Authentication of GMO free foods-Newly proposed Government certification to help consumers to choose such foods

Hardly a day passes without some one in some parts of the world speaking for or against genetically modified foods and their safety. Mankind had never faced such a divisive issue when it comes to food safety and GM foods have divided the world vertically into two sides, one favoring them and the other fiercely opposing the same. While many governments have refused planting of GM crops in their respective countries, USA is one of the most ardent advocates of GM foods, its safety authorities taking the stand that GM foods are "practically same" as the natural foods and therefore do not pose any safety hazards. Flowing out of this policy decision is the remarkable growth of GM crops industry in that country where more than 80% of the foods in the market are either made from GM raw materials or contain GM ingredients. Unfortunately the confidence of the citizens on the credibility of the US government agencies in charge of food safety is rather low and this had given birth to a vigorous and sustained campaign to force the food industry to compulsorily declare the presence of GM materials in packed foods as a matter of constitutional right. The powerful GM crop industry with a vice like grip on the law makers has been able to resist any mandatory labeling provision in the statute books. Recent attempt by the government in that country to provide a mechanism for those who want to declare their foods are free from GM materials appears to be a deflective strategy to evade the responsibility of promulgating orders that will require mandatory labeling of all GM foods. Here is a take on this interesting development which may have far reaching implications in that country.

"The Agriculture Department has developed a new government certification and labeling for foods that are free of genetically modified ingredients. USDA's move comes as some consumer groups push for mandatory labeling of the genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
The certification is the first of its kind, would be voluntary — and companies would have to pay for it. If approved, the foods would be able to carry a "USDA Process Verified" label along with a claim that they are free of GMOs. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack outlined the new certification in a May 1 letter to USDA employees, saying it was being done at the request of a "leading global company," which he did not identify. A copy of the letter was obtained by The Associated Press. A USDA spokesman confirmed that Vilsack sent the letter but declined to comment on the certification program. Vilsack said in the letter that the certification "will be announced soon, and other companies are already lining up to take advantage of this service." Companies can already put their own GMO-free labels on foods, but there are no government labels that only certify a food as GMO-free. Many companies use a private label developed by a nonprofit called the Non-GMO Project. The USDA organic label also certifies that foods are free of genetically modified ingredients, but many non-GMO foods aren't organic. Vilsack said the USDA certification is being created through the department's Agriculture Marketing Service, which works with interested companies to certify the accuracy of the claims they are making on food packages — think "humanely raised" or "no antibiotics ever." Companies pay the Agricultural Marketing Service to verify a claim, and if approved, they can market the foods with the USDA process verified label."

According to the above policy, individual manufacturers can get their claim of GM free product verified by USDA, the agency managing safety of agricultural products through a universally accepted methodology and the certificate issued will confirm their products are GMO free. While this is a welcome first step, it does not still obviates the need for declaring presence of GMO in foods that are made from such modified food materials. Probably the present attempt may be to regulate the current practices followed by some manufacturers in including on their label words like "GMO free" putting consumers in a fix as to whether it can be trusted. Though many such products declaring to be free from GMO are certified by non-government agencies, their credibility will be enhanced if such claims are verified and confirmed by government authorities. But there is a perception among impartial observers that this is a ploy by the government to hamper the enthusiasm of a major segment of the population agitating for mandatory labeling. This is confirmed by the proposals now being pursued by the federal law makers to prevent state authorities imposing regulations mandating for compulsory declaration. This raises questions regarding the role of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which is supposed to regulate packed and processed foods industry and it will be interesting to watch out how this is going to be played out. USDA certification must be accepted by FDA in the interest of the consumers and honest food manufacturers.though no one is still sure whether FDA will take a positive stand on this crucial issue. .

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

Soil fertility-Do the inorganic fertilizers really serve to restore soil health?

The famed green revolution that catapulted India into the major league vis-a-vis grain production had lost its sting long ago and productivity has been stagnating ever since due to progressive decline in soil health. Massive application of inorganic fertilizers did help to increase productivity up to a point and response to these fertilizers is constrained by the poor over all health of the soil caused by intensive cultivation practices. According to many krishi pundits massive subsidies being paid by the government to farmers in the purchase of fertilizers cannot set this distortion right unless farmers take corrective measures to deal with impact of chemicals on micronutrients  and soil acidity. Here is a commentary on this often neglected aspect of modern agriculture.

"Soil fertility, particularly in the northern parts of the country, is steadily declining, thus raising concern for national food security. The situation, according to a Senior Research Fellow of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Mr Shashidhara Kolavalli, is partly the result of some farming practices such as overcropping. "Current agricultural practices 'mine' soil nutrients in the sense that nutrients extracted from soils through crops are not adequately replenished," he stated. The senior fellow was addressing selected journalists on soil fertility management and fertiliser subsidies to Ghanaian farmers. Mr Kolavalli informed the journalists of the arrival of a team of 10 experts in the country to offer recommendations to the government on how to solve challenges associated with offering fertiliser subsidies to farmers. He expressed the hope that the team's exchanges with stakeholders and policy makers would enable the government to structure policies that would address the issues of soil fertility management and fertiliser supply. Following significant increases in world food and fertiliser prices, Ghana and a number of other countries began to subsidise inorganic fertilisers in 2008. The aim was to encourage fertiliser use and also offer uniform prices of the product across the country. However, the cost of subsidies and the quantity of fertilisers attracting subsidies have increased tremendously over the years. Available figures show that a total of GH¢862.39 million was spent on subsidies between 2008 and 2011 by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) and COCOBOD. Meanwhile, the MOFA fertiliser subsidy bill is projected to rise to GH¢136 million and account for over 35 per cent of its budget in 2020. Although inorganic fertiliser was required to replace lost nutrients, Mr Kolavalli said differences in soil characteristics such as active soil organic carbon, micronutrients and acidity might depress crop response to inorganic fertiliser. "The evidence is increasingly indicating that crop response to fertiliser can be significantly constrained by farmers' inability to manage and augment their soils over time."  Mr Kolavalli noted that, "Chemical fertiliser has a role but we cannot just focus on it as the panacea to solving soil fertility problems."

