PLASTIC PACKAGING CAUSE FOR OBESITY AND DIABETES?

It is unimaginable as to why hundreds of chemicals are allowed for use by the food industry for one reason or the other. While pharmaceutical industry is shackled, forcing it to be more careful and cautious in using different ingredients in medicine formulations, food industry is allowed to get away, mostly under the so called GRAS provision under which proof of safety is not insisted on!  The result is that many of the food ingredients had to be withdrawn after consumers were exposed to their dangers unnecessarily. Latest to join the list of monster chemicals are phthalates and Bisphenol A. Though indications about their suspect safety credentials were known earlier, they were allowed to be used for technical reasons ignoring the harm they could bring upon the consumers. The dangers posed by the above chemicals have been highlighted succinctly in a recent report which has some credibility. 

"Children exposed to two chemicals commonly used in food packaging are more likely to be obese or show signs of diabetes precursors than those with lower exposure, new research suggests. Researchers found urine levels of one type of phthalate, used to soften plastic, were tied to a higher risk of insulin resistance among teenagers. Based on data from the same large nutrition survey, another study group linked bisphenol A, or BPA - used to line aluminum cans - to obesity and larger waists in youth. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about one in six U.S. children and teenagers is now obese. "Clearly unhealthy diet and lack of physical activity are the drivers of this epidemic … but increasingly environmental chemicals are being identified as possible contributors," Dr. Leonardo Trasande, a pediatrician from New York University, said. He and his colleagues analyzed data from a nationally-representative health and nutrition survey conducted in 2003 to 2008, which included urine and blood tests for 766 adolescents aged 12 to 19. They found urinary levels of one particular type of phthalate, known as Di-2-ethylhexylphthalate (DEHP), were closely tied to a teenager's chance of having insulin resistance, a precursor to diabetes. Just under 15 percent of study participants with the lowest one-third of DEHP levels were insulin resistant, compared to almost 22 percent of those with the highest levels. DEHP, Trasande said, is often used to soften plastic bottles. It's used in plastic that is printed with the number 3 for recycling. The researchers said their findings don't prove that eating food packaged with phthalates causes insulin resistance. For example, it's possible children who are already insulin-resistant have unhealthier eating habits and eat and drink more packaged products - thus the higher phthalate levels in their urine. But Trasande told Reuters Health the chemical may influence how the body secretes insulin in response to sugar. Because of that, he tells parents to avoid buying plastics made with DEHP. "I advise them not to wash plastic containers in the dishwasher," he said. And, "When the plastic is clearly etched or damaged, it's time to throw it away." For a separate study published concurrently in Pediatrics, Dr. Joyce Lee from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and her colleagues used nutrition survey data through 2010 to compare BPA levels in the urine of six- to 18-year-olds with other health measures. In their analysis of 3,370 kids, BPA - an industrial chemical that may mimic estrogen in the body - was not linked to insulin resistance or blood sugar. But children with higher BPA levels were more likely to be obese, and tended to have a higher waist circumference-to-height ratio, than those with the lowest levels."

The particular variety of Phthalate-DEHP is implicated in developing insulin resistance leading to diabetic conditions, especially among children. Similarly BPA is now being confirmed as an obesogenic chemical causing early obesity among children. On the face of the fact that almost 20% of American kids are obese and the consumption of processed foods is very high in that country, there is a definite cause for alarm. It is high time that safety authorities wake up to this shocking reality and revisit the issue of safety of all food ingredient currently allowed for use by the industry before further damage is caused to the innocent public.

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

THE GREAT CORN TRAGEDY-PULL BETWEEN FOOD AND FUEL!

Till recently corn was being blamed for the obesity epidemic in the US because of its connection to High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) which is suspected to be metabolized differently from white sugar. Also adding to the misery of corn is the predominance of genetically modified version in the American landscape which is being viewed with suspicion by a vast majority of people all over the world. When the American government enunciated its biofuel policy, corn got a big boost and conversion of corn into ethanol through microbiological route became a big business. It is a fact that more than 40% of the grain grown in that country finds its way to ethanol distilleries for blending with petroleum fuels. The food and beverage industry which depends  predominantly on corn for formulating their products seems to be in a blind because of the escalating cost of buying their corn needs due to strong pull from the biofuel industry. The result is significant price increase for all the products made from corn including a vast array of fast foods. The fast food industry therefore has a right to blame the supply shortage for its compulsions to raise prices for these products. Here is a take on the dicey situation. 

