Extending the life of perishables-A new non-electric system tailor-made for small scale growers

Since ages one has been hearing about food wastage due to improper post harvest handling and storage. While developed countries have created highly efficient cold storage, modified atmosphere storage and cold chain infrastructures for reducing the losses due to respiration, transpiration and microbial spoilage, in many developing countries the technology required is neither available nor practical because of power shortages. Spoilage in these countries is variably estimated from 25 to 50% of total production. Grower income is adversely affected because of deterioration of quality by the time the produce reach the market. It is tragic that while farming community is able to rise to the occasion in meeting the increased demand for food by the ever expanding population, their efforts are not complemented by establishing necessary infrastructure facilities by the governments in these countries. In a new initiative by some enthusiastic entrepreneur set up, a solar based preservation technique has been developed that can extend the shelf life of most fruits and vegetables by a few days. Here are further details about this significant innovation with wide application potential in Asia, Africa and South America.

"In addition to a 3 W solar panel, the device comprises a top-loading tent-like structure, in which up to 150 kg (330 lb) of produce can be stored, and a solar-powered ventilator. The ventilator gradually evaporates a weekly supply of 200 ml (6.7 fl oz) of water creating a humid environment within the tent. Company founder Arne Pauwels explains that the humid environment created by the Wakati helps to reduce the extent to which crops dry out after being harvested. As a result, he says, the cells of the crops are kept intact and the acids and enzymes inside the cells that would (thttp://android-apps-news.appspot.com/wakati-solution-aims-to-extend-produce-shelf-life.html ) otherwise begin to digest the crops are kept contained. Unlike a refrigerator, the Wakati does not control temperature and, therefore, cannot store fruit and veg for long-term periods. Pauwels says, however, tests on the Wakati have shown that a one or two-day shelf life in a hot climate can be increased to 10 days. This can increase the amount of time that produce can be stored in developing countries before sale, reducing the amount that goes to waste and maximizing the amount of profit that can be made by the grower. The first batch of 100 Wakatis has already been supplied to Haiti, Uganda and Afghanistan and Pauwels says that the company is ready to go into full production at an initial cost of US$100 per unit (though it is hoped that increased production will drive that figure down)."

The fact that the new technique is just managing to increase the life from 2 days to 10 days may not match it in terms of performance to that of industrial scale cold storage but still it can make a lot of difference to the income of a small scale farmer growing perishable in small plots of land in village areas where electricity availability is like a lottery with no assurance of its supply for long duration of time. This contraption is similar to the evaporative cooling chambers developed long ago which did not find many takers. The major difference is that in this version evaporation is achieved through solar energy in stead of by forced circulation of water in the earlier model. The cost indication of $ 100, equivalent to Rs 6000 may be on the higher side but in India such chambers can be built at half the cost with solar panel costs prevailing at Rs 50 per watt. An uncertainty that may pose challenges in establishing such chambers in large numbers in fruit and vegetable growing areas is the missing cold chain services which will have to carry the preserved produce to the market place in prime condition. More appropriately such solar based cold chambers will be more suitable for farmers' markets and farms feeding such markets or shandies as they are called in rural areas in the country.

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

Food poisoning burden-Staggering cost for suffering from food borne infections

Improperly stored and processed foods can cause many diseases, some of them being fatal to humans. Food industry is expected to take highest precaution in handling foods intended for the market to avoid delivery of tainted foods with serious consequences and it must be said that most processors do a reasonably good job in ensuring consumer protection investing heavily in preventive practices to stop release of suspected products in the market. Unfortunately some undesirable practices and the diverse sources from where food ingredients are sourced from different parts of the world make it difficult to avoid occasional hiccups in the form of food illness among a small group of consumers. Traceability of contamination across the food supply chain is now a priority with the industry and if a fool proof system is evolved even when food contamination is detected the source from where it emanated can be ascertained for restricting the damage to the minimum. Excellent ,fast, and reliable techniques for testing food contaminants have further enabled the industry to take maximum care to ensure food safety. In the US where reliable system of documentation of food contamination incidences exists, the consequences in terms of economic damage to the country due to food pathogens are well illustrated as seen below: 

"Salmonella causes an estimated $3.7 billion each year in medical costs for Americans, according to the latest estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service. That figure places Salmonella at the top of the rankings for the15 most costly foodborne illnesses. USDA says it regularly updates its cost estimates for food borne pathogens to keep policy makers and the public informed about the relative impact of food borne illness.The top 15 foodborne pathogens account for 95 percent of illnesses and deaths related to food in the U.S.

