Declaration of "added" sugar on the label of packaged foods -What are the implications?

Rightly or wrongly white sugar has been considered as one of the culprits responsible for some of the worst life style disorders including diabetes and obesity. Though there is no unanimity as to the minimum daily need for sugar in human beings, the fact is that it is a major contributor of calories directly or indirectly through both added sugar as well as derived sugar from carbohydrates consumed as a part of the diet. It is more or less agreed that there is a significant difference between empty calories as represented by sugar, HFCS and refined carbohydrates and nutrient dense calorie sources like sugars present in fruits, whole grains, legumes and other natural foods.  Therefore making a distinction between added sugar by the manufacturers during processing and naturally present sugar makes eminent sense. Presence of about 50 grams of added sugar in the food we consume daily is considered harmless by many health experts and therefore asking the industry to make declaration about it in the label will help the consumer to exercise better discretion regarding the purchase of processed foods. This issue is now coming to the fore and whether the industry will voluntarily agree to this just demand remains to be seen. Here is a take on this new development in the labeling area and its implications on consumer well being. 

"Americans have a sweet tooth, and the obesity and diabetes rates to prove it. The best way to help people eat less sugar is to let them know how much of it is in their foods. Yet a sensible plan to inform consumers about the amount of sugar added to packaged products is under fire from the food industry and politicians. The Food and Drug Administration should stand strong and stick with the plan when it issues its final rules later this year. The FDA has proposed requiring a new line in the nutrition label for "added sugars"— just below the line for total sugar. The label may also specify how much of the recommended daily allowance of added sugars the product contains, out of a maximum of roughly 12 teaspoons. Added sugar deserves a line of its own because it's empty calories. Many nutritious products contain natural sugars: A cup of cherries or grapes can have more than 15 grams, and a cup of 1 per cent milk has 13 grams. Yet this sugar comes along with essential nutrients; that glass of milk contains 16 per cent of the protein a healthy adult needs each day, and 30 per cent of the calcium. In contrast, refined cane sugar, corn syrup and the like that are added to foods and drinks during processing (also called "free sugars") offer no additional nutrients. Americans now get about 13 per cent of their daily calories from them, largely through soda and other beverages, breakfast cereals and frozen desserts. A can of Coca-Cola has more than 9 teaspoons (39 grams) of added sugars. But even products not considered sweet contain them; a tablespoon of ketchup has about 4 grams. A study of 80,000 products on supermarket shelves found that 58 per cent contained added sugar. And while total US consumption has declined in recent years, only 30 per cent of Americans eat less added sugar than the latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend. The food industry has three objections to the labelling requirement. The first is that Americans won't know what to make of the information about added sugar. That may be true, but neither were many Americans familiar with trans fats when they were added to nutrition labels in 2006. And since that rule was passed, thanks also to greater media attention and information campaigns, people cut their consumption of trans fats by more than 75 per cent. (Last year the FDA decided to ban them altogether.) In any case, if most consumers won't pay attention, what do food manufacturers stand to lose from the disclosure? Food makers also argue that the science suggesting that added sugars should be limited is not settled. And it's true there's not a lot of good data on added sugar's connection to health problems. But there's significant evidence that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is linked with obesity. And after reviewing the evidence on added sugars, the federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee found there was a strong correlation with diabetes and obesity, and a moderate correlation with hypertension, stroke and dental problems. Finally, food makers object that almost all packaged-food labels already list added sugars. That's technically true, but the industry engages in all sorts of tricks to hide them, for example by including several different types in a single product so that they appear as low as possible in the ingredients list, which is organized by weight in descending order."

It appears the food safety authorities in the US are considering revamping of the present label content on packaged foods so as to include a provision to declare how much sugar has been added by the manufacturer. This hopefully will make the consumers aware of the same for better selection of products during their visit to the market. The logic is that consumers would shy away from those products containing high levels of sugar prompting the industry to modify the product formulations to reduce added sugar. However such an exercise will have no meaning if the consumers are not informed as to the maximum daily sugar intake that is ideal from the health angle. The highly hostile reaction by the industry can be understood because of the challenge thrown at them to come up with products containing less and less sugar. But in the interest of the well being of the consumer. Industry must fall in line if it has to overcome the trust deficit that is evident to day. Afterall the present technological base is so strong that there is nothing which cannot be accomplished and reformulation of many sugar containing products to reduce the added sugar will not be a major technical problem. One uncertainty is how the regulators can distinguish between natural sugar and added sugar in a product when it comes to regulatory protocols. This issue needs to be considered more carefully before making such label changes mandatory.  
 
V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

COOL Law for imported meat products in the US negated-A logical move

"Bullying can be met only with counter bullying" is a hard learned experience which people and nations are well to remember. The regressive measure on the part of the US government to compel meat industry in that country to declare country of origin  (COOL Law) for meat products imported and marketed in that country generated lot of heat earlier. Strong reaction from countries like Canada and Mexico which are natural and neighborly trade partners of the US, threatening to impose retaliatory taxing on US products imported by them seems to have had its salutary effect on the law makers in that country, leading to the cancellation of this law. WTO also had taken this issue seriously promising punitive action against the US, if COOL law is not scrapped. Here is a commentary on this issue which would have snowballed into major global flash point adversely affecting food business world wide.     

"The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to repeal the Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Amendments Act of 2015 for meat--specifically beef, chicken and pork. The bill, spearheaded by Rep. Michael Conaway (R-Texas), passed with a vote of 300-131 late Wednesday evening.

