The GMO fiasco in the US-What policy inertia and succumbing to GMO lobby can do to harm agriculture

Genetically modified agricultural crops (GMO) are always mired in controversy ever since this biotechnology enabled many crops to be genetically altered to confer some benefits compared to their natural counterparts. Hundreds of countries realizing the risks involved in allowing such man-modified crops in their countries banned the same pending establishing their absolute safety for human consumption. The only country which embraced the GMO technology without caring about the well being of its citizens is the US where the vice-like grip the GMO lobby has on the government saw to it that Americans are provided only GMO foods in the market through absence of any policy that could have regulated the industry. The result is that 80% of the diet of an average citizen there is made up of GMO products. While the safety of GMO foods is still being debated, what is galling is that the citizens are compelled indirectly to consume GMO foods denying them their to choose what they want to eat! One of the issues that confronted the organic food industry and the farmers who wanted to avoid GMO crops is how to protect their crops from cross contamination from nearby fields where GMO crops are raised. The authorities who vouchsafed that such contamination would not happen have eggs on their face by the recent reports that GMO genes are spreading far and wide causing great losses to traditional farmers, especially those involved in exports as wide spread contaminations were noticed in a crop like alfalfa. What a fiasco this is turning out to be for a country which boasts of an enormous technological base as far agricultural technologies are concerned. Read further on this unfortunate developments that can have great implications for that country.        

"A recent study by USDA scientists shows that genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa has gone wild, in a big way, in alfalfa-growing parts of the West.  This feral GE alfalfa may help explain a number of transgenic contamination episodes over the past few years that have cost American alfalfa growers and exporters millions of dollars in lost revenue.  And it also exposes the failure of USDA's "coexistence" policy for GE and traditional crops. The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) has long maintained that genetically engineered (GE) crops can co-exist with traditional and organic agriculture.  According to this "co-existence" narrative, if neighboring GE and traditional farmers just sort things out among themselves and follow "best management practices," transgenes will be confined to GE crops and the fields where they are planted. The latest evidence refuting USDA's co-existence fairytale comes from arecently published study by a team of USDA scientists.  The study involved Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa, which, like most GE crops in the U.S. is engineered to survive direct spraying with Roundup, Monsanto's flagship herbicide. In 2011 and 2012, USDA scientist Stephanie Greene and her team scouted the roadsides of three important alfalfa-growing areas – in California, Idaho and Washington – for feral (wild) alfalfa stands.  Because alfalfa is a hardy perennial plant, it readily forms self-sustaining feral populations that persist for years wherever the crop is grown. Greene and colleagues found 404 feral alfalfa populations on roadsides.  Testing revealed that over one-quarter (27%) of them contained transgenic alfalfa – that is, plants that tested positive for the Roundup Ready gene.  They believe that most of these feral populations likely grew from seeds spilled during alfalfa production or transport. However, the researchers also found clear evidence that the Roundup Ready gene was being spread by bees, which are known to cross-pollinate alfalfa populations separated by up to several miles.  Their results suggested that "transgenic plants could spread transgenes to neighboring feral plants, and potentially to neighboring non-GE fields" (emphasis added).  While they did not test this latter possibility, there is no doubt that non-GE alfalfa has in fact been transgenically contaminated – not just once, but on many occasions. In 2013, a Washington State farmer's alfalfa was rejected by a broker after testing revealed transgenic contamination.  In 2014, China rejected numerous U.S. alfalfa shipments that tested positive for the Roundup Ready gene.  Alfalfa exports to China, a major market that has zero tolerance for GE alfalfa, fell dramatically.  U.S. hay prices fell, and at least three U.S. alfalfa exporters suffered many millions of dollars in losses. Both the Washington State farmer and those who sold to the exporters intended to grow only traditional alfalfa.  It is not clear how their produce became contaminated.  Besides cross-pollination from GE feral or cultivated alfalfa, possible explanations include inadvertent mixing during harvest or storage, or (most insidiously) transgenic contamination of the conventional alfalfa seed they planted. What makes the high (27%) GE contamination rate found in this study so remarkable is how little GE alfalfa produced it.  USDA first approved Roundup Ready alfalfa in 2005, and it occupied just 1% of national alfalfa acreage in 2006.  A federal court prohibited new plantings starting in 2007, but allowed what had already been planted to remain in the ground (an alfalfa stand is typically grown for about five years).  Because this study was conducted just a few months after the re-approval of GE alfalfa in 2011, all of the feral GE alfalfa the researchers detected arose from the comparatively few fields planted in 2005 and 2006.  There is much more GE alfalfa being grown now (Monsanto says 30% of alfalfa seed sold is GE).  So there is likely much more feral GE alfalfa today than is suggested by this study."