The 15 costliest foodborne pathogens are as follows:
    1. Salmonella – $3.7 billion; 1,027,561 total cases; 19,336 hospitalized; 378 deaths
    2. Toxoplasma gondii – $3.3 billion; 86,686 cases; 4,428 hospitalized; 343 deaths
    3. Listeria monocytogenes – $2.8 billion; 1,591 cases; 1,173 hospitalized; 306 deaths
    4. Norovirus – $2.3 billion; 5,461,731 cases; 14,663 hospitalized; 149 deaths
    5. Campylobacter – $1.9 billion; 845,024 cases; 8,463 hospitalized; 76 deaths
    6. Clostridium perfringens – $343 million; 965,958 cases; 438 hospitalized; 26 deaths
    7. Vibrio vulnificus - $320 million; 96 cases; 93 hospitalized; 36 deaths
    8. Yersinia enterocolitica - $278 million; 97,656 cases; 480 hospitalized; 29 deaths
    9. E. coli O157 – $271 million; 63,153 cases; 2,138 hospitalized; 30 deaths
    10. Vibrio (all other non-cholera species) - 17,564 cases; 83 hospitalized; 8 deaths
    11. Shigella – $138 million; 131,254 cases; 1,456 hospitalized; 10 deaths
    12. Cryptosporidium – $52 million; 57,616 cases; 210 hospitalized; 4 deaths
    13. Vibrio parahaemolyticus – $41 million; 34,664 cases; 100 hospitalized; 4 deaths
    14. E. coli non-O157 – $27 million; 112,752 cases; 271 hospitalized; 1 death
    15. Cyclospora – $2 million; 11,407 cases; 11 hospitalized; zero deaths

Deaths accounted for the greatest costs incurred from food poisoning. For example, the 378 deaths attributed to Salmonella accounted for 89 percent of the total cost associated with the pathogen, despite Salmonella's 0.04-percent death rate. Other costs incurred can include medical costs, time away from work, and the societal willingness to pay to prevent deaths, USDA said. "Cost estimates of food borne illnesses have been used in the past to help inform food-safety policy discussions," the agency noted, "and these updated cost estimates will provide a foundation for economic analysis of food safety policy."

Why such colossal damage happens only in the US is some what puzzling but one can get a clue when the reporting systems regarding food safety incidences elsewhere in the world is examined. In most developing countries there is very little data base to look at when any comparison is to be drawn with the record of the US in safety vigilance. In most of the developed countries there is reliable data base though they may not be as meticulous as that practiced in the US. Probably WHO of the UN can help those countries not having data recording system vis-a-vis food poisoning to set up the same with a little bit of economic and technical help which will go a long way in tackling food related diseases through scientific surveillance and rapid response regime.

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

Food testing laboratories-See who is speaking about them!

A recent statement by a deputy director general from Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) about setting up food testing laboratories in the country raises more questions than the answer it provides to the much harried citizens of the country. It is well known that most consumers are.facing severe handicaps in wading through the "mess" that is called Indian food market where adulterated and substandard foods rule the roost. It is not clear in what way ICAR is connected with food standards implementation which is the prerogative of FSSAI which is under the administrative control of Ministry of Health. Added to this this deputy director general with the portfolio of engineering making such a statement is some what odd. If he is privy to the thinking of government of India and if his claims are true, it is indeed a welcome development. Read the report further below:

"Testing for the quality of food is set to become mandatory soon as the Union government is setting up 50 more food testing laboratories. An indication in this regard was given by Indian Council of Agricultural Research Deputy Director-General (Engineering) K. Alagasundaram on Tuesday. He told press persons on the sidelines of a workshop on post-harvest technology, organised jointly by the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, and the ICAR here, that the Centre would set up 50 food testing laboratories in the next five years. Later, he told The Hindu that the Centre had funded 80 such laboratories across the country and about 40 of them had commenced operations. As per the funding policy, government institutions would get cent per cent monetary support if they want to set up such food testing laboratories while private companies would get 50 per cent funds, he said."

One of the points made by him relates to 100% funding to government institutions for setting up testing laboratories but it is not clear whether it refers to University institutions or any other type of institutions. 50% funding for private parties to set up such laboratories is also a welcome move but the moot question is who will go to these labs if their reports have no sanctity as far as the government is concerned as of now. The statement that testing is going to be mandatory is unclear as to how such a mandate will be enforced. In countries like USA testing certificates issued by accredited and monitored laboratories are legally accepted while in India no courts would accept such certificates. If the concerned ministry issues clarification on these issues, it would help a lot in removing the confusion because of the ICAR statement. 

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

Food safety vigilance-Picking samples itself is news!

