Water "Biome"-A peep into the world of bacteria in water and its significance

Water borne diseases are known to cause havoc in human society since long and some of the diseases caused by them can prove to be fatal. It is this concern which is driving an entire industry called water purification industry that offers many technologies and equipment for supposedly making water potable. A new study questions the rationale of such an approach in using chemicals to purify water and hypotheses that natural water supply containing millions of bacteria is capable of purifying itself needing no elaborate treatment through intervention of any technology. It sounds crazy and may even be scary to believe such a claim though scientists may have their own rationale to come out with such a finding. In today's world even a child may not accept untreated water from a tap as is the case in most parts of India because of fear of serious diseases like cholera, dysentery and jaundice. The report of a scientific group on this issue can be seen below and it is very difficult to understand the logic of such an argument. 

"A glass of clean drinking water actually contains 10 million bacteria. But that is how it should be - clean tap water always contains harmless bacteria, researchers said. These bacteria and other microbes grow in the drinking water treatment plant and on the inside of our water pipes, which can be seen in the form of a thin, sticky coating - a so-called biofilm. All surfaces from the raw water intake to the tap are covered in this biofilm. These findings show that the diversity of species of bacteria in water pipes is huge, and that bacteria may play a larger role than previously thought. Among other things, the researchers suspect that a large part of water purification takes place in the pipes and not only in water purification plants. "A previously completely unknown ecosystem has revealed itself to us. Formerly, you could hardly see any bacteria at all and now, thanks to techniques such as massive DNA sequencing and flow cytometry, we suddenly see eighty thousand bacteria per millilitre in drinking water," said Catherine Paul from Lund University in Sweden. At least a couple of thousand different species live in the water pipes. According to the researchers there is a connection between the composition of bacteria and water quality. "We suspect there are 'good' bacteria that help purify the water and keep it safe- similar to what happens in our bodies. Our intestines are full of bacteria, and most of the time when we are healthy, they help us digest our food and fight illness," said Paul. Although the research was conducted in southern Sweden, bacteria and biofilms are found all over the world, in plumbing, taps and water pipes. This knowledge will be very useful for countries when updating and improving their water pipe systems, researchers said. "The hope is that we eventually may be able to control the composition and quality of water in the water supply to steer the growth of 'good' bacteria that can help purify the water even more efficiently than today," said Paul.

Though most people to day, educated on a staple diet of science may question the logic of the above findings, anecdotal episodes regarding millions of people in India living healthy by drinking water from natural resources in village area defies our understanding. In most metropolitan regions, it is hardly possible to find any people without a bottle of packed water in their hands because of the common perception that municipal water supply cannot be trusted for its safety. Under such a contradictory scenario what to believe or where lies the truth defy an answer.  Are we to believe that the multibillion dollar water purification industry has been taking us for a ride for decades by insisting on installing domestic purifiers or the large scale urban water purification systems working across the world are redundant?  Why is that health experts advise people to boil water before consumption? If the water pipes, storage tanks and water taps have biofilms of friendly bacteria, where is the need for any elaborate processing to make such waters potable? WHO of UNO must intervene to make the record straight for common man across the world to adopt a living practice that ensures safe water for drinking.

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

GRAS Vs GRAS-The great food additives deception on the consumer

Can any normal person be proud to be an American to day when it comes to food safety and medical services prevalent in that country? Of course on many counts Americans can hold their heads high due to their hard working, generally honest and efficient way of life styles developed over a period of two centuries. With economic might and free enterprise spirit, there appears to be a shift in the power from the average citizen to the military-industry complex that emerged after world war II. This is more than amplified by the power and economic muscle of vested interests that lord over the citizen to day. The nexus between powerful industrial lobbies with least concern for the well being of their people and vote garnering politicians is too apparent in every sphere of activity in that country. Read the report below about the behavior of food industry in that country and how effective or ineffective is the food safety vigilance system there putting the health of the citizens in great jeopardy. Reference here is about the so called GRAS system of allowing hundreds of chemicals with questionable safety record being allowed to be used by the food safety administration agency in the US. 

