PHAGE TECHNOLOGY-ANOTHER WEAPON AGAINST LISTERIA CONTAMINATION

Bacteriophage are viruses which can kill bacteria through infecting the latter. Wherever there is a colony of bacteria, phages are likely to be seen acting as a check on their uncontrolled proliferation. Phages inject their genetic material into the bacterial cell and hijack their metabolic system leading to their eventual death of the host. It has been reported that phages were extensively used in the erstwhile Soviet Union against pathogens successfully, as an alternative to antibiotics, though as a therapy it never emerged out side this region. Realizing that Listeria contamination is threatening the food markets in some of the developed countries, attempts to use phages against this deadly pathogen resulted in preparations containing the phage for effectively decontamination of surface areas in many solid foods without affecting the sensory quality of the food treated and posing no safety problem to the consumer. With approvals from safety authorities in many countries, phage technology is likely to emerge as a significant tool to fight food poisoning episodes involving food pathogens in the coming years. Here is a take on this latest development in food processing.     

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has approved Listex P100 as a processing aid against Listeria monocytogenes, making Listex the first phage for product safety approved in Australia and New Zealand. The phage is produced by Dutch company Micreos. According to FSANZ's approval report: * The safety assessment did not identify any public health and safety concerns associated with using Listex P100 to treat food. * It is effective at reducing levels of Listeria monocytogenes on the surface of solid RTE foods evaluated. * There is no appreciable ongoing technological function when it is applied to the surface of various solid RTE foods, therefore it fits into the category of processing aids. This is consistent with international approaches.  * There were no measures that would be more cost effective than Listex P100. "FSANZ's decision marks an important step in the acceptance and appreciation of phage technology," said Mark Offerhaus, CEO of Micreos. "The review process was thorough, transparent and involved all stakeholders; an example of how new - and suitable - technology should be brought to market." Following approvals in the USA, Canada and the Netherlands, Micreos applied for approval of Listex in Australia and New Zealand. Easy to apply, Listex is sprayed onto the surface of food products during processing, killing Listeria without any sensory or other effects.

With many multi drug resistant bacteria emerging during the last few years, world is not seeing any new antibiotics being developed that can fight diseases caused by increasingly virulent and rugged bugs evolving through mutation. As phages occur widely they provide an answer to the prayer by human beings to develop newer technologies against diseases which do not respond to existing antibiotics. Sea water is supposed to be one of the richest sources of phages and it is possible that man may increasingly turn to this source to develop a variety of phage based technologies to fight human and animal diseases in the coming years.

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

THE MEAT "TRIMMINGS" DEBATE-ARE THEY SAFE?

Meat industry seems to be having frequent problems regarding the safety of some of their products and during the last few years it is pilloried by one scandal after the other, The inhuman abattoir practices and use of antibiotics liberally were two of the most serious issues that caught the attention of the consumers during the last 2-3 years. Frequent contamination episodes further caused huge embarrassment to the industry. The most recent incident concerns the practice of making ground meat, which was found to be fraught with the risk of contaminating the product with E.coli. It concerns use of trimmings from the cows, recovered from layers nearest to the skin, for admixing with the normal meat for achieving lower cost of production. However according to some safety experts these trimmings being close to the skin are often contaminated with pathogens and hence pose greater risk to the consumer. Here is a take on this latest controversy.

"[Trimmings are] taken from the outermost part, and they happen to be the fattiest part of the cow," says Moss. "So they're put into a centrifuge which spits out the protein parts of the material." The term "pink slime" was in fact initially coined by a U.S. Department of Agriculture official Moss met who had seen the "bright pink, aqueous" stuff in a plant. Sounds pretty unappetizing, but there is some appeal to the material: mainly its price. "In the meat industry, there's something called least cost formulations," says Moss. "Companies will mix and match trimmings from different parts of the cow and different suppliers to achieve the perfect level of fatness. This material is ... slightly less expensive." Cheap it may be, but because it comes from the outermost part of the carcass, it's also more susceptible to contamination than other cuts of meat. That's because it could come in contact with the cow's hide, which could have excrement containing pathogens like the dangerous forms of E. coli. The industry tries to purify the material with gaseous ammonia, which raises the alkalinity to a level that E. coli can't tolerate, Moss says. USDA's food safety division says this method is effective. And the company that manufactures it says it also has a rigorous testing system in place. But Moss' s reporting has shown that school food officials have found the bad kind of E. coli in the material where they least expected – the trimmings. "It's entirely approved by USDA ... and accepted as school lunch as a component in the ground beef they purchase," says Moss. "So far they've been holding pat on the safety issue. They're satisfied that their testing program and the way they handle and cook beef is entirely safe for kids." None of the fast food companies — McDonalds, Taco Bell and Burger King — that decided to stop buying trimmings mentioned safety concerns, either. And even if it's been banished from a lot of fast food burgers, the material is probably still in a lot of ground beef sold at the grocery store. Except it's impossible for consumers to know that since USDA doesn't require meat companies to label whether ground beef includes trimmings.

First reported in products distributed to schools under nutrition programs, trimmings seem to be a part of all products made from ground beef meat used in many main stream products by the food industry. Though use of trimmings is not banned and found safe by the authorities, industry voluntarily stopped supplying products containing trimmings to the schools. However no one knows whether these trimmings form significant portion of ground beef being used by the industry as a whole. Though some major players have already announced discontinuing with this practice, there is no way a consumer can know whether the products in the market still contain trimmings in the absence of any compulsory label declaration. Fortunately, most of the meat industry players do process these trimmings scientifically killing all pathogens though there may be some exceptions which get noticed. There is no way the authorities can clamp down on these practices as they are perfectly legal, at least as of now.

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

LABELING OF GM FOODS-THE LAST BASTION OF RESISTANCE MAY CRUMBLE SOON

Are genetically modified foods and ingredients absolutely safe for human consumption? Probably with the present conflicting claims and interests of pressure groups and lack of critical volume of data in human experiments, it is doubtful whether even "God" himself can answer this vexing question with any reasonable degree of certainty! Keeping aside the issue of safety, those who permit GM foods in their country can at least be transparent with their citizens by declaring on the label about the use of such unnatural ingredients in formulated foods. This is what American citizens are asking of their government for the last several years. So far the American government has not budged from its stand that GM foods are safe and consumers must "believe" them. But winds of change are blowing across this country and the people are "forcefully" demanding for such regulatory labeling to which Government has to bow eventually. Here is the latest on this issue.

