Authentication of GMO free foods-Newly proposed Government certification to help consumers to choose such foods

Hardly a day passes without some one in some parts of the world speaking for or against genetically modified foods and their safety. Mankind had never faced such a divisive issue when it comes to food safety and GM foods have divided the world vertically into two sides, one favoring them and the other fiercely opposing the same. While many governments have refused planting of GM crops in their respective countries, USA is one of the most ardent advocates of GM foods, its safety authorities taking the stand that GM foods are "practically same" as the natural foods and therefore do not pose any safety hazards. Flowing out of this policy decision is the remarkable growth of GM crops industry in that country where more than 80% of the foods in the market are either made from GM raw materials or contain GM ingredients. Unfortunately the confidence of the citizens on the credibility of the US government agencies in charge of food safety is rather low and this had given birth to a vigorous and sustained campaign to force the food industry to compulsorily declare the presence of GM materials in packed foods as a matter of constitutional right. The powerful GM crop industry with a vice like grip on the law makers has been able to resist any mandatory labeling provision in the statute books. Recent attempt by the government in that country to provide a mechanism for those who want to declare their foods are free from GM materials appears to be a deflective strategy to evade the responsibility of promulgating orders that will require mandatory labeling of all GM foods. Here is a take on this interesting development which may have far reaching implications in that country.

"The Agriculture Department has developed a new government certification and labeling for foods that are free of genetically modified ingredients. USDA's move comes as some consumer groups push for mandatory labeling of the genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
The certification is the first of its kind, would be voluntary — and companies would have to pay for it. If approved, the foods would be able to carry a "USDA Process Verified" label along with a claim that they are free of GMOs. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack outlined the new certification in a May 1 letter to USDA employees, saying it was being done at the request of a "leading global company," which he did not identify. A copy of the letter was obtained by The Associated Press. A USDA spokesman confirmed that Vilsack sent the letter but declined to comment on the certification program. Vilsack said in the letter that the certification "will be announced soon, and other companies are already lining up to take advantage of this service." Companies can already put their own GMO-free labels on foods, but there are no government labels that only certify a food as GMO-free. Many companies use a private label developed by a nonprofit called the Non-GMO Project. The USDA organic label also certifies that foods are free of genetically modified ingredients, but many non-GMO foods aren't organic. Vilsack said the USDA certification is being created through the department's Agriculture Marketing Service, which works with interested companies to certify the accuracy of the claims they are making on food packages — think "humanely raised" or "no antibiotics ever." Companies pay the Agricultural Marketing Service to verify a claim, and if approved, they can market the foods with the USDA process verified label."

According to the above policy, individual manufacturers can get their claim of GM free product verified by USDA, the agency managing safety of agricultural products through a universally accepted methodology and the certificate issued will confirm their products are GMO free. While this is a welcome first step, it does not still obviates the need for declaring presence of GMO in foods that are made from such modified food materials. Probably the present attempt may be to regulate the current practices followed by some manufacturers in including on their label words like "GMO free" putting consumers in a fix as to whether it can be trusted. Though many such products declaring to be free from GMO are certified by non-government agencies, their credibility will be enhanced if such claims are verified and confirmed by government authorities. But there is a perception among impartial observers that this is a ploy by the government to hamper the enthusiasm of a major segment of the population agitating for mandatory labeling. This is confirmed by the proposals now being pursued by the federal law makers to prevent state authorities imposing regulations mandating for compulsory declaration. This raises questions regarding the role of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which is supposed to regulate packed and processed foods industry and it will be interesting to watch out how this is going to be played out. USDA certification must be accepted by FDA in the interest of the consumers and honest food manufacturers.though no one is still sure whether FDA will take a positive stand on this crucial issue. .

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

Well being foods-Can they carve out a viable market?

The word "nutraceuticals" originated back in 1989 to differentiate edible consumer products which neither belong to a classical food industry segment or the pharmaceutical sector. Though there is lot of confusion regarding the precise meaning and scope of these new generation products, most consumers feel that they provide some value to boost health and can be a part of a regular diet. Many countries do not allow such a delineation but are taking them as food products though the claims on health attributes are some what regulated. Still there are many grey areas that deserve more clarification and transparency. The new generation products now being marketed use a more appropriate terminology "well being products" and the market for these foods seems to growing with each passing day with increasing consumer awareness about food related disorders like CVD, hypertension, diabetes, kidney ailments, and a host of others affecting precious lives besides lowering the quality of life. So far predominant players have been those from the food industry but this area is receiving focussed interests from pharmaceutical industry which is looking for investments and expansion in non-drug areas. This is understandable because regulators are becoming more and strict in scrutinizing health claims which require expensive field studies to corroborate the claims and pharmaceutical industry has the necessary wherewithal to wade through the intricate web of safety clearances involved. The turmoil going on in many developed countries vis-a-vis amalgamation, mergers and acquisitions of smaller food companies by established drug companies has become a focal point for investors looking for new business opportunities. Read further below:  

"A boom in "nutraceuticals" - food and drinks with potential health benefits - is paving the way for a rush of deals, as food and drug companies compete to dominate a market expected to be worth $280 billion by 2018. Consumers have been encouraged to eat smarter by an obesity epidemic and a burst of fitness-focused technology like gadgets and apps to track exercise and calorie intake. Now companies supplying goods like probiotic yoghurt, advertised as being healthier for the gut, and omega-3 biscuits, thought to improve brain and heart function, have seen demand rise sharply. "It's only a matter of time before the fight spills over into corporate takeover wars," consultancy KPMG predicted in a report. Bankers said moving into nutraceuticals was an obvious move for both food and pharma companies given the blurring line between their sectors. "The space is ripe for M&A and I think you are going to see more," added Jeremy Johnson, managing director of North Carolina-based Bourne, which advises on deals. Food companies are likely to take the lead, chasing healthy products to improve their profiles while drug companies, rocked by patent expiries and the rise of biotech medicines, look to divest units, forecast Bourne Partners, which estimated the market to hit $280 billion in 2018 - double that of 2011. M&A activity so far has been relatively small, but the pace is picking up. Bourne counted 185 mergers and acquisitions involving private and public nutraceutical companies in 2014, up from 95 in 2011. "It's an industry which has seen a lot of interest and is likely to see a lot of deals," said one consumer industry banker, adding that many smaller companies were looking to deals with bigger players to help them reach their potential customers. While the concept of nutraceuticals is not new - the term was first coined in 1989 - KPMG head of life sciences Chris Stirling believes the current focus on health will spur more tie-ups as firms seek to exploit increased consumer awareness. "The consumer arms of pharma companies are going to have to look at this area hard because there is so much public interest," he said. "They need to get on the bandwagon."

