Using kids toys for more healthy foods-New policy ploy for improving nutrition of fast foods

Advertisements and gift attractions are integral part of promoting a product or a service. Commercial promotion has become such a critical part of any modern marketing that business volume is invariably linked to intensity of advertisement and promotion and the spending incurred by the brands. Look at to day's Television industry in India where piggy back riding on entertainment and other broadcasting programs seems to be bringing in more than adequate returns for those brands for the money invested. It is another matter that the proportion of time usurped by the commercials to the program content is increasing alarmingly, often taking up more than 50% of the slotted program time. Incredulously most advertisements are so stupid that the viewers, if given an app to skip them,  will gladly use it with great relief! On the ground level, marketeers also use the ploy to offer gifts to consumers if they buy their products and many unwary buyers fall for this trap. Children are especially vulnerable to this allurement and success in providing toys in packed foods as well as in restaurants have been clearly proved to be most successful way of persuading parents to buy junk foods succumbing to the pleadings of their kids.Taking into consideration this trend many policy makers are proposing using the same strategy to promote healthy foods through the toy route. Here is the gist of it as being suggested by researchers at the New York University Langone Medical Center based on the results of field studies establishing the soundness of this concept.   .  

"If a proposed new policy in New York City is approved, then fast food meals that come with toys would contain fewer calories overall, and fewer from fat and sodium, researchers report. "We can create policies that will nudge us toward healthier behaviors," said senior author Marie Bragg, of NYU Langone Medical Center in New York. The proposed policy, which was introduced to the New York City Council, says fast food meals that come with a small toy must include a serving of fruit, vegetable or whole grain. The law would also limit meals with toys to no more than 500 calories, and it would place additional restrictions on fat and salt. To estimate the effect of the proposal, researchers analyzed food purchases made by 358 adults for 422 children at Burger King, McDonald's and Wendy's restaurants in New York City and New Jersey in 2013 and 2014. The average child in the study was seven years old. As reported in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, the adults purchased an average of 600 calories of food for each child, with a third of those calories coming from fat. The meals contained an average of 869 mg of salt - more than half the total daily limit recommended by the American Heart Association. About 35 percent of the children ate kids' meals that came with toys - and 98 percent of those meals did not meet the proposed guidelines, the researchers write. If all the meals with toys met the proposed standards, children would consume 9 percent fewer calories and there would also be 10 percent reductions in salt and calories from fat, the researchers calculated. "It's a rather small amount in comparison to how bad the country's obesity problem really is," Bragg acknowledged. But small changes could add up, she said. "There's a lot of value in the incremental changes that can sum up to a great impact with all the other changes occurring in the environment," such as policies that create healthier workplaces and communities, Bragg told Reuters Health.

Bragg hopes fast food restaurants won't try to sidestep any new policies. "We're at a point where we have to move the needle and we have to do it with policies like this," she said. (http://www.ajmc.com/newsroom/happy-meal-study-gives-new-life-to-nyc-council-proposal)"

This is a welcome development because earlier policy makers were worried about the negative impact of the successful use of toys by the manufacturers of junk foods in making fortunes made by exploiting the soft minds of young kids who easily get tempted by the toys offered and involuntarily flock to such restaurants and kids section of super markets offering such incentives. There are restrictive policies in some places to allow including toys only if the foods sold are within certain parameters of nutrition. Now this policy is being expanded to insist inclusion of toys in food packets or restaurant items for foods with high nutritive and health benefits. How far industry will go along with such a paradigm shift in marketing strategy remains to be seen. Possibly to begin with governments can provide financial incentives to manufacturers for making more and more healthy foods in the form of lesser taxes and reimbursing the cost of the toys given away.

V.H.POTTY

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

FARMERS MARKETS IN THE US-HOW GENUINE ARE THEY?