"From the grocery store to your favorite takeout joint to the drive-thru window, you're paying more for what you eat and leaders in the fast food industry say the reason for these increased costs is the federal government's continued support of corn-based ethanol. The bushel price of corn has nearly tripled in the past decade. Forty percent of what's grown today goes into fuel tanks and that percentage could rise if the current federal mandate--known as the Renewable Fuel Standard--remains in place. "It's harder every day to offer great value because our costs are skyrocketing," Lisa Ingram, president of White Castle, recently said in Washington. "In fact, since the RFS became law our cost for beef has increased by forty-seven percent." The fast food industry contends that with more corn going to ethanol gas, there's less for traditional corn-based food products and feed for farm animals, thus driving up the costs for restaurant owners."

One wonders whether the situation is really so bad as to create a crisis for the fast food industry. After all these fast food joints are severely indicted for their junk foods which are suspected to be causing many life style disorders like CVD, blood pressure and obesity. Why not take a positive view of this development and consider this as a blessing in disguise, as less and less people would patronize junk foods when the prices go up! In a country where business is accorded a higher priority than the health of the citizen, one should not be surprised if the government eventually comes forward to provide relief to the fast food industry through some form of policy intervention! One can understand the dilemma of the government as it wants to reduce consumption of fossil fuels through admixing it with ethanol while corn production is not sufficient to meet the demands from both food and ethanol sectors. It may be time to fast tract development of commercial technologies that can convert non-food biomass into alcohol or accelerate microbiological technologies such as algae so that food sector is insulated from shortages of its feed stock.

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

THE WHOLE GRAIN FOOD PRODUCTS IN THE MARKET-MISLEADING THE CONSUMER

The new mantra being touted for attracting the junk food wary consumers is to eat more foods made from "whole grains" and there are thousands of products now being marketed touting to contain more of whole grains. Though putting the logo on the label of "whole grain" is legal as per the letter of the law, its spirit is being violated by many processors by manipulating the recipe to include some whole grains. Unfortunately this is a skewed approach because most products contain more sugar and fat than normal products though they have marginally higher dietary fiber. If this is not perpetuating a fraud on the consumer, what else it is? In the absence mandatory restrictions on labeling such products as healthy, industry will get away by its new brazenness! It is a tragedy that there are many products being churned out by the industry claiming to be multi grain based ones, a close look at the proportion of "other" grains to the main one, usually wheat is minuscule. Here is a critical look at these unethical practices of the food industry which must be frowned upon!  

"The benefits of switching from refined to whole grain foods are well established, including lower risk of cardiovascular disease, weight gain, and type 2 diabetes, the journal Public Health Nutrition reports. "Given the significant prevalence of refined grains, starches, and sugars in modern diets, identifying a unified criterion to identify higher quality carbohydrates is a key priority in public health," said Rebecca Mozaffarian, study author from the social and behavioural sciences department at Harvard School of Public Health. Based on this evidence, the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) 2010 dietary guidelines recommend that Americans consume at least three servings of whole grain products daily, and the new US national school lunch standards require that at least half of all meals be whole grain-rich. However, no single standard exists for defining any product as a "whole grain". From two major US grocers, researchers identified a total of 545 grain products in eight categories: breads, bagels, English muffins, cereals, crackers, cereal bars, granola bars, and chips. They collected nutrition content, ingredient lists, and the presence or absence of the Whole Grain Stamp on product packages from all of these products, according to a Harvard statement. They found that grain products with the Whole Grain Stamp, one of the most widely-used front-of-package symbols, were higher in fibre and lower in trans fats, but also contained significantly more sugar and calories compared to products without the Stamp. The three USDA recommended criteria also had mixed performance for identifying healthier grain products. Overall, the American Heart Association's standard (a ratio of total carbohydrate to fibre) proved to be the best indicator of overall healthfulness".