"Thousands of products in the typical American grocery store, from cereals to corn chips, contain genetically modified ingredients. But the average shopper wouldn't know it from their labels. Many companies in the food and biotechnology industry, including Creve Coeur-based Monsanto Co., want to keep it that way. But they'll have to fend off a growing push for labels on genetically modified products that's gaining traction in Washington and state capitals. At least 18 states are now considering laws that would make the labels mandatory, including Illinois and California, the country's biggest market. Earlier this year, pro-labeling advocates marched from New York to Washington. Late last fall, about 500 groups, including some of the country's biggest consumer organizations, banded together as the Just Label It campaign. Also last fall, the Washington-based Center for Food Safety filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, calling for the agency to require labels. As of this week, the petition had 850,000 signatures of support, the most ever for a federal food petition. "Fifty countries have mandatory labeling. We're one of the only developed countries that doesn't. GMOs are labeled in China, Russia. Why would consumers in those countries have this information and we not have it here?" said Megan Westgate, executive director of the the Non-GMO Project, a group that verifies and labels products as free of genetically altered ingredients. "It feels like we're at this tipping point where a lot more Americans are concerned about this."

Is it not funny that the very same government insists on labeling a product treated with gamma radiation though more than 65 countries have cleared food irradiation process as safe beyond any shadow of doubt? Double standards? Of course! If there were a lobby for irradiation process as powerful as that advocating GM technology for producing foods, Government would not have made labeling mandatory for irradiated foods. While debating on this issue, the views of the protagonists who believe that GM technology only can achieve quantum jump in food production in coming years should not be unilaterally shunned and with the present pace of scientific development there may be a possibility that the technology may gain universal acceptance in future. Till such time citizens must be given the choice to buy or not to buy GM foods through clear labeling.

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

  

MULTI AGENCIES VS SINGLE AGENCY FOR FOOD SAFETY ENFORCEMENT

One of the prime claims of achievement, made by the Ministry of Food Processing Industry, GOI was that it was instrumental in creating the food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) by integrating various central agencies dealing with this subject in different ministries. It is another matter that the "Authority" lacks real authority to enforce discipline in the food market, the fraudsters and adulterators still ruling the roost! It is very true that, for any organization to show its efficiency, it requires some time and the food industry seems to be optimistic that FSSAI would be able to show results soon. Whether the recent FSSAI surveys across the country that highlighted the prevalence of wide scale adulteration in milk and other foods, (already well known?) is a forerunner of more deterrent actions in future remains to be seen. Diagnosing a disease is a different ball game compared to surgical intervention to remove the malaise detected. According to international reports the much heralded FDA, USDA inspection system for meat and animal products and supervising agency for imported foods are likely to be merged, hoping for more effective safety compliance by the industry. There appears to be critics as well as supporters for the new proposal and here is a take on this new development.    

"FSIS regulates by inspection and enforcement. Their daily presence in nearly every single meat and poultry plant in this country is mandated by law and funded by Congress. They can shutter a plant simply by having the inspectors not show up for work. FDA regulates by education and writing Good Manufacturing Practices and suggesting policies to follow when producing food. Foods like sprouts, cantaloupe, peanut butter and shell eggs come to mind. And FDA inspection is either by a state entity, a third-party auditor paid by the company or themselves when an outbreak is recognized. The FDA has no mandate in inspection or audit frequency, and very little in funding to do so. And therefore they very rarely inspect or audit unless a disaster mandates it. This is not to say one agency is better than the other. They are very different entities, and the laws that they follow are very different also. To blend them into one might be like mixing oil and water".

People are always apprehensive about mergers creating monopoly and power centers not responsive to their problems and same fear is influencing the views on the proposed merger also. One need not agree with the critic above that the new mega dispensation would be worse than the fragmented players controlling food safety administration. As long as the new agency created is answerable to the elected body and if adequate built-in protection is provided for preventing hegemonic tendencies, there is no reason why the integrated system cannot work more efficiently than several independent agencies under different departments.

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

FOOD SAFETY "MALPRACTICES"-WHO SAID FARMER IS NOT INTELLIGENT?

Pesticides mean different things to different players in the food chain. Application of pesticides is considered vital to increase the yield from the agricultural land though there are restrictions regarding the type that can be used and the quantity that is safe. Similarly storage and distribution industry needs separate pesticides for grain preservation and prevent damage from different types of stored pests. As far as the consumer is concerned he abhors pesticides in his food because of the grave risk, short as well as long term, to his health by consuming foods containing these potentially harmful chemicals. Birth of organic food industry owes its origin to this consumer apprehension which the main stream  industry can only ignore at its peril. An interesting report from Nepal reveals how cunning and ruthless farmers can be when it comes to their own safety. Here is a take on this new revelation.

"With the increase in population, there is increasing pressure on the agricultural sector to produce more food in less time to feed the growing number of hungry stomachs. To meet the escalating demand, most farmers are using harmful pesticides to the extent that they themselves cannot comprehend. Previous studies on pesticide residues have shown that a total of more than thousand different food commodities during 1995-2004 were found to have various pesticide residues. This is the reason why Nepal frequently faces quality and safety related problems in the export of honey, tea etc. to European countries due to the beyond-the- normal pesticide residue level. Lack of knowledge is one thing but many farmers and traders, who know their practices are unsafe, or even illegal, still continue to follow them and this is guided by a principle called 'the love of money'. According to the research carried out by Food Organization and Agriculture(FAO), many farmers admitted that they produce separate vegetables without the use of excessive chemicals only for their own consumption and they do not even feed pesticide used plant residues to their animals because they fear for their lives but shamelessly not for their fellow human beings". 

The above bitter truth prevails in India also as reflected by a report which says only 30% of the milk produced come from animals while the rest is created by the enterprising dairy "entrepreneurs" from pond water, detergent and other inedible materials which are obtained practically free! One wonders whether these criminal "innovators" will feed their children with this milk? Undoubtedly no. The prevailing belief that farmers are innocent people with no education needs revision if the above wide spread practices as reported are true and probably they have the last laugh when it comes to matching their wits with that of the consumer!  