The COOL Act requires that meat packaging sold in the U.S. must display a few pieces of crucial information:  * where the animals are born, raised and ultimately slaughtered.  * whether or not any of those steps occurred in different countries The bill was originally introduced in May on the same day the World Trade Organization (WTO) shot down a U.S. appeal of their stance that COOL favors domestically sourced meat while unreasonably singling out meat imported from countries like Canada and Mexico. Conaway believes that the COOL program doesn't work, saying that "it is time to put this failed experiment behind us once and for all." He and other representatives stand firm that meat labeling has zero impact on food safety. The repeal is a win for the U.S. meat industry having already experienced some strain in relation to the COOL Act. Supporters of the repeal are also pleased to not have to endure retaliatory taxing by Canada and Mexico in the tune of $3.6 billion which the WTO authorized to go into effect within 60 days of the final ruling. The repeal of the act is a loss for consumers though, one of the main groups that supports country-of-origin labeling simply for informational purposes. House Democrats are ready to move on, saying that while the COOL Act had good intentions, the WTO has rejected it four times. Therefore, repealing it and moving on is in everyone's best interest. The WTO will convene yet again next week to consider Canada and Mexico's plans for retaliatory taxes imposed on the U.S."

A pertinent question that arises from this sorry episode is the inability of the food safety authorities in the US to apply its mind before promulgating such an "apartheid" resembling Act. After all consumer is least interested to know from where his food comes as long as they are safe and conforms to quality specifications laid down in the statute books. Meat industry in the US is right in claiming that such a discriminatory law would affect its fortunes severely, adding further to the labeling cost significantly while it does not serve any purpose. One can understand if country of origin information enables the consumer to determine the carbon foot print of the product which increases with the distance traveled by the product before it reaches the US shores. But that is not the reality and consumers can only think in terms of buying locally produced products putting even better products from other countries in great disadvantage upsetting the very basis of WTO foundation! Protectionists policies can be pursued only if wealthy countries like the US start "cocking a snook" at economically weaker nations who have no strength to defend themselves from such patently unjust and unilateral actions. Present set of US law makers are to be congratulated for correcting an historical mistake with far reaching consequences, restoring the credibility of America as an honest and humanitarian country.   

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

How does Indian food safety vigilance compare with that of USA?

If number of violations and indictments for the same in the food safety area is compared between the US and India, probably we may get some solace that this country is in a better position, especially if health damages from such foods are kept in view. But scratching the surface further, we can realize that such solace is totally out of place because of massive deficiencies in our data base and relatively tough "bellies" Indians have, practically immune to many infectious food borne pathogens. There are neither regular inspections, nor massive product calls nor fast indictment of violators in our country. Can we say with any degree of confidence that any food or water consumed in our country is safe as measured by international standards? Take for example our water supply systems in metro areas. There is no city or town in the country which can assure its citizens that its so called protected water delivery system can pass the safety test where as in a country like the US even water from a toilet tap is relatively safe! Recently there has been some move by the law makers in the US to bring about further improvements in the safety vigilance system there which is commendable. Here is a take on this new initiatives being attempted to overhaul the food inspection machinery that is operating in that country.

"U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is asking the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to increase the number of food facility inspections it performs and deal out greater fines to facilities found to have unsanitary conditions. He also called for an "easily accessible, real-time" source of information for restaurants and consumers who want to know about the conditions of the facilities that produce or warehouse their food.According to a press release from Schumer's office on Monday, in 2014, FDA cited more than 90 food warehouses and other facilities around the country for unsanitary conditions, including rat infestations. Food from those facilities could pose a public health threat, Schumer said. The press release cited a number of examples of facilities that received warnings, including a Brooklyn-based food warehouse containing rodent carcasses and feces, as well as insects at a rice producer and dead mice and rats at a cookie-production facility.FDA currently inspects "high risk" food facilities once every three years, while other facilities are inspected even less often. Even facilities with minor problems should be inspected more often than once every three years, he said.
Schumer outlined a three-part plan he feels would rectify seemingly widespread problems with food facility sanitation:
    1. More inspections. Any facility with problems that merit a warning letter from FDA should be immediately categorized as "high risk." FDA should also increase the number of inspections for high-risk facilities. When facilities provide evidence that they are no longer high risk, they return to a lower classification.
    2. Searchable database of problematic facilities. Restaurants and consumers need a clearer way to tell whether or not they're receiving food from clean facilities. "The FDA should provide an easy to find, search and navigate database of these facilities and their violations on their website or through another forum FDA believes can most effectively inform consumers," the press release stated.
    3. Increased penalties for violations. For fiscal year 2015, the fees associated with re-inspections of problematic facilities were estimated at $217 per hour. That's not a heavy enough fine to encourage strict compliance with food safety regulations, Schumer said."

What is very interesting is the relatively high level of awareness about the problems of consumers vis-a-vis food safety among the law makers and the extent of their involvement in consumer protection programs of the country. In contrast our law makers, if we go by their standards of behavior in the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha or state legislatures, have no time for any thing but shouting, demonstrations, personal fights and many non-issues of total irrelevance to the needs of the citizen. Bills are enacted into law with hardly any discussions and implementation details are rarely worked out. To day's Food Security Act is nothing but a sham, "managed" wholly by the hardened bureaucrats with very little commitment or honest objective. In a country of scarcities in every food category and high prices, probably people may have to build dedicated temples for the "Food God" to protect them from food fraudsters and criminals with very little concern or value for the lives of ordinary people and offer prayers regularly!