The organic food movement which started in a small way a few years ago to satisfy the growing demand in the market for safe foods produced/processed without using synthetic chemicals and other unnatural inputs has become a force to reckon with to day. Its share may not be high, less than 10% of the food sector market, every one wants to get into this band wagon and this has naturally caused some distortions vis-a-vis quality of organic foods in some parts of the world. Similarly the local foods and farmers market movement became a rage in the US, most states providing a platform for the small farmers in the locality and nearby to sell their products directly to the consumer without any middle man or retailer in between. The basic presumption is that local farmers bring their produce from nearby with least green gas emission foot print unlike the long haulage involved in most organized retail operations. Besides small farmers are presumed to be honest and do not indulge in unfair agricultural practices. Most farmers markets maintain a degree of integrity that has endeared them to consumers. However recent findings that there are frequent frauds happening in this sector is raising eye brows all around. Here is a take on this subject as reported from the US.

"One doesn't usually think of farmers' markets as being prime locations for fraud, but apparently they do see their fair share of unethical behaviour. When a vendor misrepresents products, whether through direct mislabeling or lack of labeling, the integrity of the market is undermined for everyone. The state of California has decided to crack down on farmers' market fraud. Last week, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a new law authorizing the creation of a group of investigators to ensure that market vendors are following the rules – that is, selling local produce that they've grown themselves and was not purchased wholesale. Every market has its own set of regulations. In New York City, most of the major farmers' markets are run by a non-profit organization called GrowNYC, which ensures that markets are producer-only. That means that vendors can only sell items that they've grown themselves; no reselling, even if clearly labeled, is allowed. As Modern Farmer reports, GrowNYC maintains its high standards by employing investigators who keep an eye on vendors, taking note of any suspicious things such as retail boxes, waxed fruit, or consistently high volume of produce."

It is gratifying that states like California are promulgating stricter laws to deter potential fraudsters from -misrepresenting the products as locally self grown while really they are resellers owning no responsibility for any violations. Farmers market is an excellent concept worth emulating all over the world to encourage small farmers who are at the mercy of mega corporations dealing with food for reaching the market. In India it is incongruous to see a situation where government does not allow direct selling of farmers produce to the consumer. In stead only middle men are licensed to buy the produce from the farmers and most of the time the prices are rigged leading to exploitation of the poor farmers by these sharks. Even in a country like Malaysia there are so called "wet markets" where any one can bring their produce to the market for direct sale to buyers. The weekly shandies in some states in India, mostly in rural parts, do serve the purpose of direct sale but in cities direct sale is not invariably permitted. States in the US like California and New York have strong monitoring regime for safeguarding the integrity and credibility of the Farmers markets and fraudsters are severely punished for violating the concerned regulatory regime put in place for the purpose. India must consider removing the much hated APMC Act that comes in the way of setting up exclusive markets for farmers all over the country, providing necessary infrastructure for handling and storage of perishables and ensuring fair trade practices.

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

SODA CONTROVERSY-SUPREME COURT INTERVENES

It is most unfortunate that in India decisions which can be taken by the executive authorities often end up in judicial courts for orders and directives. Latest case to knock on the doors of the Court pertains to the safety of soda. When there are hundreds of food products, some of which are not even edible, are sold in the market with no proper overseeing, time of the Courts and the government is wasted on silly issues like safety of soda made by the industry as per the standards laid down by the concerned authorities. The observation of the court that consumer must be educated regarding the undesirability of consuming synthetic drinks touches the very core of the problem. Assuming that such education process is a long drawn affair, why should any one suspect that all soda products are dangerous? If so world over these products would have been banned by now. Here is a take on this issue as reported recently. 