"When President Eisenhower signed the Food Additives Amendment of 1958, he established a regulatory program intended to restore public confidence that chemicals added to foods are safe. In the intervening 56 years, the basic structure of the law has changed little. However, the regulatory programs the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) established to implement the law have fallen behind over time as the agency strived to keep up with the explosion in the number and variety of chemicals in food, and to manage its huge workload with limited resources. The 1958 law exempted from the formal, extended FDA approval process common food ingredients like vinegar and vegetable oil that are "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS). It may have appeared reasonable at the time, but that exemption has been stretched into a loophole that has swallowed the law. The exemption allows manufacturers to make safety determinations that the uses of their newest chemicals in food are safe without notifying the FDA. The agency's attempts to limit these undisclosed GRAS determinations by asking industry to voluntarily inform the FDA about their chemicals are insufficient to ensure the safety of our food in a global marketplace with a complex food supply. Furthermore, no other developed country in the world has a system like GRAS to provide oversight of food ingredients. Why Did Companies Forgo the FDA Notification Review Process  Because of the apparent frequency with which companies make GRAS safety determinations without telling FDA, NRDC undertook a study to better understand companies' rationale for not participating in FDA's voluntary notification program. First, we built a list of companies and the chemicals they made. Then we reviewed public records, the company websites, and trade journals to identify chemicals that appear to be marketed in the U.S. pursuant to an undisclosed GRAS determination, i.e. without notification to the FDA. All told, we were able to identify 275 chemicals from 56 companies that appear to be marketed for use in food based on undisclosed GRAS safety determinations. This is likely the tip of the iceberg -- we previously published in an industry journal an estimate that there have been 1,000 such undisclosed GRAS determinations. For each chemical we identified in this study, we did not find evidence that FDA had cleared them. In addition, using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we obtained from the FDA copies of communications between the agency and companies who voluntarily sought agency review of their GRAS determinations. We found that this glimpse into the review process shows that often the agency has had serious concerns about the safety of certain chemicals, and that companies sometimes make safety decisions with little understanding of the law or the science. As discussed later, companies found their chemicals safe for use in food despite potentially serious allergic reactions, interactions with common drugs, or proposed uses much greater than company-established safe doses. On those occasions when the FDA is asked to review a GRAS determination, the agency rejects or triggers withdrawal of about one in five notices. Moreover, the public has even less information about the many substances with GRAS determinations that are never submitted to the agency in the first place -- and which may pose a much greater danger. It is often virtually impossible for the public to find out about the safety -- or in many cases even the existence -- of these chemicals in our food. NRDC believes that"Generally Recognized as Secret" rather than "Generally Recognized as Safe" is a better name for the GRAS loophole. A chemical cannot be "generally recognized as safe" if its identity, chemical composition, and safety determination are not publicly disclosed. If the FDA does not know the identity of these chemicals and does not have documentation showing that they are safe to use in food, it cannot do its job. In an increasingly global marketplace where many additives and foods are imported into the United States, this loophole presents an unsettling situation that undermines public confidence in the safety of food and calls into question whether the FDA is performing its duty to protect public health. The problem is rooted in a law adopted in 1958 when Eisenhower was president and Elvis was drafted. It is time for the FDA and Congress to fix the problems. In the meantime, consumers need to demand that their grocery stores and their favorite brands sell only those food products with ingredients that the FDA has found to be safe."

One has to be sympathize with the condition prevailing in that country in spite of stringent laws that exist on the statute books. No where else in the world the food manufacturers are given free hand in deciding what chemical is to be added based on flimsy scientific data sourced from within or from doubtful sources. It is true to redefine GRAS as secret list of chemicals used by the industry without proving they are safe. Can this continue for long? Citizens must raise their voice against such an obnoxious system that controls their lives. Compared to USA, EU countries are some what better off as there is better governance as far as safety monitoring is concerned. It is time that all GRAS additives are brought under a critical scanner and compel the industry to use only those found to be safe through impeccable scientific scrutiny.

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

How safe is your food picked up from the market? Here is a useful guide

Are you confused by the label that appears on all packed foods available in the market? It is true that consumer has lot of information about the contents inside a pack on the label printed but the most crucial question remains unanswered even if you scan the label with a magnifying glass! That question is whether the contents inside are safe for consumption even after the expiry of the expiration date printed on the pack? There are many pundits who advise you to see whether the pack is bloated, torn, leaky etc which are some of the tell tale signs of product deterioration. But what if there is no apparent or visible changes on such date expired packs? Many countries are advising its citizens to curtail food wastage which, according to some estimates, can be as high as that capable of feeding almost the entire population of poor people inhabiting the continents of Asia, Africa and South America! One of the actions suggested is to test any date expired packs for signs of off color, off odor, unattractive appearance or touch feeling before tasting a speck of it for the ultimate decision whether it should be tossed out of your kitchen. Here is guideline which this blogger found very useful to take a decision on this matter. 

"Keep It or Toss It?  Browse Shelf Life Information By Category Fruits, Vegetables, Dairy & Eggs, Meat & Poultry, Fish & Shellfish, Nuts & Legumes, Grains & Pasta, Condiments & Oils, Herbs & Spices, Snacks & Sweets, Baked Goods, Beverages"   

Though the information provided in this web site is very useful, it cannot be taken as the Gospel truth. Individuals must take an appropriate decision based on their perception and understanding of the data furnished by the publisher. After all the sensitivity of foods, even if they are safe as measured by other yardsticks can vary from person to person and as far as possible one must try to buy the most recently packed foods if feasible. Also to be borne in mind is the scientific truth that most foods with a one month expiration date at room temperature (30C) is likely to keep good for another two months easily in a refrigerator at less than 10C. Till a non-destructive test is discovered to "divine" the safety of foods in a sealed pack, consumers have to depend on their common sense to decide whether a particular food is safe or not! 

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

"Eating" plastics through daily foods! Modern society's worst crime against future generations!

Plastics have become so omnipotent in our every day lives that we take them for granted like air and water using them for every thing we do from storing water and foods to cooking foods and packing the foods in plastic bags and containers. The present situation vis-a-vis use of plastics is indeed alarming because consumers either do not understand the lethal consequences of using them indiscriminately or do not take seriously so many scientific data implicating them in serious life threatening health disorders including cancer. Plastics started their entry into food industry in a humble way with only a few of them being used for wrapping the foods. But to day there are a wide choice of plastics many of which have become main stream containers and cooking paraphernalia and sadly no one knows for certain what will be its consequences in the long run. Limited studies involving migration limits under so called simulated conditions within the four walls of a laboratory might have given a false sense of comfort to the people who use them for various culinary tasks but no worthwhile study with human subjects through clinical trials can be cited to establish the credentials of even a single plastic substance as an absolutely safe food contact application material! Here is a timely warning from Malaysia which exemplifies the inherent dangers beckoning humanity through such whole hearted adoption of plastics in our daily lives.. 