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

BPA IS SAFE-SO SAYS EU SAFETY AUTHORITIES!

Bis-phenol A ( BPA) which is present as a component in poly carbonate feeding bottles and resin coatings in sanitary cans was a focus of intense scrutiny after it was implicated in health risks, especially to infants. Though the scare about its safety among consumers made many industry players to shun use of poly carbonate in feeding bottles and can resins, there has never been any formal banning of this chemical by any safety authorities in the world. Still BPA was subject matter of intense safety studies during the last two years with no adverse findings emerging so far and it is not surprising that the EU Safety Authorities have given it unqualified approval for use as long as the level does not exceed the prescribed limit. Here is a report from the EU.regarding the present status of BPA vis-a-vis processed foods. 

"Time after time when the comprehensive body of research on BPA is evaluated by unbiased scientific experts, the conclusion is the same -- that BPA does not pose any risk to infants, children, or adults from exposure through food contact applications," said Dr. John M. Rost, NAMPA Chairman. "This latest affirmation of BPA's safety in food packaging should prompt consumers to question the motivation behind the negative publicity on BPA, a material that not only protects food, but that repeatedly has been found safe by expert regulatory bodies worldwide." Over the past several weeks, EFSA conducted a thorough review of new scientific studies. This review was conducted at the request of the European Commission, following recent concerns raised by a report from the French food agency (ANSES). Responding to those concerns, EFSA noted that ANSES had conducted a limited hazard identification process, while EFSA had conducted a full risk assessment on BPA. Based on this latest assessment, EFSA upheld the finding of its 2010 review that the existing tolerable daily intake (TDI) for BPA would "protect all human populations for lifetime exposure to this substance through diet." EFSA also indicated plans to establish a multidisciplinary working group to monitor and review new scientific studies on BPA. "BPA-based epoxy coatings used in metal packaging enable high temperature sterilization that eliminates the danger of food poisoning or contamination," continued Dr. Rost. "These coatings are extremely effective, thoroughly tested, and safe, as reiterated by this recent EFSA evaluation. Expert risk assessments such as this latest work by EFSA should be what guides policy actions on BPA, not political agendas." A full report is available at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/111201.htm ."

It is a tribute to the functioning of the safety assessment mechanism in the EU that suspect contaminants are continuously being subjected to evaluation and based on new data generated quick action is taken to remove or retain the already approved standards. One has to place faith on the safety agencies and be guided by their 'wisdom' derived from many tit bits of information at their disposal. On the other hand government agencies bestowed with the responsibility of looking after the welfare of the citizens should not be swayed by the clout or muscle of the industry or the lobbyists and must be true to the scientific truth. Between FDA of the US and EFSA of the EU, latter seems to have acquitted themselves better if one goes by the past track record of these two agencies during the last few years in safeguarding the consumer interest.  

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

"MEGA" RISKS FROM "NANO" TECHNOLOGY-THE SAFETY QUESTION

Nano technology is indeed an exciting development about which manufacturing industry world over is pinning lot of hope in expanding the product portfolio further through this innovative process. Food industry is no exception to this feeling. Though the technology is based on sound scientific principles, how far its application in food processing and ingredient preparation will be safe is a big question that has no conclusive answer as of now. Here is a critique on this issue which must caution the industry against rushing head on to apply nano technology indiscriminately without thinking about potential consequences to consumer health. 

"Some of the industrial and consumer-product applications using nanoparticles border on the magical. But a growing number of solid scientific studies have, in the minds of many public health experts, justified hoisting caution flags as they repeatedly show that many nanoparticles are small enough to penetrate the skin, lungs and pass through the vital blood-brain barrier. The potential for lung cancer - especially from the inhalation of carbon nanotubes - has also surfaced in some studies. Nano is from the Greek word for dwarf and a nanometer is a billionth of a meter, or a total of one sliver if you were to cut the period at the end of this sentence into 50,000 slices. "Consumers should be concerned that these tiny chemicals may already be in foods and food contact materials, without being publicly disclosed," says Jennifer Sass, senior scientist and nano authority for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Consumers can't even make informed choices when they don't know where these chemicals are, what they are, or how toxic they are. It's an outrageous violation of the public trust that companies are refusing to identify on the label the ingredients or food contact materials that are nano-sized, and FDA is letting them get away with it," Sass said. The report said that because of their small size, the "intentionally engineered" nanomaterials are able to go places in the body that larger particles cannot, and it warned: •New "nanofood" products should only be used if safety testing ensures that there are no negative impacts on human health or the environment. •Current regulatory controls are inadequate to assess or ensure safety. •The scientific consensus is that there is a lack of knowledge regarding how nanomaterials interact at the molecular or physiological levels and their potential impacts on health and the environment".

What is troubling the consumers is that there is no way to ascertain how many foods on the market shelves are made using nano technology or are there products containing nano particles as ingredients since the current labeling regulations do not provide for giving out this information. More over there is no way any Chemist can analyze a food prepared with nano technology or nano technology based ingredients and indict the manufacturer. The move by FDA of the US to declare nanotechnology based food ingredients as GRAS is highly irresponsible and is fraught with implications world over as many countries adopt many of the standards set by FDA in their own country blindly. It is time international agencies like the FAO and WHO step in and bring some sanity in this critical area.

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

BPA IS SAFE-SO SAYS EU SAFETY AUTHORITIES!

Bis-phenol A which is present as a component in poly carbonate feeding bottles and resin coatings in sanitary cans was a focus of intense scrutiny after it was implicated in health risks, especially to infants. Though the scare about its safety among consumers made many industry players to shun use of poly carbonate in feeding bottles and can resins, there has never been any formal banning of this chemical by any safety authorities in the world. Still BPA was subject matter of intense safety studies during the last two years with no adverse finding emerging so far and it is not surprising that the EU Safety Authorities have given it unqualified approval for use as long as the level does not exceed the prescribed limit. Here is a report from the EU.regarding the present status of BPA vis-a-vis processed foods. 

