HERE COMES ANOTHER ALARM FOR THE CONSUMERS!-IS THIS REALLY SERIOUS?

These days consumers are bombarded with so much information, some useful and others just trash that it is difficult to "pick the grains from the chaff". Even well informed food scientist are confused by such information explosion that they also become victims of misinformation and distortions. Every day one can come across reports, most of them of academic value and some even planted by vested interests in the name of science with no evidence that it is difficult to get a coherent picture on any aspects of food or related issues. Latest to emerge is an alarmist report from the United States of America which says sensationally that Ebola threat is nothing compared to the threat to public life from dangerous chemicals used by food industry. How serious is this allegation can be revealed only by the food safety experts who run the safety monitoring programs in that country. Here are some excerpts from the above mentioned report. 

Pizza boxes (and other kinds of food packaging) harbor what are called perfluorochemicals or PFCs. Manufacturers employ PFCs for several reasons, but the primary role of PFCs is to make products resistant to water and grease. Now do you see why it's in pizza boxes?  PFCs are dangerous though. How dangerous? Dangerous enough that even retailers like H&M won't sell clothing containing PFCs. As the Washington Post reported, PFCs have been linked to thyroid disfunction, slowed prenatal and postnatal brain development, and testicular degeneration.  So what the hell is it doing in food packaging?  In 2011, the FDA banned the substance due to its ill effects. However, food suppliers are still allowed to import pizza boxes containing the chemicals from overseas. The imported pizza boxes, as well as other kinds of food packaging, also contain perchlorate, a hazardous chemical pollutant with similar health defects as PFCs that's used in the sealing for food containers and as an antistatic agent.  So does this mean we have to stop eating pizza? No, not unless you want to anyway. What it does mean though is that we might want to be paying attention to two recent petitions filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). One asks the FDA to prohibit the use of perchlorate in food packaging. The other asks the FDA to amend its ruling on PFCs so that food companies can no longer use packaging containing PFCs period, regardless of where it's from. The NRDC petition protesting perchlorates cites studies noting the chemical is fairly ubiquitous in dry-food packing. The most alarming part is that perchlorate has made their way into baby formula packaging. The petition noted why that's harmful: "If the formula packaging used the perchlorate as an antistatic agent to allow the powder to flow more fully and freely from the container, then the infant would have much greater exposure to perchlorate. Also, infants and children consume more food per body weight than adults, adding to a higher exposure." The petition about PFCs is similar. It discusses the FDA oversight that allows companies to get away with using PFC-laden packaging. Then it states there are "significant gaps in our knowledge of the safety of long-chain perfluorocarboxylates" in regards to how it impacts our health. Like perchlorates, PFCs also had a detrimental effect on fetal and infant development. Studies in the petition found PFCs could be responsible for decreased fetal body weight, "skeletal variations," delayed hair growth, and other symptoms. The documents (all 70+ pages of each one) are embedded at the end in case you'd like to check them out.

There is no doubt that all chemicals are dangerous when consumed by people through processed foods but the extent of threat depends on factors such as their degree of toxicity, concentrations used and their long term effect on human body. Therefore whether it is perfluorochemicals or perchlorates their use in food packing or wrapping, must be certified to be safe at concentrations transferred to the consumers due to storage, distribution, vending or retailing. If the above report is true food safety authorities in the US seem to be more sympathetic to the industry than to the citizens by obfuscatory attitude. Regarding the sensationalism inherent in such reports, citizens will have to be wary about such alarming proclamations and learn how to wade through them to reach at the truth. How can any sensible person compare Ebola virus epidemic with Obesity in terms of potential for death? Of course both are dangerous but in different ways. While Ebola can kill millions if an epidemic arrives in a matter of few months, obesity is an affliction of choice for those who indulge in gluttony and consumption of junk foods. There must be a right perspective when such issues are brought to the public domain by investigative journalists.  

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

FISH IN THE DIET-NEW ALARM ON ITS SAFETY

During the last two decades, role of fish in the diet assumed critical importance because it is a rich source of Omega-3 fats considered crucial for preventing heart disease and other related disorders commonly encountered in modern society. Besides, unlike red meat fish meat is not a source of cholesterol making it safe for regular consumption. However the oceans where marine fish breed, are getting heavily polluted with all types chemicals, the most dangerous being Mercury which is known to cause damage to the brain if consumed beyond a limit. Presently an upper limit of 1 ppm is prescribed in the US while many other countries have fixed the tolerable limit at 0.5 ppm. Recent reports implicating Mercury even at lower limits in human disorders call for a rethinking about the safety limit of this toxic mineral. Here is a take on this new revelation which cannot be brushed away that easily.

"Scientists say that consuming fish may be more hazardous to your health than you think, according to new reports published this week. The reports, produced by the Biodiversity Research Institute and an international coalition of environmental campaign groups called the Zero Mercury Working Group, say that mercury contamination of seafood is not only on the rise across the globe, but that "smaller traces of the toxic metal may be enough to cause restricted brain development or other health problems for humans who eat them." "The more we look at mercury, the more toxic it is," David Evers, the executive director of BRI, told the Portland Press Herald. "Threats from mercury are greater at lower levels than we have thought in the past." As the Global Post notes, scientists have long warned consumers about the potential dangers of mercury in fish and other seafood. However, the new reports have revealed that the guidelines for safe seafood consumption in place in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere may now be out of date. "Levels of [mercury] exposure that are defined as safe by the official limits, are actually having adverse effects," environmental health scientist Dr. Edward Groth, who authored one of the three reports, said at a web conference, according to the Post."These are not trivial effects, these are significant effects. There does appear to be evidence now, fairly persuasive evidence, that adverse effects occur from normal amounts of seafood consumption," Groth, who is an adviser to the World Health Organization, continued".

Mercury is thrown into the atmosphere by burning coal in power plants and when the atmospheric mercury is absorbed by the water in the ocean, algae accumulates the same in their cells which then is passed on to fish which feasts on it. When such fish reaches the dining table, mercury is passed on to the humans through their foods. So far consumers and the safety agencies were sure that most fish varieties harvested to day have far less than 1 ppm, except in case of tile fish or Sword fish and crabs which may contain up to 1.5 ppm. The new finding that even low levels of mercury can adversely affect the functions of the human brain is alarming and scary. Unfortunately coal happens to be the most abundantly available cheap source of energy and economic compulsions prevent banning coal powered power plants every where in the world. What is the option before mankind under such circumstances? Banning fish consumption altogether? Not a feasible option. May be curtailing the fish consumption to levels just enough to meet the needs for Omega-3 fats is a possibility but will it be acceptable to the consumers and the fish industry in general. Technological intervention to trap the mercury in the smoke that is spewed by the power plants is another alternative that can be considered.  

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