"Storing food and water in plastic containers may be convenient but is it entirely safe? Environmental scientists warn that tiny amounts of synthetic chemicals used in the processing, packaging and storing of the food we eat can leach, interact and cause long-term damage to our health. Concerns have been raised in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, part of the British Medical Journal group. While these minute quantities in themselves do no harm, no one knows how safe we are from a lifetime's exposure to these chemicals through eating food previously wrapped, or stored or cooked in or with plastics. A study published in early 2008 in Toxicology Letters suggested that hot liquids and foods exacerbate leaching in BPA-containing plastics. When researchers poured boiling water into polycarbonate drinking bottles, it caused up to 55 times more Bisphenol A (BPA) to seep out than room temperature water had. Phthalates, the chemicals that make a Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) container flexible, can migrate out of the plastic when it's heated. Phthalates can leach into food, resulting in hormone imbalances and birth defects. Some of the chemicals in plastics that could cause concern are regulated and some plastics are said to be of food grade quality. However, we are concerned that consumers who eat packaged or processed foods are likely to be chronically exposed to low levels of these substances throughout their lives. The use-and-throw culture of plastics has created a necessity for its recycling. Though organised sectors exist, the unorganised recycling industry also flourishes. It is here that there is a possibility of contamination of different grades of plastics. If end-use products produced from such plastics are in the form of lunch boxes and water bottles, especially for children, they are further going to have an impact on health.  We also overlook the leaching of chemical contaminants from land fillings into the ground water by mismanagement of plastic wastes. Plastic is made by heating components of crude oil or natural gas, combining many chemicals in a process called polymerisation. In addition to the basic polymers, plastics also contain additional chemical components called additives, which are added in small amounts to alter the properties in the polymers in the desired way and/or simplify their processing. The plastics industry tells us that the polymerisation process binds the chemicals together. However this process is never 100% perfect and some of the chemicals may migrate out or leach from the plastic product and into whatever contacts it – our food, our water, etc. Many of the chemicals in plastic can disrupt the normal functioning of the endocrine system of most animals, including humans. The effects of these endocrine disruptors can be devastating and permanent. Embryos and the very young are the most vulnerable to this attack on the endocrine system because of their developing bodies. An assessment of the state of the science of endocrine disruptors prepared by a group of experts for the United Nations Environment Programme and World Health Organisation in 2012 states that the diverse systems affected by endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) likely include all hormonal systems and range from those controlling the development and function of reproductive organs to the tissues and organs regulating metabolism and satiety. The effects on these systems can lead to obesity, infertility or reduced fertility, learning and memory difficulties, adult-onset diabetes or cardiovascular disease, as well as a variety of other diseases. At times, people set to flame mixed rubbish.  Burning waste containing plastic and rubber can also release toxic chemicals and gases such as dioxins in the environment. The plastic industries' response to the warnings of environmentalists is that the toxic chemicals that may migrate from all plastics happen at extremely low levels that cause no harm. We recognise that there is lack of research to make definitive statements on the risks of plastic toxicity, but there is enough to invoke the precautionary principle. CAP calls for the precautionary principle to be applied.  If there is any doubt about the safety or health effects of a chemical, it should be prohibited until it can be proven benign. Erring on the side of risk inevitably exposes the public to major health hazards. Protecting human health and the environment from the hazards of plastic, requires precaution. CAP urges consumers to avoid placing hot food and drinks in plastics or cooking food with plastic ladles and storing hot food in plastic containers/sheets/liners/bags.There are many options available such as glass, ceramic, stainless steel to store or heat food, and traditional wrapping and liners for cooking such as leaves and cotton/linen cloth."

Back to nature movements advocate shunning of all plastics and go back to nature. Use of plant leaves, sheaths, etc is an alternative option to plastics. Imagine in a country like India, plastic based banana leaves look alike materials are flooding the market, increasingly being adopted by the consumers on the basis of cost considerations. People are forgetting that eating hot foods from banana leaves, besides being safe also is healthy as natural phytochemicals leached out into the food are health promoting unlike plastic leachates. There are many other examples to illustrate this point and consumers are better advised to avoid plastics especially for carrying or cooking foods under hot conditions that can increase the dangerous leachates to unbearable levels. Government ban on plastic carry bags looks more a gimmick than any real intention of preventing the industry from manufacturing more dangerous thin plastic bags that attract the consumers for use in their daily lives.   

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

                   

Food safety bill being "dressed up"- Will the Indian citizen ever be freed from consuming unsafe and substandard foods?

How serious is the federal government in India in safeguarding the health of its citizens? If past history is any indication all programs and activities emanating from Delhi have been focusing on rehabilitating the bureaucrats rather than putting in place a deterrent regime to punish adultrators and fraudsters who are violating even the diluted food standards with impunity without getting punished for their heinous crimes. With great fanfare the food safety act was promulgated by the previous government, a toothless body called food authority was set up and a technically "innocent" bureaucrat was promptly appointed as its chairman! Rest is history. Though maintaining the food quality and insuring food against adultration and fraud is a state subject, federal government comes into the picture for bringing in a uniform quality and safety frame work for the states to work in harmony. With strictures being passed by judicial courts one after the other during the last 2-3 years on the deficiencies of the act, it is a welcome development that the new government is mulling over its modifications seriously. Whether this exercise will end up producing a "mouse" at the end remains to be seen. Read further below regarding this development at Delhi. 

