life routines. What is appalling is the proliferation of organizations selling their sustainability logos based on different and varying standards resulting in confusion for the consumers for making informed choices. It is against such a background that a need is keenly felt to consolidate various standards and bring about a uniform one for adoption by the entire spectrum of food industry.   

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

THE UGLY FACE OF GM FOOD TECHNOLOGY-WATCH THE UNFOLDING DRAMA

In spite of enormous data accumulating against GM foods, there does not appear to be any remorse on the part of the "creators of these phantoms" regarding the consequences and adverse impact of widespread promotion of GM foods through canards, half truths and untruths on future of humanity. The philosophy of the GM food "Warriors" seems to be "to make  hay while sun shines"! They do not seem to be least bothered regarding the loss to the consumers and farmers in terms of money and health by forcing them to condescend to GM foods. The vice-like grip GM food lobbyists has on national governments, especially in a country like the US is nothing short of being scandalous. Though many experts watching helplessly the onslaught of GM foods predict that these genetically mutilated versions of food might not last beyond ten years from now, what about the damage already caused by such reckless use of this Frankenstein technology on humans and the environment during the lat twenty years? Here is an interesting critique on this vital issue that gives deep insight into the wily schemes of the GM food lobby.

"Meanwhile, the science, like a child hiding under the bed while his parents are throwing dishes at each other, is trying to get someone's attention. Numerous studies have concluded that GM crops not only fall short of their agronomic claims, such as higher yields and reduced chemical use, but they also pose significant health risks in the form of toxins, allergens and inferior nutrition. A recent study conducted in Russia, also found that hamsters fed Monsanto's GM soy for two years gave birth to infertile offspring (in the third generation), caused increased rates of infant mortality, and stunted growth. It also caused strange pathologies in some of these animals, like hair growing inside their mouths. The infertility finding was particularly troubling. Most of the testing, conducted by industry and accepted by the FDA for approval, did not follow the animals for three generations. Given these kinds of potential harms, are you ready to feed this stuff to your family? Speaking of children, Monsanto recently sponsored the release of a children's activity book entitled, "Look Closer at Biotechnology." Apparently they want to do what they can to ensure that today's children won't have the same objection to this type of food that many of their parents do. According to the work book, which is filled with games and puzzles and cartoon-like pictures of children with happy faces, "You will see that biotechnology is being used to figure out how to: 1) grow more food; 2) help the environment; and 3) grow more nutritious food that improves our health." What could possibly be wrong with that? If only that were true. According to Michael Pollan, GM foods will disappear within a decade. Why? Because they do not live up to their claims and they do not provide any value, only risk, to consumers. "We've yet to see the GM product that the computer people would call the 'killer app'." The whole industry is being propped up by Monsanto's incestuous relationship with the government, and according to Pollan, the products themselves will prove to be a failed experiment that simply didn't live up to its promise. "In ten years we won't be talking about it [GM]. It hasn't been that successful." In other words, if there is any justice remaining in this country, the whole thing will just collapse like a house of cards." 
It sounds reasonable to assume that the GM food technology will wither away in due course because of the experience of millions of farmers who fail to attain yields boasted by the giant transnationals who developed these technologies under the field conditions. But if their clout on policy makers is any indication, GM food industry is becoming bolder by the day and according to recent reports, a 100% GM corn is about to be launched and promoted in the US market by world's most powerful retailing chain with "enticement and seduction"! If such a situation continues, the day is too far off when farmers will not be allowed to plant any thing not genetically modified! The startling revelation by one of the scientific multi generation studies recently definitely throw sufficient evidence of health damage by GM foods, at least in laboratory animals. All scientific evidence supporting safety of GM foods seems to have been based on single or two generation studies. All national governments are duty bound to stop any further research efforts to develop genetically modified foods, especially those which are transgenic in nature.

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

"ADULTERATING" ORGANIC FOODS?-A DESPICABLE ACTION!

The organic food industry is again being hauled up for practices not compatible with the well laid down guidelines for manufacturing such foods. It was only recently that this industry was being faulted for adding synthetic chemicals to organic food formulations through back door tactics by unduly influencing the approval agencies to consent to their requirements rather than the welfare of the consumer. More over there are insidious attempts going on to buy out many small scale organic food players through financial inducements by some of the food giants with deep pockets. Here comes another instance of this industry "cocking a snook" at the regulatory authorities by including in their baby food formulations synthetic chemicals not currently approved. If such trends continue, the immense faith and hope consumers have on organic foods are likely to be shaken badly. Here is a critique on this issue.

