BRANDED FOODS-NEW FINDINGS ABOUT THEIR NUTRITIONAL DECLINE

Nutrition labeling in food packs was considered one of the most significant policy changes world over to make the process of making and marketing food more transparent. The right of the consumer to know exactly what is inside a sealed food pack is considered sacred and the front of the pack labeling is intended to serve this objective. Whether this mandatory step has improved the nutritional quality of foods in general is a subject matter of debate. Here comes a report that says the nutritional quality of branded foods turned out by the organized food industry has actually declined since 1990 which must be a cause for alarm. 

"According to a recent Duke study, the nutritional quality of branded foods has decreased over the past 20 years since nutrition facts were required on food products. Researchers at Duke's Fuqua School of Business and the University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business determined that although taste has improved, the overall nutritional quality of supermarket branded foods has been on the decline. In 1990, the government passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, which required manufacturers to include a "Nutrition Facts" label listing nutrients, ingredients and recommended daily values on food products. The study, which will be published in Marketing Science, examines a selection of food products before and after the NLEA to assess consumer trends and nutritional elements. Lead author of the study Christine Moorman said the NLEA may have unintended negative consequences. Consumers can develop a false sense of security knowing that the federal government regulates the nutritional standards. "Consumers say, 'I'm not going to worry or be as vigilant about it since the regulations are there,'" said Moorman, T. Austin Finch Sr. professor of business administration at Fuqua. "Consumers should be vigilant regardless of regulation. We hope that Duke students, and all consumers, pay attention to nutritional quality." The study also indicates that consumers consider taste to be more important than nutrition—a trend that the market has noticed. Branded foods have improved in taste over the past 20 years. The higher value consumers place on taste compared to nutrition prompted the researchers to suggest policy changes targeted at consumers and firms. "Public policy really needs to consider how to improve the value of nutrition when consumers care more about something else," Moorman said".

Can the industry be blamed for this dangerous trend that is seen in many countries as the food industry, growing at a decent pace, has captured the imagination of consumers, young and the old, by offering excellent products with tantalizing tastes and flavors. After all industry does not work for charity and the economic law necessitates that it works profitably within the frame work of safety norms that are in force. As long as the consumer does not insist on more nutritional products, overriding the sensory quality, the way industry is working to day will go on, no matter what is said and written about these issues. There is a limit how much the governments can do in improving nutritional quality of industry manufactured foods and such changes will have to be consumer driven.

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

THE LATEST OMEGA-3 OIL CONTROVERSY-THE INDUSTRY BOUND TO FACE UNCERTAINTIES

Omega-3 long chain fatty acids such as DHA, EPA etc are considered essential for many body functions and good health but the very same hitherto considered "angels" have been suddenly made out to be a "demon" under some conditions, if a recent study in Germany is to be taken seriously. The new controversy concerns the upper safe limits of consumption for this group of essential fatty acids. It is interesting to note the stands taken by different members of EU and also the reaction of the Omega-3 supplement industry to this new controversy.

'"The agency has been commandeered to perform the review by the European Commission on the basis of a report from the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) which outlines the rationale for a 1.5gm/day upper safe level for long-chain omega-3s like DHA, EPA and DPA. It has been handed nine months to deliver its findings. There is currently no USL in the EU, while in the US, the Food and Drug Administration has recommended 3g per day.The BfR report (in German) suggests harmful effects of over-consumption could include increased cholesterol levels, risk of cardiovascular mortality among long term users with cardiovascular disease, inhibited immune systems in the elderly, and anaemic effects. It can be found here. Responding, Harry Rice from the Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3 (GOED) said: "Regardless of being baffled by the Commission's basis for requesting a scientific opinion from EFSA, we still contend that the concerns raised in the BfR's report are unfounded and we aren't the only
ones." "At the beginning of July, the Steering Committee of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety published its opinion on the safety of the omega-3 fatty acids". It came as no surprise that the Committee found no adverse effects up to levels as high as 6.9 grams/day for certain conditions."

Contrary to the assertion by the food supplements industry that omega-3 fats are safe and there is no danger of over consumption, many experts feel that ultimately the ratio of intake of Omega-6 to Omega-3 in the diet would determine the consequences, good or bad. In the US many observers believe that the ratio is way above the desirable ideal figure of 2:1, often reaching the ominous ratio of 25:1. This is claimed to have contributed to many of the health disorders that confront the American population. It is not realized that omega-3 is associated with many positive functions in human body, while Omega-6 is implicated in negative effects like inflammation, mood and behavior. If European Commission comes out with factual data, there can be world-wide re-calibration of policies vis-a-vis consumption of EFAs whether Omega-3 or Omega-6. Currently Omega-3 fats are a raging business in the US and there is hardly any product which is not fortified with these nutrients. If EU eventually decides to set a USL for European countries what effect it will have on the US food industry? Will it affect the food trade between these giant industrial power houses?"