"The Government will revisit the food safety Act to make it more stringent to check growing instances of adulteration and contamination. "Two days ago, we set up a task force, which will submit its suggestions in 45 days, which will be then be put up in public domain for inviting comments. Imported food items will also be covered by this," Health Minister JP Nadda informed the Lok Sabha on Monday. Replying to a calling by PV Midhun Reddy of YSR Cong and Satyapal Singh of BJP, Nadda admitted that food adulteration and contamination were one reason for the rising burden of non-communicable diseases across the country. "It is also proposed to revisit the punishment stipulated for milk adulteration and make it more stringent," Nadda said, adding that the Government would focus creating infrastructure and manpower to face the challenge, such as setting up testing labs under public-private partnership. Nadda further added that 13,571 out of 72,200 food samples analysed in 2013-14 were adulterated, resulting in launch of 10,325 civil and criminal cases. He also informed the House that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India was at present engaged in an exercise for harmonisation of the maximum residue limit of pesticides in food commodities. Earlier, Reddy said the threat from adulteration and contamination of water, milk, oil, etc, was "greater than the threat from terrorism", as it would take more lives in the long run. Terming the unregulated use of pesticides and antibiotics as "slow poison" and the use of hormone injections on cows to increase milk yield, as a more "serious crime than cow slaughter", Reddy particularly urged the Government to ensure "Shudh Bharat" (Pure India)" along with the initiative, "Swachch Bharat." 

The statistics put out by the minister tells a pathetic story about the safety programs of the government. In a country like India with a population of 1.2 billion the number of samples picked up for testing was relatively small working out to 200 samples a day across 30 states, again a paltry 7 samples per state! One wonders what type of inspection thousands of so called "Food Inspectors" in the pay roll of the states are doing if not checking foods in the market for quality and safety violations? Has the surveillance system in the country failed miserably? This is all the more appalling considering that more than 70% of food industry is in the hands of the so called "unorganized sector" which produces hundreds of diverse products with indifferent quality and safety credentials. When an enlightened law maker from Andhra Pradesh stated that adultrated foods pose much greater threat to the country than that posed by terrorists, we have to applaud him for stating the obvious. . 

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

"Globe trotting" chickens-America's new folly!

Though America is known as the biggest beef eating nation, chicken has its own place in the cuisines of people in this country. Naturally chicken consumption goes up with people having more and more disposable income. U S Department of Agriculture (USDA) is supposed to regulate poultry industry and recent spate of safety episodes and unsavory reports about how the poultry farmers are running their show, can only generate a sense of disgust on one side and sympathy for the consumers on the other side. To day the US consumers eat about 18 million tons of chicken annually and the demand for white meat is ever increasing due to better awareness about health and nutrition. This demand has pushed the poultry industry to adopt many unfair, some times dangerous, practices compromising on safety and quality of the environment. The miserable conditions under which birds are raised in the American poultry farms are increasingly being criticized by animal activists and environmentalists and consumers should not be faulted if they have increasingly hostile opinion about them. A recent news report which is confirmed by the USDA speaks about the plans for sending frozen chicken carcass to China for converting into processed products and bringing them back for distribution and sale in the country! What a crazy idea! Knowing the reputation or rather the notoriety of China in the area of food safety, why Americans are taking such a big risk is a mystery. Read further below:. 

According to a report issued by the official website for the USDA and brought to the public through Living Traditionally, four chicken processing plants in China have been given the green light to process U.S.-raised chicken and ship it back to our country for distributive sale in groceries. Also, the processed poultry will not require a country-of-origin label and U.S. inspectors won't be on site at Chinese processing plants. With China's history for the avian influenza and food-borne illnesses, many food health experts are worried. Tom Super, a spokesman for the National Chicken Council, made a recent statement in the Houston Chronicle about the USDA's decision. "Economically, it doesn't make much sense. Think about it: A Chinese company would have to purchase frozen chicken in the U.S., pay to ship it 7,000 miles, unload it, transport it to a processing plant, unpack it, cut it up, process/cook it, freeze it, repack it, transport it back to a port, then ship it another 7,000 miles. I don't know how anyone could make a profit doing that." What Tom Super doesn't take into account is the fact that the USDA is allowing this so U.S. companies could cut cost through outsourcing. To put this all into perspective, American poultry processors are paid roughly $11. In China, the same worker makes significantly less at the USD average of $1 to $2. As a matter of fact, this tactic is already being done for U.S. seafood, specifically domestically-caught Pacific salmon and Dungeness crab, as reported by the Seattle Times. Right now, food safety enthusiasts and news sites are spreading awareness of the pending USDA agreement. They hope to stop the Chinese-processed chicken from ever reaching supermarkets and school lunchrooms. In that regard, do you side with the people whom are concerned, or do you think they're overreacting?

As the report rightly points out it does it make sense for an American chicken to go on a glob trotting exercise before ending up back on the dining tables of the consumers there. America is a country known to subsidize its farmers heavily forking out billions of dollars each year and probably poultry farmers also might be expecting such largess from the government which after all is a captive organization of the industry lobby. But the carbon foot print of these globe trotting chickens because of its long journey can be disastrous to the world and there must be strong reservations that should be expressed by other indignant nations. Even American citizens must boycott these chicken products for which they must insist on putting the "country of origin" on the label of these "China returned" chickens. Probably many informed consumers and consumer activist organizations are gearing up for stopping the deal as they feel it will affect the people at large and school going kids especially. Good luck to them!

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

Food standards bill to be revamped?-Will it make any difference?

