AMERICA-CHINA BHAI BHAI!-THE CONSEQUENCES OF CHINESE FOOD IMPORTS

America and China are two countries which have a love-hate relationship since both are global rivals trying to establish unchallenged economic superiority. Though America enjoyed a near monopoly as a super power ever since the fall of the mighty Soviet Union, China with its Communist dictatorship registered dramatic growth during the last one and a half decade and according to economic experts America cannot afford to antagonize this nation because of its close economic dependence on Chinese investments in the US and over dependence of America on cheap Chinese imports. While cheap and low quality consumer products may not pose serious dangers to the citizens, when it comes to food safety, one can never compromise and it is here that Americans are becoming increasingly vulnerable to food poisoning from food products imported from China which are not subject to regular and thorough checking at various ports of entry. Here is a critical commentary on the current practices vis-a-vis the safety risks Americans face due to this situation.      

Chinese imports dominate some food categories to a striking extent. In a testimony before a subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in May (pdf), food safety expert Patty Lovera noted that China accounted for 80% of tilapia, 51% of cod, 49% of apple juice, 34% of processed mushrooms, 27% of garlic and 16% of frozen spinach consumed in the U.S. in 2011. Reports on the state of Chinese food processing establishments are discouraging. More than half of food processing and packaging firms on the Chinese mainland failed safety inspections in 2011, according to a report by Asia Inspection, a China-based food quality control company. Meanwhile, in the U. S., inspections of imported food products are minute compared to the total volume of imports. According to a recent study by the Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee in 2011, FDA inspections were a mere 2.3 % of the total of all imported food products (pdf). The same study states that food imports generally have risen 10% annually since 2004, and are continuing to rise (imports grew from $399 million in 2011 to $426 million in 2012). The FDA estimates that food imports from China and India will grow by 9% annually between 2010 and 2020. The flow of reports in recent years from domestic and foreign sources alike about serious violations of food safety in China has been continuous and alarming. In the last year alone, the country has seen thousands of dead pigs show up in a major river, faced multiple milk scandals and busted operations that were passing off rat meat as mutton. In addition, as Patty Lovera told Congress, there is "widespread smuggling of products like honey to avoid tariffs and food safety restrictions [and] mislabeled products 'transshipped' through another country but produced in China." Food safety problems are, of course, not only a concern to the U.S. The German magazine Der Spiegel recently posted online a list of "rejected food" imported into the EU from China during 2012, including insect-infested potatoes, rabbit meat loaded with antibiotics, oyster sauce with staphylococcus, salmonella-infected ginger, pumpkin seeds contaminated with glass chips and arsenic in frozen calamari. American history of the late 19th and early 20th century reminds us that periods of rapid economic growth stimulate fraud and deception in food processing, which leads to increased regulation. As I noted in an earlier column, it wasn't until author Upton Sinclair aroused public concern with "The Jungle," his 1906 book on conditions in the Chicago meat packaging industry, that President Theodore Roosevelt moved to create the FDA.

China is not a saint when it comes to food safety assurance, even for its own citizens. This country was rocked by many food related frauds during the last one decade affecting children and adults alike and fraudulent practices are still being perpetuated by a section of the food industry which are being splashed across the news channels of electronic media across the globe! Whether this is happening in spite of the government or because of the government is not quite clear. The advantage China has in meting out justice is apparent when it is realized that the governing system is dictatorial in nature and unlike democracies, deciding about the guilty and according severe punishment can be swift. Still food safety scandals are tumbling out of the cup board in that country with a sickening regularity. America which prides itself the best governed country in the world, seems to be lowering its guard against China for reasons which are not very clear. If economic considerations are handicapping that country in taking the Chinese food safety problem seriously, one can only wish that the lives of innocent American citizens are not sacrificed at the altar of extraneous considerations.      

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

THE "OILY" MESS-THE CONTINUING SAGA OF INDIAN CONSUMER

Edible oil has always been the "Achilles Heel" of the Government of India while the pulses situation borders on a trauma! No matter who rules the country the edible oils and pulses have always been the "playing field" for hoarders, industry, traders and importers to make money at the expense of the citizen. Except playing lip sympathy Government has proved its impotence in addressing the problem of shortage with the oil mafia holding the consumer to ransom year after year. Whether oil is an essential commodity required ad libitum for the health of the consumer is a bigger question that was never answered, considering it is one of the root causes of obesity and other food related diseases. If the per capita availability of edible oils in the country is taken into consideration it meets the average nutritional need of a person but averages never tell the real story with consumption invariably being lop sided. A report that the vegetable oil imports have registered a quantum jump recently is alarming though the reasons for this undesirable development may be many. Here is a gist of the above report which deserves serious attention by all concerned to think about the way India can get out of this perennial trap.