Organic farming may be the right answer to address this problem but where do we go for supply of huge quantities of organic and bio fertilizers to meet the demand if use of chemical fertilizers is to be restrained. Under such a scary situation what will the world at large, do to augment food production to meet the demands of a population expected to burgeon to more than 9 billion by the year 2050? Genetically modified foods are being promoted relentlessly by the genetic engineering industry as a "sure" solution to the stagnation in food production but there is not scientific evidence that GMO route can boost food production to any significant extent. Besides the safety of these unnatural foods obtained by gene manipulation cannot be adjudged absolutely safe based on the present knowledge we have so far. A whole new paradigm shift in the preset practices cannot be postponed further and it is time farmers are retrained to undertake rejuvenation of their farm lands through intervention by the agri varsities where adequate extension personnel are available. Over a period of time sufficient trained field workers must be produced for doing this task on an emergency basis. There seems to be no other option available to the world to stave off large scale scarcity of of essential foods in the coming years. 

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

"REVOLT AND REVULSION" AGAINST GM FOODS-CAN IT BE SUSTAINED?

The mass movement against production of genetically modified food crops is assuming critical proportion if recent reports about global protests organized against the perpetrators of these foods are to be believed. Though there is no substantial evidence about the so called advantages of GM crops, the "innovators" and developers of the GM seeds maintain that there is no evidence of any danger caused by their seeds. It is pointed out that more than 80% of foods eaten by the Americans to day contain GM food ingredients and the population there is still "surviving", though most of them are obese and disease stricken! One of the tall claims made by the monopolistic seed companies is that GM technology increases crop yield and therefore is imperative for meeting future food needs. This is a canard and safety authorities in the US are closing their eyes to the long term dangers posed by these "nature tampered" products! Here is the latest development vis-a-vis the universal anti-GM food sentiments across the world.

"Two million people marched Saturday across the United States and in more than 50 other countries in a protest against seed giant Monsanto aimed at calling attention to dangers posed by genetically modified food that it and other companies produce. Founder and organizer Tami Canal said protests were held in 436 cities in 52 countries. Genetically modified plants are grown from seeds that are engineered to resist insecticides and herbicides, add nutritional benefits or otherwise improve crop yields and increase the global food supply. Most corn, soybean and cotton crops grown in the United States today have been genetically modified. But some say genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment. The use of GMOs has been a growing issue of contention in recent years, with health advocates pushing for mandatory labeling of genetically modified products even though the federal government and many scientists say the technology is safe. The 'March Against Monsanto' movement began just a few months ago, when Canal created a Facebook page on Feb. 28 calling for a rally against the company's practices. "If I had gotten 3,000 people to join me, I would have considered that a success," she said Saturday. Instead, two million responded to her message. Together with Seattle blogger and activist Emilie Rensink and Nick Bernabe of Anti-Media.org, Canal worked with A Revolt.org ditigal anarchy to promote international awareness of the event. She called the turnout "incredible," and credited social media for being a vehicle for furthering opportunities for activism. Despite the size of the gatherings, Canal said she was grateful that the marches were uniformly peaceful and no arrests have been reported."

GM food companies are citing the support of people to their products as manifested by the narrow defeat of a proposal in November last in California for mandatory labeling of foods containing GM ingredients. What is not told is that the organized GM food industry invested $ 45 million to "brainwash" the electorate into believing that GM foods are "substantially" same as the natural counterpart from which they are evolved. The FDA of the US, not considered truly independent in taking citizen friendly policy decisions, being in the grip of the GM lobby and its political supporters, will never be pardoned for this condescending attitude if the future of American citizens is jeopardized in any way because of its lack of concern for their safety and indirect support to the GM food industry. Even the present President will not be spared for his broken promise about mandatory labeling of GM foods made during his election campaign. One can only hope that the new vigor with which the people are fighting the GM food lobby may eventually succeed.

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

MANDATORY LABELING OF GM FOODS-SOME PROGRESS IN THE US

It is not easy to forget the narrow defeat in the California Ballot Initiative last November suffered by those against GM foods for the proposition for mandatory labeling of these genetically manipulated unnatural foods. The tragedy is all the more painful when it is realized that voters who showed support to the extent of 80% during pre-poll surveys were swayed by massive infusion of funds by the GM food lobby to misinform and change the minds of many citizens. The contention of the GM food manufacturers is that genetic engineering does not "substantially" alter the nature of the food which is "practically" identical to the original crop which was manipulated to express or not to express some genes through biotechnological techniques. The very procedure to put to vote such life affecting proposals is not proper as it is the sacred duty of safety and regulatory agencies to take such decisions based on technical data submitted by the industry. Why are these agencies prevaricating is a mystery beyond comprehension by the common man, especially when it is known that more than 64 countries in the world have put in place laws that requires compulsory labeling of GM foods! In a sharp rebuke to the GM food lobby, the tiny state of Vermont in the northern part of the US had the "guts" to pass a law that requires all GM foods to be made and sold in that state to be labeled compulsorily.Here is a take on this encouraging development

"In a major victory for the food movement and consumer advocates, the Vermont House has voted 107-37 in support of legislation that would require foods that are genetically engineered (GE) to be labeled. This is the first-ever State House to pass a bill that would require that all GE foods to be labeled. "This historic vote shows that state legislatures are beginning to step up and support the overwhelming demand from consumers to label GE foods," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety. "Consumers nationwide are beginning to ask questions about the growing influence of chemical companies in food production. They are demanding the information necessary to make healthful decisions about the foods they serve to their families. We congratulate Vermont on taking this important step and thank these legislators for standing up to powerful special interest groups." Center for Food Safety (CFS) has been at the center of the fight to inform consumers about GE foods for over a decade. CFS provided legal testimony before the Vermont Legislature in 2005 and has maintained an active presence in the state, providing resources and expert legal and scientific advice to the citizens and lawmakers of Vermont. Sixty-four nations including China, South Africa, and all countries in the European Union currently require GE foods to be labeled. Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) last week introduced federal legislation that would require nationwide labeling of GE products. "Even though industry spent $45 million in California to fight Prop 37, the initiative lost by a very narrow margin. Progress on GE food labeling in states such as Vermont shows that the tide is turning. People are demanding their right to know how their food is produced and state legislatures are responding positively," added Rebecca Spector, west coast director of CFS".