The Cornucopia Institute, a not-for-profit policy research organization based in Wisconsin, filed a formal legal complaint with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) against several infant formula manufacturers that are adding two synthetic preservatives to certified organic infant formula. The Organic Foods Production Act, passed by Congress in 1990, explicitly bans synthetic preservatives in organic food. "This is another blatant violation of the federal law governing organics by multi-billion dollar corporations that apparently think they can get away with anything," says Charlotte Vallaeys, Director of Farm and Food Policy at The Cornucopia Institute. The preservatives are beta carotene and ascorbyl palmitate, synthetics that are added to infant formula to prevent the oxidation and rancidity of ingredients such as the controversial patented supplements DHA and ARA, manufactured by Martek Biosciences Corporation (Royal DSM) and marketed as Life'sDHA®. "This is not the first time that the pharmaceutical companies and agribusinesses, that manufacture infant formula, have quietly added to organic formula the same synthetic ingredients that they use in their conventional versions without first seeking the legally required approval for use in organics," says Vallaeys. According to The Cornucopia Institute, there have been more than a dozen unapproved synthetic ingredients that have been added to organic infant formula over the past five years. The public interest group has filed numerous legal complaints with the USDA, asking for removal of unapproved synthetic ingredients like the DHA algal oil and ARA fungal oils, manufactured by Martek, which was recently acquired by the Dutch conglomerate Royal DSM. While the USDA has admitted publicly that these synthetics were added to organics due to an erroneous interpretation by previous USDA leadership, the agency, after being pressured by industry, has refused to take enforcement action and pull the suspect products from store shelves. The DSM/Martek DHA and ARA oils, labeled on infant formula as "c. cohnii oil" and "m. alpina oil," have been controversial since the preponderance of scientific published research concluded that they do not benefit infant development. "These ingredients, which now appear to require additional synthetics as preservatives, amount to a gimmicky and risky marketing ploy," added Vallaeys.

The "fraud", if it can be called one, is truly disgusting considering that the products under the scanner are targeted at young and tender infants with uncertain consequences. It should not be forgotten that organic food movement originated because of the "imperial" practices of the food industry controlled more or less by about a dozen multi national companies in using ingredients with suspect safety credentials. With more and more followers patronizing these foods, main stream industry is apparently worried about their bottom line and are now trying to swallow the smaller organic food players for usurping the virgin market. The US government can never be pardoned for its repeated attempts to dilute organic food standards and by introducing terms like 70% organic, 100% organic etc the consumer is being led astray. Such attitudes and mindset for supporting monopolistic food industry giants should not be allowed to continue and consumer rights organizations and activists must resist such attempts fiercely.  

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

ORGANIC MEATS-HOW SAFE ARE THEY?

There appears to be a mistaken belief that all organic foods are safe and they can be eaten under any conditions. This is now being challenged by new findings which go to show that organic foods, especially meat and poultry products are more vulnerable to a unique infection carried through the animals from the free ranging farms without being checked adequately. No doubt organic foods do protect consumers from undesirable chemical contaminants which can enter the production area through fertilizers, growth promoters and pesticides as it happens under conventional production system and safe processing helps destruction of harmful vectors like bacteria. But the new realization that the existing organic production practices fail to pre-empt the contamination from Toxoplasma gondi is a shocker many people may find it difficult to believe. As compared to industrial farming, organic food farms allow animals to graze freely exposing them to this ptotozoa which survives the slaughtering operations and gain entry into the food chain. Here is an insight into this new development which is of some significance to consumers. 

"Organic meat may carry a dangerous parasite which can transmit to people eating the products, if not cooked properly, a new study has warned. Researchers in the US found that a food-borne illness called toxoplasmosis, which is not as well known as salmonella or E. coli outbreaks, is caused by the toxoplasma parasite mostly found in organic meats. "The new trend in the production of free-range, organically raised meat could increase the risk of Toxoplasma gondii contamination of meat," the authors said. The researchers point out that eating undercooked meat whether organic or conventionally raised especially pork, lamb and wild game such as venison, is one of the main ways people become infected with the toxoplasma parasite. People can also contract the infection by not washing raw fruits and vegetables, which may have come in contact with soil contaminated by cat feces, they said. Cats, they said, can spread toxoplasmosis after eating other infected animals and then passing the parasite along in their feces".