"A sustained slowdown in domestic oilseed crushing activity has led to an increase in the import of vegetable (veg) oil in recent months. Consequently, overall import of veg oil shot up 73 per cent in the second quarter of the current oil year (November 2011–October 2012) as against 31 per cent growth in the first quarter, to meet a deficit created by lower production from domestic sources. Data compiled by the Solvent Extractors' Association (SEA) showed overall veg oil import rose 95 per cent to 897,404 tonnes in April alone, compared with 475,123 tonnes in the corresponding month of the previous year. During the last quarter of the current oil year, import surged to 2.52 million tonnes (mt) compared to 1.46 mt in the same period last year. With a marginal decline in the first quarter, owing mainly to increased availability from domestic sources on intensified local crushing, the overall import of veg oil recorded a 31 per cent increase at 4.71 mt, against 3.6 mt in the comparable period last year".

Is there a serious flaw in the planning of agriculture in this country and if so who is responsible for it? Can all those who ruled in the past and present can be absolved of the responsibility in bringing the country to such a sorry pass? Excuses are galore when it comes to enforcing accountability but such excuses need to be brushed away mercilessly to punish those guilty. What type of planning is done by the much touted National Planning Commission during the last 5 decades? It is simply common senses to understand that the production problems of oil seeds and pulses are closely linked to the agricultural policy and the governments do not seem to have the required determination to evolve a long term policy for the agriculture. After all farmers will produce only those crops that will give maximum returns to his labor. Look at the sugarcane policy which ensures high returns in the range of Rs 50,000  per acre and if the land is suitable or water is available 365 days as in areas near Mandya District in Karnataka, farmers cannot be forced to switch over to other crops. It is for the government to persuade the farmers to grow certain crops as a part of the national policy through various fiscal incentives. Unless this is done India will remain a massive importer of oils and pulses eternally.

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

"COUNTRY OF ORIGIN"-LOOPHOLES IN THE LABELING REGULATION

One of the troubling questions that haunt international food trade is whether any country can impose unilateral laws which smacks of discrimination. The COOL policy now being implemented in some countries is an example where the retail shops are required to exhibit on the label the country of origin of any products sold by them. The "Country of Origin Law" (COOL), purported to be intended to serve the right of consumer to know fully about the nature of contents in a sealed food pack, is grossly discriminatory because it serves the selfish purpose of the government in the country of import to protect its own domestic industry against competition from imports. Interestingly the local retail industry itself is against such a policy because some of the products imported are far cheaper than the locally produced ones though quality wise both are comparable. Though the importing country governments feel that sheer patriotism would drive the consumers in hordes to buy locally made products, when it comes to buying many families consider price as the most sensitive factor in deciding on a purchase. If this is the reality it is unlikely that COOL will work in favor of domestically made food products. Here is a take on this interesting issue.

"COLES and Woolworth's are selling imported food without disclosing where it comes from, while still being able to boast it is "Made in Australia". The supermarket chains are using gaps in labeling laws that enable them to avoid disclosing where imports come from - despite laws stating that shoppers should be told the country of origin of their food. When the supermarkets were asked about examples of imported food sold under their private labels without showing the country of origin, Coles revealed two fruit juices for which the original source was undisclosed. Advertisement: Story continues below Woolworth's revealed Homebrand dried apricots, sultanas and dates were sourced from Turkey and 90 per cent of Homebrand orange juice concentrate was from Brazil. The labels describe the dried fruits only as "Packed in Australia from imported ingredients". A spokeswoman for Woolworth's agreed it was impossible for customers to determine the country of origin of these products "but we would also make the point that this labelling complies with what we are required to do". There is widespread disaffection with the labeling system, with Coles, the Australian Food and Grocery Council and Choice calling for a better approach. Only one in 100 Australians can explain what ''Made in Australia'' actually means under the complicated formula in the law, according to research by the labeling lobby group Australian Made, Australian Grown. "We believe it is so complicated and people are so confused about what this means that it tends to devalue the Made in Australia label," grocery council chief executive Kate Carnell said. In one Coles example, its Smartbuy three-litre apple and blackcurrant juice is sold under the label "Made in Australia from imported ingredients". To use "Made in Australia" without any further qualification, manufacturers must meet a test that shows both a substantial transformation and at least 50 per cent of the value of the good being created in Australia, including the packaging. This month, the federal government took no action on reforms to clarify country-of-origin labels proposed in the Blewett report into food labelling. Loopholes in the laws include food that is imported into New Zealand, repackaged and then sent to Australia, with no need for a label about where the food originally came from. In Australia, labelling foods with a country of origin is a legal requirement. But the loophole exists because of Australia's free trade agreement with NZ, which has a domestic policy of voluntary country-of-origin labels (except for wine). Coles and Woolworths say they label all NZ-sourced food to the higher Australian standards".