The suggestion that in stead of giving wide latitude to the industry in using such consumer attracting label claims, food safety agencies both national as well as international must work out a consensus on what constitutes a healthy whole grain food. The ratio of carbohydrate to sugar may be a criterion or ratio of carbohydrate to sugar as well as fat could be a better parameter. Alternately the dietary fiber content could be a major consideration while allowing such labeling practices. of course some clever players may add fiber from external sources which may not confer the same benefit as using whole grain flours which are much more diverse in terms of nutritional contents. Food scientists and nutritionists must put their heads together to help the consumers to choose healthy foods by evolving realistic standards for foods claiming to be manufactured from whole grains or from a blend of grains.

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

TAXING THE FOOD-IS IT ETHICALLY AND MORALLY JUSTIFIED?

Taxation and other financial impositions by governments all over the world are borne by the citizens believing that the money so collected goes for developmental activities beneficial to the citizen. But this does not happen, especially in an over democratic country like India where silent tax players never ask the government about lack of development in spite of paying taxes at rates unbearable to many. On top of it natural resources like spectrum, coal etc are distributed at throw away prices creating huge financial scams, depriving the government the much needed financial inputs for various developmental activities. Added to this a small percentage of citizens, that too mostly from the salaried class who pay income tax while a bevy of taxes are "innovated", like sales tax, value added tax, excise duty, import duty, service tax, wealth tax, road tax, property registration fees etc to fleece the citizens. While all these are understandable, what is reprehensible is the tax levied on food and drugs by state governments making them more expensive. How can any one justify taxing a basic food like food grain which is the essential for any human being to lead a normal life. Here is a critique on this subject.

'High taxes, levied by major food grain growing states of Punjab and Haryana, have made the Centre's task of selling wheat at low rates in the open market difficult. The taxes, ranging from 4.7 per cent in Madhya Pradesh to 11.5 per cent in Haryana and still higher at almost 14.5 per cent in Punjab, are incurred by the Centre while procuring grains from farmers every year at a fixed minimum support price (MSP). It is difficult for the Centre not to pass on these taxes to consumers at the time of selling grains in the open market as then its food subsidy burden will further inflate. According to some estimates, around 10 per cent or Rs 7,000 crore of the total food subsidy in 2011-12 was due to state taxes and levies, which the Food Corporation of India (FCI) paid by way of levies and taxes to different states".

Government of India generates inflation index periodically and one is not sure how reliable these figures are. Still a major contributor to inflation is the taxes levied on every conceivable consumer material the government can set its yes on! How can the private vendors and shops can be faulted if they also indulge in raising the prices on their own. Look at the hotel sector which has seen price hikes to the extent of 100% during the last two years as they are not covered by the rule of compulsory MRP declaration. Even those covered under MRP regulations consumers have learned long ago that the MRP declaration does not serve much of a purpose because, till recently, consumer products industry has been practicing fraudulent means in keeping the price line steady but progressively reducing the quantity within a pack! A honest government if it has any consideration for the sufferings of its people must exempt all foods, especially the basic ones, from the purview of punitive taxation!  The excuse that federal government in India cannot prevent the states from imposing tax on foods is just an excuse which the citizens cannot accept.

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

   

THE NEW CARBON TAX-WILL IT STOKE INFLATION?

It is very fashionable these days to talk about "carbon foot prints" of consumer products which is an indication of the extent of pollution to the environment caused by the process of manufacturing and distributing the product but very little is happening at the ground level to cut down CO2 emission through "green" processes with minimum pollution. At global level every country wants to reduce emission of green house gases that contribute to warming of weather and reduce the impact of its attendant consequences. While those with high living standards depend heavily on fossil fuel sources to maintain their comfort level, countries aspiring to climb up the ladder of development have few options but to depend on these very non-renewable energy sources! Against such a bewildering scenario, Australia deserves to be congratulated in mustering the necessary political will to come up with a carbon tax regime that will compel major polluters in the industry and business conglomerates to try to reduce CO2 emission. The proposal by the Government of Australia to provide financial support to help them reduce pollution is also praise worthy.