"Justice KS Radhakrishnan and Justice Dipak Misra called for the records of the FSSAI's technical committee after counsel Prashant Bhushan said the authority's Sep 12 order was given by its committee on advertisement and labelling, not by the scientific panel on food additives. As Bhushan focused on the health hazards of carbonated beverages, Justice Radhakrishnan observed that the "best course is to educate people not to consume beverages." "All cricketers are promoting soft drinks on television," he said. Assailing the order which was submitted to the court, Bhushan said the order, issued Sep 12 by FSSAI assistant director Kamal Kumar, was like affixing the authority's stamp on a report by soft drink manufacturers. Bhushan, appearing for petitioner Centre for Public Interest Litigation, told the court that the order said benzene residue in carbonated beverages was formed only under certain conditions when agents like benzoates and ascorbic acid were present together with heat, ultraviolet light and metallic ion mixture."However, in the absence of benzoic acid and ascorbic acid together, benezene residues are not generated (in carbonated beverages)," the order said. It said that according to studies by Indian Council for Medical Research, the consumption pattern of the beverages was only 500 ml per day in a "worst case scenario which do not appear to pose any health hazard." The order said Indian Beverage Association had confirmed to the FSSAI that in India, benzoic and ascorbic acids were not present together in the beverages. Seeking the minutes of the technical committee which had a hearing for eight days, Bhushan asked if the FSSAI had itself done any test to determine the presence of benzoic acid in carbonated beverages. Bhushan told the court that the FSSAI was not accepting the findings of its own lab in Ghaziabad."

One may recall the pending proposal in New York, to limit the size of soda products sold in the market to 16 oz or less, is still mired in controversy while in India the very safety of the product is being questioned. If some body is using non-permitted chemical preservatives in a beverage product there is adequate reddressal mechanism in the statute books and those breaking the law can be hauled up for punishment. Regarding the issue of Benzene the traces of this chemical coming from thousands of Petrol Bunks located all over the country and being inhaled by those residing near these outlets and those using fossil fuel based transport must be more dangerous than a sip of soda! Probably not many are concerned about this danger while industry as a whole is being made a whipping boy! Consumer activists do serve a purpose but there should be some balance in accusing the industry day in and day out for things they cannot be blamed.

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

VEGETABLES FROM "HEAVEN"-EVER EXPANDING ROOF GARDENING

Urban agriculture is a hot topic in some countries because of the supposed advantages for vegetables from such endeavors in the form of lesser carbon emission, freedom from pesticides, relatively lesser from pathogens. Though it started in a very small way twenty years ago, recent developments in this sector is raising the possibility that urban gardens may play a critical role in meeting the requirements of vegetables for a significant segment of the city population without depending on arrival from far away places or from other continents. There is even a more friendly version of urban gardening where fresh produce retail shops are installing such gardens in the same building for the customers to pluck their need directly from the plants. It is amazing that a city like New York with a mega population and sky rocketing real estate prices is leading in establishing urban gardens on roof tops which is considered a far sighted development initiative. Here is a report on this interesting phenomenon.