Look at India itself where many drug companies have positioned themselves to establish their predominance in the field of well being foods and the resources commanded by them cannot be matched by thoroughbred food companies. It is rather interesting that these products, though made by drug companies require clearance from FSSAI which does not have any clear policy regarding manufacture and marketing of well being foods in the country. The result is total confusion in the market with many products offered to the unwary consumers boasting of health benefits without much scientific evidence. Words like improved brain power, growing taller and smarter, protection from diseases like cancer, diabetes etc are routinely claimed as USPs to expand the consumer base. It is another thing that most manufacturers have no data to support these claims. Probably India has to take a leaf out EU experience where health claims are critically assessed and as of to day there are only a few products cleared by the authorities there. Such rigid clearance regime can benefit drug companies greatly because they only have the necessary insight into regulatory aspects and required testing infrastructure to satisfy the authorities. As for the consumer, he is more likely to trust these companies because of their established credentials in making life saving drugs. With deep pockets, drug industry can be expected to play a more important role in designing and making diverse well being products in the coming years.

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

Unlimited hunger for power-the driving force of the Food Safety Regulator in India!

The duty of any government to safeguard the health of its population through regulatory and deterrent policies forms the foundation of  national laws enacted and enforced from time to time. The three main stakeholders of food landscape in a country are the consumers, the manufacturing industry and the government. Of course there is a fourth party with some stakes in the food scenario viz the growers of the foods but food laws generally are molded keeping in mind the marketed foods thus sparing the farmers. In India we have a power hungry food authority, a predominantly bureaucratic organization which is focusing more on what levers of controls it can hold rather than worrying about the well being of the citizen. What a tragedy! Though conceived with lot of good features the food regulatory guidelines are distorted to increase the powers in the hands of the bureaucrats holding the reins. The draconian measures introduced last year to bring the industry to its knees by "ordering" them to get its "approval" for every product being marketed, was squashed by the judiciary terming it as "arbitrary", a humiliation that should have compelled it to mend its ways. Unfortunately this  agency has become so shameless it is reported to be trying to circumvent the court orders by manipulating the rule book, in quest of dictatorial powers over the industry! Here is a take on this sordid goings on in the country in the name of food safety.  

"The Indian Drug Manufacturers' Association (IDMA) and Vital Neutraceuticals, a city-based company best known for challenging the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India's product approval advisory process, are set to write to the government highlighting what they say are "illegal" measures of the regulator. At the heart of the matter are product approvals again, which the company and the IDMA fought to scrap last year. It was the verdict by the Bombay High Court in the Vital versus FSSAI case in 2014 that paved the way for the scrapping of the latter's approval advisory process by the Supreme Court this year. The apex court in its order dated August 19, 2015, had declared advisories as being arbitrary and hence illegal.The FSSAI has adhered to this directive but has also indicated it will bring back approvals once regulations are done It is this move by the regulator that the IDMA and Vital are seeking to quash. "There is no question of getting the product approval process back again because food safety regulations are based on the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. And the Act does not indicate anywhere that food business operators should be subjected to a product approval process if they have used ingredients in their products as per law. If they are looking to get the product approval process back again, this time through the regulation route, then they will have to amend the Act. Because all food safety regulations are based on the Food Safety and Standards Act," said GV Kamath, director, Vital Neutraceuticals. The company and the IDMA, which was a party to the Bombay High Court case last year, will write to the Prime Minister's Offifce (PMO) and the health and food processing ministries apprising them of the situation. The letter was expected to go out in the next week, Kamath said, in view of the "urgency of the matter". Ashish Bahuguna, FSSAI chairman, when contacted today, said, "Once regulations are formulated, the process of approvals can be re-introduced." He did not disclose when this was expected. But sources said it could take up to a year. Some food safety experts have questioned the regulator's stance, saying if the list of ingredients under the food safety regulations of 2011 is being expanded then why consider regulating product approvals".

We all remember another such episode involving this so called "Authority"when it tried to punish the noodle industry whatever its intention was by orchestrating a safety scare openly propagating a story that the products made by them are poisonous and dangerous. It further banned them resulting in a loss of Rs 450 crore by the manufacturers who were forced to burn the residual stock. Imagine the loss of this unfortunate victim of FSSAI vendetta as it could not manufacture and market the product for more than 3 months till the the ban as lifted by the court. Probably this Authority will again get a rap on its knuckle if such arbitrary and dictatorial measures of insisting on prior approval of all products and their variants are brought through backdoor in order to quench its ever increasing hunger for brutal authority to lord over the food industry in India!

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

Transparency in food labeling-Industry vs consumers

Does "front of the packet" labeling regulations which are in vogue in most countries in the world, in one form or the other, serve any purpose at all? If one goes by the views of the manufacturing industry such restraints are unnecessary because it has the best of the intentions in protecting the well being of the consumers! Probably if one goes by such yardsticks, there is no necessity for any food safety or quality regulating laws, leaving the onus of ensuring these aspects to the "good intentions" of the industry! What a quixotic logic! Whether the industry likes it or not many consumers patronize packed foods because they believe that the regulatory system that keeps a vigil over the doings of the industry is doing a satisfactory job. Look at the recent "noodle mess" in a country like India where consumers putting faith in their regulatory regime, however idiotic it may be, are reducing buying of processed foods in a very significant way as being reported by market watchers due to belief that the product is "toxic" as being claimed by the regulator. If what is happening in a country like the US, considered food processing capital of the world, is any indication food industry seems to be bent on "cheating" the consumers of their right to know what they want to buy and eat through "money muscle" and political clout. It is a disturbing trend and consumers world over must resist such blatant attempts by the industry to manipulate food laws to make them more are opaque. Here is a take on this unfortunate events taking place in the US.  