What prevented the GM lobby from influencing the law makers is not known but it is reasonable to assume that Vermont being a small market for them they are prepared to sacrifice the business there. Who will be the sufferers if major manufacturers of processed foods start a market choking operation denying the citizens there free flow of foods into the market? Is there an alternative option for the state if no manufacturer is willing to sell any food without GM tainting? In a federal structure it will be difficult for a lone state to impose laws different from that exist in other states. It will be interesting to watch for further development in this war on labeling!

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

A FATAL NEXUS AGAINST CONSUMERS-THE US TRAGEDY!

The power of the GM food industry has recently been demonstrated in no uncertain terms when the government in the US prohibited courts interfering with propagation of transgenic plants like sugar beets in future! In no civilized country such a thing can happen because of the responsibility cast on the government to protect the citizens from any type of danger to their life. No doubt that the GM foods have come to stay in the US market, uncontrolled and unregulated by the government there because of the massive influence of the GM food industry on the law makers there through financial donations during election. Of course there is an ethics committee of the Senate which is after all a closed club of supporters of GM foods and nothing concrete can be expected from it in cases pertaining to corruption by the GM food industry. There are wide spread protests against this sordid policy orchestration though it is unlikely the government would bend. Here is a sad commentary on this new twist to the GM food story which can at best be described as a tragedy. 

Why is this such a big deal? The court system is often our last hope, with Congress, the White House, and regulatory agencies deep inside industry's pocket. Several legal challenges have resulted in court decisions overturning USDA's approval of new GMO crops, for example, sugar beets. So the biotech industry, unable to make its case to a judge, figured why not just rewrite the Constitution instead, with the help of a Democratic Senate led by Senator Barbara Mikulski, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Despite Montana Senator Jon Tester's best attempts to stop the so-called biotech rider, the measure was pushed through. (Industry had tried to get a similar measure passed more than once last year.) Tester minced no words in an article in yesterday's POLITICO about this and other industry power grabs such as weakening small farmer protections: These provisions are giveaways, pure and simple, and will be a boon worth millions of dollars to a handful of the biggest corporations in this country. They deserve no place in this bill. We simply have got to do better on both policy and process.

No doubt the GM foods have been tested extensively and no specific evidence has surfaced damning the technology or the products derived from this new breeding techniques. But all the studies which have found little evidence of safety risks are based on limited scale and short time duration. Those who care for the precious lives of future generation have the right to insist on establishing the safety beyond a shadow of doubt. The intolerance of criticism by scientists, social activists and consumers is great, GM food industry does not want its products to be even labeled so that one can make an informed choice whether to buy them or not! USA is the only country in the world which exempts the GM foods from declaring the same on front of the pack label. If such unlimited power is given to an irresponsible industry controlled by a few transnational corporations, what would be the fate of the consumers and how he can resist the force feeding strategy adopted by them? There is still hope that such brazen nexus between the "destroyer and the protector" will not be allowed to get away unchallenged in the coming days!  

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

FOOD SECURITY AND GM TECHNOLOGY-WHAT IS THE CONNECTION?

The furious debate regarding the relevance and need for wide scale adoption of genetically modified crop technology world wide does not seem to be abating in spite of tons of scientific reports supporting as well as decrying this new agricultural tool emanating from many research institutions world over. Hardly a day passes without any publication coming out in this subject of intense interest for the consumer as well as policy makers. While the claim that GM technology can raise yield has not yet been conclusively established, it can cut down field losses due to some pests cannot be denied. Similarly long term safety of all GM crops is till uncertain though short term studies do not indicate they are harmful. Environmental issues are still to be sorted out as many fear that wide scale cultivation of GM crops can wipe out the native species over a period of time through contamination. Here is the latest on this subject which only adds to the already existing confusion. 

The US Congress adopted a clause in its 2013 agriculture budget bill that effectively bars the department of agriculture from any attempt to halt planting or harvesting a GM crop, even if the call comes from the judiciary, sparking outrage. India imposed a 10-year moratorium on field trials of GM crops in 2012. Organizations like Greenpeace and activists worldwide welcomed India's decision, but the IFPRI report describes it as a significant setback to food policy, and mainstream scientists argue that GM crops offer a way out of deepening food insecurity as growing conditions like the weather and water become compromised by climate change. IFPRI researchers P K Joshi and Devesh Roy note that the moratorium, "not based on scientific logic, will have negative effects on frontier research and demand-driven technology generation". The adoption of the US clause, nicknamed the "Monsanto Protection Act", was described by Greenpeace as a "sad day for democracy and the future of our food". Mark Bittman, a food writer for the New York Times, cites interviews with the Union of Concerned Scientists stating that GM crops purported to be weed- and insect-resistant are actually failing.  There is no reliable proof that GM crops are harmful to human beings. "That's not the same thing as saying that the potential isn't there for novel proteins and other chemicals to generate unexpected problems," Bittman writes, "which [is] why we need strict, effective testing and regulatory systems." The debate on GM crops is polarized between supporters and those who think it will have long-term impacts on biodiversity, possibly health, and lead to a takeover of food production by corporations like Monsanto. This has also been the case in Africa, where some countries have banned GM maize as food aid. Per Pinstrup-Andersen, 2001 World Food Prize Laureate and the author of a book on the politics of GM food, described India's moratorium as "nonsensical", and said it "reduces India's efforts to assure sustainable food security for its population". He is among the mainstream scientists who prefer to be open-minded on GM technology and believe that while it might not be the panacea to climate-proof plants, it is a tool with some potential to ensure food security in the coming decades.