The Food safety and standards act under which FSSAI works to over see the food quality and safety in the country is going to be overhauled is a good news. But in what form it will emerge from the government closets remains to be seen. According to spokesman of the present government, the Act will be "amended" to be in conformity to various judgments pronounced by the judiciary in the country and also professes to take into consideration representations received from from various stakeholders regarding the difficulties faced by them. One of the severest criticisms of the Act is that it is administered by a ministry which has nothing to do with foods and therefore lacks the wherewithal to understand and administer the same. Though it is supposed to be "managed" by the FSSAI, the umbilical chord with the ministry is so strong that it has very little independence in practice. Besides FSSAI has practically no technical and technological expertise and independent policing force to enforce the rules and regulations strictly and amicably. Now that government is taking up the "amendments" for incorporation of new provisions or withdrawing some of the existing ones, one hopes the Act in its final form will be more conducive to operate as far as honest manufacturers and food handlers are concerned while being ruthless in dealing with fraudsters and food criminals who jeopardize the health of unsuspecting citizens. Here is a gist of the report that talks about the recasting of the Act mentioned above.  

'The government on Tuesday withdrew from the Rajya Sabha a bill related to food safety and standards which it wants to amend further taking into account recent court judgments. The Food Safety and Standards (Amendment) Bill, 2014 was withdrawn by Minister of State for Health Shripad Yasso Naik. The previous UPA government had proposed amendments to the Act to expand the composition of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and dispense with certain conditions in public interest while making regulations on food. The bill was introduced in Rajya Sabha on February 19, this year. However, the move to withdraw the bill was objected by P Rajeeve (CPI-M), who said it was under consideration of a Standing Committee. "On the basis of this statement, the House has no legislative competence," Rajeeve said, referring to papers apparently provided to him by the government. PJ Kurien, who was in the Chair, said the objection is "pertinent" and if the bill is with the Committee, the House cannot withdraw it. Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi then told the House that a report had been received from the Committee. Following Naqvi's intervention, Kurien said that it is very clear that a report had come from the Committee and it is on record with the Minister also having said so. The motion was then adopted and the Food Safety and Standards (Amendment) Bill 2014 withdrawn. An official statement released last month said the bill needs to be further amended after taking into account judgements of the Supreme Court, Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court, and representations received by the government and other recent developments".  

India is known for its legal acumen in drafting and enacting laws and regulations which can compare well with any international regulatory documents but what is lacking is the focused application and effective implementation of the same country wide. Specifically referring to foods, being a state subject there is very little the federal government can do except "advising" the states from legal, technical and implementation perspectives. This is the reason why many state governments are lethargic in enforcing the laws relating to food safety. The allure of funds from Delhi can work only up to a limit and the resolve to improve consumer welfare and industry's working environment must come from the states. If necessary central government must consider amending the constitution to evolve a powerful regulatory authority, answerable to only the Parliament, with world class implementing infrastructure. By just tinkering with a sloppy food safety law at it exists now is not going to be of much use to the citizen!  

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

Fresh Fish and super markets-A big contradiction?

The word "fresh" is one of the most misused terminologies by the food industry as most consumers want to eat their food as fresh as possible. Unfortunately there is no unanimity regarding the exact meaning of the word "fresh", different stake holders meaning different things. Consumer expects that fresh fish should the one caught immediately prior to be sold to him while the sellers aim at selling them before deterioration starts setting in. The arbitrator viz the government wants to ensure it is not dangerous to the health of the consumer. The food scientists and quality experts consider any thing fresh if the eating quality is essentially same as that when the fish was caught. In a food like fish which deteriorates in quality pretty fast the seller cannot afford to delay the time lapse between catching and selling too much though to day's technology has the wherewithal to keep it fresh for a few hours after catching. The reported situation in some of the super markets in the UK indicates that fish branded as "fresh" were actually caught 15 days back and consumers are buying a product with practically 80-90% of its life gone! Here is the low down on this tricky issue. 

"Mr Chivers said: Supermarkets selling 'fresh' fish that's really 15 DAYS old  if not in the past few days. 'They think the fish is going to be fresh and tasty. But some of the samples we tested they are not going to enjoy at all.' He used the Torry scale – an industry standard system to measure freshness – in which experts rate the fish's physical characteristics to estimate how long ago it was caught.  Mr Chivers found some fish was in danger of going off quickly. 'These are not off, but give them a day in a domestic fridge and you would begin to taste an off odour,' he told the Sunday Mirror. Current guidelines say fish can be sold as fresh if it has been kept on ice since being caught. Morrisons' fisheries manager, Huw Thomas, said: 'Careful planning ensures that the time between the fish being caught and then sold on our counters is minimal . In our experience, the Torry scale is a reliable tool for judging quality, but not food safety or how long each fish has been out of the water.' A Tesco spokesman said: 'We ensure all our fish is of good quality.' Asda also defended the freshness of its products, saying: 'We are the only retailer to publish how and where we source our wild fish.'A Sainsbury's spokesman said all its fish would remain 'good quality for the duration of its shelf life'"

While consumer is the "King" as far the market is concerned, the manufacturers and marketeers do expect some consideration for their logistical difficulties in procuring and distribution of the product. Industry normally endeavors to minimize the lapse of time between procurement and delivery to the consumer. However consumer is willing to give reasonable time and he expects the industry to be truthful. Where is the necessity of declaring a 15 days old fish as fresh? As long as such declarations are not made consumer may be willing to patronize the brand as long as it tastes good to his palates. Those who sell stale fish cannot be expected to remain in the market for too long and the market will take care of those indulging in  such deceiving practices. Fluid milk vendors often use the words "Dairy Fresh", again to exploit the weakness of consumers to all such things which are fresh (except for liquor). Ultimately under a branded marketing regime, whether fresh or not the quality and safety of the product only can ensure survival of the brands. 