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

THE NEW SALMONELLA BUSTER-WILL IT IMPROVE FOOD SAFETY?

America is a country which can be cursed or admired depending on the yardstick one uses. When food safety and healthy foods are concerned, this country has a despicable record though this is not due to the scientific inertia or insensitivity by the scientists to the sufferings of the consumer but due to the attitude of its politicians who are all prisoners of the food industry lobbyists spending millions of dollars to curry favor with them. But scientists as a group are highly innovative bringing out novel findings and new technologies regularly whether for manufacturing or safety assessment. No wonder most of the Nobel laureates hail  from the US during the last few decades. The Netherlands appears to have taken a lead on the US recently by finding an effective solution to the emergence of dangerous pathogens which have much higher damage potential due to their ability to circumvent the lethal effect of most of the antibiotics presently in the armory of the physicians. The so called antibiotic resistance developed by a few disease causing bacteria is the greatest threat to humanity and with the development of a bacteriophage based treatment protocol, primarily for the meat industry which by far is the biggest user of antibiotics at present. here is a take on this new development which has far reaching implications vis-a-vis humans.  

"The FDA and US Department of Agriculture have approved a food processing aid against Salmonella, according to a press release. The additive, called Salmonelex, uses natural phages to eliminate the bacteria. Salmonelex is produced by Micreos of the Netherlands and will be used by poultry processors in the United States beginning in January. "Now that the FDA and USDA have given the green light we can offer food processors a new and natural solution against Salmonella, including antibiotic resistant strains," saidMark Offerhaus, CEO of Micreos. "Salmonelex is seen as a very elegant solution as it targets only Salmonella and has no other effect on the treated food product, neither in taste, nor texture." The food processing aid can be applied as a topical spray or added to chilled tank water. According to the US Food Safety and Inspection Services of the USDA, illnesses attributed to Salmonella have continued at a high rate or have increased despite previous interventions. "Research has shown that Salmonelex does not dissipate in the presence of protein," according to Dirk de Meester, business development manager for Micreos. "Thus, the product enables processors to reduce the use of chemicals and reach Salmonella in places where antimicrobial chemicals are ineffective, for example in follicles which close when exposed to cold water in a chiller."

Proving safety of any food additive or processing aid for contact application is a herculean task involving heavy investments in resources and time. Ready approval by USFDA and USDA for using this processing aid by the poultry industry in the US is all the more surprising because American meat industry has been misusing antibiotics for enhanced growth of the meat animals though there is no scientific explanation as to why this happens. Whether poultry industry will avoid using antibiotics with the availability of the new disinfecting agent from the Nethelands remains to be seen. Salmonella food poisoning is one of the most serious food safety problems in the US and logic and common sense demand that meat processors use this new tool more extensively to protect the consumers from the threat of Salmonella infection of meat products.

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

FOOD-GOOD, BAD AND INDIFFERENT!

Scientists and policy makers world over are struggling to wrestle with the increasing dangers posed by the obesity epidemic which is not showing any abatement in spite of several measures taken by their governments. Food was compared with Tobacco and every body thought that making bad food costlier would persuade consumers from buying them frequently but this has not worked in a few countries which tried this approach. Industry was targeted in some countries to compel it to make only "good" foods though no one is sure what is a good food! No matter how much pressure the government puts on the industry, it is not to be forgotten that industry does not work for charity, being profit driven after heavy investments. One of the biggest mysteries of modern times is why obesity is more or less prevalent in economically rich countries, that too in the western continents though Japanese are least prone to obesity in spite of being a rich country. Same is true with Scandinavian countries where economic growth has not distorted their diets. It is a tragedy that many countries emerging as neo-rich ones are emulating the bad example of the US where the diets are predominated by red meat, fried foods and fat rich products churned out by the industry. On the other end too much dependence on starchy foods based on cereals can also be disastrous when it comes to good health. Here is a sharp analysis about the dynamics of obesity seen from the perspectives of dispassionate health pundits.

"Where is the best place in the world to eat? It all depends, as new calculations from Oxfam show, on what you mean by 'good'. Food in the United States is cheap, abundant, varied and tasty, but it might not be all that good for you - too much fat and sugar have led to 36 percent of Americans being diabetic and 46 percent obese. Japan's food, by contrast, is much healthier, but it's extremely expensive and not as varied. At the bottom end of the Oxfam table are countries like Chad and Angola, where food can be unaffordably expensive and not very nutritious. It can also be quite dull. In Madagascar (fourth from bottom) 79 percent of the food eaten comes from grains and starchy roots, with very little meat, fish, fruit or vegetables. Perhaps the most interesting figures are not from the richest or poorest countries, but those in between - emerging economies making the transition to middle- or higher-income status. Some of the unhealthiest diets of all are in places like Fiji and Mexico, where more than 40 percent of adults are not merely overweight, but obese. The mechanism is no mystery. As people get richer, they want to eat more meat, fish and dairy products, more fried food, more sweets and cakes, washed down with fizzy drinks. Favourite foods vary from country to country, but the dietary transition is the same all over the world. Combined with moving to the cities, having less time to cook and leading less active lives, the dietary shift has brought expanding waistlines and an epidemic of ill-health.The number of overweight or obese people in the developing world tripled between 1980 and 2008."