"Today, she could have had both. New York City (the stores!) is suddenly a farming kind of town (the chores!). Almost a decade after the last family farm within the city's boundaries closed, basil and bok choy are growing in Brooklyn, and tomatoes, leeks and cucumbers in Queens. Commercial agriculture is bound for the South Bronx, where the city recently solicited proposals for what would be the largest rooftop farm in the United States, and possibly the world. Fed by the interest in locally grown produce, the new farm operations in New York are selling greens and other vegetables by the boxful to organically inclined residents, and by the bushel to supermarket chains like Whole Foods. The main difference between this century and previous ones is location: whether soil-based or hydroponic, in which vegetables are grown in water rather than soil, the new farms are spreading on rooftops, perhaps the last slice of untapped real estate in the city. "In terms of rooftop commercial agriculture, New York is definitely a leader at this moment," said Joe Nasr, co-author of "Carrot City: Creating Places for Urban Agriculture" and a researcher at the Centre for Studies in Food Security at Ryerson University in Toronto. "I expect it will continue to expand, and much more rapidly, in the near future." For city officials, the rise of commercial agriculture has ancillary benefits, as well. Rooftop farms have the potential to capture millions of gallons of storm water and divert it from the sewer system, which can overflow when it rains. And harvesting produce in the boroughs means fewer trucks on local roadways and lower greenhouse gas emissions, a goal of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's administration. Community gardeners and educators have tended plots and grown food for years. But they have only recently been joined by for-profit companies intent on getting back to the urban land. Gotham Greens began harvesting from its hydroponic greenhouse on a rooftop in the Greenpoint section of Brooklyn last year; it plans to open three more next year in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. The existing operation, with 20 employees, grows bok choy, basil and oak leaf lettuce, and sells to retailers like Whole Foods and FreshDirect. Brooklyn Grange, another farming operation, incorporated with the intention of finding a site in Brooklyn. But two years ago, a one-acre rooftop became available instead in Long Island City, Queens. The partners, led by Ben Flanner, the president and head farmer, spread out 1.2 million pounds of soil and started planting. This spring, Brooklyn Grange finally made good on its name, starting a second farm on a 65,000-square-foot roof at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, where more than 100 rows feature pattypan squash, scallions and beefsteak tomatoes. Mr. Flanner pointed out two benefits to an agricultural aerie — plentiful sun and an absence of pests. "There are a number of parallels with regular agriculture," he said. "What we don't have are deer or foxes or rodents".

A garden friendly policy like that is in place in New York goes out of the way to help potential "gardeners" to establish such productive system and added to this the city itself is offering the roof tops of its own buildings for gardening at reasonable contract fees. The changing attitude of established and reputed retailers towards produce grown in urban gardens is encouraging many citizens to enter this area. These retailers are tying up with those growing salad vegetables for marketing locally and thus create a win-win situation for both. Though all urban structures are not suitable for raising roof top gardens, there are still millions of such apartments and building complexes which may eventually get into this loop. Probably future designs of urban dwellings may incorporate gardening features, suitable for raising small gardens either as a part of the individual units or as a collective roof top facilitiy.

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

SUPER SIZED SODA AND POLITICS-WHAT IS THE REALITY?

Many ideas are emerging for the policy makers to attack the problem of food related health disorders such as over weight, obesity, CVD, diabetes etc. Unfortunately none of them seems to be working with many logistical and social problems cropping up during the translation of these policies into reality. Latest to arrive on the scene is a "ban" being attempted in New York by its well meaning Mayor to prevent the retailers from offering large volume beverage packs for sale. According to the framers of such a policy, consumers buy large sized bottles of high sugar beverages like soda, may be unconsciously, as a part of their mindset buying the most economic size disregarding the risks involved in consuming them regularly on their health. It makes sense because even the limited 16 ounce bottle, permitted under the proposed law, will provide more than 60 gm of sugar, much above the recommended level of 44 gm per day per adult by some health professionals. Naturally the question that begs for an answer is why such a size is selected knowing fully well the sugar load caused by consumption of a 16 oz bottle of soda. More shockingly the hostile reaction by many consumers to the above ban defies logic. It is interesting to listen to the comments by different groups to the ban proposal.  

