CELL PHONE APPLICATION FOR FOOD CHECKING FOOD QUALITY!

Consumers these days are really concerned about the food products available in the market, especially with regard to the impact of these products from the industry on their health. While countries like the US are in the grip of the so called obesity epidemic due to consumption of commercial foods, most of them calorie dense and nutrient light, the potential for this danger in many developing countries like India is increasing day by day due to high economic growth and expansion of food processing industry. Fortunately the proportion of such industrial foods in the diet in these countries is still relatively low, about 20-30% compared to 70-80% among the population in some of the wealthy countries. If this trend is to be arrested or reversed, better "front of the label" information will have to be provided to the consumer. The traffic light system that categorizes the food into three distinct groups is a good idea but industry seems to be opposing such a system to be made mandatory. The mobile phone application has now emerged that can distinguish foods on the retail shelves and help consumers to pick those which are good for the health. Here is a take on this new development.

'The Obesity Policy Coalition says the new Traffic Light Food Tracker will allow shoppers to bypass the food industry's reluctance to support traffic light labelling. Traffic light labelling puts red warnings on foods high in fat, sugar and salt, and green labels on healthy options. Users can enter the fat, sugar and sodium quantities in their food items and save each item in their "pantry" within the phone app. Earlier this year, a review of Australia's food labelling laws failed to recommend a mandatory traffic light system for unhealthy foods, saying the system should only be implemented on a voluntary basis. The Federal Government is due to respond to the recommendations for compulsory traffic light labelling later this year. Obesity Policy Coalition spokeswoman Jane Martin says the system has been shown to improve people's eating habits. "We believe if traffic lights were mandatory on all packaged foods it would guide and empower consumers to make healthier choices for themselves and their families - that's certainly what the evidence shows," she said. "It has been used in a voluntary capacity in the UK. For a category like ready meals with the traffic lights, sales of the healthy ready meals went up and sales of the unhealthy ready meals went down. "Our research shows consumers want to know how much salt, sugar, saturated fat and total fat, is in the products they buy. "Traffic light labels provide this information at a glance, and help shoppers sort the fat from the fiction." Melanie McGrice from the Dietitians Association of Australia says there should be mandatory front-of-pack food labelling that covers all food products. But she says legislation, as well as the Traffic Light Food Tracker, needs to show both the nutritional benefits and unhealthy content of each food item".

Of course it may take some time before such innovative applications become practical but the cell phone manufacturers can be expected to push such developments as they have great potential to increase their business. Of course if and when the food industry is forced to adopt the traffic light system as an industry standard, the cell phone application may become redundant. Traffic light system for evaluating food products may not be perfect since they are based on criteria like calories, sugar, fat and sodium as has been pointed out by its critics who feel that a product like Coca Cola with no sodium, fat and low calories is graded as green though every one knows the damage soft drinks can do to health. Still with proper checks and balances this system can still be of great help to the unwary consumers.

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

DECONTROLLING INDIAN SUGAR INDUSTRY-NEED OF THE HOUR

Sugar, though sweet to taste has always been a "sour" point that pitchforks GOI and the sugar sector on a collision course ever since India's independence. While during the "license and permit raj" the sugar policy to force the industry to sell to the PDS a major part of its production at below production cost was considered normal, after the economic liberalization policies of early nineteen nineties continuing with it is nothing but an anachronism. More over India is the world's second largest producer of cane sugar and the industry holds large stocks not being able to achieve freedom regarding sale of its products guided by market forces. Though there has been some talks regarding freeing the sector from GOI controls, nothing concrete seems to be happening except frequent announcements by the concerned bureaucrats and ministers about their "intent" to decontrol. The latest such pronouncement comes from another Babu in the Food Ministry and industry keeps wondering whether any action at the ground level will follow this.

The government is open to lifting a decades-old control over the sugar sector if interests of farmers as well as consumers are protected, food secretary BC Gupta said on Tuesday. Currently, the government decides how much sugar mills will sell in the market every month and has mandated them to supply 10% of their output at below-cost for state-run welfare programmes. It decides the minimum price the mills have to pay for sugarcane purchases and also imposes periodical limits on sugar stocks large buyers can hold to discourage hoarding in times of a shortage. Industry executives say all these regulations are leading to a regular cycle of boom and bust and also stifling the growth of the sector that hasn't attracted any foreign direct investment for years now. "There is no stumbling block in decontrolling the sugar sector, provided farmers'... interests are protected. We have to see that farmers get fair price for their produce and also the interest of consumers shouldn't suffer," Gupta said. Any decision on loosening the control will be taken after consulting state governments and other stakeholders, he added. The secretary, however, refrained from giving any time-frame for lifting the regulations over the sugar sector. Industry executives say while mills pay high prices to farmers for cane purchases, they don't have any right to fix the price of sugar at which they sell to the government for supplies under the public distribution system. Although intended to benefit farmers as well as consumers, the tight regulations often lead to mills holding back payments to farmers whenever sales realisation drop below costs.