Sugar and fat are by far the most indicted food components that are implicated in high BMI among people in countries like the US. As the industry turns out more and more mouth watering varieties of processed foods with high convenience factor and rich in these two food ingredients, that too at a fraction of the cost of a nutrition dense fruit or vegetable, consumer just loses his appetite for buying healthy foods, in spite of knowing that sugar and fat rich foods are not good for the health! Obesity is a personal choice if one looks at the freedom consumers enjoys in buying what food is good for him though the food "environment" can over ride his logical choice. Recent revelation that the food habits are formed during the early childhood when kids are enrolled in kindergarten and improper handling of them during these formative years can create future obese people is indeed scary. Similarly cravings for high calorie foods are controlled by the brain and the way it is wired in different people! All these can only further make the world desperate vis -a-vis obesity and as of now the only route for attaining better sanity is through appropriate education at the appropriate time.  

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

USA AND AFRICA- CAN THEY BE PARTNERS IN DEVELOPMENT?

On this planet both rich and the poor co-exist though the quality of life may vary widely because of the so called purchasing power of the people. Africa is considered the poor cousin of rich continents like Americas, Europe and Australia, probably because of centuries of colonial rule exploiting their resources mercilessly. Whether it is England or France, Italy or other colonial countries of the West, no thoughts seem to have crossed their mind to help their erstwhile colonies to improve the lots of those who were enslaved by them. Credit goes to the US for considering Africa as a continent that deserves sizable assistance to develop them through kind and cash and to day this country stands in the forefront in providing bulk of assistance to some of the poorest countries in the world. Recently this country is reported to have launched new development programs for improving the cereal production situation as well as evolving national policies for food security for millions of citizens in the continent. Having said this the million dollar question that begs for an answer is whether there can be an equal partnership between an aid giver and an aid recipient? For all the glib talk that goes in the name of equal partnership, there is still an element of  over lording when it comes to deciding how to go about to achieve an objective. Here is the gist of the report emanating from the US that claims setting up two "innovation labs" whatever that means.             

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator Rajiv Shah launched two new innovation labs to improve climate resilience in some of Africa's main cereal crops and increase private sector investment that can help smallholder farmers. Shah announced the new partnerships at the U.S. release of the Feed the Future 2013 Progress Report, USAID said in a news release the same day. "Today, as we celebrate Feed the Future's success over the last year, I am pleased to launch two new Feed the Future innovation labs with U.S. universities and their partners," Shah said. The new labs are the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Collaborative Research on Sorghum & Millet and the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy. Drawing on the expertise of top universities around the United States, they represent a new model of development that uses science and technology to address challenges in agriculture and food security, USAID said. "The Feed the Future on Sorghum & Millet Innovation Lab reflects President Obama's and Feed the Future's strong focus on using science and technology to help smallholders meet the challenge of increasing cereal production even as climate change alters environmental conditions and reduces agricultural productivity," Shah said. "The Food Security Policy Innovation Lab builds directly on President Obama's leadership in launching the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition last year," he added. "It will help many more countries worldwide achieve major policy reforms, attract significant private sector investments and increase economic opportunities for smallholder farmers, other rural people and urban consumers."

Considering that most countries consume cereal like Sorghum and Maize any improvements in productivity, especially at the level of small farmers with tiny land holdings can be expected to improve the health standards of the local population to some extent. But how this can be achieved is an issue fraught with some serious implications. Americans are known to be the most vociferous champions of GMO foods with 80% of the daily diet in that country derived from GMO foods. As GM technology is still clouded under a controversy regarding the safety of foods produced through application of this unnatural process, the US must resist the temptation to unleash its GMO monopolistic seed companies on the unsuspecting African countries. Already there are reports about some US politicians propounding GMO technology as the ultimate solution to over come the hunger pangs of millions of people suffering from poverty, under nourishment, infectious diseases, infant mortality and short life span. Those countries receiving aid from the US must be aware of this possibility.    

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

THE "NOROVIRUS" SCARE-PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE

Summer is often the real season for infectious diseases as the bugs can thrive under optimal weather conditions available during the period. With the pathogens multiplying at a frenetic pace, they spread rapidly among the population through air, water, food and direct contact with contaminated surfaces. Added to this water scarcity gets acute during summer and hand washing becomes the first casualty. This is true for Bacteria, Virus and other disease causing vectors. Interestingly in a country like the US where winter conditions are still prevalent, a warning has been issued regarding the danger posed by Norvirus, earlier known as Norfolk Agent, and one can imagine the potency of this virus to cause havoc even under hostile conditions. Here is a take on this development.  

"There are some important reasons that lead to so many people becoming ill from Norovirus," said Martin Bucknavage, extension food safety specialist. "One is the virus's low infectious dose. It is estimated that it may take only 10 viral particles to make someone ill. Then, there is the ability of the virus to survive on dry surfaces for two weeks or more and in water for months." The virus, which often moves quickly through a school or cruise ship, can be spread in contaminated food or water, from contaminated surfaces, directly from a sick person or from the intake of aerosolized droplets of vomit. And the main symptom of a Norovirus infection is another factor in its spread -- acute-onset vomiting. "This prevents people from becoming sick in a secure location," Bucknavage said. "Rather, rapid onset can occur at a dinner table, in a meeting or on the bus. People usually become ill within 24 hours of exposure, although longer incubation periods do occur." And once someone gets sick, they can experience symptoms for 24 to 72 hours and can remain contagious for up to three days. Bucknavage says the key to preventing infection is frequent and correct hand washing -- scrubbing hands with soap and warm water. In addition, it's important for people to stay home when ill, especially when they may have been exposed to someone who has had the illness". 