There is some criticism about Indian Governments 2012 policy of imposing a moratorium on GM food crop cultivation though one cannot find fault with this step considering the rich diversity this country has vis--a-vis food and agriculture. The argument that such a policy will stifle research is misplaced because there is no stopping of research and development of this tool and if the scientific community can come up with GM foods based on "confined" research with safety questions fully solved, Government may be able to justify lifting the ban for the benefit of the country. Any attempt in introducing GM crops must satisfy the need to protect indigenous species through multiple gene pool collection and maintenance. No self respecting country can pass on the responsibility of developing such new technology to private sector monopolists like Monsanto or Cargil which can have potential danger of exploiting the farmers through stifling restrictions and restrictive patenting. Of course a rich country like the US has opted for a policy of protection to the GM seed industry in a big way with least concern to the well being of its citizens, third world countries should not mimic this strange country and opt for farmer and consumer friendly policies only.  

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

AT LAST AN ANGEL APPEARS FOR TRANSPARENCY IN LABELING IN THE US!

By now world over it has become a common belief that the fight between the consumer and the Biotech Industry turning out monstrous GM foods is an unequal one and the latter can never win this "war" for justice. It was only recently that Californian voters were "bribed" through a 45 million dollar brain washing blitzkrieg to defeat narrowly an innocuous proposition calling for mandatory declaration of use of GM ingredients in food products like all other countries in this planet do! Massive march of common men and women from New York to Washington D C last year to appeal/beg/beseech their President to ask the food industry to come clean on use of controversial GM food ingredients in American foods seems to have no effect on the politicians in that country who are under the mesmerizing influence of the Biotech industry! Against such a background the bold decision taken by a large food retailer in that country to break ranks with the apologists of GM foods is music to the ears of millions of American citizens who are overly concerned about the health of the future generations fed on a wide spectrum of GM foods. Here is a take on this important development.

"A. C. Gallo, president of Whole Foods, said the new labeling requirement, to be in place within five years, came in response to consumer demand. "We've seen how our customers have responded to the products we do have labeled," Mr. Gallo said. "Some of our manufacturers say they've seen a 15 percent increase in sales of products they have labeled." Genetically modified ingredients are deeply embedded in the global food supply, having proliferated since the 1990s. Most of the corn and soybeans grown in the United States, for example, have been genetically modified. The alterations make soybeans resistant to a herbicide used in weed control, and causes the corn to produce its own insecticide. Efforts are under way to produce a genetically altered apple that will spoil less quickly, as well as genetically altered salmon that will grow faster. The announcement ricocheted around the food industry and excited proponents of labeling. "Fantastic," said Mark Kastel, co-director of the Cornucopia Institute, an organic advocacy group that favors labeling. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, the trade group that represents major food companies and retailers, issued a statement opposing the move. "These labels could mislead consumers into believing that these food products are somehow different or present a special risk or a potential risk," Louis Finkel, the organization's executive director of government affairs, said in the statement. Mr. Finkel noted that the Food and Drug Administration, as well as regulatory and scientific bodies including the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association, had deemed genetically modified products safe. The labeling requirements announced by Whole Foods will include its 339 stores in the United States and Canada. Since labeling is already required in the European Union, products in its seven stores in Britain are already marked if they contain genetically modified ingredients. The labels currently used show that a product has been verified as free of genetically engineered ingredients by the Non GMO Project, a nonprofit certification organization. The labels Whole Foods will use in 2018, which have yet to be created, will identify foods that contain such ingredients".

It takes courage and conviction to swim against the tide and the action of this retail chain is all the more praise worthy considering the stakes involved. Of course they are truthful in stating that their action is guided by the desire of most of their customers who wanted such labeling and their business is expected to expand by 15% within a short span of time. One point that may disappoint some is the time frame given viz 5 years to bring about this changed policy. It has to be admitted that unilateral action in putting GM label on products made by hundreds of suppliers is not an easy task and the 5 year time frame appears to be reasonable if this aspect is considered. The unfortunate American consumer must be happy that such a trend is visible during their life time, after giving up any hope that the GM food industry would ever oblige them by making the labeling truly transparent as the law has intended.

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

OPINIONS, VIEWS, SCIENCE AND DETECTIVE STORIES! GM FOODS SAFETY

When does one change one's view after years of taking a definitive stand on an issue? Either after becoming a turn coat due to considerations other than merit or getting convinced genuinely that the stand taken was wrong based on new information generated. GM foods, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be considered a closed issue because there are turn coats galore in this materialistic world who are ready to "confess" about their guilt in "opposing" these versions of food products made by genetic manipulation. It does not matter how many such turn coats appear on the scene confessing their mistake in opposing these foods, the truth can never be suppressed. The argument that not even a single person has died so far eating a GM food is irrational and illogical just like saying that no single death has been reported of death any where in the world due to obesity! Logically world need not bother about obesity if such arguments are accepted! It is dangerous to allow such specious arguments to cloud the issue and gloss over it. Here is a typical "view" now being aired by pro-GM lobby players to "convince" the world that GM food is absolutely safe!