"Reaction to the proposal came from many fronts on Thursday, falling along two general tracks. The idea was either sound health policy rooted in research, or a perfect illustration of a supersize government gone too far. Some health experts said there might be some correlation between restrictions on soft drinks — many locales, including New York, already ban or limit them from schools — and a leveling off, or in some places even a decline, in childhood obesity. But one researcher whose work was cited by City Hall in defense of the policy said in an interview Thursday that he did not think it would work. At least two candidates for next year's mayoral race also came out against the proposal Thursday, to varying degrees. Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker, said that by limiting personal choice, rather than promoting knowledge, "It seems to me to be more on the punitive side of things." And William C. Thompson Jr., the former city comptroller who lost to Mr. Bloomberg in 2009, released a statement saying, "This move does nothing to teach people about positive nutritional values and sounds more like parlor talk than real solutions for the obesity epidemic." The proposed ban — the first in the nation — would prohibit the sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces, though consumers would not be prohibited from getting refills or multiple servings.  It would apply to virtually an entire gamut of drinks including energy drinks and iced teas, but not to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy drinks and alcoholic beverages, or to beverages sold in groceries or convenience stores. It would take effect in March 2013, after public hearings".
The attitude of the beverage industry is totally negative and instead of cooperating with the law makers who framed this policy in the interests of the citizens, industry has gone on a blitzkrieg attacking the government for this socially benevolent policy. In what way it is adversely affected by this new restrictions is not clear though there may be apprehensions about possible downturn in business which is misplaced. After all any one wanting to binge on high sugar beverages always has the option of buying more than one bottle of 16 oz till his hearts content! One is remained of the tactics of a reputed coffee chain which offers its products under the "small" category which itself has 12 oz while other versions have larger volumes of the drink! Though it has an 8 oz version also, 99% of the consumers never know about it as this is not offered unless one insists on it. Obviously industry does not want to do any thing related to consumer well being voluntarily and only such forceful measures can bring in results.

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

UNCERTAINTIES OF "BIG SERVE" BEVERAGE BAN-WILL IT WORK?

A serious worry that is bothering many restaurants is how the new ban being proposed on "jumbo serving" size in some areas in the US will affect their sales. So far regulators have been targeting food with high caloric density or high fat content and if and when any restrictions are placed on these parameters, it would have been much easier to circumvent the same with modified formulations and new product designs. But the effect of "volume" based ban is some what difficult to comprehend because of the complexities inherent in such a control regime. American market was always driven by the concept that bigger the size of the offering, higher will be the business and the foundation of this very concept is going to be affected by the new policy on serving size of beverages. It is always true in the US that smaller the pack size, higher will be the unit cost driving the consumers, especially those who are careful with their money, to go for bigger sizes which, in turn, drives the business raising volumes. The scale of economy for manufacture invariably brings down the production cost and raise the profit margin. Probably this may be reason for the industry to protest and resist the implementation of the ban on large sized beverage servings. Here is a report regarding the dilemma of an internationally successful coffee chain as to what could be the repercussions of the new policy on its business.

"Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's plan, which would limit the size of sweet drinks sold at many establishments to 16 ounces or less, exempts any beverage that contains more than 50 percent milk by volume. Officials in City Hall and in Seattle said they were unsure how those rules might affect the Starbucks family of syrupy, milkshake-style coffee drinks, catnip to thousands of caffeine addicted New Yorkers who frequent the company's 190 outlets in Manhattan. "It's hard for us to give a definitive word on which of our beverages would be impacted by the proposal," said Linda Mills, a Starbucks spokeswoman, although she said the company was confident that many of its drinks would fall outside the proposed ban. The Starbucks question — complicated by the varying amounts of ice, sugar and milk in each customized drink — is just one of the ambiguities facing the city as it begins a three-month public comment period on the proposed rules. On Tuesday, the Board of Health, which has final say over the rules, agreed to consider the proposal formally at its next meeting, in September. The rules would ban large sodas sold at fast-food restaurants, movie theaters and street carts. But the Big Gulp, the supersized soda cup at 7-Eleven, would still be allowed under the proposal, because the proposal would exempt the sale of drinks in groceries or convenience stores".

As the new policy has not yet been implemented and it is being subjected to more stringent scrutiny in the coming days there may be some changes that will meet with some of the peculiar problems which are likely to be encountered during translation of the policy into practice. Also not understood is why convenient stores and grocery outlets are exempted from the purview of the ban and it is possible that more such stores will start beverage services for circumventing the regulation to make a fast buck in the process. What about the industry offering unlimited refills for the basic 16 oz cup for a slightly higher price which in effect will nullify the spirit behind the new policy. There is a case to exempt beverages containing fruit pulps and milk solids, even if the content is less than 50% because they are much more preferable to 100% sugar based drinks, providing some nutrition. There is every justification to bring in other foods also within the ambit of the banning policy which may include jumbo sized ice creams and large sized high fat products.  Ultimately whether such "pressures" in the form of restrictive policies will make any impact on the obesity epidemic remains to be seen. But trying to do some thing, even with a small chance of success, must not be given up in the face of any hostility from the industry and other arm chair critics!