No doubt almost half the world population carry Toxoplasma infection without any major consequences because of the effectiveness of their immune system. Even in a country like the US more than 30% of the population is reported to be carrying this infection without any significant consequences. Generally only pregnant women and immuno compromised individuals are vulnerable to the serious dangers arising out of infection with this parasitic protozoa. What is, how ever, confusing about the above report concerns the conclusion drawn by the study authors that industrial meats are safer than organic foods because of stricter and more stringent production standards. But what is ignored is that almost all food poisoning episodes during the last two decades originated from industrial meat production system with practically no organic foods involved in such cases. Besides the above report should not unduly alarm people consuming organic foods regularly unless they eat them without proper cooking. When normal cooking is practiced there need not be any apprehension about the risk involved in buying organic foods.

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

ORGANIC FOODS-NEED FOR A NEW APPROACH

Organic foods market is on a steady climb and can be expected to become a significant player in a few years to come. The major reason for people patronizing this version of food is because of apprehensions about the risks posed by the main stream food industry which is being hauled up for a series of serious safety violations requiring massive recalls of many suspected consignments from the market. The organic food certification is a complex procedure involving frequent checking and monitoring and like any human endeavor certification agencies can be vulnerable to mismanagement and some times manipulation causing some serious concern. It is a tribute to China that it is trying to make the organic certification process as transparent as possible to infuse more confidence among consumers, especially the international buyers. If the policy orchestrated recently is implemented organic foods from China may become darling of the prospective buyers. Here is a take on this development in that country.

"A senior staff member from one of China's 23 official certification bodies, who spoke on condition of anonymity, disclosed that
a new national standard will be unveiled in March to ease the chaos. The standard will include four important changes from 

the original, in 2005. This staff member has been working in organic food certification for about eight years. He said the first two changes

will concern the transition period, akin to probation, when a farm applies for the certification of land. It lasts for 24 or 36 months, 

depending on the crops grown there, and farms must begin following organic practices three or four months before the transition period.

Under the current standard, as soon as farms enter the transition, they can obtain yellow certification, indicating their products are moving

toward organic.Green certification is granted only if the farm passes probation. "The problem with this stage is that, under the current

standard, a farm can get a transition period certificate, even if it only stopped applying chemicals on the crops three or four months

earlier,"the senior staff member said. Under revised procedures, no certificates will be issued in the first 12 months of transition.

"That is to say, the farm will have to stop using chemicals for at least 15 months before it can receive a yellow certificate," he said.

Also, farmers will not be allowed to label their products "organic transition food", which has been used to denote food that was better

than ordinary but not as good as organic.The staff member also said the new regulations will set the acceptable level of pesticide residue

at zero.The current standard allows "one-20th of that found in ordinary food".

China can do well with some image make over after a series of food adulteration episodes that has shaken the confidence on its reliability and safety and this has caused some erosion of its food export business. China has a better chance of enforcing harsh control regimes to safeguard the image of its industry and there is no reason this new initiative will not succeed though corruption and corruptible enforcement officials can still derail the program. Probably other countries may have a lesson to learn from China in initiating such new novel features in the regulatory regime.

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

ORGANIC FOODS-BECOMING MORE RELEVANT THAN EVER!

Compared to main stream food industry the organic food sector is considered puny with its share in the market touching not even 2% but its continued growth, much faster than that achieved by the general food industry conveys a loud message that this sector is here to stay in spite of many impediments before it. It is unfortunate that organic foods are considered to be the prerogative of rich consumers because of the higher price tags they carry though such premium pricing is justified because of the high input costs required to get the necessary certification. That Australia remains the biggest producer of organic foods in the world tells its own story and the rich man's tag is further reinforced because of this factor. Certification process for organically produced foods is very complicated and costly and many developing countries find it non-affordable and non-feasible to get into this business. Here is a take on this emerging market and its dynamics.

"Australia has the largest area of organic farmland in the world at 12 million hectares, with the vast majority of this land comprising large rangelands for organic cattle production. However, the industry is comprised mainly of small operators, which has contributed to difficulties in providing consistency in the quantity and quality of produce. Other dampeners to growth have been intermittent drought conditions over the past five years. Despite this, over the five years through 2011-12, revenue in the industry has remained resilient. The industry will continue to grow strongly over the next five years, favoured by strong demand in domestic and export markets. Over the five years through 2016-17, industry revenue is anticipated to increase an annualised 12.1% to reach $892.3 million in 2016-17. Over this period, there will be increasing participation by supermarket chains in the organic market, downwards pressure on prices from growing economies of scale in production, and benefits from improvements in the certification of organic produce".