"The average cost of living will rise about ten dollars a week in a carbon priced economy and weekly grocery bills are expected to rise by 80 cents a week in the first year of the new tax. However Treasury' estimates that while food prices will rise nominally has food manufacturers questioning the accuracy of the Government's projections. Under the Government's carbon tax package, the food industry will receive $150 million over six years to assist industry to become more energy efficient as part of as part of the Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program. The Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC) chief executive Kate Carnell welcomed the assistance package but stressed that the $150 million may not be enough. "We are particularly pleased the Government acknowledged this amount of money may not be enough and indicated if it's expended, industry will be able access extra funding," Ms Carnell said.Carnell said AFGC lobbied the Government to increase the $150 million package that was also part of the CPRS, as we believed it would not be sufficient for a $102 billion industry, which is already investing heavily in technology to reduce environmental impacts.Under this program, funding will be provided on a co-investment basis, with industry contributing three dollars for every dollar from Government. "This could make it difficult for smaller manufacturers as the cost of becoming more energy efficient are often very high." "At the end of the day, there will still be price increases right across the supply chain and this will impact on the competitiveness of industry," Carnell said. According to chief executive of the Australian National Retailers Association, Margy Osmond who spoke with ABC'S AM, any price rises in the food retail space is more likely to be the product of what is happening with the manufacturers of the food products. Carnell said the cost increase will predominantly result from the high price of power. "The Government carbon tax will increase the cost of Australian manufactured goods – but will not affect imports, which are already cheaper due to the high Australian dollar," Carnell said".

The area of renewable energy is receiving world wide attention and enormous investments have been made to tap the most abundant natural energy source, the Sun. To day countries like the US, China, India and Europe are in the forefront in generating huge quantum of solar energy, though it is still a fraction of their total energy requirement. Economic incentives used to be provided liberally and if they are continued or enhanced the growth of renewable energy industry can be very high. There are many other renewable sources of energy like wind mills, hydroelectric power, ocean waves, geothermal energy etc which also can supplement the energy pool in the world if exploited efficiently. The example shown by Australia must be a lesson for other wavering nations to be strict on polluters and stingy in using fossil fuels to help this world survive from the impending catastrophe posed by global warming. Paying a little more for material comforts is a small price to pay for the longevity of this planet.

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

FOOD BORNE INFECTIONS-PERILS OF IGNORING VIRUSES!

Restaurants world over provide excellent quality foods from the sensory satisfaction angle and families choose restaurants mostly based on the eating quality of the preparations served. Of course the price tag, presentation, ambiance, hospitality, safety and variety of foods offered all weigh in while choosing an eatery. Eating out has become a necessity to day because of time constraints for most families to spent in the kitchen. Recent reports that even the best restaurants cannot ensure safety to its customers are rather disturbing. Probably there is some truth here as most sanitation procedures focus only on bacteria and do not cover viruses which has the potential to create havoc if not removed from the serving dishes and plates through effective washing. Is this a serious problem? Currently no one knows though some scientists believe it can pose a challenge in future.

"While there are dishware cleaning guidelines, there are no actual laws that mandate food service businesses must use them. We know that when public food establishments follow the cleaning protocols, they do a very good job at getting rid of bacteria," says Pascall. "But, we don't know if those protocols work to kill viruses – and this may help explain why there are still so many illnesses caused by contaminated food." In 2010, Pascall was awarded with a grant from the Ohio State Center Clinical and Translational Science to test how effectively the current government standards, which are proven to sanitize against bacteria, are able to rid dishes and silverware of viruses. Pascall theorized that viruses could be a bigger health issue, because it only takes a small number of viruses to make a person sick and many viruses could withstand the high temperatures used in commercial dishwashing protocols."While there are dishware cleaning guidelines, there are no actual laws that mandate food service businesses must use them. We know that when public food establishments follow the cleaning protocols, they do a very good job at getting rid of bacteria," says Pascall. "But, we don't know if those protocols work to kill viruses – and this may help explain why there are still so many illnesses caused by contaminated food." Working with a team of virologists, Pascall set out to test the ability of common viruses – norovirus and sapovirus - to make it through a variety of "real life" food service cleaning scenarios. Norovirus is responsible for 90% of epidemic non- bacterial cases of gastroenteritis and is commonly associated with illnesses seen on cruise ships and other "closed communities" where the virus can spread easily. Building off these research results, which are currently being compiled, the team will next investigate if Hepatitis A and the avian flu virus are able to get past current washing and sanitization protocols.