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

MAKING PEANUTS SAFE FOR ALLERGIC POPULATIONS-NEW DEVELOPMENTS

Food allergy is a major handicap to millions of people around the world. There are eight established allergy foods which include tree nuts like pecan, walnut, pistachio and coconut, peanuts, soybean, wheat, maize, milk, some fruits, vegetables and spices. Food allergy is supposed to be an adverse immune response to specific proteins present in these foods. The Immunoglobulin (IgE) sends white blood cells as soon as the allergic food is consumed mistaking it for an invader resulting in symptoms like dermatitis, gastrointestinal and respiratory stress conditions including anaphylactic conditions that can be fatal, if not attended to immediately. There are many studies aimed at ameliorating or reducing the severity of the effects of allergic foods in the past as well as at present though no satisfactory way has been found so far to deal with this serious human handicap and give relief to affected persons. A recent report from USA claims that the allergic effect of peanut can be reduced up to 80% which is a remarkable achievement. Read further on this ground breaking development below. 

"The technique involves delivering pulses of ultraviolet light using a system that consists of two lamps filled with xenon, two cooling blowers, one treatment chamber with a conveyor belt, and a control module. The bursts of light reduce the allergenic potential of the major peanut proteins Ara h1-h3, so that human antibodies don't recognize them as allergens. So far he has been able to remove 80 percent of peanut allergens from whole peanuts, with the ultimate goal to remove 99.9 percent (Yang says removing 100 percent of peanut allergens would run the risk of destroying a peanut's texture, color, flavor and nutrition). He adds that if the amount of allergenic protein per peanut can be cut from 150 mg to 1.5 mg, they would be safe for 95 percent of people with peanut allergies to eat. "This process proves that pulsed light can inactivate the peanut allergenic proteins and indicates that  pulsed light has a great potential in peanut allergen mitigation,"

Past research work has identified a particular protein fraction called Ara h1-h3 in the peanut as the culprit responsible for the allergic symptoms seen in many people and it is impossible to separate this protein through any known technique without destroying the eating characteristics of the nut. The above group of scientists did a remarkable job to inactivate this protein or modify it in such a way that the immune response elicited in the body was not so severe. If this work is pursued further it should be possible to reduce the allergic potential to less than 5% which is not considered so dangerous. Ideally Ara h1-h3 must be completely inactivated if absolute safety is to be achieved but whether this is ever possible remains to be seen. 

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

HOW SAFE IS THE "SAFEST" WATER SUPPLIED IN METROS? SOME UNCERTAINTIES

Any visitor to that beckoning continent called America cannot escape getting a feeling about the quality of life the population their enjoy though there are pockets of poverty here and there. Most remarkable is the undisputed quality and safety of water consumed by the people in almost all cities and settlements available through the protected water supply system. Imagine one able consume water even from a toilet tap without fearing about any infectious disease visiting them consequently! Compare this with what goes as protected water supply in a country like India where neither water is supplied regularly nor the safety guaranteed. Most urban areas do not treat raw water and supplies irregularly making people look for ways and means of making it potable and this unenviable situation has spawned an unethical industry that offers bottled water and water treatment gadgets with high price tag. In this context the recent report that the American water supply is not that safe as being touted is shocking indeed. Here is water a "Gorilla" type operation carried out by a group of scientists has brought out. 

"The 53,000 water utilities in the United States deliver some of the safest drinking water in the world — a public health victory of unrivaled success that began in 1908 with chlorination campaigns in Jersey City and Chicago. Still, millions of individual cases of waterborne diseases occur annually and related hospitalization costs approach $1 billion each year. In 2007 and 2008, the most recent years for which figures are available, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded 164 waterborne disease outbreaks, almost entirely from protozoan cysts of the parasite Cryptosporidium. New rules from the Environmental Protection Agency, instituted after earlier outbreaks, have led New York City and other municipalities with unfiltered surface reservoirs to begin zapping tap water with ultraviolet light to inactivate organisms like Cryptosporidium that resist chlorine-based treatments. The water supply system remains a deteriorating, mostly subterranean infrastructure so complex that in many municipalities officials can't even say where all the pipes are laid. The need for upgrades has never been greater, a report issued this year by the American Academy of Microbiology said, but they first want to understand what's living down there. "We have done the right thing with water treatment," said Joseph O. Falkinham III, a microbiologist at Virginia Tech. "What we have now is an unexpected consequence of doing the right thing."

It is amazing that the gastro system of Americans is so fragile even very minor microbial contamination can make them sick. Detection of protozoan parasites in deeply embedded supply lines explains why Americans get water borne infectious diseases and water safety regulations are now being revisited for making water safer. Another disturbing revelation is that most municipalities have no clue regarding the location of the subterranean supply lines which tend to deteriorate over a period of time. Besides these pipelines laid decades ago with the then prevailing materials and technology will have to be replaced if future water related health problems are to be avoided in a big way. Satellite imaging of subterranean pipes needs to be done to locate them for replacement. As usual civic bodies are starved of funds for renovation and rejuvenation of infrastructure like water supply and it is time federal government intervenes to pump massive funds for this purpose. Citizens also must pitch in with their share of the cost to make the urban living safer for future generations to come. 

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

CHEMICALS IN FOOD-SAFETY IS NO BODY'S BUSINESS!

The sturdiness of man against all odds in sustaining himself is a remarkable natural trait ever since his advent on earth, say 40,000 years ago. In ancient world it was fight against fierce carnivorous animals and fight for food in competition with them which provided the challenge. To day the odds are same, the only difference being that hundreds of chemicals finding their way into the foods in the name of processing and preservation may be slowly killing him in stead of the quick kill happening to the Paleo man during fighting with wild and ferocious animals. While enemy in old days was clearly visible, the unsuspecting chemicals in the food added deliberately are silent and invisible slow killers. Here is a shocking revelation about the way chemicals are added to foods by the processing industry while the so called safety authorities either close their eyes or are unaware of this practice.

