"WHAT IS GOOD FOR YOU IS NOT GOOD FOR ME"-THE NEW GM FOOD PARADIGM!

The high priests of GM Foods, the American Government seems to be practicing a fraudulent deception on the citizens, if recent reports suggesting that members of the administration including the president do not eat GM foods, scrupulously following an organic food based diet! Added to this the creators of this demonic foods the monopolistic corporate players which has a vice like grip on the government are also consuming only organic foods. The problem is that there is no regulations in the country that could have forced the industry to label foods containing GM food ingredients. Same appears to be true in China also where elite is fed with safest foods containing no dangerous chemicals or genetically mutilated ingredients. Can there be a more disgraceful practice of double standards than these examples? While America is considered a "bastion" of democracy, the Chinese is at the other end of the spectrum with no personal freedom available to its citizens! What a remarkable situation where democracy or communism does not make much difference to the food safety environment. Here is a take on this paradox!  

"With a sad twist of irony, corporate and government elite dine on safe, organic food while the masses, those very people who are supposedly represented and protected by their governments, are poisoned by hidden genetically modified organisms, pesticides and dangerous contaminants. The presidential family demands organic food in their kitchen, yet behind closed doors, shake hands with the biotech industry. China's top brass is fed by an exclusive, gated organic garden while the rest of the population consumes GM food, steroid contaminated meat and dairy laced with melamine. Even Monsanto's own employee's command non-genetically modified food in their canteen. Access to clean, organic and healthy food is not a given right anymore -- it has become a political battleground with the average citizen suffering the loss".

What is reprehensible in this situation is the reluctance on the part of the ruling elite to even provide a transparent labeling policy that would have enabled the citizen to choose the food one wants! The mammoth procession of American citizens from New York city to Washington D C to plead with the president to make the food industry label appropriately foods tainted with GM ingredients does not sem to have moved the President to order such a policy. The forth coming referendum in California regarding compulsory labeling of M foods made and sold in that state may yet arouse sufficient urgency on the part of the US government to join more than 50 countries where such labeling laws are in force.

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

CONSUMER PERCEPTION ON SERVING SIZE-BRAIN AND GEOMETRY

One of the largest marketing strategies of this century has been to down size the contents of a food package without the consumer ever aware of the same. If a standard package of potato chips containing 200 gm of product is converted into a newly designed packaging pouch with 20 gm less chips it is unlikely that any busy bee consumer will ever notice it. Added to this confusion if the contents are declared with odd weight parameters, the chances of the consumer finding out are still less. To day most food manufacturers world over have adopted this strategy very successfully with their food packs containing about 15-20% less products compared to that two years ago and the price line is maintained to preserve the image of the industry as one beating inflation! Computer design of packages is a rewarding business because the potential for cheating the human brain is enormous. According to knowledgeable psychologists human brain is supposed to be weak in geometry incapable of assessing sizes of containers and the contents held by them. If this is so can there be a solution that can remedy the situation? Probably no because food consumers invariably make mechanical decisions regarding purchases without paying much attention to the label declaration where, at least in the US most manufacturers include the price per unit weight for easy comparison of prices of different competitors. Here is an interesting expose' on the subject of gullibility of human brain.    

"Recently, Pierre Chandon, a French marketing professor and visiting Harvard Business School scholar, decided to test the idea that consumers know what's best for them. He asked 294 people to estimate — using photos of a 6.5-ounce bottle (the standard for decades), a 12-ounce can or a 12-ounce cup as benchmarks — how much liquid was in a range of cups, starting at 12 ounces all the way up to a 50-ounce "Double Gulp." While it sounds simple, respondents consistently guessed wrong, assuming that the larger cups held about 20 percent to 40 percent less liquid than they actually did. Dozens of other studies, using jelly beans, popcorn, ice cream and alcoholic drinks, have also shown that consumers can't be depended on to perceive serving sizes accurately. The reason comes down to the fact that the human brain has a surprisingly tough time with geometry and often can't accurately gauge when an object has doubled or even tripled in size. It's even trickier when the object is a wide-mouth cup, larger on the top than the bottom. "We tend to underestimate the increase in the size of any object," said Professor Chandon, director of the Insead Social Science Research Center in Paris. "When you double the size of something, it really looks just 50 to 70 percent bigger, not twice as big."