Fortunately food poisoning episodes of non-bacterial origin are far and few and this must have lulled the industry in ignoring the danger posed by them. The fact that most virus-driven food poisoning episodes have been reported not from restaurants but from closed communities provides a clue as to the optimum conditions for the spread of virus. It is scary to hear about the possibility of bugs like Hapatis A and Avian Flu developing sufficient resistance under the current washing regime though it is only very distant possibility. Of course there are well known methods to inactivate viruses and if necessary detergent industry can be expected to come up with washing powder formulations containing anti-viral agents. Taking up investigation in this direction is timely and appropriate and the world will be waiting with baited breath to hear about the conclusions of such studies.

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

"FOOD" CALORIES VS "FUEL" CALORIES-CAN THE CONSUMER BE SENSITIZED?

Food industry has come a long way during the last one century and to day consumer has the wherewithal to understand fully the history and characteristics of food being purchased from the market. Food industry has been forced to be more transparent about the products offered by them and the mandatory labeling regulations provide detailed information about the contents based on which consumer can buy the requirements with great discretion. Information such as calories, saturated fat, trans fat, dietary fiber, sugar etc tells a lot about the health value of a product, though such developments did not had much impact on the obesity epidemic that is ravaging the population in many wealthy countries. Another dimension to labeling is the need for letting the consumer know about the energy efficiency of a food product during its journey from farm to the fork. This is an issue which is becoming critical with each passing day with the fossil fuel crunch facing humanity assuming dangerous proportions due to their non-renewable nature. The DECAL system of labeling which is becoming popular in some countries may help food industry to educate the consumer regarding the energy input that has gone to make and deliver the product at the retail shelves.

"Americans use more oil than people in any other developed country, about twice as much per capita, on average, as Britons. Indeed, our appetite for petroleum, like our fondness of fast foods, has spawned a kind of obesity epidemic, but one without conspicuous symptoms like high blood pressure and diabetes. And because we don't see how much energy goes into the products and services we purchase, we're shielded from knowing the full extent of our personal energy demands — and unprepared when rising fuel prices increase the cost of everything else. This illusion stems, in part, from a measurement problem: while we expect and understand labels on our food products that quantify caloric, fat and nutrient content, we have no clear way of measuring the amount of energy it takes to make our products and propel our daily activities. There's no reason we can't have energy labels, too. For example, in Europe, Tesco, a supermarket chain, has begun a "carbon labeling" program for some 500 products, which displays the amount of energy consumed and greenhouse gases generated from their production, transportation and use. We could do the same thing here, with labels providing a product or service's "daily energy calories." Along with physical labels, imagine a smartphone app — we'll call it "Decal" for short — that would scan a product's bar code and report how much energy it took to produce that item. Like the nutritional data on the backs of food products, Decal would give consumers a user-friendly, universal measure that they could use to compare products or count their daily energy intake. For example, the app would enable an energy dieter to scan two otherwise identical loaves of bread and see which one required less energy to produce. Decal would have applications beyond the grocery-store shelf. By synchronizing with on board computers in cars, buses and trains, it could tell you how much energy you use during daily errands and commutes. It would sync to a smart energy meter in your home to evaluate how much power you're using and which appliances are the biggest guzzlers. And at the end of the day, the app would generate your total energy diet: a Decal "score" that would quantify how many total energy calories you've consumed. Once Decal took hold, the Department of Energy could recommend daily energy allowances, in the same way the Department of Agriculture recommends daily intakes of different nutrients. Experts could offer "diet" plans for energy-efficient lifestyles, and the Internal Revenue Service could offer tax rebates to families that achieve certain energy-calorie reductions".