"By all accounts, Americans want a more transparent food system. Recent polling suggests the majority of Americans favor labeling that tells them exactly how and where their food is produced. And yet, several bills are currently moving through Congress that could make it much harder to learn about the source of our food. These bills would prevent state and local governments from requiring labeling of GMOs; remove country-of-origin labeling (COOL) requirements for most of the meat we buy; and make it harder to know where pesticides are used. The international trade agreements now being negotiated also include provisions that could make such information less available to consumers.  The food industry is spending an enormous amount of money to promote and lobby for this legislation. Food companies may have shelled out over $100 million* in the first six months of 2015 alone, according to federal lobbying disclosure reports. Businesses and trade groups promoting these policies say putting more information on food labels will send the wrong message about food safety, add costs, and pose barriers to trade. And in some cases, they worry it will open U.S. food producers and other companies to punitive import-export taxes. But good food advocates disagree. "This is basic transparency," says Patty Lovera, assistant director of the advocacy group Food & Water Watch. "We're not saying anything's unsafe," says Environmental Working Group(EWG) policy analyst Libby Foley. "We're saying it's about consumer choice." Here are the numbers the food industry doesn't want you to see: So far this year, food and beverage companies have spent $51.6 million on a series of lobbying including efforts efforts to defeat GMO labeling laws such as the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 (H.R. 1599), which opponents have dubbed the "Deny Americans the Right to Know" or DARK Act. According to a recent analysis by EWG, nearly a quarter of this money—$12.6 million—comes from just six companies: Coca-Cola, General Mills, Kellogg's, Land O'Lakes, and PepsiCo. Other big spenders in these efforts include the Grocery Manufacturers Association ($5.1 million); American Farm Bureau (nearly $1 million); and the National Restaurant Association ($2 million). Many state farm bureaus have also chipped in—among them, Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Oregon. Big name food producers, including Campbell Soup, Mars, Inc., Mondelez, Nestlé, OceanSpray, Safeway, and Unilever, are all spending significant amounts money on this issue as well."

Why is this happening in a country where literacy is almost 100%? May be it is precisely this reason that the industry is apprehensive of the consumers understanding the significance of what is presented on the label and shunning products which he considers not good, safe or environmentally unsatisfactory. An issue like declaring presence of GMO ingredients in a product has been blown out of proportion and American consumer is presently being denied this right because the regulatory authorities are overtly friendly with the powerful industry interests, ignoring the consumer feelings on this issue. Same is true with many safety related issues which invariably are loaded against the hapless consumer. In contrast in a country like India, the food safety agency is overtly antagonistic to the industry as proved by the recent unjustifiable ban on noodles with suspect testing results! What is required is a balance system that is equitable to the consumer as well as the manufacturer. May be it is an Utopian dream with least possibility of becoming a reality. 

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

BIS Vs FSSAI-Why this dichotomy?

When Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) was created with great fanfare, it was expected that food industry in India could deal with one single government agency from licensing to product monitoring. It is another matter that what the industry got was a thoroughly bureaucratized top heavy obese organization with no technical expertise to carry out the awesome task of protecting the citizens from fraudulent practices by some of the unscrupulous segment of the food processing industry which is bent on making a fast buck ignoring the health perils posed by their sub-standard and unsafe products. Honest industry players who want to play strictly by the rule books are unnecessarily harassed as seen recently by the brutal action to ban a particular brand of noodles based on unreliable and questionable test results. To add to the burden posed by FSSAI, another irritant has been introduced by way of bringing another government agency viz Bureau of Indian Standards "BIS"  to approve tin plate quality. Here is a take on this latest development against which the industry is protesting.    

"The Bureau of Indian Standards' (BIS) quality control order on tin plates issued in April will affect India's metal packaging industry of around Rs 5,000 crore. The Draft Steel Quality Control orer includes 'Cold Reduced Electrolytic Tinplate', an import component used in packing baby food, milk power, mango pulp, coffee among other edible and non edible items. Industry body Metal Container Manufacturers Association (MCMA) feels that the order, which will come into force by next month, needs to be reviewed as it will impact the metal packaging industry, which employs over a lakh people. According to MCMA President Sanjay Bhatia tin can is an "industrial product and not an item of mass consumption". Industry consumes around 550,000 tonnes of tin mill products (tinplate/tinfree steel etc), of which about 60 per cent is prime and 40 per cent non-prime. Domestic availability is about 325,000 tonnes and the balance is imported from different countries such as Japan, Korea, Brazil, Europe, USA, China, Venezuela, etc. "The firms in these countries follow rigorous global quality control orders and since we do not import large quantities they will not take pains to get BIS certification, which will impact us as we will not get good material at competitive rates," Bhatia told PTI. Prime material is mainly required for edible products like processed food, fruits and vegetables, dairy products, edible oil etc while non-prime (secondaries arising out of Prime) are required for non-edible products such as in packing of paints, industrial oils among others. "The order brings a non-tariff barrier in order to protect the domestic producers, but the production in the country is not sufficient enough to meet the demand of the industry both in terms of volume as well as grades," he countered. In certain applications industry requires continuous annealed material, high precision shearing in terms of squareness for products like battery jackets, scroll tinplate sheets which the domestic producer is not in a position to supply, he said. "We have approached the Prime Minister's Office, Steel Ministry, Commerce Ministry, Ministry of Medium and Small Enterprises with our demand. A similar order had come in 2007-08 and the government had taken it back. We are hopeful that something can happen this time as well," he added. The order will also reduce the competitive strength of metal packaging industry as it is likely to result in increase in cost of raw material involved in BIS marking fees and other related expenses as compared to other packaging material like plastic, paper, glass, Bhatia said."

It is unfortunate that bureaucracy in the country is trying again to overlord the manufacturing sector putting such types of hurdles reminding one of the old days of "inspector raj". Sympathize with poor Prime Minister who is talking day in and day out about strengthening the industry by removing impediments so that his "Make in India"  dream takes off in a big way. Probably he has not reckoned with the vice-like grip of bureaucracy in this country which does not see any thing beyond its self interest-that is wielding power without accountability. Why should there be any standards set by BIS when tha responsibility of food standards management is vested with FSSAI? Industry has a case when they are protesting against such arbitrary policy decisions affecting their functioning in a serious way. It is not that BIS is inferior to FSSAI as both organizations are epitome of inefficiency and unreliability when it comes to protecting the consumer. Ultimately industry has to blame itself for its subservient attitude to babus in the government by their behavior bordering on sycophancy! It must stand up with no fear or favor from the government for causes which are right and sensible.