"Time after time when the comprehensive body of research on BPA is evaluated by unbiased scientific experts, the conclusion is the same -- that BPA does not pose any risk to infants, children, or adults from exposure through food contact applications," said Dr. John M. Rost, NAMPA Chairman. "This latest affirmation of BPA's safety in food packaging should prompt consumers to question the motivation behind the negative publicity on BPA, a material that not only protects food, but that repeatedly has been found safe by expert regulatory bodies worldwide." Over the past several weeks, EFSA conducted a thorough review of new scientific studies. This review was conducted at the request of the European Commission, following recent concerns raised by a report from the French food agency (ANSES). Responding to those concerns, EFSA noted that ANSES had conducted a limited hazard identification process, while EFSA had conducted a full risk assessment on BPA. Based on this latest assessment, EFSA upheld the finding of its 2010 review that the existing tolerable daily intake (TDI) for BPA would "protect all human populations for lifetime exposure to this substance through diet." EFSA also indicated plans to establish a multidisciplinary working group to monitor and review new scientific studies on BPA. "BPA-based epoxy coatings used in metal packaging enable high temperature sterilization that eliminates the danger of food poisoning or contamination," continued Dr. Rost. "These coatings are extremely effective, thoroughly tested, and safe, as reiterated by this recent EFSA evaluation. Expert risk assessments such as this latest work by EFSA should be what guides policy actions on BPA, not political agendas." A full report is available at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/111201.htm" .

it is a tribute to the functioning of the safety assessment mechanism in the EU that suspect contaminants are continuously being subjected to evaluation and the statute books updated for the benefit of the consumer as well as the industry. Also notable is the double quick time response by the industry when troubling questions regarding BPA safety were raised 2-3 years ago and many major manufacturers voluntarily shunned the use of containers and packing materials containing BPA to reassure their clientele regarding their concern for the well being of the society. One of the beneficial effects of uncertainties regarding BPA safety is that attempts to develop alternative materials with similar functional properties received a boost and food industry is managing without dependence on BPA containing packing materials and containers.    

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

THE GM "MONSTER" BEING REVISITED-AMERICAN CONSUMER SAGA!"

The GM controversy has a checkered history ever since the technology bursted on the scene about two decades ago. The million dollar question being asked to day is whether foods created through GMO are really safe for long term consumption by human beings. At least one country and its government, seem to be believing that they are safe and had the audacity to clear many GM foods which have entered the main stream industry surreptitiously without the consumer being aware of it. It is appalling that more than 80% of the processed foods in the US contain GM food ingredient without carrying any label declaration to inform the consumers under the "Right to Know" principle enshrined in the Constitution. A new awareness seems to be emerging among the population there that they are being "defrauded" through concealment of the fact about GM foods in different processed products and one can expect more fierce campaigns in future by the people to force the hands of the government there. Here is a take on this latest development in the GM food front from the country which will have to answer to the world if there are any serious long term consequences arising out of thousands of GM crops being popularized by its Transnational companies with vested interest!

"In a February 1992 memo, Louis J. Pribyl, Ph.D., a scientist in the FDA's Microbiology Group, critiqued a draft of the policy by writing, "There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering which is just glanced over in this document." Dr. Pribyl added that "several aspects of gene insertion may be more hazardous than traditional plant crossbreeding." In a January 1992 memo, Linda Kahl, Ph.D., an FDA compliance officer, emphasized the lack of scientific data to recognize the safety of GM foods. "Are we asking the scientific experts to generate the basis for this policy statement in the absence of any data?" she asked. "There is no data that could quantify risk." E.J. Matthews, Ph.D., of the FDA's Toxicology group, warned in an October 1991 memo, "genetically modified plants could also contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants." According to Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, "Numerous agency experts protested that drafts of the statement of policy were ignoring the recognized potential for genetic engineering to produce unexpected toxins and allergens. But the policy was put into effect despite their scientific judgment that no GM foods can be presumed safe."

There are three aspects of GM foods which continue to be ignored by those who promote them. First about the right to know if the food is made differently. Second about safety of these foods for consumption in the long term. Third about environmental impact due to uncontrolled propagation of these products evolved through genetic engineering. Even if the two latter aspects about safety and environment are not clearly brought out through unanimous scientific evidence, still the first one regarding labeling should be insisted on leaving the choice to the consumer based on individual consumer perception. If irradiated foods are forced to declare the process on the label, why not the GM foods? A valid and relevant question indeed and the safety agency in the US must give a credible answer before long if the current campaigns assume a mass flavor in the coming years!

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

ARE ALL HERBAL PRODUCTS SAFE?-THE NEW CONCERNS

In a world where truth and fiction can always get mixed up, herbs and products derived from them are gaining a significant foothold in the minds of consumers who look for better food and well being products to keep themselves free from health afflictions. While there are no two opinions regarding the efficacy of herbs when consumed regularly to protect from a number of ailments of temporary nature, over reliance on them can be dangerous. One of the problems facing consumers is that rarely one can get reliable scientific information based on modern studies that can substantiate widely varying claims made by the industry and often "traditional use " is cited as proof for their supposed benefits. Most countries including the US have very weak control regimes to check spurious products and untenable claims. There have been reports that even Allopathic medicines including steroids are mixed with traditional herbal products to attenuate their effects. Against such a background asking consumers to believe what is claimed is not justified by any yardstick. There are many products categorized as "health aids" and if they are intended for ingestion they must conform to quality standards and safety protocols expected from any food. It will be a big tragedy if herbal products suffer because of negligence and lack of oversight by the governments regarding their true value.