"If you are shocked to learn that industrial chemicals are routinely in the food you are feeding to your family, you will be even more shocked to read about a study published this week in the professional journal Reproductive Toxicology by researchers from the Pew Charitable Trusts — which funded the work — and the Environmental Management Institute. Problems in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food programs look even worse than the problems I know so well from EPA! After extensive research into what manufacturers add to our food, the researchers report that about 1,000 additives are in the food supply without the FDA's knowledge. And, for those additives the FDA does actually know about, fewer than 38 percent of more than 8,000 FDA-regulated additives — including those manufacturers intentionally add directly to food and materials that may come into contact with and contaminate foods — have a published feeding study. (Feeding studies comprise the basic toxicology test — the first test a scientist would do to evaluate the safety of a chemical additive.) For direct additives, added intentionally to food, only 21.6 percent of the almost 4,000 additives have undergone the feeding studies necessary for scientists to estimate a safe level of exposure, and the FDA databases contain reproductive or developmental toxicity data for only 6.7 percent. It appears the FDA and the food industry were often making safety decisions by comparing one chemical to another rather than doing an actual toxicology study. In making such decisions, they were building a house of cards based on assumptions and unsupported extrapolations instead of direct scientific evidence. How has the oversight of our food regulations gone so terribly wrong? The researchers have a few insights. First, many chemicals were grandfathered into the system in the 1950's, and so they are in our food supply without information on their safety. Once a chemical is cleared for use in foods, the clearance is forever, so there are no requirements or incentives for a manufacturer to support additional testing. And, under the outdated U.S. Food Additives Amendment of 1958, the FDA doesn't even have the authority to require testing if it has questions about a chemical. Also, industry can self-determine if its chemical food-additives are Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS), and therefore free from the usual regulatory requirements for food additives. If the industry makes a GRAS determination, it is not even required to notify FDA that it has put the new GRAS additive on the market. Allowing industry to determine the safety of the chemicals it creates is a textbook example of the fox guarding the chicken coop. Last week, many of the same Pew researchers published a report in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Internal Medicine showing that "financial conflicts of interest are ubiquitous" in the industry-driven process leading to determining that a chemical is GRAS. In that article, Pew reports that all — that's 100 percent — of the members of expert panels that review food additives to make GRAS determinations have financial relationships with companies that manufacture the food additives being reviewed".

If whatever has been said in the above critique is true, is humanity hurtling towards calamity in a few decades from now with all people suffering from one or the other health disorders lowering the quality of life dramatically compared to what they were about 100 years ago? One can only pity for the future generations to come as they are being consigned to a life of ignominy by the reckless actions of those who live to day! Of course there are a few people who are still aware of these contradictions and thanks are due to them for spawning the organic food industry which does not use chemicals in raising any crop or processing it into edible preparations. Unfortunately such people are far and few at present to make any impact but there is the promise that organic food consumption is growing albeit slowly which will leave at least a few people with normal health to carry forward the torch of human civilization! 

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

"DRINKING STRAW"-WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS SAFETY?

Drinking beverages like soda and fruit juices is considered more convenient if a straw is used to such out the contents from the bottle directly or from a glass full of it. But rarely any one gives any thought to the safety of these straws offered in different places, especially in small juice or soda joints most of which use straws of indifferent quality. There are no standards for straws in many countries and under such an environment it is easy for many to indulge in production of straws of low quality and make a fast buck in the process. World over it is estimated that about a billion straws are manufactured for drinking liquid products and imagine the trash value of these disposable material which are littered all around in towns and cities with no strict environmental discipline. Straws which used to be made of paper a few years ago are ow made mostly from polypropylene plastics or polystyrene material with no biodegradable credentials. Besides these "tubes" can pose serious health dangers if the quality of raw material and ingredients used are not of food grade as it is reported from China recently. Here is a take on this little known area of food industry.  

"According to food experts, some straws could contain hazardous materials that can dissolve into drinks. Long term use can cause harm to the digestive system, premature sexual development, infertility or even cancer. An investigation team led by Lou Zhongping, who helped draft the standards on drinking straws, began inspections of wholesale stores in Shanghai's Yu Garden in early July and concluded only 10 percent of straws were qualified. Inspections 

also revealed forged quality safety logos. "In wholesale stores, we found the logo was hard to read and could be erased easily," said Lou,who is also president of the largest manufacturer of drinking straws worldwide, Soton DailyNecessities. Despite a request on July 3 by the market watchdog requiring that stores remove the straws from their shelves, a vendor said that the

straws are still being sold. Most of the quality safety logos are counterfeit, headded, showing a bag full of colorful drinking straws."Many beverage and milk tea stores as well as schools buy straws regularly, and we sell hundreds of packs every month," said the vendor, who only wanted

to be identified as Chen. In a beverage shop named Guoxiang in the Jing'an district, a manager surnamed Yang said he purchases straws from markets in YuGarden, and has never been aware of the safety concerns. Insiders said thick straws, such as those used for bubble tea, 

tend to be more at risk because they use more materials and are more expensive to make. "The price of a qualified straw is around 0.1 yuan ($0.016), which is double or even triple the price of a substandard one," said Han Ying, business department manager of Shanghai Guanxuan, a company that makes household products. "There is no threshold for producing inferior drinking straws asit's easy to attain recycled plastics, and anyone could start 

a business with several machines at home," she added. There are five straw producers in Zhejiang province's Yiwu, an international trade hub that produces at least 90 percent of the straws in the Chinese market, but the number of unlicensed producers in the country is more than 200, insiders said. The health supervision department in Changsha, Central China's Hunan province, issued a warning in May that some drinking straws might contain toxic substances after the findings of Lou's investigation".