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

Healthy foods Vs unhealthy foods-A contrasting marketing landscape

Considering all the factors that have contributed to the progressive deterioration of health among people, the most important is the way food marketing environment is changing every where in the world. Food technology developments are boosting the capability of food processing industry to create foods tailor made to "trap" the consumers, with no concern about their well being. There is a qualitative transformation of the food "environment", that includes food retailing and eating places, where proportion of healthy foods to the total number of products offered to the consumers has been decreasing alarmingly resulting in more and more people sucked into the unhealthy food trap. Added to this the cost difference between healthy foods and junk foods is widening with the former some time costing more than double that of junk foods. Why is this happening? Does the market place play a part in this cost escalation vis-a-vis health foods? Or does the consumer attitude is responsible for this phenomenon? Probably this is a complex issue on which it may be difficult to arrive at a consensus. Here are some observations made by one of the study groups concerned about the deteriorating food environment that may drown this planet in agony and despair soon if some thing drastic is done to arrest the trend.

"Last December, researchers at Harvard published a paper scientifically examining a complaint common among conscientious eaters -- that healthy food is more expensive than junk. That paper, published in British Medical Journal, found that eating a healthy diet costs approximately $1.50 more per day. Today, researchers in the United Kingdom published a study in PLOS ONE that gives yet more insight into this topic: not only is healthy food more costly than unhealthy food but the price gap between them has grown significantly over a 10-year period. The researchers, led by Nicholas Jones from the University of Cambridge, used data from the UK Consumer Price Index to track the cost of 94 foods and beverages from 2002 to 2012. They also used  a technique called "nutrient profiling" to determine which foods might be considered healthy and unhealthy, based on information such as the amount of saturated fat and sugar per 100g. What they found: in 2012, 1000 kcal of "healthy" food cost approximately $12, while 1000 kcal of unhealthy food cost only $4. And while the mean price of all foods rose 35 percent over that 10-year period, the researchers found that "the price of more healthy foods was consistently greater than that of less healthy foods over the period 2002–2012, and that the absolute price gap between healthy and less healthy foods has grown over this period. "Food poverty and the rise of food banks have recently been an issue of public concern in the UK," Jones said in a statement about the research," but as well as making sure people don't go hungry it is vital that that a healthy diet is affordable."

One of the mysteries associated with the working logistics of modern food industry is how it is able to offer foods considered desirable, but not necessarily healthy, at such low prices and still make money? Mass production and bargaining muscle probably enable it to bring down production cost significantly. On the other hand insufficient demand for healthy foods make the manufacture some what less profitable making it a necessity to increase their price. Is it not paradoxical that when awareness about health and its relation to food is rising fast among people creating more and more demand for such foods in the market place, industry is unable to offer such products at prices comparable to that of junk foods? What justification industry can offer in making a whole wheat bread almost 50% costlier than white flour based bread? Technological limitation cannot be trotted out as an excuse because technology is relatively a minor component in the costing exercise. Considering these facts there is an urgent necessity for governments world over to bring in more regulations to compel the industry to manufacture more healthy foods and offer them on par with regular products now being churned out. The situation can become alarming if the present trend is allowed to continue with unhealthy foods overwhelming the portfolio of healthy foods, consumers can lay their hands on in the market place.    

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Food standards bill to be revamped?-Will it make any difference?

The Food safety and standards act under which FSSAI works to over see the food quality and safety in the country is going to be overhauled is a good news. But in what form it will emerge from the government closets remains to be seen. According to spokesman of the present government, the Act will be "amended" to be in conformity to various judgments pronounced by the judiciary in the country and also professes to take into consideration representations received from from various stakeholders regarding the difficulties faced by them. One of the severest criticisms of the Act is that it is administered by a ministry which has nothing to do with foods and therefore lacks the wherewithal to understand and administer the same. Though it is supposed to be "managed" by the FSSAI, the umbilical chord with the ministry is so strong that it has very little independence in practice. Besides FSSAI has practically no technical and technological expertise and independent policing force to enforce the rules and regulations strictly and amicably. Now that government is taking up the "amendments" for incorporation of new provisions or withdrawing some of the existing ones, one hopes the Act in its final form will be more conducive to operate as far as honest manufacturers and food handlers are concerned while being ruthless in dealing with fraudsters and food criminals who jeopardize the health of unsuspecting citizens. Here is a gist of the report that talks about the recasting of the Act mentioned above.  

'The government on Tuesday withdrew from the Rajya Sabha a bill related to food safety and standards which it wants to amend further taking into account recent court judgments. The Food Safety and Standards (Amendment) Bill, 2014 was withdrawn by Minister of State for Health Shripad Yasso Naik. The previous UPA government had proposed amendments to the Act to expand the composition of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and dispense with certain conditions in public interest while making regulations on food. The bill was introduced in Rajya Sabha on February 19, this year. However, the move to withdraw the bill was objected by P Rajeeve (CPI-M), who said it was under consideration of a Standing Committee. "On the basis of this statement, the House has no legislative competence," Rajeeve said, referring to papers apparently provided to him by the government. PJ Kurien, who was in the Chair, said the objection is "pertinent" and if the bill is with the Committee, the House cannot withdraw it. Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi then told the House that a report had been received from the Committee. Following Naqvi's intervention, Kurien said that it is very clear that a report had come from the Committee and it is on record with the Minister also having said so. The motion was then adopted and the Food Safety and Standards (Amendment) Bill 2014 withdrawn. An official statement released last month said the bill needs to be further amended after taking into account judgements of the Supreme Court, Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court, and representations received by the government and other recent developments".  

India is known for its legal acumen in drafting and enacting laws and regulations which can compare well with any international regulatory documents but what is lacking is the focused application and effective implementation of the same country wide. Specifically referring to foods, being a state subject there is very little the federal government can do except "advising" the states from legal, technical and implementation perspectives. This is the reason why many state governments are lethargic in enforcing the laws relating to food safety. The allure of funds from Delhi can work only up to a limit and the resolve to improve consumer welfare and industry's working environment must come from the states. If necessary central government must consider amending the constitution to evolve a powerful regulatory authority, answerable to only the Parliament, with world class implementing infrastructure. By just tinkering with a sloppy food safety law at it exists now is not going to be of much use to the citizen!  

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

3D Printing-Will it change the face of food technology?

Though food is basically to serve the needs of the body in terms of calories and essential nutrients, macro as well as macro, man still craves for certain desirable features that has to be part of food he eats. While nutritionally balanced food will take care of health and body development, sensory features like color, shape texture and aroma make eating a pleasure. The oral cavity and the taste buds together decide whether food is readily accepted or not. Fortification and enrichment can take care of nutritional deficiencies caused by processing but sensory quality beyond what nature is providing in fresh foods can be achieved only through appropriate technologies developed from time to time. Taking a specific trait in foods like shape or texture extrusion technology can achieve a wide range of shapes and textures and advent of cooker extruder provided further scope in enhancing the appeal of processed foods very significantly. Now comes another innovation in the form of 3D printer technology which has tremendous potential to offer a variety of shapes to the food. Though this has vastly enhanced the capacity of food industry to diversify the product mix the question still remains whether this is going to be as exciting as expected. Here is a commentary on this new development.  