"The practice of 'medical pluralism' in which both conventional and alternative therapies are widely used in treating ailments has also created a massive demand for such products among the general population. As there are many herbal based products entering the Malaysian market lately, the healthcare professionals and general public need to understand that, compared to the registration of an allopathic or conventional modern medicines, herbal based products do not need to undergo any human clinical trial to show its efficacy. In most cases for the herbal product registration process, the manufacturers of such products just need to provide evidence on the safety (e.g. the products are free from any contamination of heavy metals and other poisonous substances) and quality (e.g. compliance to good manufacturing standards) aspect of the product to the drug regulators for registration purpose. The public also needs to understand that herb based preparations do not mean that they are free from any toxic effects. Some herbs can interact with modern medicines or other food based substances and this can cause more harm than good if taken concomitantly. Besides, the manufacturers also need to comply with the advertising law for such products so that no exaggerated claims about the product efficacy are made, for example, curing chronic diseases and cancers, for instance. The problem in Malaysia is that many herbal product manufacturers overclaim their products efficacy and use testimonials to market their products. I would like to suggest to the Health Ministry to work with experts in local universities to publish a simple guideline on how to use herbal products effectively. In my experience, I have found that many consumers are confused on what herbal preparations they need to take and most of them are influenced by irrational marketing tactics by some unscrupulous manufacturers and direct selling companies. The developed guideline should be made available to all health premises and media so that it can really empower the consumers on safe and effective use of herbal preparations. In this regard, healthcare professionals such as pharmacists and medical doctors also need to play a greater role in advising their patients on quality use of herbal preparations. I believe a 'Quality Use of Herbal Preparations' awareness campaign is a way forward to keep the tradition going and this definitely needs proactive measures from all the interested stakeholders".

The dividing line between food and medicine is very thin indeed and Hippocrates stated this truth long ago when he said "Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food"! There are thousands of herbal products made by many manufacturers, some of them in the business for generations and others relatively new players and all of them suffer from some credibility gap because of lack of self regulation and inadequate oversight by the government. For example how can a simple consumer rely on a product, the label of which does not reveal anything about the product nature and the advantages and disadvantages of consuming it for short period as well as in the long term? What about the effect of combining common Allopathic medicines along with them or regarding any food restrictions necessary to get the claimed advantages? There is no mention about the active ingredients in these preparations invariably! It is time the world gets together and bring out a scientifically compiled encyclopedia on herbs that gives A to Z about herbs and herbal products for the benefit of the confused consumers and such a guide can help in choosing the right type of herbs for deriving the required benefits from them.

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

HOW ABOUT "HUMAN" MILK FROM ANIMALS? ANOTHER CHALLENGE TO BREAST FEEDING

The slogan that "breast milk is the best milk" has to day become synonymous with bringing up healthy children and more or less almost all potential mothers are sensitized to this reality through countless campaigns, educational programs and investment of vast resources by national and international bodies. But there has always been danger from the powerful baby food industry to sabotage this situation in order to regain their lost business in terms of peddling manufactured infant foods with doubtful credentials. Now comes the frontal assault from this lobby with the help of some "motivated" scientists through a sustained campaign to promote a new product claiming it to be as good as the mother's milk, if not superior! Here is the story.

"The scientists have successfully introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk. Human milk contains high quantities of key nutrients that can help to boost the immune system of babies and reduce the risk of infections. The scientists behind the research believe milk from herds of genetically modified cows could provide an alternative to human breast milk and formula milk for babies, which is often criticised as being an inferior substitute. They hope genetically modified dairy products from herds of similar cows could be sold in supermarkets. The research has the backing of a major biotechnology company. The work is likely to inflame opposition to GM foods. Critics of the technology and animal welfare groups reacted angrily to the research, questioning the safety of milk from genetically modified animals and its effect on the cattle's health".

It is shocking that when GM foods are still at the center of a fierce controversy regarding their safety to adult humans, here is an attempt to expose the tender children to the potential hazards posed by GM milk. While no one has any quarrel regarding the excellence of GM technology and appreciation regarding human ingenuity in evolving these "unnatural" technologies, tinkering with food under various excuses, is not acceptable to any decent citizen who values all that is natural. There is only one country in the world which is reckless enough to expose its citizens to more than 30 different genetically manipulated agricultural crops with out the latter being aware of its presence in the market. With long term consequences from ingesting GM foods, especially as part of the staple diet, not exactly known, one can only wonder as to the intention of the US government in colluding with the GM lobby in the back door entry of these "unnatural" crops into the food system. While touting the new technology for producing human milk-like material from cows through GM techniques, the protagonists are forgetting that mother,s milk is much more than a chemical entity to be replicated through human intervention and the love, bondage, kinship, mother,s warmth etc can never be provided by any 4-legged animal, no matter how excellent the technology may be.

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

FOOD PACKING MATERIALS-NEW RISKS FROM MIGRATORY CHEMICALS

There is no denying the fact that advent of plastics has revolutionized the way foods are prepared, packed and sold to the consumers all over the world. No processed food can be free from contaminating chemicals migrating from the packaging material into the contents by direct contact either during preparation or packing. Safety of plastics that go in for food packing is governed by the quality specifications arrived at and agreed to universally through well designed tests and assessment procedures. Even then there is nothing like absolute safety when it comes to plastics compared to glass or stainless steel. Recent revelation that clearing the chemical Polyfluoroalkyl Phosphate Esters (PAPs) in making wrappers for many foods is under a cloud because of ignoring the effect of its break down product Perflourinated Carboxylic Acids (PFCAs) under earlier studies. Here is a take on this new development which may call for re-assessment of the safety of wrappers containing PAPs.

"Chemicals that line everything from fast-food wrappers to linings in pizza boxes can migrate into food, then get ingested and cause chemical contamination in the blood, according to new research from scientists at the University of Toronto. Perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs) are the breakdown products of chemicals used to make non-stick and water- and stain-repellent products, including food packaging. PFCAs are found in the human body all over the world. According to the UT scientists' research, much of this chemical residue in the bloodstream may come from the consumption of polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters (PAPs), grease proofing agents applied to paper food packaging such as fast-food wrappers and microwave popcorn bags. In the study, rats were exposed to PAPs either orally or by injection and monitored for a three-week period to track the concentrations of the PAPs and PFCA metabolites, PFOA, in their blood. Human exposure to PAPs had already been established by the scientists in a previous study. Researchers used the PAP concentrations previously observed in human blood together with the PAP and PFCA concentrations observed in the rats to calculate human exposure from PAP metabolism. They found the concentrations of PFCA metabolites to be significant, indicating that metabolism of PAPs could be a major source of human exposure to these chemicals. "The reason these chemicals were originally approved to be applied to paper food wrappers is because their acute toxicity is low," said Jessica D'Eon, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in the department of chemistry at the University of Toronto and the paper's lead author. "But the product they're metabolized into, PFCAs, has a much longer lifetime in the body—almost five years. Our study confirms that you could have relatively low exposure to PAPs, and still have relatively high concentration of PFCAs in the body."