These are the days when sugar is receiving attention for all wrong reasons and many consumers consider it as white poison because of its purported contribution to diabetes and other life style disorders from which world is suffering. A logical question is whether GOI is justified in holding to the philosophy that sugar is an essential commodity and therefore needs subsidization! Probably sugar can even be considered for removal from the PDS basket that is being distributed, leaving the consumers to buy their needs from the open market. There is good possibility domestic consumption may come down drastically sparing the population the sufferings from modern diseases. After all most of the PDS sugar is siphoned off by unscrupulous elements of the society costing the exchequer heavily. If demand for sugar comes down, naturally the sugarcane cultivation, highly dependent on water, will also will decline, sparing the land for production of other more valuable and nutritious crops!

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

THE GREAT MEAT EATERS OF INDIA-KERALA'S UNIQUE "DISTINCTION"

"God's own country" some times jocularly referred to as Dog's own country is distinct from other parts of India in many ways. Foremost it is the first state which became 100% literate showing the world that such feats can be achieved even in a developing country if there is a will. Ironically schools in Kerala are being shuttered because of inadequate students! Kerala also occupies the pride of place when it comes to earning foreign exchange for the country, their citizens bringing the largest chunk. Remember Kerala is also the "alcohol" barrel of the country, the liquor consumption being the highest in entire India! Added to this is the latest "feather" in its cap that puts the state in the fore front as far as meat consumption is concerned, if the Animal Husbandry Department of the state is to be believed.

Kerala - which leads the country in several indicators including literacy - is also the highest consumer of meat with a daily requirement of over 5,000 tonnes, according to the state animal husbandry department. Animal husbandry director R. Vijayakumar does not find the figure of 5,034.96 tonnes a day surprising as 80 per cent of the state's residents are non-vegetarians. "The sad part is that the domestic production of meat (beef, mutton and chicken) is just around 264.31 tonnes," Vijaykumar said, adding: "The rest comes from nearby states." The department has collected this data for a national meeting in Gujarat later this month to review the production of meat and allied products. The survey finds chicken to be the most preferred. In fact, from a mere six per cent share in 1990, it now accounts for 45 per cent of the meat consumed in Kerala. "The eating profile of our people has undergone a huge change," Vijayakumar said.

"With a large number of IT professionals working in key centres, the fast food habit has picked up hugely. Hence meat is the most preferred item." In fiscal 2009-10, Keralites spent a staggering Rs. 2,844 crore on chicken, of which Rs. 1,752 crore went to poultry farms outside the state. "There is a golden opportunity here as there is immense potential to rear chicken, pig, goats and even rabbit," Vijaykumar said. "Now all the money is going to neighbouring states," Vijaykumar said. "We are going to give huge emphasis to this sector in our plans." Kottayam, Thrissur and Malappuram lead the state's 14 districts in meat consumption. In fiscal 2009-10, a record 6.1 million cattle came into the state through various check posts; another 1.8 million are estimated to have entered unchecked.
Of the 33 million people in Kerala, according to Vijaykumar, Christians and Muslims together constitute around 47 per cent and most of the meat eaters are from these communities. "If people in our state take to animal husbandry seriously, it would only benefit them," Vijayakumar said.

What is intriguing about the above figures is that taking them at face value Kerala's consumption works out to almost 27% of the country figure of 6.8 million tons of meat production annually. According to Planning Commission, average meat consumption in India as a whole is 5 kg per capita per year and Keralites seem to be consuming four times this quantity, working out to about 20 kg per capita. World wide the average corresponding figure is 43 kg and as such neither Kerala nor India as a country, is any where near the world average. Probably huge consumption of liquor and prevalence of predominantly non-vegetarian population must be accounting for this phenomenon. There is a point in the assertion of the animal husbandry department that scope for establishing meat based industry in the state is enormous as most of the meat animals are brought from neighboring states. Such meat based projects need to be based on the concept of integrated farms with breeding and rearing facilities and slaughtering infrastructure. In a land starved state like Kerala, is this feasible? Unlikely!

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

THE CAFFEINE "MESS"-AN IRRELEVANT ISSUE!

There is a famous saying that "Law is an Ass" and the on-going exercise by the GOI Health Ministry to formulate a law to regulate use of caffeine in beverages has to be seen from this perspective. As if there are no problems confronting the hapless consumer or the food industry in the country, great focus is being bestowed on a trivial matter like restriction of caffeine in some food products which any how 99% f the population do not consume. Look at the efforts put in by the GOI in clamping a restriction on Caffeine with the Health Minister saying in the parliament that no evidence of any risk was found by its scientists while another panel of the food "Authority" wants Caffeine limit not to exceed a certain limit. Why any one is so bothered about a particular brand of products mostly imported and consumed by well to do consumers, that contain relatively high levels of Caffeine, is beyond comprehension. Here is a take on this silly issue.