Though conceptually it is a good idea, how far this will be effective at the field level remains to be seen. From the logistical point of view, adoption of DECAL by a few large companies may not make any impact because consumer will have no way to decide which products are better from energy expenditure angle when choices are limited. Added to this there is the issue of quality and how can the industry persuade the consumer to buy energy efficient products in preference to tastier ones which might have a higher DECAL value? If front of the pack labeling laws which have been in operation since last 2-3 decades did not persuade consumers to go for healthier foods as reflected by its lack of impact on the continuing obesity saga, will the DECAL score declaration help in moderating fossil fuel consumption? No one can be sure.

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

HIGH TECH "DECEPTION"-NEED FOR INCREASED VIGILANCE

The statement that"deception, thy name is food industry" is becoming increasingly apt to describe some of the actions of a few major players in this sector continuously striving to mislead consumers regarding the true strength of their products. It is true that labeling provisions are becoming more and more stringent in many countries to preempt such attempts and give the consumer a modicum of confidence regarding the quality and safety of marketed foods offered to them by the retailers. But high stakes involved in making money through devious means are temptations enough for engaging high paying consultants to find loopholes in the law so that rules can be circumvented. Here is an example of a multinational food player blatantly exploiting the vulnerability of the consumer to claims on good health and well being

"The Federal Trade Commission barred Kellogg's last year from running ads saying Mini-Wheats are "clinically shown to improve kids' attentiveness by 20 percent." To claim "benefits to cognitive health, process or function provided by any cereal or any morning food or snack food," was a no-no, unless the claims were true. But the F.T.C.'s order covered only cognitive abilities. So just as it was signing its consent, Kellogg's was starting a new campaign in which "Snap, Crackle and Pop" called out to parents from the Rice Krispies box promising to help "support your child's IMMUNITY."

What is so galling is that a giant like Kellog's receives only a notice and a negotiated settlement is reached with the concerned authorities! A spurious claim like the one made by this company should have attracted severest strictures and massive punitive steps. Probably the common perception of many consumers that high and mighty amongst the processors "can get away even with murder" seems to be true. Otherwise it is difficult to understand the impunity with which the same company is scheming to repeat the same offense in other products even before the ink has dried in the negotiated agreement!

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

SIACHEN AND KARGIL REVISITED-LIVING ON THE PAST GLORY?

It is true that people have short memories and if not for this trait, claims of achievements would not have been repeated on different occasions to different audience. This can be forgivable if politicians do this to fool the public for garnering votes. But when such practices become rampant amongst scientists, it is a cause for worry. Here is an example of such a feat, a proclamation made by the head of a research organization recently, regarding development of a new technology for some food products targeted at defense forces.

"The Mysore-based Defence Food Research Laboratory (DFRL), has now found a way in which mutton and chicken biryani, and non-vegetarian sandwiches, can have a long shelf life without losing their nutritional value. The disclosure was made at the inauguration of the three-day 20th 'Convention of Food Scientists and Technologists' in the city on Monday. The focal theme of the convention is 'Specialised Processed Foods for Health and Nutrition: Technology and Delivery".

It is on record that thermally processed "Ready to Eat" (RTE) foods packed in heat stable flexible pouches or retortable pouches were in the Indian market during the last two decades and already there are half a dozen food processors in the organized sector manufacturing at least 25 varieties of vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian food preparations for the domestic and export markets. The technology with minor variations of time and temperature can be adapted to any food products including biriyani. But the claim that the technology is new or their nutritional value is not affected by the process is not just tenable. It is not realized that these are staple foods, consumed not for their nutrients but to provide calories and proteins. Heat labile nutrients present in small quantities are bound to be lost to some extent. How ever credit must be given to this defense laboratory for originally standardizing this process for a few products more than two decades ago in response to the demand from armed forces.

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