Though the above findings need to be confirmed by more authentic investigations, nonetheless doubt has been cast on safety of many packing materials and non-stick cooking paraphernalia containing PAPs currently being used. Probably packaging industry may come up with alternate chemicals with much more safety credentials so that PAPs are slowly phased out. The necessity for close and continuous vigilance of packaging materials used by the food industry for achieving increased margin of safety for the consumers cannot be overstated in view of the above developments.

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

SAFETY OF SOY UNDER THE SCANNER-NEED FOR CAUTION

Soybean if often trumpeted as the ultimate health food at least by the US Soybean industry during the last few years. There was a time when Peanuts were damned because of the lower quality of protein contained in them due to less than optimum levels of Lysine amino acid and since Soy is rich in Lysine its proteins always enjoyed a higher PER status. It is a fact of history that the powerful Soy lobby tried its best to "kill" de-oiled peanut meal taking the name of Afflatoxin though the latter survived this assault, still providing support to the feed industry in India and in some other countries. Same is true regarding Soy oil, an inferior cooking oil which tried to outsell others like Palm oil, Coconut oil, Peanut oil and Rapeseed oil through negative tactics which of course did not succeed. If American consumers were carried away by the high pitch promotion of Soybean in their country, they are going to pay for it, if the recent report regarding the safety of this legume crop is to be believed.

"Within the last 30 years, soy products have gained ultimate health food status. Promoted as being heart healthy, and a good source of protein, tofu, soy milk, and all varieties of soy-based meat and dairy replacements became the mainstays of most vegetarian and vegan diets, as well as being accepted among many omnivores. In Asian cultures, where soy is a traditional part of the diet, it is only consumed in small quantities, but for some reason, that didn't translate to the American consumer. We began eating soy without the knowledge that soy was never meant to be consumed in such great quantities, and even less in its unfermented state. For a while now, studies have shown that soy contains lots of phytoestrogens, making heavy soy consumption potentially very harmful for both men and women. Beyond the high levels of estrogen, the famous proteins in unfermented soy products, like tofu, soy milk, and most others, are actually quite difficult for our bodies to digest. Not only that, but unfermented soy contains phtyic acids that block our bodies' absorbption of lots of minerals, like calcium. Fermented soy, like tempeh and miso, are much easier for the body to take in and contain less phytic acid".

What lessons one must learn from this episode is very clear and that is, one should not be carried away by any super claims by the industry unless they are scientifically validated. It is a truth that best food is always a blend of diverse natural products and depending on one particular food is invariably fraught with danger and health risks. The principle of mutual supplementation through a blend of foods is the rock foundation of good nutrition and sound health, free from diseases and metabolic deficiencies. Just because a particular food is rich in one or two nutrients, it does not mean that it can be consumed ad libitum. A blend of peanut and soybean is more balanced because the contents of Lysine and Methionine, both essential amino acids, in the blend are more beneficial than either of them.

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

MILK TESTING-DAIRY INDUSTRY VS GOVERNMENT

If there is a country where industry voice gets precedence over consumer interest it is the United States of America. No wonder this country can boast of biggest food industry in the world. Though this eminent position is not achieved through lagesses from the government coffers, the policy support wrangled out from to time from the two food safety agencies viz USDA and FDA has enabled the industry to roughshod many consumer concerns including the widespread prevalence of GM food ingredients in almost all foods consumed by the citizens there. Latest instance of ignoring consumer safety is the decision by the FDA to defer a program for assessing the implications of presence of antibiotics in milk processed and distributed by the Dairy industry in that country. This has been done because of "protests" by the industry citing "inconvenience" to them!

"Each year, federal inspectors find illegal levels of antibiotics in hundreds of older dairy cows bound for the slaughterhouse. Concerned that those antibiotics might also be contaminating the milk Americans drink, the Food and Drug Administration intended to begin tests this month on the milk from farms that had repeatedly sold cows tainted by drug residue. But the testing plan met with fierce protest from the dairy industry, which said that it could force farmers to needlessly dump millions of gallons of milk while they waited for test results. Industry officials and state regulators said the testing program was poorly conceived and could lead to costly recalls that could be avoided with a better plan for testing. In response, the F.D.A. postponed the testing, and now the two sides are sparring over how much danger the antibiotics pose and the best way to ensure that the drugs do not end up in the milk supply. "What has been served up, up to this point, by Food and Drug has been potentially very damaging to innocent dairy farmers," said John J. Wilson, a senior vice president for Dairy Farmers of America, the nation's largest dairy cooperative. He said that that the nation's milk was safe and that there was little reason to think that the slaughterhouse findings would be replicated in tests of the milk supply. But food safety advocates said that the F.D.A.'s preliminary findings raised issues about the possible overuse of antibiotics in livestock, which many fear could undermine the effectiveness of drugs to combat human illnesses".

How ridiculous the situation is can be gauged by the fact that to day the advances in diagnostic technology have made it easy to determine within no time the microbial contamination or antibiotic traces and the argument regarding wasting milk because of delays in analyses does not cut much ice. Probably the same industry lobby will come out with their view that presence of antibiotics would be harmless!

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

GREAT LABELING "WARS"-WHO IS RIGHT?

Labeling regulations are increasingly being viewed by many consumers as a tool to have a peep into the contents of a processed food pack and help the safety enforcement agencies to keep a tag on the market products to detect unsafe and sub-standard products from the industry. There are three main parts to a label viz, the ingredients list in descending order, best before use date and the information pertaining to some nutrients and components of critical importance. While there are conventional guidelines for such declarations, more or less common in all countries, there are some contentious areas where there is conflict of interest. The three stake holders in the food processing area are consumers, government and the industry. Consumers expect safe products that will not cause any short term or long term injury to his health and adequate quality for the price he pays while the industry invariably strives to maximize profits as a part of corporate philosophy. It is the government which has to make sure that the interests of these two players are balanced.