A larger question that confronts the world is whether this planet can support a total shift from conventional cultivation to organic version and there is no consensus that this can be achieved. In stead of going too far to produce organic foods every where it may be more realistic to evolve an intermediate mode of production where fertilizers only are allowed while growth hormones, pesticides and other harmful chemicals are avoided. Some times one gets a feeling that organic food certification is too fetish and academic in nature with doubtful impact. Of course most organic food admirers may scoff at this because of their abiding faith in the safety, nutrition and health promoting features. Still it is worth considering whether a new category of foods can be promoted that will be much more safer than conventionally raised foods.

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

ORGANIC FOODS UNDER THE SCANNER-STILL THE MOST PREFERRED!

In a world where use of chemicals has become common for every endeavor of man to gain maximum advantage from natural resources, any development that precludes use of these substances with doubtful safety credentials is bound to be eagerly accepted by the consumers. Organic foods clearly fall into this category as they are produced with no chemical fertilizers or synthetic pesticides giving an impression they are much more safe than conventionally raised food crops or animal food products. But there is always a catch in that even the best foods turned out from organic farms can get contaminated during storage, distribution and marketing and accepting blindly these products may not be absolutely safe. The supervisory and monitoring regimes that help in safeguarding the quality and safety of organic foods, no doubt are doing a yeoman service but difficulties in covering all farms, small and bag invariably leave out some for self restraint and discipline. Ultimately the consumer must heat process the food, for his own safety to prevent food related safety hazards. A recent appraisal of organic food sector reveals some gaps in monitoring efforts calling for action by the consumers to be aware of possibilities of contamination. 

"Organic foods are foods that are produced using methods that do not involve synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers; do not contain genetically modified organisms, and are not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or chemical food additives. For the vast majority of human history, agriculture can be described as organic; only during the 20th century was a large supply of new synthetic chemicals introduced to the food supply. As generally perceived, organic food may not be nutritionally superior than non-organic food. A report revealed that organic food are also immune to contamination and care should be taken while consuming it. Organic food production is a heavily regulated industry. Currently, the European Union, the United States, Canada, Japan and many other countries require producers to obtain special certification in order to market food as organic. The producers have to respond to site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. If livestock are involved, the livestock must be reared with regular access to pasture and without the routine use of antibiotics or growth hormones".

No doubt setting up an organic food farm is a tough task and only dedicated and industrious entrepreneurs can achieve success. While there can be many operational problems at the farm level, especially to ensure contamination free inputs, rigorous inspection and certification procedures can be time consuming and expensive. Because of these strict regimens, organic foods can never be cheap in the foreseeable future. Still many consumers do not feel the economic pinch as long as there is absolute safety and it is the responsibility of the government, farmers and the retailers to guarantee the safety of organic foods, being sought after increasingly by the concerned consumers. One of the critical questions that confront the policy makers is whether the normal commercial foods churned out by the industrial farms are really safe? While there cannot be a straight answer to this question, considering that life is a balance between potential risks and extent of benefits accrued, main stream foods cannot be considered unsafe measured by any major yardstick.

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

ORGANIC VS GM FOODS-NEW BATTLE LINE BEING DRAWN!

An aspect that has been ignored while debating on the issue of GM foods, is its impact on organic foods movement which provides people with an alternative life style with reasonable assurance of quality and safety of food they consume every day. Whether the GM foods are safe or not, their cultivation is fraught with dangers for farmers engaged in organic food production. The rigorous standards universally accepted for organic foods necessitate utmost care on the part of organic farms to ensure the crops they market are as natural as possible and no GM food can ever qualify to be called an organic food. It is in this context that alarms are being raised by protagonists of organic foods regarding real chances of their unique products getting contaminated with GM ingredients from fields growing GM crops. How this problem can be resolved is the million dollar question that defies any satisfactory answer. This issue has assumed serious dimension in a country like the US where cultivation of GM corn and soybean spans the entire country. It will be interesting to watch the development further to get a clue as to the best way to resolve the on-going confrontation between these two systems of food production, both playing their roles in meeting the food needs of American consumers.

