ORGANIC FOODS-WHAT REALLY THEY ARE!

No doubt organic foods definitely score over normally grown commercial crops when it comes to safety to the consumer how ever to hawk this food as a panacea for all the health problems the world faces to day is nothing but a hype. One must understand that farmers owe much to the use of synthetic fertilizers and chemical pesticides if they are boasting of much higher land productivity as compared to 5-6 decades ago and it is unlikely they will abandon this practice in the foreseeable future out of economic considerations. It is true that organic foods do fetch a higher price in the market but it is doubtful whether the additional income will ever compensate them for the high yields they can get under the mainstream agricultural practices in vogue to day. On the part of the consumer, there are unrealistically high expectations regarding the virtue of organic foods but there is wide gap between such expectations and ground reality. Here is an expose on this important issue which must be read by every consumer patronizing organic foods.

"You may think you know everything about your organic food -- but you don't. There are major misconceptions about this $35 billion industry. Here are the five biggest myths about your organic food.

1. Organic products are 100% organic.

The United States Department of Agriculture, or USDA, isn't a zero tolerance regulator. For any multi-ingredient "organic" product you pick up, from Wal-Mart  (NYSE: WMT  ) to Whole Foods Market  (NASDAQ: WFM  ) , only 95% of its contents have to be certified organic. For the USDA, it's a matter of convenience and feasibility. Testing for 100% full compliance of anything is a regulator's worst nightmare. Additionally, some ingredients simply don't have organic options on supply. The USDA does note, however, that investigative eaters can take a closer look at the ingredients list; if a specific ingredient is labeled as "organic," then it is. And for those American agricultural complex skeptics, the European Union has its own 95% rule.

2. Organic crops aren't fertilized.

There's more to your organic arugula than meets the eye. Fertilizers are used to replace necessary soil components that constant cropping removes. Nitrogen and phosphorous, specifically, are two main ingredients in the fight for fertilizer.
While the USDA forbids farmers to use sewage sludge (yes, this is actually a common non-organic addition) or synthetic fertilizers on their organic fields, they're free to use most other fertilizer types. Among the more recognizable additives are animal manure, compost (which can include animal materials), and ash.

3. Your organic meat grazed for grub.

Organic meat was once an organic animal. But that doesn't mean that Mr. and Mrs. Moo spent their days grazing in the grass. While the USDA requires that animals spend at least 120 days a year munching away on organic pastures, just 30% of its nutrition must come from the pasture itself. And in the off-season, 100% of its sustenance can come from organic feed.

4. Organic farmers don't use pesticides.

As with fertilizer, organic farming isn't as far off from conventional agriculture as some would think. A 2010 poll showed that a whopping 69% of those surveyed believe organic crops grow up big and strong sans pesticides. While the USDA does have a three-page long list of prohibited synthetic pesticides, there are over 20 chemicals that make the cut. Even more worrisome, current organic regulations don't include any limits on usage, meaning less effective approved pesticides can be piled on to organic farms, creating a cadre of potential health and environmental issues of their own.

5. Organic farming is environmentally friendly, tastes better, is healthier, and will improve your sex life.

OK, so maybe that last one applies more to vegetarians than organic eaters, but the point remains. There's a lot of hype around organic food, and it's important to remember that, in terms of rigorous evidence, causal inferences are few and far between. As organic farming becomes increasingly mainstream, a lot of its original attributes aren't nearly as applicable.

On the environmental front, intensive large-scale organic operations can be much worse for the environment than your local farmer who uses synthetic fertilizer once a year to keep production levels competitive. Likewise, personal perceptions on taste and health may actually be little more than a placebo effect, helped along by a fast-growing $35 billion dollar organic industry that wants you to buy their product.
Organic agriculture is an exciting opportunity for the future of food. But knowing the hard facts of organic food will help you to be the best, most informed consumer you can be."

The organic food industry market may be worth $ 110 billion to day , expected to grow by 16% annually ( CAG) to an astonshing figure of $ 212 billion by the year 2020! USA alone is reported to be consuming more than 40% of the global production and USFDA by far is the most liberal country with less stringent standards and safety specifications for raising organic crops. Whether organic foods are absolutely free from unnatural chemicals, synthetic growth inputs and pesticides, still it is the best bet for avoiding human induced food related health afflictions which are prevalent to day.

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

OLEORESINS-INDIA'S NEW STRENGTH

The late Dr H A B Parpia, who recently passed away must have been excited if alive to day by the news that India is dominating the world oleoresin market, thanks to his endeavors during late sixties to develop domestic technology for recovering the active ingredients of spices, condiments and aromatic materials. If Indian manufacturers, most of whom use the  CFTRI technology for manufacture of oleoresins from a variety of odiferous substances, are able to capture more than 60% of the world market for these concentrated flavor products, it is due to also their innovative efforts and adaption of the original CFTRI technology to keep up with global needs and standards. Three cheers to them. Here is a report from the industry itself which highlights their capabilities in this area. 