"We're watching a short video from MSN/CNN entitled, "3D Printing to Revolutionize the Food Industry". We disagree. The reporter briefly interviews a representative of Natural Machines, who make the Foodini food printer. It's a fascinating machine that can extrude a variety of food substances in desired shapes. But 3D Printing Will Not Revolutionize the Food Industry.  We're skeptical, at least until these questions have been resolved: Speed. 3D printing is very, very slow, which is not a good attribute when you're hungry. Imagine waiting for a print of your dinner for six hours? Certainly some dishes do take that long to prepare or longer, but remember the current slate of food printers do not cook the food, they merely arrange it for cooking, with the exception being certain items such as chocolate that can be immediately consumed. Speed is a critical element not only in consumer kitchens, but also in commercial kitchens.  Cost. 3D printers can cost more than your average kitchen appliance, although they are possibly affordable by commercial kitchens, so long as they can produce product with sufficient speed to be cost effective.  Materials. The range of materials usable by current food printers is quite limited, as are all current 3D printers. Worse, most food dishes are composed of many different food materials mixed together in useful and sometimes complex ways. This is not a capability available in current food printers." 

Why do skeptics feel that 3D technology will not have much impact on food industry? There are two reasons for this skepticism. First 3D technology is a slow one taking hours to produce a product and therefore has limitations in terms of mass manufacture, Second the product needs further processing like coking, baking or frying unlike cooker extruder. Competition comes from already established equipment range available to the industry at a lower cost and with high speed for getting any shape one wants These machines are versatile enough to give a much wider range of products including center filled products with various casings. They also need further processing after shape formation but their productivity can be very high to keep up with the demand. Where 3D printers have high potential is in making uniquely shaped plastic products suited for medical industry such as implants and others and in engineering industry for making precision spare parts. Still 3D technology cannot be ruled out altogether and further development in this area in future may make it still relevant to food industry.

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

Is the world giving up vegetarianism slowly/-Current trend does indicate that!

The remarkable growth of gluten-free food sector in the US and Europe is a big mystery defying any logic. Though number of people affected by gluten allergy is substantial, the galloping growth of this segment of food industry does not explain such a frenetic pace of development. According to market watchers not even 20% of the consumers buying gluten free foods really need them for health reasons. Whether the marketing hype or heavy promotion by the industry is responsible for this phenomenon is not known. Definitely superior eating quality of these products cannot be the reason as substituting gluten in many products with other ingredients does compromise on some sensory qualities! As in many cases scare about unsubstantiated health hazards of some food components on health, gets ingrained in the minds of the consumers leading to such large scale avoidance of such products. Gluten is also implicated in some health disorders like Celiac disease in a few people and many articles, most of them motivated by vested interests, appear from time to time regarding the virtues of avoiding gluten in foods by the consumers. In contrast, knowing fully well the harmful impact of consuming meat based foods regularly and the advantages inherent in plant based foods, consumers do not seem to be too much concerned leading to a situation where vegetarian food portfolio is shrinking progressively these days! One can only hope better sense will prevail on human beings regarding the dangers posed by animal foods and switch over to plant foods sooner than later. Here is a take on this puzzling market trend reported in the US and other Western countries.

"Consumer demand for products without gluten, however, is rising rapidly. Health-conscious Americans were first to avoid it in significant numbers. Sales of gluten-free food and drink there have surged from $5.4 billion to $8.8 billion over the past two years, according to Mintel, a market-research firm. They are set to grow a further 20% by 2015. Europe is now quickly catching up: there is double-digit sales growth in most countries, with Britain leading the way. This makes for tasty business. Sales in America of food untainted by gluten are forecast to grow by a further 61% by 2017, with similar increases expected in other rich countries. Shops have reshuffled their shelves and restaurants rewritten their menus to keep up with demand. Big supermarkets have been slimming down their range of vegetarian products and are stocking more gluten-free lines. Even small convenience stores in remote parts of rural Ireland and Italy now stock ranges of gluten-free bread and cakes. Restaurants, in particular, have rushed to launch menus that banish the stuff. The number of options that leave out gluten in British restaurants has tripled since 2011, says Emma Read at Horizons, a data firm. That is less because restaurateurs fear losing bookings from diners who want to avoid gluten, but more that they worry that their family and friends will not come along either. Yet some retail analysts fret that the wheat-free bubble will eventually burst, as it already has for meat substitutes. Many doctors say that only a few of the one-in-ten households that now regularly buy such products have a member with coeliac disease and a medical need to avoid gluten. But research from Monash University published last year shows that many more people may be sensitive to other allergens that are found in wheat. And according to a survey by Kantar, a research firm, only 22% of people who buy gluten-free food say they do so for non-medical reasons. This could be one foodie trend that turns out to be much more than a fad."

A fad is a fad which is bound to burst one day and this latest bubble about gluten free foods being demanded by a vast segment of the consumers will have to burst eventually. Regarding meat foods considerable efforts are needed to persuade consumers to progressively increase consumption of plant foods as meat industry cannot continue its operations in a sustainable form in the foreseeable future throwing out a plethora of problems vis-a-vis human health and environmental degradation. Attempts to create artificial meat through biotechnology is a welcome effort but it will ever be economically feasible is doubtful. Whether consumers will accept such products is another imponderable factor. In the long run humanity has no alternative but to switch over to plant foods which only can sustain this planet. It is better that the food industry world over gets reconciled to this truth and work on a long term strategy to expand its plant food portfolio as quickly as possible.

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

NEW FOOD TECHNOLOGY RESOURCE MODE

Entrepreneurship in food area is the driving force for the industry to grow and expand and every new entrepreneur knows how difficult it is to start a new venture in food processing. The biggest hurdle is hard to access information necessary to plan a new venture and once this is overcome the next biggest challenge to sustain them with diligence and devotion. Of course Internet is a precious source of varied information and to day's denizens depend on this source more and more for day to day activities. But for a venture what is needed is information that is reliable and derived from experienced professionals and unfortunately very often internet sources can be confusing and contradictory making them useless as a basis for investment. If a recent report appearing on this issue in some media is to be believed, here is an organization that is doing service to the entrepreneurs through valuable experience based information.