It started last fall when a small group of CEOs from companies like Whole Foods and Stonyfield sat down for a private chat with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. They had come to personally plead their case: genetically engineered crops and their capacity to drift into and taint organic crops were no longer a small-scale problem. One fact was indisputable: genetically engineered crops are having a heyday. Since 1996, the U.S. acreage in GMO (for "genetically modified organism") soybeans has grown from 7 to 94 percent, with GMO corn skyrocketing from 1 to 88 percent of cultivation. Now the USDA was considering a petition for approval of "Roundup Ready" alfalfa, engineered by Monsanto to be herbicide- and pesticide-tolerant. Alfalfa holds a special status in the organic community. As a key feed for cows, it's inextricably linked to milk, often considered the gateway product for families new to organic foods. "We were not there to cry out our baby-blue eyes over ethics," says Stonyfield's Gary Hirshberg. After all, the $29 billion-a-year organic industry is now one of the fastest-growing sectors of U.S. agriculture and a rising source of jobs; its failure could have a real impact on food, farmers, and rural communities as well as consumers nationwide. "We were there to talk about money." Inside the Beltway, a new term in the national agricultural debate was catching on: "coexistence." Vilsack, a former Iowa governor and farmer advocate, was its champion, trying to find common ground between what have become the two fastest-growing—and incompatible—trends in food. "It's emotional for the organic guys, it's emotional for the agriculture-production guys, and it's emotional for me," Vilsack confided to The Daily Beast. "They should work together instead of trying to beat each other up. It's nuts." But the chance of yet another GMO crop drifting into and tainting the heart of their industry was too much for the organics leaders. "This is a pivotal issue for the 21st century," says Hirshberg, who has to buy soy for his yogurts from Canada, now that 92 percent of soy in the U.S. is genetically modified. "It's about an explosion of toxic chemicals accompanied by the deregulation of these crops, and there are many more crops in the pipeline."

How these two incompatible system can flourish in the same country is difficult to predict and whether one of them has to be annihilated for the other to grow is also a critical question. That GM foods are not accepted world wide is well known and almost all countries, even when safety clearances are given mandate the industry to differentiate GM foods through appropriate label declaration. The US may be an exception for the time being but this country whose president promised more transparency in food labeling during his campaign has gone back on his words, possibly under pressure from the GM food lobby! Public outrage on this score is being manifested by massive consumer rage and it is a question of time before this country succumbs to people's wishes.

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

THE HALAL FOOD "SURGE"-NEW DEVELOPMENTS

True Islamic followers consume only "Halal" foods which are raised and processed as per the norms prevalent among the followers of this faith for centuries. Halal Food Industry has acquired a stature beyond religion because of wide skepticism regarding the safety of modern industrial foods and its growth has been phenomenal during the last one decade. Many consumers seem to prefer Halal foods if organic alternatives are not readily available because of their belief that Halal foods are safer to consume. Halal system mainly refers to foods, especially meat products, food contact materials and pharma products which are permissible under Islamic law. Other products are either Haram (forbidden) or Mashbooh (questionable). Many countries insist on clear labeling of Halal foods to enable consumers make a willful choice. Halal system of processing meat animals is not universally accepted because of the bleeding method during slaughtering and hence the requirement for specific labeling. As Halal foods gain increasing acceptance efforts are on to standardize different products and evolve universal certification procedures. Recent developments in Halal foods are highlighted in the following report.

"From farm to fork, Halal is simply the better meat and its major health and business benefits help growth in the market, according to industry specialists. The worldwide Halal food industry is estimated to be over $650 billion, and this segment currently accounts for approximately 16 per cent of the global food market. Speakers at a recent forum agreed that the immediate potentials for investors of Halal food market are in acquiring high net worth Halal food producers, slaughterhouses, ingredients production, Halal livestock, Halal raw meat and Halal industrial parks. The forum was jointly organised by Al Islami Foods and CNBC Arabia. Industry experts who were invited to the forum include Al Islami Foods deputy chief executive officer Hamid Badawi, sales and marketing head Alaa Kamal of US-based Midamar Middle East and general manager Wahid Kandil of Canada-based Prairie Halal Foods Middle East. "From a business point of view, Halal has some major health and business benefits. That is why the market is developing. Attractive growth numbers are grabbing attention of investors," Badawi said on the fast growth of the market. "A Global Halal Standard and Global Halal Certification," Hamid asserted, "is key to resolve the sensitive issues faced by the industry, otherwise the market will remain fragmented and in regional hubs." Legislations for Halal certification vary from one Islamic school of thought, called Madhab in Arabic, to another. Each school of thought and country has its own legislations for Halal certification. Malaysia is one of the key players in the global Halal sector, the others being Australia, Brazil, Thailand, Indonesia and Brunei, with China, France and Japan planning to enter soon. Currently, the market is in its natural evolution process. However, regions and countries differ on Shariah rules of standards and certifications. At present, the Halal market is in the brain-storming phase of developing Common Halal Standard and Common Halal Certification that are acceptable to all four Madahib of Islamic world".