"The government is contemplating restricting use of caffeine in energy drinks and non-carbonated beverages made or sold in the country. An expert group of scientists from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has in a report suggested fixing of caffeine levels in energy drinks. As of now there are no prescribed limits of caffeine for energy drinks. However, under the FSSAI guidelines use of caffeine cannot exceed 145 mg/litre in carbonated water such as soft drinks. The group submitted a detailed report after examining scientific literature and global position on use of caffeine and non-carbonated beverages and their labelling. Its recommendations also suggested suitable safety measures and products standards of energy drinks. However, during a discussion in parliament on the safety of energy drinks and caffeine levels, health minister Ghulam Nabi Azad said another panel has said there was no evidence of health implication on consumption of the drinks. Therefore, they did not recommend a ban on energy drinks".

It is very true that reasonable safety restrictions must be in place to prevent run away practices by the food business that can jeopardize the health of the main stream population and by no stretch of imagination one can say that the so called Energy Drinks are items of popular consumption. Generally speaking no one can justify the use of Caffeine in any foods as it is neither a nutrient nor a health promoter and if its presence in beverages like coffee, tea and cocoa makes it a natural substance, it does not mean new products developed need to have caffeine! in fact caffeine is more a pharmaceutical ingredient endowed with some physiological activity helpful in combating medical conditions rather than a desirable food ingredient. If the food industry wants to use Caffeine as an ingredient full technical justification must be forthcoming based on science and it should not be allowed as a standard additive in foods.

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

ALCOHOL DRINKS-NEED FOR MANDATORY LABELING

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

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

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

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

FRESH MILK MARKETING-A NEEDLESS CONTROVERSY!

As long as democracy functions, there are bound to be differences of opinion among the citizens whether they are scientists, industrialists or politicians. The perennial controversy revolving around raw milk vs commercially processed version has been going on for decades with divergent views aired from time to time by those concerned about the subject. Antagonists of pasteurized milk invariably find fault with it because of their perceived feeling that the process of pasteurization destroys only beneficial components while allowing hostile elements to stay back causing harm to the consumers. In sharp contrast modern science, with some solid evidence, approves pasteurization because without this process, milk cannot be preserved till it reaches millions of far flung consumers. The intensity of feeling among the actors in this saga is reflected by the following rantings against dairy milk:

"Dairy is central to both the food supply and to sustainable agriculture. The FDA (run by Monsanto) is taking it apart. Rather than being harmful, raw milk is the only safe milk in the US and has innumerable benefits not found in pasteurized milk. The health community (doctors, researchers, public health officials) need to stop being misled by corporate media and find out what is happening to their own food. They might be interested to know that the new "food safety" law that gave so much power to the FDA to go after big corporate facilities with deadly contamination is being used just as farmers said it would be — to get rid of access to safe food and shut down natural and organic farmers. They might also be surprised to learn that Obama put Monsanto in a position to be in charge of all food and farms in the US by making a Monsanto VP named Michael Taylor, Czar of the food safety division of the FDA. That division (that is to say, Monsanto) is in court right now attempting to remove the right to choose food, consume or feed our children the food of our choice, the right to contract between ourselves (for it or anything else), and the right to our bodily and physical health. Worse, the case appears rigged to be lost and to leave those precedents. Will the scientific/medical/public health community wake up to what is happening and the threat to their own food supply? How quickly can they then begin to appreciate that they got duped on what is safe and what is dangerous. It turns out that pasteurized milk doesn't reach a high enough temperature to kill off the Crohn's bacterium getting into the milk from the sick cows in the industrial dairy herd. The temperature is high enough to destroy enzymes and friendly bacteria, though".

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction", so said Isac Newton and same is true in to day's society."For every view there is not one but several opposite views", should be the idiom, if we go by the divergent opinions expressed and written about. Whether one likes it or not in the modern urban settings pasteurization is unavoidable because of the logistics involved in rearing milch animals, milking process and distribution. Of course raw milk, from a cow or buffalo reared in one's home under clean and hygienic environment without any disease can be considered safe for a few minutes after milking but has to be boiled if it has to stay in good condition for a few hours. Fortunately under Indian conditions practically all milk consumed, whether from the milkman or the dairy is boiled in the so called "milk cooker"which takes the temperature to the safe zone of 100C. Man has lived with pasteurized milk for decades without any major disaster and will continue to live with it for decades to come with no possibility of any adverse consequences. It is better to avoid such needless controversies when it comes to a vital food like milk which is one of the most nourishing foods for millions of vegetarians in the world.

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

THE POTATO "PROTEST"- REPURCUSSIONS OF POLICY CHANGES

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

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

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

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