"She knew she was at the forefront of a movement. Four years ago, when Danielle Gould started talking to people about the growing demand for locally produced food and the ways technology could help organic farmers and small businesses thrive, people looked at her like she was crazy. Investors weren't interested in food startups, and it was difficult to fundraise. But she wouldn't take "no" for an answer. She knew she was ahead of the curve, and that everyone else would eventually catch up. Gould started a blog, Food+Tech Connect, to write about open data and agriculture, and bootstrapped it into a company from there. "When I started, I had 50 organizations that were really thinking about food, data, and tech, and then it just exploded. We've grown with the movement," said Gould, the CEO of Food+Tech Connect. Today the company is a site of record and a connector for the food technology sector, with well over 3,000 organizations using the website. What makes the business unique is that it covers the entirety of the supply chain -- from farm management software and restaurant management software to consumer-facing health apps and fitness wearables. The company has weekly infographics that explain aspects of the industry, lists of resources for start ups, and discussions of upcoming trends in agriculture. They also host meetups in New York and San Francisco. And as it turns out, Gould was absolutely right about the demand. Food is one of the fastest growing industries around the world, both in the start up and investment space. In fact, two of the biggest areas in tech investment right now are food delivery services and grocery delivery services, which hit a five-year high in investments during the first quarter of 2014, a 51% jump from 2013. Gould and her three full-time staff members at Food+Tech Connect produce editorial content daily, and the company also hosts hackathons several times a year to tackle big problems in the food industry. They recently held Hack Meat in Palo Alto, to work on projects geared toward the meat industry. Next up is Hack Dining, for the restaurant industry, which will be in New York."

The organization mentioned may be restricting its activities to the geographical boundary of the US but has scope to expand the same to other countries where millions of entrepreneurs are languishing with hunger for information for their plans to invest in the food sector. Each country has its own industry environment and it is understandable that one organization cannot comprehend all of them due to logistical and legal constraints. This is where indigenous organizations have to sprout in different countries to perform the above role. With governments pumping in money to encourage new entrepreneurs to take up agri-based ventures, there is no reasons why service oriented organizations cannot come up similar to the one illustrated above.

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

FOOD INDUSTRY'S LEGAL BATTLE-CONSUMERS BECOMING MORE AGGRESSIVE?

The great land of litigation, claiming all sorts of compensation by the citizens, viz the US seems to be moving towards a situation where food industry is now the focus of attention from the lawyers. Such a conclusion is being drawn based on the latest data on such cases which shows that law suits filed during the last few years registered a phenomenal increase. Probably this may be worrying the food industry as it is a reflection of decreasing trust consumers repose on the credibility of this sector and this is largely due to the rapidly growing obesity epidemic which threatens to swamp that country. There is a growing perception that food industry's intentions are not honest and they prefer profit over the well being their constituency, viz the citizens. In spite of dire warnings, persuasion, policy orchestrations and consumer pressure, food industry continues to persist with promoting unhealthy foods most of them rich in sugar, fat and salt, the villainous triumvirate, all indicted for their role in many life style disorders faced by the community as a whole. There is some talk that food industry, if it does not respond to the pulses of its customers, may end up in a situation similar to that faced by Tobacco industry decades ago, forced to fork out billions of dollars of as reparation to millions of consumers in the country. Here is a take on this interesting development. 

"A dramatic uptick in the number of consumer fraud lawsuits has put the food industry on the defensive against a wave of litigation, lawyers said at a panel Wednesday. The number of consumer fraud class actions brought in federal court against food and beverage companies has skyrocketed in the last five years, from roughly 19 cases in 2008 to more than 102 in 2012, according to data compiled by the food litigation department at Perkins Coie. At Wednesday's panel at the Intercontinental New York Barclay hotel, Perkins Coie partner David Biderman, a consumer and mass tort defense lawyer, said the legal and political environment has created the "perfect storm" for consumer fraud class actions against food and beverage companies. This "litigation explosion" has sparked fears that the food and beverage industry is being targeted by plaintiffs' lawyers, as the tobacco industry was several decades ago, said Ronald Levine, co-chair of the litigation department at Herrick Feinstein. "None of these companies would have predicted this wave of litigation even five years ago," Levine said. The majority of consumer fraud litigation against the food and beverage industry has landed in California federal courts, according to the Perkins Coie data. From 2008 until 2012, 186 class actions were filed in California court, many of them in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which has been dubbed the "Food Court." That's compared to just 18 in the second-busiest state, New Jersey".

There may be a point in the stand taken by the industry that it produces products demanded by the consumer and their business can thrive only when consumers patronize their offerings. They further aver that it is purely an individual's decision as to what should be purchased and which one should be shunned. Naturally if these calorie rich foods are more popular and others with healthy credentials are shunned in the market, can the industry continue with latter types of foods without risking bankruptcy? However this stand is contested by the protagonists of healthy foods who want the industry to be forced to change their product lines to include more balanced foods vis-a-vis good nutrients and change the market place into a "dessert" as far as foods with empty calories and high salt are concerned. If past trend is any indication the spate of litigation currently being seen may eventually subside because food is not like cigarette, being an essential part of daily life. Having said this one has to remind the industry that by claiming their products to be safe after suppressing evidence of their research to the contrary it will have to face the consequences as this amounts to criminal fraud deserving severe retribution.

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

DAMNING THE PICKLE!-INDIA'S HYPERTENSION PROBLEM

Pickles and chutneys are part and parcel of Indian diets from time immemorial wile papad is a totally an Indian creation. What is common for these products is the high salt content and since the close linkage between salt and hypertension came to surface these high salt products are receiving close scrutiny from health and nutritionists. During the last few years there have been questions regarding the future of the industry which churn out these products and even this blogger had published a piece on the future of pickle industry in India. While these developments are being driven by the scientific finding that salt intake has to be drastically reduced to prevent the hypertension and cardiac epidemic sweeping through many countries with high salt consumption spreading further taking a heavy toll of human lives. So far no standards are presently available in India with regard to optimum level of salt that can be consumed by Indians under the Indian conditions. But a recent expose on the subject which is referred to below, calls for reducing the salt intake from the reported level of 6-8 gms by 15-20% that can prevent thousands of death due to disorders like hypertension, CVD and Kidney ailments. Here is a take on this issue.     