In the speech, a founder of the anti-GM food movement issued his personal apology to the planet for the harm done to world food production. Oh, and he also said GM food is without risk to food safety. The money quote: "I don't know about you, but I've had enough. So my conclusion here today is very clear: the GM debate is over. It is finished. We no longer need to discuss whether or not it is safe – over a decade and a half with three trillion GM meals eaten there has never been a single substantiated case of harm." And: "You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid than to get hurt by GM food. More to the point, people have died from choosing organic, but no-one has died from eating GM." Lynas used "unflinching language and tone" in the remarks, according to Bloomberg News, which is where I first learned of this speech. It was downloaded 125,000 times in the three days after it became available. My take is Lynas demonstrated impressive knowledge of science and current GM events around the world. "We are coming to a crunch point, and for the sake of both people and the planet, now is the time for you (the anti-GM lobby) to get out of the way and let the rest of us get on with feeding the world sustainably." And don't think he's gone corporate. Lynas documents how opponents have raised the cost of bringing any GM crop to market that only big corporations can do it. "It now costs tens of millions to get a crop through the regulatory systems in different countries. In fact the latest figures I've just seen from CropLife suggest it costs $139 million to move from discovering a new crop trait to full commercialization, so open-source or public sector biotech really does not stand a chance, " he said. "There is a depressing irony here that the anti-biotech campaigners complain about GM crops only being marketed by big corporations when this is a situation they have done more than anyone to help bring about. As for food safety risks, he says the public has been fooled into misconstruing reality. Germany's deadly 2011 E. coli outbreak was equal to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster with 53 deaths and 3,500 victims of kidney failure and the source was organic beansprouts. Lynas says the people who chose organic to avoid "trivial risk" from pesticides or fertilizers are the one who ended up making fatal decisions. The author has a few good things to say about organic, but wants people to understand it freezes agricultural practices at about 1950, just as the Amish practices stop at about 100 years earlier. His message is we cannot afford to stop there or not use technology to feed a world population of more than 9 billion by 2050. Totally disconnecting food safety from the GM food issue is not going to be easy. Many GM stories you see in the news these days are about obscure patent issues or the intricacies of federal processes. I've chased these myself only to find there was never going to be any "Perry Mason" moment about food safety. However, food safety studies are going to go on forever. One of my colleagues pointed out that a recent Nova Scotia study has found Monsanto's GM cucumbers cause the added problem (or maybe benefit) of causing "total groin hair loss and chafing in sensitive areas."  (Okay, that was Canadian satire.) What it does mean, I think, is that we are going to raise the bar for what makes a GM food story a food safety story. It is the only way we can make sure we are expending time and resources on the right food safety targets. And as I think about it, maybe we need to go back and look at all those illnesses and deaths caused by organic practices and look at whether the public is properly weighing risks".

It is a foregone conclusion that human survival depends very much on increased food production through safe and efficient technology and agricultural scientists will have to evolve such technologies sooner than later to keep up production in tune with growing population. But to argue that GMO route is the only one to achieve production increase cannot be accepted as of now unless there is unanimity about its safety on long term consumption. The specious argument that no death has been reported due to consumption of GM foods cannot be a credible proof for universal acceptance of these artificially fabricated food materials. To continue this logic why is that tobacco was banned when not even a single death was reported due to only cigarette smoking? Why is alcohol consumption discouraged when no single death was directly attributed to drinking of alcoholic products? Why is there restriction on caffeine consumption when millions drink coffee and cola beverages and no one has proved that caffeine has killed any one in the history of mankind? If there are millions of clues and indicators regarding the possible risk of consuming GM foods on the long term which may not be directly due to GM foods but due to collateral damages, can these foods be really acceptable? All countries cannot emulate the US and if this country wants its population to be under the ever dangling sword in the form of threat of impending calamity from GM food consumption one day or the other it is their business. Future history will prove how responsible those countries not allowing unrestricted use of GMO foods are in protecting the health of their valuable citizens!

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

"WHAT IS GOOD FOR YOU IS NOT GOOD FOR ME"-THE NEW GM FOOD PARADIGM!

The high priests of GM Foods, the American Government seems to be practicing a fraudulent deception on the citizens, if recent reports suggesting that members of the administration including the president do not eat GM foods, scrupulously following an organic food based diet! Added to this the creators of this demonic foods the monopolistic corporate players which has a vice like grip on the government are also consuming only organic foods. The problem is that there is no regulations in the country that could have forced the industry to label foods containing GM food ingredients. Same appears to be true in China also where elite is fed with safest foods containing no dangerous chemicals or genetically mutilated ingredients. Can there be a more disgraceful practice of double standards than these examples? While America is considered a "bastion" of democracy, the Chinese is at the other end of the spectrum with no personal freedom available to its citizens! What a remarkable situation where democracy or communism does not make much difference to the food safety environment. Here is a take on this paradox!  

"With a sad twist of irony, corporate and government elite dine on safe, organic food while the masses, those very people who are supposedly represented and protected by their governments, are poisoned by hidden genetically modified organisms, pesticides and dangerous contaminants. The presidential family demands organic food in their kitchen, yet behind closed doors, shake hands with the biotech industry. China's top brass is fed by an exclusive, gated organic garden while the rest of the population consumes GM food, steroid contaminated meat and dairy laced with melamine. Even Monsanto's own employee's command non-genetically modified food in their canteen. Access to clean, organic and healthy food is not a given right anymore -- it has become a political battleground with the average citizen suffering the loss".

What is reprehensible in this situation is the reluctance on the part of the ruling elite to even provide a transparent labeling policy that would have enabled the citizen to choose the food one wants! The mammoth procession of American citizens from New York city to Washington D C to plead with the president to make the food industry label appropriately foods tainted with GM ingredients does not sem to have moved the President to order such a policy. The forth coming referendum in California regarding compulsory labeling of M foods made and sold in that state may yet arouse sufficient urgency on the part of the US government to join more than 50 countries where such labeling laws are in force.

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

GM FOOD LABELING-THE WAR IS HOTTING UP!

The mandatory "front of the pack labeling" is intended to respect the right of every citizen to know what is inside a food pack and compare the same with what is offered by others in the market. Almost all countries have labeling regulations with little variations but basically the objectives remain the same. While consumers whole heartedly welcomed such initiatives for the benefit of the community at large, it is the industry which consistently and aggressively resists such regulations, fearing an adverse impact on its financial health. If food industry appears on the wrong side of the consumer family it is because of such gross insensitivity to the well being and sufferings of the very consumers who after all provide its "bread and butter". The on-going war on mandatory GM labeling policy being put on the ballot initiative in California, USA for eliciting majority opinion is being furiously resisted by the industry and millions of dollars are being invested to defeat the proposal. It is very difficult to imagine the reason for such a negative attitude of the industry, considering that what is being asked from them is to declare if their products contain genetically altered ingredients. After all there are many processors who do not use GM ingredients in their products and an opportunity "window" opens up for the consumer to buy those products if labeling is insisted upon. Here is an interesting critique on the subject and consumers all over the will be looking for a massive endorsement of the policy initiative in California.