Of course the legal communities of lawyers and advocates can be expected to have a roaring time taking up the causes of affected farmers making millions of dollars as compensation. But a larger question is who will take the responsibility for this fiasco-the government which approved the cultivation of GMO crops or the biotech industry which sold the seeds? Can the country controll the wild spread of GMO genes with respect to other commercial crops also?  One is reminded of a recent assertion by a much decorated Indian agricultural scientist that Government must allow GMO crops to be cultivated in the country though wiser counsel has prevailed over the government, at least for the time being. We should not be surprised if the global biotech giants ultimately buy out the government as well as some of the vulnerable scientists to toe their line at some point of time and if that happens it will be a sad day for the country.. 

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

BAN TRANS FATS-THE NEW UNIVERSAL MANTRA!.

Realization that trans fats in foods eaten every day can be a major source of health hazard among consumers all over the world is driving many countries to come up with policies that will address this problem. Such policies vary from outright ban on the production of hydrogenated fats to prescribe maximum limits in processed foods. Declaration of trans fat content in package foods on the label which is becoming mandatory in most countries is considered to be one of most significant steps taken consciously in many countries giving an opportunity to the consumer to shun those products containing unacceptable levels of trans fats. Here is a critique on this issue which is pitchforked into international attention with WHO actively trying to evolve effective policies and programs to help its member countries.

Shauna Downs, lead author and researcher at the university's Menzies Centre for Health Policy said trans fats policies in Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea and the USA over the last two decades had proved effective in removing trans fats from the food supply. She said the study's findings were particularly relevant for low- and middle-income countries where such measures have been identified as a 'best-buy' policy for health - one that is expected to provide a high return on investment in terms of health gains."We found, for example, that a national ban in Denmark virtually eliminated trans fats from the food supply, while local bans in Canada and the USA were successful in removing trans fats from fried foods," Downs said. While some of the government policies we studied imposed voluntary self-regulation and others took mandatory measures, such as labelling, local and national bans on trans fats proved to be the most effective policies for removing trans fats. "Our findings show that these policies are not only feasible and achievable - they are also likely to improve public health." Trans fats - also known as trans fatty acids - are naturally found in dairy and meat products but are also generated by industrial processes to produce hard fats from vegetable oils. The industrially produced trans fats are also known as partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. Consumption of trans fats is associated with an increased risk of non-communicable diseases, including cardiovascular disease, such as heart disease, as well as stroke and diabetes. These partially hydrogenated vegetable oils are, however, widely used in the food industry and fast food outlets because they are cheap, have a long shelf life, are semisolid at room temperature - which makes them easier to use in baked products, and can withstand repeated heating. The World Health Organization (WHO) has called for the elimination of trans fats from the global food supply in response to the rise in the prevalence of non-communicable diseases and has identified it as a 'best-buy' public health intervention for low- and middle-income countries. This proposed policy measure was advocated in the Political Declaration of the High-level Meeting of the UN General Assembly on the Prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases in September 2011".

Manufacture of hydrogenated fats which are plastic in nature is slowly being faced out because of the tendency to form trans fats from unsaturated fatty acids during catalytic hydrogenation process. Alternate technologies are now available that can make plastic fats so necessary, especially in many baked products, and therefore there must be put in place a universal ban against manufacture of such fats. Against such a backdrop it is not clear why some nations including India are still dilly dallying on banning their production. If trans fats are bad for consumers in rich countries like the US and in Europe who can afford healthy foods why it is acceptable in countries like India where poverty and ill health are rampant? It is the bounden duty of any responsible government to protect its citizens from hazards posed by food industry through coercive measures if that is what it takes to discipline the industry. 