Enforcing labeling rules is fraught with tremendous logistical difficulties and it is an arduous task for any government to please both the groups with diverging interests. It is true that most regulatory rules are implemented after wide consultations amongst the stake holders but the strong lobbying clout of large global corporates working in many countries stifle meaningful reforms in this area. Even a simple issue like expiry date is a bone of contention with different countries following different policies. Thus "best before date", "use before date", "sell before date,"etc are routinely used on the label with consumers having no clue regarding the precise meaning of these guidelines. Similarly the provision for printing claims for a particular product is grossly misused and lately many countries are waking up to this hoax perpetrated by some manufacturers without any scientific evidence.

A classical example of labeling dilemma is provided by irradiated products. While the consumers want clear labeling regarding the fact that a product is irradiated, industry opposes the same because of fear of consumer backlash. Similarly GM foods are to day sold routinely in some countries without making any mention on the label, but in many other countries powerful consumer activists are fighting for suitable label declaration to enable buyer to make an informed choice. There are hundreds of health claims printed on food packet labels based on flimsy literature information or traditional usage history. It is now being realized that unless adequate scientific evidence exists, no health claims should be allowed to be made.

One of the latest contentious issues relate to labeling of packed fluid milk in the US which has been a subject matter of litigation there which offers some insight into the food safety environment in that country. Most milk producers in the US use the recombinant bovine hormone in milch animals to increase the yield of milk and boost farm profitability, ignoring the safety implications of such practices. Many believe that artificial hormone used cannot be safe and the buyers must have the necessary freedom to choose between naturally produced and hormone treated products. Unless appropriate labeling is insisted upon, the consumer will not be in a position to exercise this right. While those using the hormone do not want to declare the same on the label, others marketing naturally produced milk distinguished their products declaring that their products come from untreated cows. While some courts have ruled against the natural milk producers' right to declare their products hormone free, other courts support the producers of hormone treated milk in opposing the practice of labeling as "hormone free".

Probably one has not seen the end of this controversy as the case is likely to end up in the Supreme Court because the aggrieved parties are sure to approach the apex court for over ruling the Federal Court decision. Is it not an irony that a citizen in the most powerful country in the world is "powerless" to stop the bullying power of the dairy industry from forcing him to consume milk that is suspect from the safety angle? The Judiciary in that country is supposed to be pro-conservative and pro-industry and it is unlikely that the consumer will ever get justice. Probably the food safety authorities may have to step in to allow producers of natural milk to include on the label the fact that they have not used the hormone or must force the users of the hormone to declare the same unambiguously for the benefit of the consumer.

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

HEALTH SUPPLEMENTS-A FREE RUN FOR THE INDUSTRY

FSSAI should be happy that they have an exalted company in FDA of the US. There is a common belief that USA is a paragon of all virtues when it comes to food safety but if one looks at its past record American market sells many products with doubtful safety credentials. A classical example is the widespread presence of GM foods in the market with the consumer never being aware of it as there is no compulsory labeling requirement for declaration of the GM origin of the food products from the processing industry. Now comes the report that American market is a heaven for all types of products claiming unsubstantiated health benefits and some of these are even dangerous if consumed by humans. Here is a take on that.

"Working with experts from the Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database, an independent research group, we identified a group of ingredients (out of nearly 1,100 in the database) linked to serious adverse events by clinical research or case reports. To come up with our dozen finalists, we also considered factors such as whether the ingredients were effective for their purported uses and how readily available they were to consumers. We then shopped for them online and in stores near our Yonkers, N.Y., headquarters and easily found all of them for sale in June 2010. The dozen are aconite, bitter orange, chaparral, colloidal silver, coltsfoot, comfrey, country mallow, germanium, greater celandine, kava, lobelia, and yohimbe. The FDA has warned about at least eight of them, some as long ago as 1993. Why are they still for sale? Two national retailers we contacted about specific supplements said they carried them because the FDA has not banned them. The agency has "the authority to immediately remove them from the market, and we would follow the FDA recommendation," said a spokeswoman for the Vitamin Shoppe chain".

It is truly amazing as to how the regulatory agency chose to close its eyes to such uncontrolled marketing of unproven health supplements to the public. It is nothing but shirking of the responsibility and forfeiting the confidence of the public. The odd clause in the statute books that permits sale of those ingredients used prior to 1993, is allowing many "fly by night" operators to exploit the gullibility of the public who are constantly looking for food and edible substances that will improve their health. FDA has authority to ban sale of substances, if found injurious to the health of consumers but probably lacks courage to impose such bans for fear of litigation and prolonged deadlock. If new drugs require complex data to be generated before allowing them into the market, even the so called health boosting or protecting substances also should attract same treatment. If these products have originated from other countries, the onus should be on those countries to provide safety data to the approval agency in the US.

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

POWER LOBBIES VS KNEELING POLICY MAKERS-MISFORTUNE OF A COUNTRY

The practice of lobbying is as old as the man himself and working through the power corridor to get what is desired by individuals and groups is not considered a crime under ant national or international law. But bribing those in power directly to influence legislation and derive unfair advantage is a crime that cannot be condoned. Unfortunately, the democratic system of government is easily susceptible to such distortions, detrimental to the interests of the honest tax paying denizens. More powerful the lobbying groups become, greater will be the damage to the society. In wealthy countries where industries are predominant playing an important role in the day to day life of the denizens, many government policies are shaped by the varying interests of the organized industries with undesirable consequences. Here is a scenario drawn from the US, a country being literally run by the lobbyists, as portrayed by a knowledgeable critic which has a lesson for other countries aspiring to be wealthy through industrialization.

"I agree with Rogers' assessment, with a caveat. Even if Obama were serious about transforming the food system (which I don't think he is), he would have to contend with a set of highly profitable incumbent industries, from agrichemical makers to cheeseburger purveyors, that will defend their interests by fang and claw on Capitol Hill. And their immense lobbying power leaves any would-be reformer in the White House with little room to impose change. Of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Rogers writes "he commands a $134 billion annual budget that includes agriculture subsidies, the National Organic Program, and food-stamp and nutrition programs." True, but Vilsack has very little discretion over how that cash hoard is spent. The USDA chief mostly executes farm policy made in the House and Senate ag committees, and those entities are notoriously captured by the Big Ag and Big Food lobbies. Just as health care reform could not move through Congress without making stark concessions to the insurance industry, just as even highly compromised climate legislation has been throttled by dirty-energy interests; and just as efforts to impose financial reform languish under the boot of Wall Street and its kept politicians, any serious presidential effort to reform the food system will crash into a brick wall constructed by the likes of Monsanto and Tyson Food. Which brings us back to the role of consumers. Voting with your fork, it turns out, is not enough. We can't just "be the change we want to see" in the food system; we also have to get out there and organize for policy reform: to become, in short, a countervailing force that challenges the power of the food lobby".