The fact food industry in Australia is exploiting the loopholes in the COOL policy speaks volumes about the likely negative impact it will have on food business in that country. Given the fact that Australia cannot provide fully the needed food for its citizens through domestic production calls for imports of some foods at least, it is imperative to go for imports. If the retailers stop importing these foods, there can be a shortage of these items, generating an upward price push for these products, harming the interests of domestic consumers. These discriminative policies ought to be frowned upon by WTO as they are hindrance for a truly free international trade. When industry world over are adopting extreme and highly stringent safety protocols under ISO, HACCP and other systems of  safety conformation, where is the need for the citizens to know from which country the food is imported? Does this information help the consumer to decide about the quality and safety of the product he is buying? No way! At best COOL is a protectionist policy that deserve to be condemned in no uncertain terms.

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

  

FOOD IMPORTS-LOGICAL REFORMS

Who wants controls any way on what is going on uncontrolled or ill-controlled for ages? Naturally it is the human tendency to do things with as much secrecy as possible, especially when they are not done properly. The food industry world over are under a siege unable to convince the consumers regarding their sincerity and honesty and invariably controls and regulations need to be put in place to protect the welfare of the citizens. Latest "unhappiness" on the part of the food industry in India comes from a feeble attempt being made by the FSSAI, the apex body supposed to ensure consumer safety to tighten the labeling rules for imported foods to make them more transparent. Here is a take on this new irritant between the enforcers and the industry.

"As for FSSAI, going by its website, under the new norms, the body has specified for 'Date of Manufacture' to be given in date, month and year format on sticker in addition to the 'Date of Manufacture' in Julian format already present in the labels along with the rectifiable labelling requirements viz. name and address of the importer and vegetarian, non-vegetarian logo. As for batch number, the body specifies, "Consignments without prefix such as Lot number/ Lot/Code/Number Code/Batch Number/Batch or any other distinguishing prefix as per FSSR, 2011, shall be accepted subject to the condition that the authorised officer, FSSAI, will verify from the relevant documents from the manufacturer/exporter of the source country and satisfy himself that the numbers/alphabets combination of numbers/alphabets present in the labels are a valid batch number/lot number/code number of that particular consignment." While FSSAI has given three months time beginning December 15, 2011, for food importers to get the minor labelling defects rectified, food importers are not happy with the whole procedure".  

India has become a breeding ground for adulterated, sub-standard and unsafe foods with the state infrastructure for enforcing national standards for various foods in a pathetic condition. Recent revelations that many established "Made in India" brands of foods, being "Faked in China" are flooding the markets in many countries including in some of the border states within the country is shocking and humiliating, reflecting the "toothless" nature of Indian food laws. Added to this a survey of milk in Delhi market by the very same FSSAI which has shown that more than 70% of milk samples tested were sub-standard though it was not determined whether they were also unsafe. Imported foods from where ever they are coming must have regulatory standards on par with India made counterparts and the importers have no business to cringe on this issue. No self respecting government can shirk its responsibility to wards its citizens by diluting the standards to satisfy the industry.


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

"BENDING BACKWARDS"-THE US "RESPONSE" TO CHINESE VIOLATIONS

America is a country with practicing dichotomy in every field of economic and political activity. While professing democracy, it invariably promotes dictatorship amongst its vassal states across the world. Terrorism has different meanings for this country as terror against the US is abominable but if the victim is India it is condonable! India and China get differential treatment at the hands of this country with the latter invariably being treated with "kid gloves". Any violation of food safety by Indian exporters gets harsh treatment where as repeated violations by Chinese are glossed over. Though violations are routinely reported there is no mutually agreed protocols for food trade between these two countries, in spite of high volume of bilateral food trade.

"China, which exports about two billion dollars each year in food products to the United States, is a top violator of American food safety standards, according to US authorities. In April, for example, the authorities rejected 257 Chinese food shipments, far more than from any other country. Regulators, in calling for more stringent import and food safety laws, now have an agreement between the Chinese government and the FDA, who have comitted to work towards a mutual agreement to improve inspections and overall safety of food products and drugs. Up to now, China and the FDA did not have a binding agreement on food and drugs; there were no standard safety regulations between the two systems, and no mechanisms in place to inspect food production facilities and secure travel visas for investigations. China is the second largest source of imports for the United States while the United States is China's largest overseas market and second largest source of foreign direct investment".

Whether it is the economic muscle power of China or their strong foreign policy orchestration that is responsible for this "respect" from the most "powerful" country in the world, one cannot be sure. The fact that China can cripple the economy of the US if it so desires, may be a factor weighing with successive governments in that country. In contrast India practices a "benign" foreign policy typical of a country with a soft "under belly" and it may be too much to expect that other countries would pay any genuine respect in the international arena.

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