Though the danger is confined to the population of the US where instances of food poisoning have been reported, its advent under tropical conditions cannot be ruled out. If Norovirus is so common in the atmosphere there could be the possibility that most of the population in these regions have already developed immunity long ago and only those with weak immunity might be exposed to the risk. But the immunity developed due to single exposure is considered temporary raising some concerns. An encouraging factor is that most foods consumed in tropical countries are invariably over-cooked causing destruction of all pathogens.Similarly chlorinated water is supposed to be free from this virus. Considering that Norovirus accounts for more than 90% of non-bacterial GI infection, it is better constant vigil is kept on incidences of infections caused by this RNA based virus.

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

MEXICAN FOODS FOUND TAINTED-NEW FOOD POISONING OUT BREAK

No matter how stringent the food safety regulations are, as long as human beings handle food there is bound to be health risks associated with such mass manufactured food products. It is a wonder that instances of food poisoning are not as alarming as it could be, considering the massive volumes handled by the food industry, especially in a high consumption country like the US. The new regulations which are supposed to be more stringent, based on past experience being enforced in that country are giving, probably, false hopes to the consumers that they can relax with no possibility of any danger from the foods they access from the market. Probably such a feeling is misplaced as there is nothing in this world which is absolutely safe, the whole life being a balance of risks and benefits associated with day to day activities. Recent food poisoning episode in the US that affected about 69 people in 10 states has been attributed to foods consumed in Mexican restaurants but it is not yet certain that those affected consumed the food from one or more restaurants belonging to established Mexican food chains. Investigation should pin point the source from where Salmonella was able to gain access to the stomach of the affected consumers so that such incidences are not repeated else where in future. 

"Food Safety News has found that six fast food "Mexican-style" restaurant chains -- Taco Bell, Chipotle, Qdoba, Del Taco, Taco John's and Taco Del Mar -- have locations in at least 7 of the 10 states reporting victims tied to the outbreak. Three chains - Chipotle, Qdoba and Taco Bell - have locations in all 10 states. Because the CDC lists outbreak victims by the state in which their illnesses were reported, it is possible that some of the victims ate contaminated food in one state and fell ill in another state -- meaning "Restaurant Chain A" does not necessarily have a franchise in each state that reported an outbreak-related case of salmonellosis. Food Safety News attempted to contact representatives from each of the six restaurant chains. Thus far, only representatives from Qdoba and Chipotle have stated their chains were not involved in the outbreak. "There is no connection to Chipotle and we have not been contacted by CDC or any other health officials regarding this incident," said a representative for Chipotle in an emailed statement to Food Safety News Monday.  "No, we have not been linked by the CDC to any Salmonella outbreaks at any of our locations," Lauren Preston of Qdoba told Food Safety News Monday. Taco Bell, Del Taco, Taco John's and Taco Del Mar did not return any of Food Safety News's requests for comment, despite repeated attempts. Last week, Food Safety News called the health departments in each of 10 states involved in the outbreak, and the CDC and FDA, and none of these public agencies would provide the name of the restaurant. The list of states where Salmonella enteriditis illnesses were reported is as follows: Texas (43), Oklahoma (16), Kansas (2) Iowa (2), Michigan (1), Missouri (1), Nebraska (1), New Mexico (1), Ohio (1) and Tennessee (1)". 

Has the above episode a lesson to offer to restaurants catering ethnic foods? It is widely known that those catering ethnic foods from China, India, Korea, Vietnam, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka etc are less rigorous in their adherence to standard hygienic and sanitary practices raising the chances of contamination in the preparations made by them. While Indian customers with "strong" stomach might not react to foods marginally tainted, local population trying such foods occasionally may not have the required "immunity" to resist even mild contamination resulting in illness. The message from the above episode is that ethnic food caterers must see the writing on the wall and make their establishment truly safe for every customer who walks in for enjoying their food with no danger of falling sick.

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

RURAL FARMS-A VANISHING "SPECIMEN"?

Rural-Urban divide is a universal phenomenon and it is recognized that those living in cities and towns in any part of the world receive more attention from the ruling class. The wide disparity in living standards between the populations in urban and rural areas is also some thing that is a societal fault line which cries for reddressal without much delay. While in India 70% of the population live in the country side under poverty, underdeveloped infrastructure like roads, power and water supply, their urban cousins have a comparatively higher disposable income that can fetch for them many luxuries besides a decent living style. In contrast in countries like the US there are many rural farms cultivating thousands of hectares of land, getting huge government subsidies, enjoying life styles comparable to or better than average urban families. In this euphoria, there is a forgotten entity of family farmers who are slowly disappearing against the might of large scale farms which dominate the landscape. What are the consequences of such a transformation? Here is a take on this issue through the lens of a small American farmer.

"In the past 30 years, since Ronald Reagan took office, the U.S. government has stopped enforcing antitrust laws, while recklessly encouraging an orgy of corporate mergers. During this time, food and agriculture production has become one of the most concentrated sectors in the U.S. economy. General economic theory states that when 4 or less companies control more than 40% of market share that industry is no longer competitive, competitiveness being the lifeblood of capitalism, innovation and democracies. Today just 4 companies control 84% of the beef packing industry, 66% of the pork packing industry and just one company, Monsanto, controls genetically engineered seeds for corn, cotton, soybeans and canola on more than 90% of the acres that are planted with GMO seeds. Such excessive market concentration has given corporations an increased stranglehold on supply, shrinking both profits and markets for family farmers. Since 1952 farmers have seen their share of the food dollar that they receive shrink from 47¢ on every dollar spent on food to barely 20¢".

