CONSEQUENCES OF DRINKING "SPIRIT" BEVERAGES!

No subject seems to be irrelevant for surveys and studies by investigative scientists and journalists as reflected by the recent report that some one in the US has "discovered" that certain brands of alcoholic beverages cause more injury to the drinkers compared to others! It is least realized that drinking is not a nice habit though exercising restraint in consuming these inebriating beverage may bring some limited benefits for some people. The trouble is most people do not know how much can be consumed safely or how frequent they can be consumed without any damage to the health. According to the studies reported below malt liquor universally is responsible for more hospitalization than mild beverages like beer. Here is the gist of this report.

"According to the study, Steel Reserve Malt Liquor came in second to Budweiser, but proportionally, it blew the brand out of the water. Steel Reserve Malt Liquor makes up .8% of the beer market, but a whopping 14.7% of the ER market, only .3% less than Budweiser. Even more revealing, malt liquors as a whole make up a paltry 2.4% of the US beer trade, but a full 46% of the alcohol consumed by emergency room goers. After Steel Reserve, the third and fourth most popular ER alcohols are also malt beverages: Colt 45 and Bud Ice. Bud Light and Barton's, a discount brand of vodka, take the next two spots. So why are malt beverages so prolific in hospitals? The most obvious answer is the comparatively large amount of alcohol per drink. While a bottle Budweiser contains 5% alcohol, the highest percentage among Amerca's top five best-selling beers, it's nothing compared to Steel Reserve's 8.1% alcohol content. While the study should shed light on which brands are most correlated with injury, more research is still needed. David Jernigan, the study's director, cautioned that the study only included interviews with 105 hospital patients, and all from one hospital in Baltimore".

Whether the above study will be allowed to go unchallenged by those brands indicted here remains to be seen. Coming to such a conclusion as being done by the authors, based on a limited survey of 105 subjects is also a matter of concern. Why such studies are undertaken at the first instance is not clear. After all drinking in a country where there is no mandatory prohibition is a matter of personal preference but those who drink excessively have no right to be a public burden whether causing nuisance in the public or straining the public health system which cannot be condoned.   

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

CHENNAI VS DELHI-THE FOOD SECURITY DEBATE

Now that the much touted Food Security Act (FSA) is brought through the backdoor via the despicable route of an Ordinance, bypassing the Parliament, many states who are in the forefront in running efficient Public Distribution System (PDS) with high degree of efficiency and low pilferage are being penalized by making them restrict the coverage to only those who are poor. In a state like Himachal Pradesh, if reports are to be believed even the family of the Chief Minister buys the ration through the PDS shops at subsidized prices. Same is true with Tamil Nadu also which boasts of a highly efficient PDS plus several programs like distribution of subsidized fresh fruits and vegetables and low cost canteens selling popular preparations at very low pries for the benefit of poor people. FSA ordinance can adversely affect such programs which is a retrograde step with dangerous consequences to the citizenry. Here is a critic's view of the FSA ordinance and its implications.

"Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa has emerged among the strongest voices against the Food Security Bill, which is being pushed by the UPA government. She recently wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to exempt Tamil Nadu from the implementation of the ordinance that brought the Food Security Bill into force. Apart from the political overtones that such a request might be seen to have, experts in the field of food policy say there could be sound logic to Jayalalithaa's plea for exemption. Jayalalithaa had reasoned that Tamil Nadu has for many years now had a Public Distribution System (PDS) that can be availed by all the residents of the State. She said the introduction of the provisions of the Food Security Bill would remove the cover from a portion of the population, ruining the all-inclusive nature of Tamil Nadu's PDS cover. The Food Security Bill makes provisions for different categories of beneficiaries, with the aim to allot more food grains to poor families and less for the better off. A majority of political parties have objected to provisions of the Food Security Bill, especially with relation to the structures and procedures for the determination of beneficiaries and the mode of distribution itself. The continuing lack of clarity on these fronts was behind the repeated disruption of proceedings in Parliament whenever the Bill came up for discussion. The Bill also saw strong opposition from a number of State governments. States like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha and Rajasthan have over the years made changes to their PDS structures to make them more inclusive, based either on local needs or on political considerations. The implementation of the Food Security Bill would mean an erosion of the political gains from the inclusiveness of these systems. Tamil Nadu has had PDS-for-all plus a strong co-operative movement and government interventions. The Amma Unavagams and Farm Fresh Consumer Outlets, which offer subsidised vegetables, fall under the category of interventions. According to Jayalalithaa, Tamil Nadu's systems and interventions have given greater food and nutrition security than can possibly be delivered by the Food Security Bill in its present form'.