The basic question raised by some health pundits is whether there is any need for using a straw at all in the instance? A very relevant issue. The Straw apologists contend that use of this contraption avoids contact of the sugary beverage with the teeth to a significant extent lessening the possibility of dental decay but there is very little evidence to support this argument. After all to get the full pleasure of drinking a beverage it is necessary that the liquid is moved around the mouth for the palate to sense the taste and flavor and even if a straw is used most will keep it in the oral cavity at least for a few seconds before gulping. Use of straw is also claimed to be helpful in avoiding contact of the mouth with the glass or cup which may be dirty or unhygienic. But it is silly to imagine that the contents in a dirty glass would be clean! All said and done it is time that strict safety standards are put in place for drinking straws immediately to protect the unwary consumers.  

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

ICE MAKING MACHINE AND TOILET WATER-WHAT IS THE CONNECTION?

Toilets are receiving much more attention than what they really deserve. It was not long ago that some one reported that toilet seat showed less bacteria than that present in a kitchen cutting board! Here comes another report with some shock value that declares that the bacterial quality of crushed ice that is thrown out from the ice making machines in many restaurants is significantly inferior to that of toilet water! How far this is universally true cannot be gauged by the limited studies conducted by the media as a part of their investigative journalism. But it does raise some inconvenient questions regarding the possibility of shirked responsibility of the restaurant management to keep their ice making machine clean and hygienically satisfactory. Also not clear is how serious is the problem vis-a-vis the safety of consumers who visit such ill maintained restaurants. Here is a take on this latest revelation.   

"The Daily Mail collected ice from ten fast-food franchises — McDonald's, Burger King, and Starbucks among them — and determined that in six out of ten locations, those innocuous-seeming cubes contained higher levels of bacteria than the water samples taken from toilet bowls at the same establishments. The Mail doesn't identify the bacteria by type or warn of a specific food-safety risk, instead noting only that four of the samples contained a sufficient bacterial load to present a "hygiene risk." So, does this mean we should all be drinking out of the toilet? The short answer is no, don't drink toilet water, but also, maybe be a little bit wary of ice. In most instances of germy ice, the likely culprit is dirty ice machines, and while the presence of pathogens like E. coli in anything meant for ingestion is cause for alarm, the Mail sort of flubs its own "investigation." The article doesn't make clear how much of the ice taken from each of the ten establishments was tested. Moreover, it doesn't emphasize how much one study parameter — fast-food workers were asked to put the ice into sterilized bags — was flawed, which renders the entire thing somewhat useless. "For the tests," itnotes, "staff were asked to provide a sample of ice in a sterile bag." The reader has to make it to the very end of the article to learn that the worker at Starbucks, for example, "inadvertently" contaminated the sample at the point of collection. While the ice at these places is no doubt bacteria-filled, it might help to have workers trained in taking sterilized samples actually, you know, collecting the sample. Moreover, this kind of study isn't particularly novel. Some highlights from the last ten years:
• In an effort to dissuade her friends from chewing on ice — a habit she found annoying — a 12-year-old kid from Tampa devoted her 2006 middle-school science project to comparing bacterial loads in fast-food ice samples and toilet water. Jasmine Roberts won a few awards and garnered national attention with her conclusion that ice-machine ice was dirtier than toilet water 70 percent of the time.
• A local news affiliate found coliform bacteria in 13 out of 25 ice samples taken from Indianapolis-area bars in 2008.
• The U.K. Health Protection Agency found enterococci and E. coli in 30 percentof ice samples taken from 88 establishments in 2011.
• And it's not just the innards of ice machines that harbor bad germs. All that sugar-filled plastic tubing inside soda machines can feed several gazillion colonies of bad bacteria. In 2010, for example, researchers from Hollins University in Virginia took samples of 90 drinks from 30 soda fountains located within a twenty-mile radius of Roanoke. They found coliform bacteria in 48 percent of the drinks and antibiotic-resistant E. coli in 11 percent.

It's pretty safe to assume that, on a widespread basis, nasty bacteria run the innards of ice machines just like Master Blaster runs Bartertown. Does that mean that ice from fast-food places will make you sick? As with most foods, the risk increases if you are either very old, are very young, or have a compromised immune system. Other than that, these studies are effective at upending one misconception about pathogens in particular: that freezing temperatures destroy bad germs. Instead of comparing ice and toilet water, it'd be good to get samples from a few more surfaces that aren't toilet water, which is usually treated with disinfectants in food service settings, anyhow".

The conclusion by the reporter that the ice is not a safety risk to normally healthy person because bacteria does not survive freezing temperatures cannot be accepted. Scientifically most bacteria might be killed at sub-zero temperatures due to cell disruption but few stubborn cells do survive capable of springing back to active life once favorable conditions are obtained. It is forgotten that many food infection episodes in the West are more or less confined to frozen foods and if such foods which are contaminated during the processing operations or storage are not cooked by the consumer there is a definite risk to the health. Another way of looking at this issue is that if these contaminated ice is used for chilling an alcoholic beverage or a carbonated beverage the safety risk is minimal or nil at at all. Still it is the primary responsibility of the food eateries to clean up their ice machines periodically to ensure that bacteria is not harbored by them. Same is true with thousands of water coolers found so commonly in public places.  

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