In India there was a time when manufacturers were allowed to market only in certain sizes stipulated under weights and measures regulations but this was relaxed with the provision that odd sizes can be offered after declaring in small print on the label that it is not a standard size! The result is that practically all manufacturers started packing consumer products in odd sizes, volumes and measures putting the buyers in great disadvantage. Fortunately this policy is now being reversed but there is still no provision for printing rate per unit which ought to have been insisted upon. This human weakness is the basis of policy decisions by some governments in limiting sale of high sugar beverages to less than a certain size to discourage indiscriminate consumption of such high energy products which have the potential to cause over weight and obesity. Here is a basis for putting reasonable restrictions on the industry so that the perceived brain inadequacy to select what is really required, is addressed.  

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

THE PARADOX OF SAFETY VS REALITY!-AMMONIATED BEEF

The latest controversy centering around Ammonia treated Beef in the US offers a lesson to all involved in food processing and marketing. While lot has been written and spoken about food safety, a phenomenon just emerging indicates that consumer does not consider the safety standards by the government as gospel truth. While use of Ammonia to "disinfect" meat products to achieve freedom from pathogens like virulent E.coli, Salmonella etc is a perfectly legal practice, consumer does not seem to think so as reflected by the increasing reluctance on the part of major industry players to use these materials in their finished products. It was not so long ago that same thing happened with BPA containing plastics and their use by the industry though BPA has not yet been found to be harmful. These instances go to show that consumer is really the king when it comes to "disciplining" the food industry! Here is a report on the issue concerning progressive unpopularity of Ammoniated Beef in the US.  

"If you don't want bacteria in your food you have to treat it," he added. "This is a good ingredient and a very effective intervention. It's almost like some thing's been taken out of the arsenal that shouldn't have. And as a food safety guy, that bothers me." As many in the meat industry have pointed out, ammonium hydroxide is only one of many processing aids or "safe and sustainable ingredients" approved by the government's Food Safety and Inspection Service to reduce and eliminate pathogens on raw meat products. FSIS has a 52-page list of approved chemicals companies can use to treat raw meat, poultry, and egg products -- many of them can be used without any labeling on the package because they are technically considered a process and not an ingredient. "If consumers and restaurants are up in arms about the use of ammonia and can potentially drive a company out of business by their actions, I can only wonder what they are going to do when they look at the other chemicals in use to try and protect us from foodborne illnesses, chemicals like liquid chlorine and lactic acid just to name a couple," said Raymond. "There are just certain unpleasant realities of how meat is processed in this country. Those of us with farm backgrounds maybe can accept them a little more readily than someone who has led a life sheltered from these realities." The tension between widely used food safety interventions and concern about chemicals in food will surely continue. Recent polling, sponsored by the food industry, suggests consumer confidence in food safety is slipping. At the same time, surveys reveal consumers consistently list chemical and pesticide use in food production as a top concern. "All new food safety technologies must get through the ultimate filter - and that is consumer acceptance," notes Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "Just like irradiation, a potentially life-saving technology to kill pathogens in meat can still face rejection by consumers, who are anxious to provide the best food for their families. The rise in demand for organic and local foods shows that consumers often go outside pure safety considerations to evaluating where and how the food was produced."

Another perplexing question that will haunt the industry is what is the next process aid that is going to be ostracized by the consumer based on information and perceptions that need not necessarily be true. One must recall the fate of gamma irradiation process which was safety cleared globally long ago but the technology is still languishing for want of takers among the industry because of a strong perception that consumer would not patronize irradiated food products due to its perceived association with radioactivity! At a time when more and more people are moving towards organic foods, the addition or deployment of chemicals during the processing stage will turn away consumers genuinely concerned about their health as well as that of their families. The powerful lobby of activists campaigning against food additives and process aids will have a profound effect on the psyche of the consumer which does not bode well for the industry and it has to see the writing on the wall and prepare for massive changes in the present processing practices to satisfy their restive constituency in the coming years.

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

CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF "FRONT OF PACK" SYMBOLS-NEW FINDINGS

Lately a disturbing question being asked about nutrition labeling pertains to the extent of understanding consumer has after reading them and whether this leads to buying better products in the end? Of course there cannot be a straight answer to the above doubts. Those who advocate inclusion of symbols or familiar recognizable icons to present a graphic message about the quality of food inside a packet, believe that most consumers do not read the label and many do not understand even if they read. What about the experience in countries where there are millions of English illiterate population which cannot even read the label let alone understand? Probably symbols or icons will be more useful under such situations. Before switching over to new concepts, one must clearly foresee the favorable as well as negative impact of the new system. Here is the result of a small study on this subject which is interesting. 

"Consumers in the U.S. have faced an onslaught of front-of-package nutrition symbols, including the "Smart Choices" single summary indicator, and manufacturer symbols from Pepsico, Kellogg's, Mars, Kraft, and the Grocery Manufacturers of America. Due to their simplicity and suggested ease of use, the intent of the symbols is to help consumers make better choices in constructing a balanced diet. New research published by the American Marketing Association finds that consumers' intent to buy a product (with some negative nutrient levels) increases when the package features front-of-pack nutrition symbols compared to when it does not. However, simple symbols can lull consumers into thinking a food is more healthful than it may actually be".