India is supposed to have a very "strong" "food safety act" as per the claims of the government and it is under this act that a top heavy Authority called FSSAI was set up. The obvious purpose of creating this bureaucratic organization is to keep "vigilance" over the food materials made and marketed across the country. Its power has further been increased by including liquor also among the basket of food products coming under its purview! What does "vigilance" mean? According to dictionary definition it is the "state of keeping careful watch for possible dangers or difficulties" and therefore FSSAI is supposed to be keeping an eye over thousands of products made in the country to ensure their quality and safety! Is this organization is up to the responsibility cast on it or it is more interested on photo-op actions meaning nothing to the harassed citizens of the country. Reading the following PR oriented report from this Authority"s Pune office what type of impression one can derive? Read it and decide for yourself!

"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials collected samples of prepared food items and liquor from various hotels in Pune on Wednesday to assess the quality of food and liquor served in the city for New Year celebrations. "We asked our 20 food safety officials to each draw at least two samples of prepared food items and liquor from various hotels and restaurants in Pune on December 31. Around 40 samples were collected till late midnight which will be tested to check whether they conform to all parameters of safety and quality at Public Health Laboratory," said Shashikant Kekare, joint commissioner (food), FDA, Pune.  A week back, the food safety officers also drew six samples of liquor and sent the samples to laboratory for tests. "The reports are awaited. The aim is to ensure that the liquor sold in Pune conforms to specified quality and standard norms," Kekare said.  The samples of foreign liquor, Indian Made Foreign Liquor and country liquor were subjected to quality tests during a six-day drive. "The drive was primarily aimed at ensuring that all kinds of alcoholic beverages sold in Pune are not adulterated as sale of alcohol usually increases during this time of the year," he said. Last year's samples of alcoholic beverages that were collected were found conforming to the quality standards. The samples were tested at the state-run public health laboratory, he added. There is a perceptible rise in the sale of country liquor in city's slums and rural parts during the New Year celebrations. Hence, our officers had also drawn samples from country liquor outlets as well, Kekare said. The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which came into effect on August 5, 2011, looks at various aspects of alcohol adulteration and divides them into various segments like substance or quality demanded, extraneous but harmless matter, misbranded items and unsafe for consumption.  "Since alcohol has now been classified as food, samples will be subjected to quality tests to ensure that the liquor meets FDA standards. We have to ensure that the quality is genuine and it is free of solvents that are injurious to health," said Shivkumar Kodgire, assistant commissioner (food), FDA, Pune." 

It talks about a "six day drive" to "collect" samples and "sending' them for testing! Does this mean that out of 365 days in an year only such special drives are taken up, rest of the year being "holidays" for the officials? Is this their concept of market vigilance? Since every drive in the country taken up by government agencies is an organized "event' lot of advanced publicity must have been given through the media and what one can expect from them? Are the makers of unsafe foods going to oblige the Authority by being a "sitting duck", waiting for the officials to come and nab them? In stead of doing their work silently, efficiently and honestly, they give wide publicity about their campaign, call the media to boast about picking samples for sending to test laboratories, a ridiculous action to seek publicity. It was rather curious that the food safety officials are more concerned about safety of liquor products than common foods which are adulterated widely with serious health consequences! Does this report instill any confidence in the minds of a layman regarding the intentions of the government vis-a-vis safety of foods consumed by him three times a day every day in the year? Sad and tragic are the only two words to express after reading the above report! As some one said recently, God only can save the citizens of this country from the food fraudsters lurking around ever ready to make a fast buck through criminal and devious means by exploiting the weak kneed and indifferent response from the government to their nefarious activities!

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

School meals more nutritious than mom's own food? May be!

There was a time when mom's food was considered the ultimate in taste and flavor though grandma recipes still rule the roost, often recalled with nostalgia! Why is that mom's food is often ranked high in the pecking order of foods ranked in terms of acceptance? Is it sheer habit of people cultivated over long time of association with mother or some other factors are contributing to this perception? Sociologists and psychologists some how feel that mom's food served by mom herself offers some thing else besides taste and flavor and that is "love" which has no measuring scale to gauge. It is another matter that in many house holds to day cooks employed by the families do the routine of making and serving foods to the members as every one in a family is busy with their own daily chores. A recent observation by a social auditing group in to day's America reports that school lunches turned out to be more nutritious than home cooked foods brought by those children not eating the school prepared lunches. How significant is this cannot be gauged because lunch is only a part of the daily diet and what these children eat for breakfast and dinner is any body's guess. Here is a take on this interesting survey which may make little sense in countries like India.