"This November, Californians will vote for or against Prop 37, the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act. The outcome of that vote will likely determine whether the U.S. will one day join the nearly 50 other countries that allow their citizens to choose between genetically engineered and non-genetically engineered food through the enactment of laws requiring mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms(GMOs). The election is three months away, but the battle lines were drawn months ago. Lining up against the consumer's right to know — and throwing plenty of money into the fight — is a long list of industry front groups, food conglomerates and biotech companies. Near the top of that list is the powerful Washington, DC-based Grocery Manufacturer's Association (GMA), a multi-billion-dollar trade association. The GMA represents America's $1.2 trillion "Big Food" industry, led by supermarket chains, Monsanto and other biotech companies, animal drug companies, multinational food manufacturers, and junk food restaurants — all of whom rely on the use of dangerous chemicals, pesticides, animal drugs, and GMOs to produce cheap, contaminated food".

One natural question that arises out of the above situation is why the industry is opposing the transparency sought to be achieved through the new labeling policy when there are divergent views regarding the safety and environment dangers posed by GM foods. If irradiated foods, with tons of safety studies concluding that they are safe, needs to be labeled under American law, why not GM foods? A logical question that must replied by those opposing GM labeling proposal. It is amusing to note the stand taken by the antagonists of the proposed policy of compulsory labeling regarding the impact of such a move on the future of Biotechnology as if this modern wonder science is restricted to only developing GM foods! One important consideration about this issue is regarding the logistical difficulties that may arise once California voters approve the proposal because California is one of the 50 states in the US and food industry will have to either declare GM foods for entire country or separate labels need to be printed on products made and marketed in that state. Probably Food and Drug Administration deserves blame for this dilemma as this agency has shirked its responsibility by not passing such a law with national foot print, applicable to the entire country, probably bowing to the lobbying power of the GM food industry giants..

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

MICROSOFT AND FOOD-A QUESTIONABLE INVESTMENT

No one disputes that this Planet is heading for difficult days in a few years' time if food production does not keep pace with the expanding population. The debate revolves around the means required to achieve quantum jump in food production. Options like expanding the area of cultivation, increasing productivity through better inputs to agriculture and reducing wastage are good to talk about but are mired in uncertainties and road blocks which are difficult to be overcome easily. Genetically engineered agricultural crops are touted as an answer to the vexing food problem but unfortunately the GM technology has not been able to convince majority of scientists that it is a safe bet beyond a shade of doubt regarding its credentials to achieve perceptible yield increase. Another dimension to this problem is the inability of many poor farmers to cultivate available land due to economic limitations to harness the essential inputs to agriculture. Recent entry of large charitable organizations into efforts to generate technologies that can work efficiently without vital inputs like nitrogen fertilizers and water is a welcome development. Here is a report about such an effort by one such organization which wants to evolve cereal plants with an ability, like leguminous plants, to fix atmospheric nitrogen and self generate the required natural fertilizer.

"It is one of the largest single investments into GM in the UK and will be used to cultivate corn, wheat and rice that need little or no fertiliser.  It comes at a time when bio-tech researchers are trying to allay public fears over genetic modification. The work at the John Innes Centre in Norwich is hoped to benefit African farmers who cannot afford fertiliser. Agricultural fertiliser is important for crop production across the globe. But the many of the poorest farmers cannot afford fertiliser - and it is responsible for large greenhouse gas emissions. The John Innes Centre is trying to engineer cereal crops that could get nitrogen from the air - as peas and beans do - rather than needing chemical ammonia spread on fields. If successful, it is hoped the project could revolutionise agriculture and, in particular, help struggling maize farmers in sub-Saharan Africa - something the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is keen to do. 'Major problems' Professor Giles Oldroyd from the John Innes Centre, who is leading the team, said the project was vital for poorer producers and could have a "huge impact" on global agriculture. "We believe if we can get nitrogen fixing cereals we can deliver much higher yields to farmers in Africa and allow them to grow enough food for themselves." However, opponents of GM crops say results will not be achieved for decades at best, and global food shortages could be addressed now through improving distribution and cutting waste. Pete Riley, campaign director of the group GM Freeze, said there was a realisation by many farmers across the world that "GM is failing to deliver". "If you look in America, yields haven't increased by any significant amount and often go down," he said. He added: "Now we're seeing real, major problems for farmers in terms of weeds that are resistant to the herbicides which GM crops have been modified to tolerate."

While the gesture from organizations like the one above is worthy of appreciation, use of the funds exclusively to go in for genetic modification to alter the basic nature of cereal plants and their genetic signature may invite criticism from those having severe reservations regarding safety of GM crops. With most consumers shunning GM foods, if offered as a choice, how far the newly engineered crops will find acceptance is a question that begs for an answer. Alternate options like traditional hybridization and other possible techniques should not be ignored because development of new strains takes long years to fructify and world should have as many options as possible when the crunch comes.

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

GM FOODS-THE GREAT LABELING WAR!

Labeling regulations which are in force in many countries have been evolved to provide useful information to consumers regarding the nature of foods sold, its nutritive value, expiration date, price per unit and any others of relevance. The system currently in vogue has served admirably in most cases though there are rumblings from some quarters seeking more information about the foods marketed. The information provided is mostly confined to the products and no one questions the nature of technology used to prepare the foods. One of the exceptions to this rule was made in the case of irradiated foods where some countries insist on declaring irradiation process on the label. The endless campaign to compel the food industry to declare whether a particular food is made through genetic engineering technology or whether the product contains ingredients made by genetic manipulation is running its course in countries like the US where a massive procession was taken out by antagonists of GM foods to the Office of the President of that country demanding compulsory labeling of such foods. This is a very controversial subject with no unanimity regarding the safety of GM foods on a long term basis with opponents and supporters marshaling "evidence" in support of their stand. While the food safety authorities in the US has not changed its stand taken in 1992 that GM products are safe to consume, there are many states which are taking initiatives to force their local governments to impose such labeling restrictions. The State of California, considered one of the most progressive states in the US is considering  compulsory labeling regulations based on a referendum to be carried out soon to seek people's view. If passed by a majority, no food industry can sell any product containing GM food ingredients in that state. It will be interesting to watch the developing situation which will shape the future of GM foods in the US. Here is take on this controversial subject.     