Probably the wailing by a few concerned persons like the above critic may not have any impact, especially when one is up against economic giants like Monsanto or Dow Chemicals or Cargill but still such voices will inject a sense of urgency amongst consumers to counter act the wheeling and dealing amongst the lobbying groups representing various economic interests and the unscrupulous politicians. The GM Foods controversy is a typical case where the industry view is overwhelmingly being accepted by the government ignoring scientific evidence and underplaying the risks to the consumers. Developing countries like India must learn a lesson from this experience and must not permit such international "profit at any cost" players to enter and manipulate the policies in their favor. The proxy war fought recently in India on Bt Brinjal should open the eyes of the citizens regarding the lurking dangers posed by the marauding industrial interests in getting a toe-hold in the country and make GM foods all pervasive, with unknown future consequences.

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

YET ANOTHER SYSTEM FOR FOR SAFETY CERTIFICATION!

Though many countries religiously follow the food standards set up by USFDA and USDA because of the overwhelming scientific basis for them, there are many others like ISO, FAO-WHO Alimentarius Commission and food safety and standards agencies in many countries with their own sets of specifications to be followed. Global trade in foods is contingent on commonly acceptable standards and all countries are free to enter into protocols for bilateral trade based on these regimes. With food safety becoming a burning issue, continuous endeavors are being made to improve upon the existing system of safety standards.

"The FSSC 22000 is based on the internationally recognized standard ISO 22000 and the British Standards Institute (BSI) specification PAS 220. This certification has recently gained full approval by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) following an extensive benchmarking process using international standards based on industry best practices and sound science. WILD customers can be confident that products purchased are not only of the highest quality but have been processed with food safety programs meeting the requirements of this stringent food safety standard. This recent certification is an outstanding accomplishment for one of the world's leading privately owned manufacturers of natural flavors and strengthens WILD's position as a global supplier throughout the Food & Beverage Industry".

Private certifying agencies are now increasingly relying on FSSC 22000 which combines best manufacturing practices and dependable safety standards for processed foods. Probably WTO must take sufficient initiative to establish one single world standard for each food products based on consensus of its members to be followed in all trade transactions and such a system will hopefully avoid misunderstandings and disputes on technical grounds amongst the trading nations. It will also be easier to resolve TBT complaints between the exporting and importing countries arising out of differing perceptions and interpretations.

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

VENDING MACHINES-ARE THEY SAFE?

Coin operated and smart card accessible Vending machines are considered as a convenient mode of retailing consumer products like juices, snacks etc and have become very popular in western countries. However they have not made any dent in the market in India. Probably millions of family stores, located strategically in areas where there is large concentration of population, make distribution easy in a country like India. Besides, establishing such machines and operating and maintaining them in working condition require high investments and other sustainable inputs. Even in places like Rail Stations, Bus Terminals and Tourism Centers there are vending shops readily accessible for the public with multiple choices that cannot be rivaled by any vending machine. While vending machines, if maintained well, can be a boon to consumers, there can be safety problems associated with these units as reported recently in the US where vending machines are ubiquitous by their wide scale presence.

"Coliform bacteria was detected in 48% of the beverages and 20% had a heterotrophic plate count greater than 500 cfu/ml. [...] More than 11% of the beverages analyzed contained Escherichia coli [E. Coli] and over 17% contained Chryseobacterium meningosepticum. Other opportunistic pathogenic microorganisms isolated from the beverages included species of Klebsiella, Staphylococcus, Stenotrophomonas, Candida, and Serratia. Most of the identified bacteria showed resistance to one or more of the 11 antibiotics tested".

If contamination with various microbes is as wide spread as reported, a radical relook at the design and operational mode of these machines are called for. One of the reasons could be the inadequacy of the cleaning regime after each reloading allowing such microbes to reside in the machine for long time, contaminating the fresh incoming product. The consoling factor is that vending machines are rarely found to be responsible for food poisoning episodes in the past, though such incidences cannot be ruled out in future for which precautionary measures need to be taken now. It is the unsuspecting consumer whose life is put in jeopardy by such unsafe machines or the products vended through them.

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

WATER SAFETY-A SYSTEM FAILURE!

Access to safe water is one of the fundamental rights of a citizen living in a civilized world. Drinking water sources are often contaminated and it is the legal responsibility of the civic bodies administering an habitat to clean up the water before distribution through fool proof delivery system. While in India protected water supply is a joke, as none exists qualifying for such a description, spawning a multi crore bottled water industry at the expense of the hapless citizen. One would have thought that in a rich country like the US, the citizens should be much better off than their counterparts in developing countries. It is not so is borne out by the recent revelations about the situation prevalent in that country.

"That law requires communities to deliver safe tap water to local residents. But since 2004, the water provided to more than 49 million people has contained illegal concentrations of chemicals like arsenic or radioactive substances like uranium, as well as dangerous bacteria often found in sewage. Regulators were informed of each of those violations as they occurred. But regulatory records show that fewer than 6 percent of the water systems that broke the law were ever fined or punished by state or federal officials, including those at the Environmental Protection Agency, which has ultimate responsibility for enforcing standards. Studies indicate that drinking water contaminants are linked to millions of instances of illness within the United States each year".

It is true that the water supply system in the US is so gigantic that it covers 54700 schemes across the nation under the control of local authorities with safety monitoring being the responsibility of the federal agencies. But water being a causative factor in millions of illnesses every year it is scandalous to see such a situation existing for years and being a rich country financial resources might not be the constraint for overcome the grim reality. Probably, with such a dismal record of the local execution authorities, the BPO model may have to come to the rescue of water management in the US in the coming years! Is India ready? With a dismal record to boast of in the domestic scene, India does not have any credibility to offer such services in designing and implementing safe water projects at international level.

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com