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

THE "GM" HONEY-REALLY?

With demand rising because of its supposed health benefits, Honey is an important commodity traded across the world. Though its chemical composition is almost similar to sucrose, the sweetness comes from Fructose and Glucose occurring in 38.5:31.0 ratio. However its value as a health promoting food is attributed to two anti-bacterial substances, Hydrogen Peroxide generating enzyme system and Methyl Glyoxal, besides presence of antioxidants such as Ascorbic acid, Chrysin, Pinobankskin, and Pinocembrin. The old Ayurvedic medicinal system of India has accorded very high place for Honey in its treatment regimes of a number of human ailments. Quality of honey depends more or less on the nature of nectar collected by the Bees and can vary significantly. Honey can even be poisonous if the Bees collect nectar from poisonous flowers. It is in this context that one has to view the recent controversy in Europe, surrounding Honey products generated from flowers of GM plants. Here is a take on this issue.

"Honey that contains traces of pollen from genetically modified crops needs special authorization before it can be sold in Europe, the European Union's top court said Tuesday, in a judgment that could have widespread consequences on the bloc's policy on genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. The ruling from the European Court of Justice came after several Bavarian beekeepers demanded compensation from their government for honey and food supplements that contained traces of pollen from genetically modified maize.The beekeepers had their hives close to fields where the Bavarian government was growing Monsanto's MON 810 maize for research purposes. The EU has strict guidelines on authorizing and informing consumers about foods containing GMOs – a policy that has caused problems for producers of genetically modified seeds such as U.S.-based Monsanto Co. that are used to much laxer rules in other parts of the world".

China, Argentina, Turkey, USA, Ukraine and Mexico are the top producers of Honey and the entire world depends on imports from these countries for meeting the demand for this product. Of course there are internationally agreed standards for Honey and the world trade is governed by these prerequisites. The Chinese supply of Honey made by Bees treated with antibiotics through third world countries to Europe and the US was in the eye of a storm last year, though the culprit country got away with its brazen illegal activities without receiving a rap on its knuckles, probably because of its economic clout! The latest controversy about GMO tainting of Honey is not going to die down soon because of the tight regulations in EU requiring labeling of GM foods. It is true that contamination of Honey with GM substances was an unwitting act beyond the control of the Beekeepers who are located near fields where GM crops are cultivated. Real possibility of such accidental contamination was responsible for the campaign against GM foods by the antagonists and till such times the GM foods are universally accepted or they are compulsorily mandated to declare on the label, it is not correct to allow cultivation of GM crops.

V.H.POTTY

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

THE PESTICIDE "TUSSLE"-IMPACT ON FOOD FRONT

Insecticides and pesticides, thousands in number evoke bitter feeling amongst many consumer activists who feel that these are slow poisons affecting adversely the health of billions of people on this planet. The gruesome tragedy of Bhopal is still fresh in the memory of many people in India and there are hundreds of such cases where pesticides have caused heavy damages to the agriculturists, consumers and people exposed to these deadly chemicals. Of course mankind is pulled between the necessity to increase food production and freedom from health hazards and use of chemicals as crop protectants is supposed to be based on an analysis of cost, benefits and risks. Unfortunately when most of the pesticides were approved for use, the science of nutrition, health, analytical techniques etc were some what primitive and it is only to day that these aspects are better understood. The birth of organic food industry can be attributed to the inherent dangers of using pesticides and if this industry is growing at a phenomenal pace thanks are due to the indiscriminate use of pesticides and the dangers pose by them.

"Environmentalists are once again taking aim at our nation's food supply in the debate over pesticide use.