Food is a complex material containing hundreds of chemical molecules with different structure and nutritional role and any attempt to simplify it is not going to be easy. Whether traffic light symbol or any other method that tries to categorize foods into clear compartments will face enormous practical difficulties since both negative and positive aspects of health impact have to be taken into reckoning. The existing mode of nutrition labeling has served well for many years and if past experience is factored into any modified or improved version, consumers may be benefited to some extent. Whether these facts can be communicated in local languages is a matter to be considered. May be for a country like India, inclusion of symbols or icons still may be useful considering the extent of illiteracy prevalent.

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

SHELF-LIFE OF FOODS-A NEW ADVISORY WEBSITE

Wastage of food is a matter of concern when one realizes that there are millions of people in many parts of the world who have to go to bed hungry due to their inability to access the required food because of many factors. Families in many affluent countries throw away good foods as a matter of habit without realizing the implications of such enormous wastes. It is not the argument that people should not enjoy a good meal as they have the right and the resources to access such foods but exercising moderation in buying foods can prevent such avoidable wastes. The labeling system that is mandatory for the industry to follow also contributes to food wastage in its own way because the warranty provisions imply that expired food products are not safe to eat. Some time back the food minister in the UK appealed to the consumers not to throw away foods just because the warranty period was over. But is it practical to expect the consumers to follow such appeals which fly in the face of the principle that expiry date is printed based on the perception of the manufacturer that all foods have definitive shelf life?. The logic in advocating use of date expired food is based on the fact that it only applies to the eating quality and not safety. Against such a backdrop, the initiative by a retired professor in the US to operate a web site that can be of help to consumers in clarifying many issues vis-à-vis food safety.

Somewhere along the path toward food safety, we often make a detour toward obsession. An obsession that compels us to throw out food before we really have to. And that, in turn, costs us money. Before we blame ourselves, let's not forget that the habit is enabled by all those "Use By" and "Sell By" and "God Forbid You Eat This AFTER" package label dates, not to mention recent headlines of good food gone bad. The challenge: How to be a food-savvy cheapskate versus a food-sickened cheapskate. A new Web site wants to help ShelfLifeAdvice.com delivers bushels of articles on the topic: how to store food, save food, clean food, freeze food and, yes, clarification of those dates on packaged and fresh foods. The brainchild of retired professor Ethel Tiersky and her son, Howard, the site also features links to lots of Web sites, and it has a board of advisers of food-safety pros from across the U.S. A recent lead article was titled, "Soft Cheese: A Delicious Delicacy or a Menace?"

Though such initiatives are welcome and the promoters are to be admired for their novel venture, how far it will solve the day to day problems faced by the consumers in handling processed foods is some what uncertain. Of course if the foods bought from the super markets are handled with care and caution they can definitely last much longer than the warranty date because shelf life of each and every food is determined under some standard conditions and projected for room conditions. In principle if foods are stored under low temperatures, their life can be extended significantly. Whether chemical spoilage or microbial growth, the rate of change in the food is slowed down considerably at lower temperatures, hence the longer shelf life. Ultimately the consumer will have to decide based on flavor and taste of the product to decide whether it is acceptable or not. Similarly most foods if heated beyond a temperature of 70C can be expected to be safe from pathogens.

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

MOST DETESTED FOODS-ARE THEY REALLY BAD?

According to some food safety experts it is better to avoid eating certain foods because of definitive reasons. Whether such a conclusion is reached based on meticulously compiled safety data or just a gut feeling will determine the credibility of such advices. Looking at the list of seven foods these experts say they would avoid, most of them are grown or manufactured to day and marketed. Caution needs to be exercised regarding following of this advice because the data may be relevant only for some of them confined to some geographic region at a particular given time.

"Want to know the foods that the "food safety experts" won't eat? Prevention Magazine decided to ask. They posed the question, "What foods do you avoid?" to the people whose work is to uncover what's safe to eat – or not"

Included in the list are tomatoes, popcorn, salmon, milk, potato and apples grown/processed in a particular way. Canned potato is avoided because of the reported findings regarding presence of BPA in the lining of the cans used while microwaved popcorn is shunned due to reported presence of perfluorooctanoic acid migrated from the bags. Similarly Non-organic potato and non-organic apples are indicted because of pesticide/herbicide residue in them. Milk produced using rBGH hormones and farmed salmon using unsafe chemicals are also shunned due to safety apprehensions.

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