Experts say that Indians consume up to 6 to 8 grams of salt daily, while the Indian health ministry hypertension guidelines say that only 2.4 grams is recommended. It isn't excess salt intake alone that heightens an Indian's chances of getting hypertension, it's also the Indian build. "Indians have thinner blood vessels than Caucasians, leading to different salt sensitivity among the two groups. Hence, the Indian blood vessel's ability to handle salt is lower than others," said Joshi, who practises at Lilavati Hospital in Bandra. A study done in Chennai in 2007 found that an increased intake of 1.5 to 2 grams of salt was associated with an increase in high and low blood-pressure by approximately 1mm Hg (the unit to measure blood pressure). "The risk of cardiovascular disease rises with blood pressure throughout the normotensive (normal) blood-pressure range and almost 60% of coronary heart disease events and 45 to 50% of strokes occur in those with high normal blood-pressure," said the study conducted by Dr V Mohan of Chennai.Any reduction in salt intake brings about a healthy change as far as hypertension is concerned. The Chennai study, which was published in JAPI (Journal of Association of Physicians of India), found that a reduction in intake of sodium by 1.2 grams daily would lead to a 50% reduction in the number of people requiring anti-hypertensive therapy. The lower intake could also mean a 22% reduction in the number of deaths due to stroke and a 16% reduction in the number of deaths due to coronary artery disease. Incidentally, if one sticks to the traditional Indian diet, hypertension wouldn't be such a problem. Dr Jagmeet Madan, principal of the SNDT College for Nutrition, Juhu, said, "If you stick to the traditional Indian diet, you will never go higher on salt." The problem creeps in when additions creep in to the Indian thali. "Adding chutneys, pickles and papads sends the salt balance haywire," she said. So, processed foods should be kept as "sometime foods" instead of everyday foods.

In India every data has to be viewed with suspicion for its veracity and same is true with regard to salt consumption also. Earlier there were reports that Indians consume on an average 12 gms of salt every day though this information also must be the guess work of some statistcians without doing any representative field survey. In developed countries where commercially processed foods constitute almost 80% of daily diet salt consumption is sought to be controlled through regulating salt in such foods either voluntarily or through mandatory rules. There are campaigns in some countries to sensitize citizens regarding the dangers of high salt consumption and consciously reduce daily intake gradually to levels considered safe. One often wonders whether salt is really as dangerous as being made out currently because for centuries pickles, chutneys and papads were being consumed regularly with no significant health hazards. How this situation has changed now? Is it because of ignoring the traditional foods Indians have been consuming for long and switching over to more and more factory processed foods with high salt content? Food industry world over are known to use the trioka of salt, sugar and fat to make consumers food addicts leading to many of the modern day life style disorders like obesity and others. Now that civilization has come so far depending heavily on processed convenient foods with doubtful health credentials, it is better to be more cautious in consuming food ingredients like salt and follow the guidelines for keeping one self healthy!   

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

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

POWER OF INDUSTRY LOBBYING-THE US SITUATION

Food industry can be applauded for many of its pro-consumer activities including developing and offering new products that help millions of families to save precious time in the kitchen through the convenience factor built into such products. Unfortunately the confidence and trust reposed by the consumers on the sincerity of the industry seem to be disappearing fast during the last 2-3 decades as the same have been misused by the industry to build an economic clout unchallenged by any organized government in most countries and in that process indulge in many practices considered unsafe by dispassionate experts. Latest to come to surface is the blatant pressure exerted by the meat industry to allow them to use some chemicals which were banned earlier in the US. Here is a take on this tragic episode which can be a forerunner for many such pro active policies, hostile to the citizen but friendly to the industry for considerations other than merit.  

According to Courthouse News Service (CNS), sodium benzoate, sodium propionate, and benzoic acid will now be permissible for use in preserving and treating meat and poultry products, despite having been previously banned. FSIS has long been of the persuasion that major food corporations would attempt to use such additives to "conceal damage or inferiority in meat and poultry," but the agency's view has apparently changed. After Kraft submitted its own company-funded trials claiming that the three preservative chemicals are allegedly safe, and that they supposedly cannot be used to disguise sub par meat and poultry products, the USDA suddenly changed its mind about them. This is all according to its mouthpiece, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which made the announcement recently about the change. "Kraft submitted data collected from its in-plant trials and from scientific studies that show that these substances do not conceal damage or inferiority, or make products appear better or of greater value than they are under the proposed conditions of use," says FSIS.

The case of safety-suspect Genetically Modified foods still rankles millions of consumers as the industry is allowed to develop and market such foods without the consumer ever knowing about it through the front of the label declaration! There are many such instances, especially in the US where many law makers are beholden to the industry for favors shown to them during election time. The US government had the temerity to even give protection to the industry from legal challenges on what they do vis-a-vis GM foods! At this rate the food industry in this country may succeed in re-introducing many banned chemicals under the pretext that they are found safe under questionable in-house, biased research findings. Viewed against this the citizens in other developed countries like those in Europe, Japan or Canada are more fortunate in having governments much more sensitive to their interests than this "most powerful" county in the world!
  

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

SOME CRITICAL ISSUES OF CURRENT CONCERN IN FOOD

The strength of the often maligned food industry lies in its power to innovate as per the demand of the consumer but a major segment of this sector, knowing fully well that what they are doing is not justifiable measured by any yardstick ignore consumer susceptibilities in pursuit of quick money at high rate of returns to their investment. But a time has come when the industry cannot ignore the consumer community any more and it can afford to refuse to change this attitude only at its own peril. It is a question of time before the governments all over the world start putting stringent restrictions to force the change in favor of the citizens. As yet another new year has dawned, many pundits warn that time is running out for the industry to mend its ways. The three most challenging issues that will confront the stake holders in this food "game" are considered to be cutting down food wastes, humane animal handling including raring them and more transparent labeling for better understanding of the products offered. Here is an observation by one of the critics regarding these issues.

"This year we saw the "end" of Twinkies, the explosion of caffeinated foods, and even DIY marshmallows. But in my opinion, three food issues of great importance finally made it into mainstream American consciousness in 2012, giving us hope for real change in the food system.  Food waste, humane animal treatment (including antibiotic use) and food labeling all took the leap and are now common household topics. And in all three cases, people are using the Internet and a host of apps to discuss these topics, to educate the public and to inspire each other to act, and buy, better."