And if those groups are victorious, up to 80 percent of Washington's farmland could be affected. The Center for Biological Diversity sued the Environmental Protection Agency in January, alleging that the EPA failed to demonstrate due diligence in consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service about new pesticides. Farmers are concerned, to say the least. The lawsuit could jettison the use of 380 pesticides used in 49 states, said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. That's a problem. Pesticides are used to, well, control pests of all manner -- bugs, weeds, fungus and more. The use of pesticides increases crop production, decreases back-breaking weed-pulling by workers and creates more appealing produce free of scars left by hungry bugs. Without pesticides, food would cost more, and there would be less of it. Millions of workers would be needed to pull weeds that threaten to overtake crops. Insects could wipe out entire crops for the season. No one wants to trade the health of our rivers and lakes for the health of our agricultural industry, but it's possible to marry responsible stewardship with modern farming practices".

Nearer home the fierce fight between the Central Government at Delhi and some State Governments for banning Endosulfan, one of the cheapest pesticides available, is assuming international dimension with the recent Stockholm Convention recommending its ban once for all. The Government of Kerala which is in the forefront in campaigning for the ban of this chemical has graphic accounts of population in one of the districts with predominant cashew plantations suffering from a multitude of health problems, some of them proving to be fatal. While banning use of chemical pesticides is fraught with tremendous future implications vis-a-vis global food security, mankind has no other alternative but to look for alternative options as being done by the fossil fuel industry facing future energy insecurity.

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

FOOD COLORS-PROCESSING AIDS INDUSTRY CAN DO WITHOUT

Making food attractive is an age old practice and use of several dyes in processed foods often raised questions regarding their need and safety. Even though the dyes presently used in many countries are permitted by the safety authorities there is an increasing concern regarding their long terms consequences especially amongst the children. While some countries have gone in for more stringent regulations regarding their use, in many other countries a few such dyes are still allowed giving them the benefit of doubt. But consumer activists who are in the forefront in fighting for a total ban on synthetic coloring matters have valid grounds for such a stand, if the available evidence is taken into account. Though protagonists of color use may take the stand that such evidences as of now are not conclusive, the benefit of doubt has to be given to these studies on synthetic colors and their health implications, risk taking is not being a choice anymore when it comes to food safety.

"Chemical dyes used for food coloring carry serious health risks and should be banned, says a new report from a consumer group. The group, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), notes that none of the nine artificial food dyes approved for U.S. use have been proven safe. However, human and animal studies suggest that at least several of the chemicals carry health risks. "For a food additive that does not provide any health or safety benefit whatsoever, there should be a very strict standard for safety. Food dyes do not meet that standard," CSPI Executive Director and study co-author Michael F. Jacobson, PhD, tells Web MD. "These colors carry risks," says Bernard Weiss, PhD, professor of environmental medicine at the University of Rochester. "The question for parents is this: Is it worth taking even minimal risks for benefits that do not exist?" Weiss was not involved in the CSPI report. However, in 1980 he reported clinical studies showing that food dyes can cause behavioral problems in children. Currently, the European Union is considering taking action over this issue. In 2008, the CSPI asked the FDA to ban the dyes because studies linked them to hyperactivity-like behavioral effects in children. Now the group points to animal studies suggesting that the dyes -- and other chemicals bound to them -- can cause cancer. Jacobson admits that most the studies of food dyes are of poor quality. But that, he says, is part of the problem. "The FDA has not looked at the safety of food dyes in 15 or 20 years," Jacobson says. "To accept widely used dyes that have these bound carcinogens is shameful."

Use of chemical colorants does make any food more desirable and acceptable. In a competitive environment it is but natural that each manufacturer uses the technological tools to use different colors in varying combinations to give a hue more appealing than that of the competitor. Probably banning of all chemical colorants may give a level playing field with no undue advantage to any one. The earliest incidence of ban of artificial color was against its use in tomato products and the way industry responded to this situation is a lesson that cannot be ignored easily. Within a short period after the ban, tomato varieties with intense natural red color and stability under thermal processing were evolved making use of external colorants redundant. It is certain that industry will be able to survive a total ban on artificial colors too in a way with least economic damage.

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

BANNING PLASTICS-WILL IT HELP?