Are the big fishes holding the American citizens to ransom by concentrating the food production power in their hands? What is the government doing to reverse such a trend? If the political clout enjoyed by these giant monoliths is any indication there does not appear to be any possibility of salvation for the citizens in this country and added to this the drastic reduction in the budget of the food safety guardian agencies by the partisan political dispensation may increase the consumer woes in the coming years. Looking at the situation in India, the scenario provides a sharp contrast and the small family farms, if they can be called so, are too small to be viable and land consolidation into viable farm size is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. Whether the revised FDI policy allowing global retailers into the retail sector which may develop backward linkage with farming, will change the rural landscape is uncertain as of now. Probably rural farms in India can find salvation only if the concept of cooperative farming is introduced in the country, a shining example being the successful cooperative maize farming in Karnataka run by Tibetan immigrants.

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

THE MOTHER OF ALL STATISTICS!-AN INSIGHT INTO US FOOD SECTOR

Reliable data can only be the basis for any future planning and this is the Achille's Heel with most developing countries. Take for instance the situation in India where critical data and information are neither available nor accessible easily even if they exist. Such an environment is ideally suited for many consultants to proliferate and spin money in the name of "Reports". It is doubtful if these reports are worth the paper on which they are written. While there are a few multinational consultants who thrive in the country mainly on government grants for making such reports, there are also agencies, often managed by retired bureaucrats and others making money at the expense of the tax payer of this country. Contrast this with the fantastic range of statistics available freely on different facets of trade and industry, society, environment, economic status etc at both macro and micro levels in many developed countries. Here is a sample from the US.

"Among the relevant data in the report:

• "Individuals age 15 and over in the United States spent, on average, 1.22 hours per day engaged in eating and drinking activities."

• "Also in 2009, the average household in the United States spent $6,372 on food – which includes money spent on food at home and money spent on food away from home."

• 41 percent of that total was spent on food away from home.

• More than 2 million workers – 1.5 percent of civilian workers in the United States – are employed as cooks.

• 75 percent of those cooks are employed in eating and drinking establishments; 25 percent work in places including hospitals, schools and nursing homes.

• Fast food cooks earn the least nationwide, at an average hourly wage of $8.97; institutional cooks earn the most, at $12.44.

• Cooks in Honolulu earn the most, on average, at $14.72 per hour; cooks in the Morganton, N.C., area earn the least, at $7.49 per hour.

• Cooks in the Puget Sound area earn an average of $11.05 per hour, while bartenders earn $9.27 and wait staff earn $8.59".

Most despicable reality is that even on crucial area of food adulteration and food poisoning there is no worth while information in India conveying the impression that Indian consumers are "happy" with the safety of foods provided to them by the manufacturers, traders, retailers and caterers! Many activist organizations have brought out the fact that India is a major haven for food adulterators and fraudsters with a benign food safety "Authority" unable to do any thing due to the bureaucratic nature of the agency and grossly understaffed technical facilities and infrastructure. The country also does not have a clue regarding the need for trained food technologists and technicians, required by the industry as well as the service sector. It was amusing to read about a recent report from Kerala where there appears to be a dearth of skilled artisans in preparing Latcha Parotha, a favorite wheat preparation of the population there and the restaurants trying to woo experienced "cooks" by offering Rs 10000 per month! Indians have no idea about the diversity of eating habits amongst them selves because there are no reliable data generated based on field level surveys. Unless reliable and extensive macro and micro data are generated the country's planning will always be faulty and behind the time.

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

SPICY FOODS-DRAMATIC SURGE IN POPULARITY

Is it the influence of the emigrating Indians or the increasing intrusion of Mexican foods, that is responsible for the wide spread use of spices in a country like the United States? Indian presence is so ubiquitous now that there are Governors in some states and many elected representatives in some of the local, state and federal legislatures hailing from India and naturally the cultural practices of this country are bound to be disseminated and imbibed by the Americans, though the process may be very slow. Added to this there are thousands of Indian restaurants serving Indian foods to a wide clientèle, further popularizing Indian foods. The "hot" Mexican foods promoted largely by Taco Bell and Chipotle chain restaurants, have carved out a niche for them selves and no wonder spice consumption is soaring in the US. High quality spice powders and blends exported by companies boasting of ISO, HACCP and SAP systems naturally boosted the confidence about the safety of spices amongst American consumers. Though McCormick may not admit its Indian connections, it is a fact that a major part of its raw materials is procured from India. Recent collaboration with Eastern Condiments in India is obviously intended to meet the increasing demand for spices in that country.

"McCormick estimates in the '50s the average American spice drawer had 10 spices. Today the number's grown to 40. "People consume almost a billion pounds of spices a year," McCormick's Lori Robinson said. Twenty-five years ago it was half that. Spice experts say it's the melting pot that's producing spicier meals. As the country becomes more diverse, tastes change. "The cayennes and habanero sauces and spices, the things that really burn their mouth," said Alfonso Rivera, manager of El Centro Restaurant in New York City. Meals that used to be seasoned with salt and pepper now include everything from allspice to za'atar. During a five-year period, the amount of paprika imported into the United States rose from roughly 27 million pounds per year to almost 55 million pounds. Ginger has gone from 62 million pounds to almost 94 million pounds"..