There are many critics who have raised their voice against the FSA ordinance and all their criticisms have been brushed aside by the government which calls this foolish program with grave economic consequences to the country as a "game changer". People of this country will never forgive these politicians for the political chicanery being indulged by them for the sake of electoral gains and will see through the game by the time general election arrives in a few months time from now. The rotten grains that lie with the government grain agencies which otherwise are not even fit for animal consumption are going to be supplied in the coming months once the FSA is operationalized and then only the people are going to realize the magnitude of fraud the government is indulging in the name of food security! Unfortunately many opposing political groups do not have the guts to point out the failings of the policy for fear of consumer backlash. As one critic has recently pointed out Government is more bothered about quantity rather than quality and nutrition and this is amply proven by the lethargy with which the food safety and standards act is being implemented leaving the market in the hands of fraudsters and adulterators giving them free hand to indulge in trading in unsafe foods. During the coming twelve months Indian citizens may face the reality of all round food inflation and food scarcity because of the opportunistic policies of the present government. 

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

NATIONALIZATION OF FOOD-"UNLEARNING" OF PAST LESSONS!

Indians are familiar with the socialistic system of governance which implies that wealth must be distributed amongst common people and the gap between the rich and the poor must be reduced progressively. Under such a dispensation the state owned enterprises are supposed to generate wealth, not allowing private players to exploit the resources for individual gains. Nationalization was touted as the single most creditable achievement and investing in public sector considered most appropriate for wealth distribution. Unfortunately the bitter experience of four decades of socialistic pattern of governing literally ruined the country and India had to sell its gold reserves two decades ago, to stay afloat as a viable economy cannot be easily forgotten. The economic liberalization gave the required spark for private entrepreneurship to bloom with state withdrawing from many manufacturing and service sectors during nineteen nineties. If India is considered an economic power to day, it is due to this transformation from government controlled regime to free wheeling policies encouraging private initiatives in most of the areas of economic activities. Against such a background, it is baffling how a country like Venezuela can go for massive nationalization under what ever pretext. Obviously the results cannot be different from what India had experienced earlier. Refusing to learn from history can be cost prohibitive for the people of this hapless country.

"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's leftist administration on Saturday threatened grocers with expropriation if they engage in speculation or price-fixing and said it was getting into the food business to put the people in charge. "We're going to continue fighting to build a socialist order to provide room for people to have social ownership of production and distribution systems," Vice President Elias Jaua said on opening the "Socialist Meat Fair" in Caracas. Jaua said the president "is empowered by law... to seize and expropriate wholesale, refrigeration and distribution businesses that resort to usury, hoarding and speculation, as mandated by the constitution."

In the food sector, government intervention cannot be justified because of the logistics, dynamics and dynamism required for efficient production, processing and distribution and creating government controlled industrial enterprises can become epicenter of inefficiency and corruption as has been exemplified by events in some of the communist and socialist countries of yesteryear. The Agro-industry Corporations, NAFED, State Farms, Modern Bakeries, Bacon Factories and many similar government enterprises in India are standing examples to prove that "doing business is not governments' business". The tragedy in Venezuela is going to be compounded by the reality that rulers may come and go but the damages done by them during their reign through such unwise policy decisions will be felt for years to come affecting the welfare of their population.

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