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

FOOD "JUSTICE"-A CONTROVERSIAL THEME!

The new policy being implemented in New York state for banning sale of sugary beverages in sizes beyond 16 oz is considered a controversial one because some civil rights activists feel it restricts the personal freedom conferred on them by the constitution to eat what they want without any interference from the government. Probably these critics have a case but they forget that beyond an individual, one has to think of the society in which the individual lives and it is inconceivable that unfettered personal freedom can impose misery on the society as a whole. Obesity may be a problem with an individual but what does it cost the society when its members become bloated figures because of "irresponsible" eating? Mind boggling medical costs and unbearable welfare costs to support such a population! There is no way a responsible government can act other than putting in reasonable restrictions on individual freedom vis-a-vis food consumption. After all the new policy does not bar an individual from consuming more than one unit of 16 oz bottle, if he or she is hell bent on developing obesity! Here is a commentary on the latest Soda sale restriction in the US. 

"The idea here is, you tend to eat all the food in the container in front of you," said Bloomberg. "If it's a bigger container, you eat more. If somebody put it in a smaller glass or plate or bowl in front of you, you would eat less." Plates or bowls?  Sounds like six inch dinner plates and tiny forks are right around the corner. These enlightened and progressive ideas aren't confined to the City of New York. In San Francisco, McDonalds can no longer have a toy in its Happy Meals because it makes kids want to buy them. That's just the kind of common sense legislation we need. "We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice," said Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure.  Who could disagree with the noble idea of "food justice"? Parents can't be expected to know what's best for their children. We need wise government officials to force us to make the right decisions. But why stop there? Obesity has reached epidemic proportions, costing this country billions in health care. Let's take our quest for "food justice" to the local grocery store. Why should anyone need to buy a pound of bacon all in one package? Let's sell it by the slice. If you want a bunch of bacon, you're going to have to buy and unwrap each slice. That ought to slow you dummies down. The days of buying huge bags of potato chips are over; four ounce maximum from here on out. We're not going to take away your right to buy lots of bacon and chips, just make it really annoying.  Our lack of exercise is also a major contributor to our bulging waist lines. We have turned into a nation of couch potatoes. In the days of sixty inch, high definition televisions, who can resist watching our favorite programs for hours on end? Certainly, the average Joe is just too weak and ignorant to resist the lure of the Lazy-Boy. From this point forward, no television should be any bigger than twelve inches, and we should go back to black and white. But that's probably not enough. We need to get people to the gym. Don't worry, we're not going to round you up and drag you to the State Fitness Center. But, if you don't join a gym, you're going to have to pay a small tax or fee. Maybe we could even have the people running on tread mills that generate electricity. We could support the green movement and defeat obesity all at the same time. Who could be against that?

The Soda sales ban should be applicable to every other food considered not healthy including sweetened products, high fat foods and meat preparations. The new trend in the food industry in downsizing the pack sizes to make the food affordable to more and more people because of economic recession, may be a blessing in disguise because it can have some influence in restricting the quantity consumed by individual consumer. In this context one has to appreciate the developments in India where, for economic reasons, consumer pack sizes are being tuned to the buying capacity of the majority consumers and if Indian market is flooded with mini packets costing Rs 2 to Rs 5 containing comparatively smaller quantities, it is bound to have a health benefit also! American food Industry is learning this lesson late and the philosophy of New York state in controlling the sales of jumbo packs must be translated into practice by the manufacturing sector as well as the food service organizations.

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