Advent of oleoresins manufactured from a variety of spices has opened up new applications in processed meat products and Super Critical Fluid Extraction technology ensures that almost 100% of the culinary properties of raw spices is captured without any modification. Unlike spice powders, oleoresin emulsions enable the industry to have precision in recipe development and manufacturing with sustainable uniformity. Another reason for the spice portfolio becoming a main stream kitchen fixture is because of their health promoting value with spices and condiments like Turmeric, Ginger, Cinnamon etc becoming proven health protective ingredients. It may be prudent for a country like India to be eternally vigilant to protect its market through strict safety monitoring and stringent export regime.

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

AMERICAN TREENUTS GO "RED"-CHANGING TRADE TREND

China's economic growth has given its citizens enormous buying power which is reflected by the newly acquired taste for luxury foods like tree nuts. Dry fruits and tree nuts are considered most expensive amongst agricultural commodities and with increased attention on these foods for their nutrition and health values international trade is looking up during the last few years. The insatiable appetite for high value and value added products in China is reflected by the enormous surge in demand for products like tree nuts which are produced in large quantities in the country, necessitating large scale imports.

"This year, China will emerge as the top foreign buyer of American almonds, more than doubling its purchases from two years ago, according to data from the Almond Board of California. Last year, China was the top foreign buyer of American walnuts, and in 2007, it became the leading export market for pecans. Altogether, China bought $737 million in tree nuts from the United States last year, up from just $89 million five years earlier, according to the United States Department of Agriculture. "They've basically gone from nothing to No. 1 in a relatively short period of time," said Keith Rigg, of the Minturn Nut Company, an almond grower and exporter in Le Grand, Calif. "It's really taken off like a rocket." The boom follows earlier increases in other American agricultural exports to China, including dairy and meat products, which rose as Chinese consumers became more affluent. But the increase in China's nut consumption has also depended in part on marketers' efforts to change eating habits and tastes. China is the world's leading grower of walnuts, and walnuts have long had a place in the Chinese diet, as in the moon cakes popular during the yearly midautumn festival. So it was easy for Chinese consumers to embrace American walnuts, which are often perceived as being of higher quality than the domestic version. But almonds and pecans were not widely available in China until recently. Complicating matters, the Mandarin word for almonds, "xing ren," is the same as the one for the small, often bitter apricot kernels that are also eaten by the Chinese".

Of course the Americans are happy that their products are finding market in a country with which it has enormous trade deficit. Though the value of the nuts imported by China is only a small fraction of the annual bilateral trade, it reflects the fact that better quality products can have a market in modern China, price not being a constraining factor. What can happen to the trade when Yuan is anticipated to appreciate again dollar remains to be seen.

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

SUGAR BEET "MUDDLE"- THE CONVOLUTED LOGIC!

The recent adverse judgment in the US, allowing sugar beet farmers using GM technology to go ahead and plant their seeds in utter disregard to the welfare of those farmers using conventional seeds, is fraught with grave consequences in that country. The funny excuse given by the court is that Americans would be "starved" off sugar if any restriction is placed on new planting! That too in a country where sugar availability increased by 70% within the last 100 years, touching an all time high of 62 kg per capita and one third the population is obese! Here is the logic used by the court in its judgment.

Essentially, the judge faulted the plaintiffs for waiting too long to bring the suit forward. At this point, he concluded, "If the court were to ban the planting and processing of the genetically engineered sugar beet root crop, there would not be enough conventional seed for a full crop this year. The economic impact of such a shortage would be dramatic and widespread. "That's the rub. Thousands of farmers who already put their seed in the ground for this season and are dependent on it for income would essentially be done in by a temporary injunction. At the same time, when the pollen from these GM seeds starts flitting around the Northwest countryside come May, organic and conventional farmers will be hard-pressed to find a way to prevent contamination and may, in turn, suffer economic harm. It's unfortunate that crop degradation can come in on the breeze while the judicial system moves at the pace of molasses. Because sugar beets account for half of the U.S.'s sugar supply, the whole situation got me thinking about sugar. Shouldn't this be a moot point? It seems that in the era of so-called obesity and diabetes epidemics, it might not hurt American consumers if half of our sugar supply was diminished. (Full disclosure: I'm eating Easter candy as I write this.) The USDA's recent publication, Tracking a Century of American Eating, reveals that availability of sweetener stood at 83.4 pounds per person in 1909. In 2008, the number had grown to 136.3 pounds".

A country like India or Brazil has a vital stake in keeping the international price steady and remunerative as they export substantial quantity of this commodity, earning valuable foreign exchange. Imagine a situation where the American sugar production is halved because of a ban on GM sugar beets. Obviously this could result in very significant increase in global prices and the developing countries sustaining their economy on sugar exports would have the benefit of getting attractive prices for their hard labor in raising the crop instead of depending on uncertain government subsidies for survival.

V.H.POTTY

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

GM SUGAR BEETS-LITIGATION ABOUT "HAZARDS"

While in India many people have raised serious concerns about the safety of Bt Brinjal which has been recommended for introduction in the country by the concerned authorities, the genetically modified sugar beets cultivation, widespread in the US, is being challenged in the courts there. With practically all the sugar produced in that country from sugar beets coming from its GM version, any set back for future cultivation as a result of court orders, will throw the industry into unprecedented turmoil. While safety is not the main contention, it is the devastating effect on organic beets production, because of the real possibility of cross pollination from GM beets field, that is causing concern.