Voters will soon decide whether to make California the first state in the country to require labels on products such as sweet corn whose genes have been altered to make them resistant to pests. Proposition 37 promises to set up a big-money battle pitting natural food businesses and activists against multinational companies including PepsiCo,Coca-Cola and Kellogg. Backers and opponents have already raised nearly $4 million combined for campaigns to sway voters, an amount that's likely to swell into the tens of millions of dollars as the November election approaches. So-called GMO foods — those made from genetically modified organisms — have been declared safe by U.S. regulators. But concern persists about the unforeseen consequences of this laboratory tinkering on human health and the environment. The outcome in California could rattle the entire U.S. food chain. An estimated 70% to 80% of processed foods sold in supermarkets could be affected, industry experts said, along with a variety of fresh fruits and vegetables. The measure qualified for the California ballot with nearly 1 million signatures; labeling in the state could set a precedent that's followed nationwide. "This will be a big fight," said Shaun Bowler, a UC Riverside political scientist specializing in initiatives. "This is a popular issue because people are very afraid of the words 'genetically engineered.' And the people who sell this stuff are worried about losing sales." Backers of the initiative are encouraged by a pair of recent national opinion surveys showing that about 9 out of 10 consumers support labeling. A California-specific poll, released Thursday by the Business Roundtable and the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, showed Proposition 37 has an almost 3-to-1 ratio of support, with 64.9% of prospective voters favoring it, compared with 23.9% opposed. 

Why the US alone is resisting this labeling demand is some what unclear though strong lobbying by GM food giants with billions of dollars at stake may be behind this anachronism. Over 50 countries have compulsory labeling rule for GM foods and nothing untoward has happened during the last few years such restrictions were in force. The fact that GM food labeling controversy has become a political foot ball match between the States and the Federal Government is making the situation more dicey. It is not clear how similar propositions to label GM foods never got majority support in some 20 states where balloting had taken place during the last few years. Whether California balloting will break with the past remains to be seen but if pre-referendum polls of overwhelming support from the people, are to be believed, food industry in the US will have to work out a different strategy to market their food products in that state since  almost 80% of foods in that country are based on GM ingredients.

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

IN DEFENSE OF GM FOODS-WHERE LIES THE TRUTH?

Genetically Engineered (GM) food is a highly controversial subject with no unanimity among the scientists regarding its safety. Tons of reports have been written for as well as against the safety or desirability of this modern scientific marvel. Depending on who is talking GM food can be a catastrophy if permitted world wide or it can be a boon to augment food supply to meet future food needs. What is forgotten in this highly emotional debate is the freedom that is an inherent right of every denizen to decide what he or she wants to eat. It may be true that almost 80% of processed foods eaten in the US contain one or more ingredient derived from a GM crop but the sad part of it is that the consumer never knows about it because of the skewed labeling policy in force in that country. Interestingly the dichotomy of the US Food Laws is brought out by the stipulation laid down for compulsory declaration on the label of foods processed with irradiation technology! The protagonists of GM technology, mostly industry supported, talk only about the safety of the foods derived from GM materials ignoring the right of the consumer to determine for himself whether he wants to consume such foods! It is a shame to call the act of the industry "capitulation" because industry knows what is to be offered to the consumer based on their preferences and reservations. Here is a gist of the arguments from GM supporters which does not make any sense at all. 

"During the late 1990's, a singular phenomenon appeared in countries around the world. One after another, food and beverage companies capitulated to activists opposed to a promising new technology: the genetic engineering of plants to produce ingredients. They are still capitulating to this day. The Japanese brewer Kirin and the Danish brewer Carlsberg eliminated genetically engineered ingredients from their beers. In the United States, the fast-food giant McDonald's banned them from its menu; food manufacturers Heinz and Gerber (then a division of Switzerland-based Novartis) dropped them from their baby-food lines; and Frito-Lay demanded that its growers stop planting corn engineered to contain a bacterial protein that confers resistance to insect predation. These measures were rationalized in various ways, but the reality is that by yielding to the demands of a minuscule number of disingenuous activists, the companies opted to offer less safe products to consumers, thereby exposing themselves to legal jeopardy. Every year, innumerable packaged-food products worldwide are withheld or recalled from the market due to the presence of "all natural" contaminants like insect parts, toxic molds, bacteria, and viruses. Because farming takes place outdoors and in dirt, such contamination is a fact of life. Over the centuries, the main culprit in mass food poisoning often has been contamination of unprocessed crops by fungal toxins – a risk that is exacerbated when insects attack food crops, opening wounds that allow fungi (molds) to get a foothold. For example, fumonisin and some other fungal toxins are highly toxic, causing esophageal cancer in humans and fatal diseases in livestock that eat infected corn. Fumonisin also interferes with the cellular uptake of folic acid, a vitamin that reduces the risk of neural tube defects in developing fetuses, and thus can cause folic acid deficiency – and defects such as spina bifida – even when one's diet contains what otherwise would be sufficient amounts of the vitamin. Many regulatory agencies have therefore established recommended maximum fumonisin levels permitted in food and feed products made from corn. The conventional way to meet those standards and prevent the consumption of fungal toxins is simply to test unprocessed and processed grains and discard those found to be contaminated – an approach that is both wasteful and failure-prone. But modern technology – specifically, the genetic engineering of plants using recombinant DNA technology (also known as food biotechnology or genetic modification) – offers a way to prevent the problem. Contrary to the claims of food-biotech critics, who insist that genetically modified crops pose risks (none of which has actually occurred) of new allergens or toxins in the food supply, such products offer the food industry a proven and practical means of tackling the fungal contamination at its source".

There may be many good features associated with GM technology but unless there is economic or health or safety advantages consumers can never be expected to patronize such products and GM foods fall far short of these yardsticks. There is no point in blaming those industry players who shun GM foods as "capitulationists", just because they are not toeing the lines of GM lobbyists. No industry will dare to force the consumer to eat a product not acceptable to the latter, no matter how good it is from industry perspectives. Same applies to irradiated foods also where there is near unanimity regarding the safety of these foods. Still industry does not want to use the technology for fear of consumer backlash. After introducing mandatory labeling of GM foods, if consumers still want to use them industry will be justified in continuing with them.  