Amidst the controversial debate centering around banning plastics for use as grocery shop bags and other type of carry bags, no country seems to have been able to take a firm decision though there are many regional bodies in some countries enforcing such a ban. In India states like Kerala have already made it illegal to use plastic bags with thickness 20 microns or less for shopping but finds it difficult to enforce the ban due to logistical reasons. Though the basis for such affirmative action is sound in that plastic bags do pose an environmental hazard as it takes more than 800 years for them to be degraded when discarded, "policing" of the law is fraught with many practical difficulties. Catching the defaulters may be easy but to prosecute them in the already cluttered judicial system is next to impossible. Probably only an incentive system may work as being attempted in many countries and it may take a long time to sufficiently sensitize the public regarding the dangers posed by plastic bags. The recent action in California in banning use of plastics is also a move unlikely to work as the government there is hardly in a position to force the citizens to abide by the new law.

"Paper or plastic? Soon the answer may be neither. California would become the first state to ban grocery, liquor and drug stores from providing free paper or plastic bags under legislation pushed by Democrats and supported by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The goal is to fight litter and lighten the load on landfills by getting shoppers to use reusable fabric bags. Those who don't could buy paper bags for a nickel or more. "I think the proliferation of plastic bags is unnecessary, and it's a pollutant, an urban tumbleweed," Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, D-Santa Monica, said of the lightweight bags that can litter yards and clog waterways. Californians use about 19 billion plastic bags per year, about 552 bags apiece, according to a legislative committee analysis of Brownley's proposal, Assembly Bill 1998. Tim Shestek of the American Chemistry Council said the plastic bag industry would rather pay to bolster recycling programs than ban plastic bags. He said that with California's economy struggling, it makes no sense to jeopardize about 500 plastic-bag manufacturing jobs and to promote paper bags that produce more greenhouse gas during their life cycle than plastic bags do. "We frankly think this is a dangerous precedent for the state to be setting," Shestek said. The crackdown on disposable bags would cost an estimated $1.5 million the first year and $1 million annually to launch, administer and enforce, payable from fees on makers of reusable bags".

California is estimated to be using annually 19 billion bags, about 552 bags per capita and a provision in the law also makes it mandatory for the shops to provide paper bags made from recycled paper to those not bringing along multi use bags. Also the law gives adequate time to implemet the measures as it will take effect only in January 2012 for retailers and 2015 for small shops, pharmacies and others. Similar laws are being enacted in many states in the country, more or less on similar lines.

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

BLOATING BODIES-A PROFESSOR'S CURE!

There are many divergent views about the relation between food and nutrition, some even against the present established norms of nutrition science. There are claims that fat is not responsible for obesity, salt is not injurious to health, sugar is not harmful, HFCS cannot be blamed for some of the disorders, etc. Of course absence of unanimity always presents problem when food standards and policies are to be drawn at national and international levels. But what is galling is the continued vacillation in taking bold policy decisions that will have a chance to reverse the present trend of uncontrolled production and consumption of unbalanced products being churned out by many manufacturers in the food processing sector.

"But the professor said New Zealand was going against the world trend, even among conservative governments. Its policy amounted to a subsidy for bad foods and taught children that eating them was normal. He said obesity and the diseases it causes - such as heart disease, diabetes and some cancers - would overwhelm health services without major changes. Simply telling people about healthy eating and activity was of limited value as educational methods worked only on the well educated".

"PROFESSOR'S CURE * Ban junk food from state-owned premises.* Reduce GST on fruit and vegetables and increase it on foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat.* Introduce coloured "traffic light" labels to grade packaged foods for consumers from healthy to unhealthy.* Ban food marketing to children.* Establish food and activity requirements for school".

Though many of the cures proposed are already known, there is no unanimity amongst scientists as well as the policy makers regarding desirability of controlling the industry too much, especially under a democratic system. It is better that a universal consensus is evolved amongst the members of WTO that can be the basis for evolving a sound policy of influencing the "health content" of products from the industry which will help not only the consumers in each country but also facilitate hassle free global trade in "good" foods.

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