"Introduced into the market in 2008, farmers apparently agreed and Roundup Ready sugar beets saw the fastest adoption rate by farmers of any genetically modified crop. Sugar beets account for more than half of the United States' sugar production, and since the GM beets were deregulated nearly four years ago, nearly 95 percent of sugar beets produced in the US are genetically modified".
 


Some recent findings by European investigators do indicate that GM versions of corn and soybean are not completely safe and could cause some toxicity to humans. How ever no reports have so far surfaced raising serious safety questions on consumption of sugar made from GM beets. Unlike corn and soybean sugar beets undergo extensive processing leading to crystallization of almost pure sugar and therefore presence of toxic substances is unlikely. The decision of the Court will be awaited eagerly by both the protagonists and antagonists of GM crops realizing its implications on the future of GM technology.

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

"GREEN PARTNERSHIP"-THE NEW INDO-US 'COOPERATION' PLATFORM

Copenhagen climate summit is drawing to a close and there does not seem to be high hopes for a universally acceptable agreement amongst the nations that could have ensured significant emission cuts in the coming years. The fact that this century cannot withstand another 2C rise in global temperature without any catastrophic consequences does not seem to have instilled any sense of urgency for which the entire world will have pay for it. It is interesting that one of the top emitter of green house gases, the US, had the cheek to sign a cooperation agreement with India recently for fostering a green partnership, probably without meaning it!

"Launch of a "Green Partnership" to strengthen U.S./India cooperation on clean energy, climate change, and food security. This reflects our two countries' commitment to taking vigorous action to combat climate change, ensuring mutual energy security, working towards global food security, and building a clean energy economy that will drive investment, job creation, and economic growth throughout the 21st century".

Looking at the word play in the joint communication, where clean energy, climate change and food security find prominent mention, one becomes skeptic as to the outcome of such an exercise. In contrast countries like India and China, with lot of developmental aspirations for their population, have unilaterally declared drastic cut in emissions voluntarily between 20 and 40% before the year 2020. The moot question here is whether such sacrifices are really worth because it can only keep rich man always rich and allow growth of poverty further among the impoverished poor.

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

APPLE, PORK AND CHERRY-FARM TO THE SCHOOL!

Capitalistic system of governance is supposed to leave the business to businessmen, confining itself to the sacred function of ensuring consumer protection from economic and safety considerations. In India during Nehruvian days government entered the business in a large way and practically every industrial sector was dominated by public enterprises with government investment. It was only recently that government changed its policies vis-à-vis industry and allowed private sector to flourish. But entrepreneurship development requires constant government support and it is the duty of the government to come to the aid of industry when ever there is an economic downturn or demand slump. Look at a country like the US, the very epitome of capitalistic economy, where government provides prop for the private industry through public purchase programs in a large way.

"In his appearance at the National Association of Farm Broadcasters convention in Kansas City, Vilsack announced the agency's intention to purchase $82.6 million in pork, cherry, plum and apple products for federal food nutrition assistance programs."Today's actions will help stabilize prices and markets, stimulate the economy, and provide high-quality food to Americans in need of USDA's nutrition assistance programs," Vilsack said in a news release. The USDA intends to purchase $50 million in pork, $12 million in tart cherries, $1.8 million in dried plums and $18.6 million in apples and apple products.The purchases support the school lunch and breakfast programs, the summer food service program, the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and The Emergency Food Assistance Program. In addition, the agency makes emergency food purchases for distribution to victims of natural disasters".

The PPP model of industrial development involves, government's participation in some form but leaves the day to day management in the hands of the private partner. In India PPP models are increasingly being adopted for projects requiring large investments. The Minimum Support Price program for agricultural crops that is in vogue at present can be considered a good example of government intervention program for the farming sector but food processing sector is not that fortunate in having such a benefit so far. Use of processed food products for feeding programs which was widely prevalent few years ago is more or less replaced by "on the site" cooking and serving hot foods in many states. Governments, both at the State and Central level must be more sensitive to the problems of the food processing sector which has the critical backward links with agriculture, horticulture and livestock and generates high employment.

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

FOOD INSECURITY IN THE LAND OF "PLENTY"

The common perception that "Grass is greener on the other side" is the greatest gullibility of human race, probably because man is an ambitious animal with thinking power that enables him to discriminate between 'good' and 'better'. The unending rush to western countries by educated youngsters is also driven by the same perception that affluent countries are better than India in terms of opportunities for education, employment and leading quality life. USA, the land of plenty can also be vulnerable to food insecurity is borne out by the recent statistics about the hunger status in that country.

"Eighty-five percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year in 2008, meaning that they had access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households (14.6 percent) were food insecure at least some time during the year, including 5.7 percent with very low food security—meaning that the food intake of one or more household members was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because the household lacked money and other resources for food".

It is another matter that the yardstick used for measuring food security is more stringent as compared to that being followed in developing countries an if same is applied to these countries probably more that 60% of population face some form of food insecurity. If no distinction is made between calorie adequacy and nutritional adequacy, probably food insecurity may not be a real problem. In a country like India, with a per capita annual income of Rs 35000 and the operation of National Rural Employment Guarantee scheme assuring Rs 100 per day for rural folks during non-agricultural season, sufficient quantity of cereals can be purchased to stave off hunger and meet the calorie needs.

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