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

A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON "SOUND EATING"-NEED FOR MORE DEBATE

Importance of sustainability to protect mankind from impending crisis vis-a-vis energy shortage cannot be over stressed. Practically every knowledgeable expert agrees with the contention that food raising practices will have to cut down on energy intake as existing reserves of non-renewable energy resources are bound to be exhausted sooner than later. No amount of glib talking about renewable or inexhaustible energy sources can mask the reality that it is nothing but a Utopian dream. Emergence of movements like Locavores, Slow Foods, Urban farming, Campaign against industrial farming etc can be attributed to this realization which is slowly dawning on people impacting their living styles. Contrary to the common perceptions that GMO is bad, commercial agriculture is detestable and more local foods must be eaten to safeguard future is debunked by a recent analysis by a reputed economist in the US which is interesting to read. Here is a take on the issue.  

"Food people need to pick their issues," says Tyler Cowen, an economist, blogger, and connoisseur of cheap, ethnic eats in the Washington, D.C., metro area. "I think the issues that are important to pick are meat and antibiotics." Issues that are not important, in Cowen's view? Eating local, going organic, eliminating GMO crops. Cowen's new book, An Economist Gets Lunch, takes a series of unorthodox stands on the best way to eat well while improving the world. It reads like a how-to guide for adopting Cowen's particular brand of conscientious eating and tosses aside certain closely-held tenets of foodies and environmentalists. Locavorism gets the hardest rap, and agribusiness an unusual amount of praise. It's occasionally aggravating, particularly since Cowen often cites details without research to back them up. (In the great dish-washing debate, for instance, he advocates for hand- over machine-washing but apparently wasn't aware of the energy and water-saving advantages of the dishwasher.) Still, it's worth considering the points on which he aligns with traditional food gospel and the points on which he differs. Taken together, they offer a reasonable, alternate vision for how to approach these issues. Like most environmentalists, Cowen supports a policy that would control carbon emissions. His policy of choice is a carbon tax, which would help guide consumers' choices to low-carbon products and activities and release us from the burden of remembering what we're supposed to be doing and what we're not. "Most people, even well-informed people, don't have a good sense of how much an afternoon drive in a Mercedes contributes to the climate change problem relative to buying a batch of flown-in asparagus or subbing in a steak for a chicken breast," he writes in the book. He sees deforestation as a major problem, and supports a higher tax on meat and efforts to support reforestation. He also wants to encourage lower-carbon urban living by eliminating height limits and parking requirements for developers. Most environmentalists could get on board with that vision. But Cowen also defends agribusiness on environmental grounds: its efficiency has kept more land free of agricultural development, he argues, and makes feeding cities possible. He thinks that countries where hunger is still a problem need to adopt similar systems, including GMO crops, and that, on balance, chemical fertilizers have both advantages and disadvantages"

Of course everybody has a right to express his or her opinion on any matter and if there is some substance in such views people are bound to listen. Here is an economist who has expressed his views on to day's issues concerning food and energy which seems to be attracting wide attention. Whether his opinions are based on reality needs to be debated and in a democratic world every dissenting voice must be heard before coalescing towards a consensus. It is for the international community to take note of the new dimensions thrown up by the above report. After all there is no difference regarding the urgent need for cutting down on carbon emissions and controlling criminal energy guzzling practices of to day and variance is only regarding the best solution that can abate the alarming situation being faced by Homo sapiens.  

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

AWARENESS ABOUT GM FOODS-NO UNIVERSAL CONCENSUS

The controversies surrounding GM foods never seem to be ending with increasing polarization taking place all around regarding their safety. Though countries like China, with authoritarian governments at the helm have adopted GM foods with out bothering about the feelings of their populations, there are many others categorically rejecting these unnatural versions of food as unsafe or not proved unequivocally safe. Recent Bt Brinjal incidence in India has shown how sensitive people can be to issues concerning food safety and environmental protection though this is a country with high degree of illiteracy! Contrast this with the situation in the US where literacy is very high but 80% of market foods contain GM food ingredients. This anachronism can be explained away by the irony that despite being a democratic country the US government does not mandate the industry to declare the GM origin of the ingredients on the front of the pack label denying its citizens the fundamental right to know what they are eating!  Against this background the attitude of people in a country like the UK where citizen's right is highly valued, is worth knowing and this has been highlighted in a recent survey. Here is a gist of the conclusions of this study:

"Twenty nine per cent of those polled said GM food is good for the economy. A similar number- 27 per cent - disagreed with the statement and 44 per cent said they didn't know. Just over half agreed that GM food helps people in developing economies. Twenty four per cent agreed that the foods are safe for future generations - a fall from 31 per cent in 2010. The proportion who believe there to be safety risk also fell, from 39 per cent to 27 per cent, leaving more people sitting on the fence. The men were more pro-GM than the women but levels of varied depending on the potential use of the technology. For instance 64 per cent of those quizzed were supportive of a rice group with built in vitamin A that could stave of malnutrition and blindness. But just 22 per cent agreed with the production of carnations coloured violet through genetic modification. Sir Roland Jackson, chief executive of the British Science Association, said the survey showed 'a pretty high awareness of GM food' and considerable interest in the subject, with two-thirds of respondents interested in it."

Amid all these arguments and counter arguments, a basic issue has been obscured, that is about the personal freedom of the denizen to choose and consume what he wants with full knowledge of its advantages and deficiencies. It is here that governments world over must concede the inevitability of letting their citizens know in a clear and transparent manner what is offered to him by the market and front of the pack labeling must be made mandatory whether one likes it or not. Industry must not be allowed to hijack this right of the consumer through lobbying and money power. The above survey cannot be interpreted, as the GM lobby is trying to do, to mean that consumers are increasingly accepting GM foods but it only exemplifies their dilemma in coming to any conclusion in absence of "conclusive" data regarding the safety of GM foods to humans and the environment beyond a shadow of doubt. 

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com