There are lot of similarities between "Kashrut" foods of Jews and Halal foods of Muslims and both sectors are attracting consumers from outside their faith. During the last few years lot of scientific research has gone into these food systems and it is wrong to believe that they are not science based. The root for evolution of such distinct food systems can be traced to the early phase of the religions when there were limited followers and the need to protect them from food poisoning. With the advent of modern science, both Halal foods and Kosher foods have evolved keeping in view the safety of their followers. One advantage for a general consumer belonging to other faiths is that they can choose what they want from among the products in the market without following the diktats from respective religions while followers of the religions have to compulsorily take these products as part of life. The fact that established food industry players are entering Halal food sector reflects the inherent strength of these foods though market considerations do play a part in such investment decisions.

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

ANOTHER "EULOGY" FOR ORGANIC FOODS- A SCIENTIFIC FINDING

Protagonists of Organic foods make some claims which are difficult to be sustained based on science. One such claim is regarding yield of crops from normal soil when organic farming system is deployed. But the latest studies carried out in the US do indicate that yields can be equal to or greater than under traditional agriculture using chemical fertilizers, high levels of water and application of pesticides. This long term study spread over 30 years deserves attention by planners and farmers while deciding about any strategy to evolve sustainable agriculture in the coming years. Here is a report about the significance of this study for the long term future of the planet.

"Rodale Institute today announces the latest results of the Farming Systems Trial, America's longest running side-by-side comparison of organic and conventional farming practices. Originally created to study the transition from conventional to organic production, this 30-year study also examined productivity, soil quality, energy and economics. Key findings show:

-- Organic yields match or surpass conventional yields.
-- Organic yields outperform conventional yields in years of drought.
-- Organic farming systems build rather than deplete soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system.
-- Organic farming uses 45 percent less energy and is more efficient.
-- Conventional agricultural systems produce 40 percent more greenhouse gases.
-- Organic farming systems are more profitable than conventional farming systems.

After 30 years of a rigorous side-by-side comparison, the Rodale Institute confidently concludes that organic methods are improving the quality of our food, the health of our soils and water, and the conditions of our nation's rural areas. Organic agriculture creates more jobs, provides a livable income for farmers, and can restore America's confidence in our farming community and food system. "America's farming techniques affect the health of our families, our communities, and our planet. The Farming Systems Trial shows that organic farming is the healthiest and safest way to feed the world, provide much-needed jobs, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and protect precious natural resources," says Mark "Coach" Smallwood, Executive Director of Rodale Institute. "The Farming Systems Trial clearly documents in a replicated, scientific fashion, that many of the current myths are not true. Organic agriculture does not result in the grower losing money, does not result in lower yields, or more expensive management practices," says Dr. Elaine Ingham, Chief Scientist at Rodale Institute. "The next step forward is to educate growers, whether they are conventional or organic, in the methods used in the Farming Systems Trial to assure equal or better yields through farming practices that do not harm the environment." The trial is slated to continue with a new focus on nutrition and human health. "We have shown that organic can feed the world. Now it is time to take on the matter of feeding the world well," said Smallwood".

One of the significant findings is that unlike the input intensive conventional agriculture, organic system does not destroy the soil health that enables the farmer to continuously use the land for many many years. Also notable is the relatively less carbon emission reported under organic cultivation mode. While it is agreed that farmers are well advised to replace their conventional practices with organic production system, what is not clear is the logistics involved in such switch over. Input materials like organic manure, safe natural crop protectants and cover crops are scarce resources while the actual practical methodology needs to be popularized through training under experienced practitioners. Though the studies have shown that organic food production can ensure increased production there has to be a coordinated effort at global level to put into practice what is already known and achieve the desired results. Like the recent UNO meeting on junk foods, a similar international consultation is called for to take appropriate action and evolve strategy to transform the current farming practices into organic system.

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