"The study found that lunches packed in home paled in comparison to school meals. According to the study, the home-packed lunches were offering lower nutritional quality during the study. Home-packed lunches often include fat and more calories than school lunches. Adding to that, parents make meals unhealthy by packing sugary drinks and desserts. In the study, home-packed lunches were also found higher in iron and vitamin C, but it was lacking in vitamin A, fiber, protein and calcium. Public elementary and secondary schools in the US have more than 50 million children. About 60% of the children rely on school lunches while the rest of the children bring their food from home. According to the study, school lunches had about 512 calories while on the other side, home-packed lunches had approximately 608 calories. When it comes about protein, school lunches had 26 grams and home-packed lunches offered just 18 grams. School lunches included vegetables, fruits, sugar-free juice and milk, homemade food had more snacks. Home-packed food had about 880 mg of sodium while schools lunches offered 1,000 mg of sodium to the children. Connie Diekman, University nutrition director at St. Louis' Washington University, said she is not surprised with the study's result. "This study provides outcomes that are similar to other studies that show the positive benefits of school lunch", said Diekman."

School lunch becomes acceptable only when there is a variety in the offerings and nutrition is secondary to the recipients as most of them, with tradition bound eating habits, are looking for foods which meet with their sensory perception like taste, texture and flavor. Indian school lunch programs invariably are based on the ready receptivity of children to hot foods served fresh though there is no evidence to support such a theory. Such "on the site" cooking practices have inherent dangers as brought out by several food poisoning episodes reported during the last few years. One of the least appreciated facts in this confusing scenario is that one lunch in the school does not create much of an impact on the health of the child in a family if the same child goes hungry at home due to abject poverty. The consolation is that at least he gets one meal a day in which some nutrients like proteins, vitamins and minerals can be loaded. In a scenario where calorie intake itself is in jeopardy, talking about balanced nutrition may not have any bearing. With the food security act of government of India the situation may improve provided the logistics of distribution of food grains at heavily subsidized prices are worked out with least vulnerability to pilferage.  

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

                   

Happy eating- Does it translate into healthy eating?

Eating food regularly is supposed to be helping human beings to get the required energy and other nutrients in sufficient quantities to live comfortably and healthy too. Sadly the tendency to satisfy the palate and ignoring the health aspects have taken the society to a new height of ill health and lower quality of life. Food is addictive and components like fat, sugar and salt present in foods in quantities more than that is needed by the body make them all the more addictive. Such addiction is hard to overcome in spite of determined efforts by many people who realize the dangers of highly satisfying foods that come under the banner of "junk foods". Why is that human beings are not able to shake off such self destructive behavior? According to some behavioral scientists this phenomenon is almost like the one encountered with smoking and imbibing intoxicating substances including alcoholic drinks. If a recent report on junk food eating habits is any reckoner, people are unable to resist the temptation of eating junk foods because of the sense of positive feelings associated with such foods, invariably rich in fat, sugar or salt. Read further below to understand the reasoning behind such a logic, expounded by some scientists in the US.    

"Most people tend to automatically associate junk food with positive feelings, scientists say. Researchers found that overcoming the temptation to eat unhealthy snack foods is thwarted by the positive thoughts many of us associate with junk food. Despite having the motivation to do so, many individuals struggle to successfully minimise their consumption of unhealthy snack foods, said co-author Ashleigh Haynes, a PhD student in applied cognitive psychology at Flinders University. "Unfortunately, they're the (foods) we tend to find most attractive and enjoyable to eat," she said. Most people tend to automatically associate unhealthy snack foods with positive feelings and concepts, said Haynes, adding this may have roots in evolution and our life experiences, 'ABC News' reported. "The aim of this recent study was to investigate how our automatic evaluation of food (as positive or negative), and the experience of temptation, interact to influence unhealthy snack consumption," said Haynes. She and colleagues presented 192 people with four unhealthy junk foods and then got them to rate how much they felt tempted by them on a scale of 1 to 7. The researchers then got the participants to associate the foods with positive and negative words to assess their 'implicit evaluation' of the foods. Finally, they measured how much of the foods the participants ate in a 10 minute period. "The more negative implicit evaluation of food, the less tempted people felt and the less of the food they ate," said Haynes. Haynes said there is evidence that it is possible to re-train the associations the brain makes with junk food. "Instead of associating unhealthy foods with positive concepts, we can associate them with more negative concepts in an attempt to reduce the strength of temptation experienced and therefore more successfully minimise snack food consumption," she said".

Probably it is a subjective thing to say about "positive feelings" generated by the very mention of some of the highly evocative foods loaded with rich ingredients that can make the mouth water! Sure these feelings originating in the brain must be measurable and whether "tuning" the brain not to respond to such environment can show a way out to assert one's "will power" to overcome the temptations needs to be explored. But how this can be done is a question that does not have an answer right now. No wonder that some sociologists and human psychologists have been campaigning for creating an environment around the human settlements where getting access to junk foods becomes more and more a logistical hindrance. Using brutish power by the governments to ban making of junk foods may not be universally acceptable, especially in a democratic society and education and awareness creation is a long drawn process. Uncontrolled growth of obese population in some parts of the world is a matter of great concern and this problem really needs urgent solution through whatever means possible.

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