You may not realise it when you dig into a piece of chicken in, say, Kentucky and wash it down with a cola. Chances are that spice oil extracts or oleoresin of chilli from Andhra and nutmeg grown in Kerala may have given hot and tangy flavours to the meat and cola. Or, take the perfume that you spray on your body. It could be carrying the aroma of lemon grass oleoresin from Karnataka or cardamom extracts from Kerala. India dominates the global market for spice oleoresin, which is in big demand from processed food and fragrance industries that now mostly prefer natural colouring and flavouring agents to artificial ones as consumers become increasingly health conscious.

One must recall what type of trials and tribulations this industry went through in early days to commercialize the indigenous technology tailoring to the needs of foreign buyers. The original technology was developed using ethylene di chloride as the solvent which was banned because of potential health hazards. Now the technology makes use of alcohol and/or acetone as the preferred solvent while the high pressure super critical fluid carbon dioxide extraction gives a very high quality product from practically any odiferous substance with no solvent residue left behind to be bothered about. If the industry performs well keeping quality and safety as its corner stone, it is unlikely that any competitor will ever emerge to rival India's position as the number one player in the global arena. 

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

MAKING RICH FARMERS RICHER-NEW AMERICAN POLICY

Agricultural subsidies doled out to rich farmers in some of the wealthy countries are considered an anachronism and in spite of world wide condemnation of such practices, there does not seem to be any sign of this incongruous policy being curtailed. United States of America and the European Union countries are the major culprits in perpetuating such distorted policies. Where else except in the US farmers are paid to leave their land fallow, fearing the adverse impact a surplus production will have on the market prices of commodities? Now comes the report that the government there is debating the feasibility of new ways of subsidizing its farmers to insure them against crop failures or low market price realization for their crops. It is interesting that even some of the members of the farming community feel that such government hand out is not necessary for those engaged in honest farming. Of course genuine problems like unexpected crop failure or disasters affecting crop yields must be factored in when agriculture farming is planned and any financial help to cushion the insurance premium is understandable. How far the planned financial aid to the agricultural farms will materialize depends on the political flux this country is going through. However, most WTO members, especially the poor and the developing world, have been fighting this perverted policies of the rich nations with very little success. On the contrary the political classes in the developed economies are contriving to perpetuate this distortion by increasing the dole outs through the tax payers' money, probably for furthering their vested interests. Here is a take on this developing story.    

"Advocates, including farm interest lobbyists and lawmakers with a long history of creating and protecting benefits, argue that the new program would save Washington money by replacing a longstanding one costing $5 billion a year, known as direct payments, that pays owners of farmland a set amount regardless of whether they have planted crops. Crop insurance has existed for decades, with the government now spending about $7 billion a year to pay about two-thirds of the cost of farmers' premiums. Under the federal program, farmers can buy insurance that covers poor yields, declines in prices or both. On Tuesday, the Senate began debate on a farm bill, passed by the Agriculture Committee in April, that would set up another crop insurance subsidy, costing $3 billion a year, to cover any losses farmers suffer, known as deductibles, before their crop insurance policies kick in. The change from the existing direct payment program to the crop insurance subsidies as the primary safety net for farmers means that "payments are going to people who are actually farming," Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan and chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee, said Wednesday. The Senate measure would cut about $23 billion in spending over the next 10 years, though that is far less than the Obama administration wanted. Crop insurance supporters say insurance programs provide an important safety net for farmers, who are subject to the whims of weather, pests and volatile markets. "Cuts in the crop insurance program would reduce the effectiveness of the most important risk-management tool farmers have," said Sam Willett, senior director of public policy at the National Corn Growers Association. Even some farmers argue that the subsidies are already generous to agribusinesses, especially with the government facing large deficits. Jim Faulstich, a farmer and rancher in Highmore, S.D., said he was in favor of farmers having crop insurance, but added that the insurance should not be used to make money at taxpayer expense. "If we as farmers expect taxpayers to support premium subsidies, it's only fair that we grow on land that is capable of supporting it," he said. "Could some of this land be profitable without the crop insurance subsidy? I think not."

Theoretically what any nation does within its borders is no body else's business but can such an isolationist policy work in a globalized community where cooperation and mutual help are the watch words. With what cheek countries like America, the EU, Japan and others with high per capita income, can ask the poorer countries to lower their import tariffs for industrial products manufactured by them so that their domestic manufacturing sector flourishes? Don't they know that cheap food grains produced in their countries through massive subsidies depress the global prices of many of them and hurt many countries depending on export of their surplus commodities for sustenance? With what conscience the American citizens go to sleep each day when millions of poor people starve around the world because of the subsidies doled out by their insensitive politicians? What is the use of billions of dollars worth of surplus food grains, being channelized to African countries in the name of food aid  if the huge subsidies received by the American farmers effectively kill the local agriculture? If WTO cannot stop this patently unjust policies of the rich nations, it has no right to exist any more!

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