Though it has been in the public realm most pundits agree that the food waste could be as high as 35-50% of production globally, precious little could be achieved in reducing such colossal waste, in spite of the ground reality that almost 30% of the world population go to bed hungry due to uncertain accessibility to basic foods. Similarly the failure of Californian voters to force the industry to improve the labels through more transparent disclosure does not lessen the gravity of the labeling crisis that is confronting the consumers. Reports after reports, the pitiable conditions in thousands of animal and poultry farms and the inhuman way they are handled and butchered can put to shame even the fiercest beast, namely the Lion which does not have any feeling towards its prey! These three problems will definitely come to the fore during the year 2013 and one can only hope that significant progress will be achieved in all these areas through the sustained efforts of consumer activists and animal protectionist organizations. 

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

WILL THERE BE MEGA LAW SUITS AGAINST FOOD INDUSTRY?

The "sugar in the food" controversy is raising its head again, threatening the food industry in a serious way which the latter cannot ignore any more. There are thousands of studies which have implicated over consumption of sugar in creating dreaded life time disorders like diabetes, CVD and obesity but there is still no unanimity regarding the adverse consequences sugar may have on human health. The food industry is exploiting this lacunae to put in the market more and more products containing high sugar levels. It knows well that like tobacco, sugar is also an addictive and consumers, especially the kids, can be depended to to buy these unhealthy products again and again. If the coincidence between the onslaught of obesity and High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) becoming cheap in the US is taken into consideration, no further evidence is needed to implicate HFCS as one of the major critical factors for the progressive health deterioration among American citizens. Here is a critique on this subject which is both illuminating and logical to understand. 

"The first people in America to say smoking was bad for your health were greeted with derision and called quacks. Even while studies emerged in the 1950s linking smoking to various ailments including lung cancer and heart disease, tobacco supporters (nearly half of Americans smoked back then) questioned whether anti-smoking campaigners detracted from more serious attempts to get at the real causes of these diseases. Robert Lustig, a pediatrician and author of a book out last week, Fat Chance, is sympathetic. He's heard it all before. He wants sugar (both the table variety and high-fructose corn syrup) regulated like alcohol. He wants products full of sugar to get health warnings, like on cigarette packs. Sugar, he says, is toxic in high doses, and should be treated as such. It's also making us really fat. Excess sugar turns into liver fat and that fat makes the liver more resistant to insulin, he explains. The pancreas, which makes insulin, then has to make more. This raises insulin levels in the blood stream, and forces energy into fat, which causes weight gain. Then there's the effect on the brain. High insulin levels block actions on the hormone leptin, which tells the brain when the body has had enough to eat. People who eat lots of sugar are told by their brains that they are still hungry and so keep eating. Lustig says that food companies know this and that's why there's more sugar than ever before in our processed foods. The more sugar foods contain, the more consumers will eat. Here is a (rather long) video of him explaining the science at greater length. Lustig's research started in 1995 while working as a pediatric endocrinologist at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Tennessee. He noticed that children whose hypothalamus were damaged, following neurosurgery to remove tumors, started producing too much insulin and became lethargic and fat. He prescribed a drug to block the insulin and the children ate less, became more active and lost weight. He says the weight loss was the result of the drug (i.e., a hormonal change), not the change in behavior. Since then Lustig has done four studies, two with children and two with adults, to verify the phenomenon. He has concluded that the obesity problem is not about our couch potato tendencies but about the amount of sugar Americans consume, which he says is double what it was two decades ago".

The argument of the author of the above critique, that a day will come, sooner than later, when the food industry will face mega law suits for health damage by millions of citizens who face bleak prospects of leading a healthy life because of industry's deliberate strategy of restricting the product mix to high fat and high sugar containing ones, is logical. This reminds every one about the unhappy saga of tobacco industry of yesteryear which ignored and suppressed colossal evidence against tobacco blatantly and with no remorse about scientific findings implicating tobacco in lung cancer. Looking back, it became a tragedy of Himalayan proportion for the tobacco industry which had to shell out more than $ 300 billion for its past sins and omissions as reparation. Why not food industry learn from the history and overhaul its product basket with less and less sugar, salt and fat, all implicated unequivocally in many human disorders? Earlier this bitter truth is realized better it will be for this high flying industry.

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

THE "OMNIPOTENT" CAFFEINE-WHY THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT YET?

Caffeine, which is both a stimulant as well as an addictive substance, is present in beverage crops like Coffee, Tea and Cocoa. As consumption of these beverages increases the alertness of the consumer, there are millions who take them regularly every day though medical experts and health pundits frown upon its consumption by pregnant women and children. According to present thinking an intake beyond 300 mg a day may carry potential health risks for many people and this maximum recommended level is slowly being reduced to 180 mg per day per an adult. Recent reports about some deaths in the US being ascribed to consuming Caffeine loaded energy drinks highlight the piquant situation in which safety agencies find themselves. In absence of scientific evidence that implicates Caffeine as an unsafe food constituent and safe levels at which it can be ingested not arrived at, it becomes difficult to clamp a ban on the use of Caffeine in formulated foods and beverages. This situation seems to be encouraging many processors to use Caffeine as an ingredient in new formulations claiming some or the other beneficial effect for such products. Here is a take on this evolving situation which is receiving attention world over.

In light of new reports linking 5-Hour Energy drinks to several recent deaths, sleep-deprived consumers may need to find another source of packaged vigor. PepsiCo's Frito-Lay has an unlikely alternative: Cracker Jacks. The company is launching a new line of the sugary treats — aptly named "Cracker Jack'd" — that will contain caffeine, Advertising Age reports. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, which has previously battled such consumer products companies as MillerCoors Brewing Company and Airborne, claims the caffeinated Cracker Jacks violate federal food laws. "Boxes of Cracker Jack are famous for having a toy surprise inside," CSPI said in a Wednesday statement. "But what parent suspects that Cracker Jack might come with a surprising dose of a mildly addictive stimulant drug?" CSPI warned that if the government doesn't crack down on the upcoming Frito-Lay product, it could "set off a new craze in which manufacturers add caffeine to more and more varieties of foods and beverages."

Those who oppose use of Caffeine, often considered as a drug, cite the present US Rules which allow this chemical only in Cola beverages which may contain about 72 mg per a serving size of 12 fluid ounce. Unfortunately there is no mention about using Coffee solids or extracts in any food preparation which loophole is being exploited by the industry and there are such products already in the market providing more than 70 mg per a 2 Oz serving size. The argument by the industry that these products are targeted at adult consumers or the level of Caffeine is already declared on the label cannot justify putting in the market such potentially harmful food products. Probably it is time for safety agencies to revisit presence of Caffeine, either used as a chemical ingredient or through coffee solids and extracts and make the law relating to this more explicit.

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