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

SAFETY CONCERNS IN CHINA-FOREIGN BRANDS GAINING POPULARITY!

Alarming reports about American foods gaining ground in China are worrying health experts concerned about this shift in consumer habit that may have far reaching implications. One of the reasons cited is the relative affluence of the Chinese citizens who can afford to buy foods offered by many American companies and the relative ambiance of the serving environment. But more than this another important factor, missed out by many observers is the role played by the basic Chinese psyche that considers "trust" as the most important value in life and series of episodes involving local manufacturers who compromised on quality of ingredients in preparing domestic products have alienated many in that country. One of the most startling cases was that of Melanine tainted milk powder manufactured from adulterated milk by some dairies causing immense damage to thousands of children, some of them succumbing to the product due to kidney failure. As Americans have a reputation of maintaining high quality in their manufactured food products, average Chinese citizen seems to be trusting the products made by them, though health-wise these products can also contribute to long term health disorders like obesity. How far this trust will continue is uncertain as in the US also massive product recalls are the order of the day because contamination problems.

"Misrepresentation of product safety can be costly because the Chinese have become unforgiving when it comes to health. A mere allegation is enough for businesses to lose customers, see their bottom lines hit and their share prices decimated. Few issues bring out such vitriolic reaction among the public as product safety. Parents are extremely concerned that their children could be poisoned by tainted milk. A few months ago, the government shut fifty percent of the country's dairies because they failed to live up to quality control standards. But far more needs to be done. Rather than just shutting poor quality food production areas, the government needs to mete out extremely harsh punishments for any food quality problems, going as far as shutting down businesses, even large ones, and jailing unscrupulous executives. The government, after all, regularly sentences officials and businessmen to decades-long prison terms for corruption and other financial crimes".

China is known to make products with uncertain quality in almost all sectors to compromise on prices and if it has accumulated a foreign exchange bounty of $ 3 trillion, the main reason is the low cost of their products, most of them far cheaper than those made by other countries. Probably same may be true in food also and it is logical that the food industry also suffers due to negligence of quality and safety of its products. History is replete with instances when the lost consumer confidence is difficult to be reclaimed and even if that happens it would take a long time. Unless safety violators are severely punished to be a deterrent to other potential future defaulters, the image of Chinese food industry will continue to suffer. .

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

THE PESTICIDE "TUSSLE"-IMPACT ON FOOD FRONT

Insecticides and pesticides, thousands in number evoke bitter feeling amongst many consumer activists who feel that these are slow poisons affecting adversely the health of billions of people on this planet. The gruesome tragedy of Bhopal is still fresh in the memory of many people in India and there are hundreds of such cases where pesticides have caused heavy damages to the agriculturists, consumers and people exposed to these deadly chemicals. Of course mankind is pulled between the necessity to increase food production and freedom from health hazards and use of chemicals as crop protectants is supposed to be based on an analysis of cost, benefits and risks. Unfortunately when most of the pesticides were approved for use, the science of nutrition, health, analytical techniques etc were some what primitive and it is only to day that these aspects are better understood. The birth of organic food industry can be attributed to the inherent dangers of using pesticides and if this industry is growing at a phenomenal pace thanks are due to the indiscriminate use of pesticides and the dangers pose by them.

"Environmentalists are once again taking aim at our nation's food supply in the debate over pesticide use.

And if those groups are victorious, up to 80 percent of Washington's farmland could be affected. The Center for Biological Diversity sued the Environmental Protection Agency in January, alleging that the EPA failed to demonstrate due diligence in consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service about new pesticides. Farmers are concerned, to say the least. The lawsuit could jettison the use of 380 pesticides used in 49 states, said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. That's a problem. Pesticides are used to, well, control pests of all manner -- bugs, weeds, fungus and more. The use of pesticides increases crop production, decreases back-breaking weed-pulling by workers and creates more appealing produce free of scars left by hungry bugs. Without pesticides, food would cost more, and there would be less of it. Millions of workers would be needed to pull weeds that threaten to overtake crops. Insects could wipe out entire crops for the season. No one wants to trade the health of our rivers and lakes for the health of our agricultural industry, but it's possible to marry responsible stewardship with modern farming practices".

Nearer home the fierce fight between the Central Government at Delhi and some State Governments for banning Endosulfan, one of the cheapest pesticides available, is assuming international dimension with the recent Stockholm Convention recommending its ban once for all. The Government of Kerala which is in the forefront in campaigning for the ban of this chemical has graphic accounts of population in one of the districts with predominant cashew plantations suffering from a multitude of health problems, some of them proving to be fatal. While banning use of chemical pesticides is fraught with tremendous future implications vis-a-vis global food security, mankind has no other alternative but to look for alternative options as being done by the fossil fuel industry facing future energy insecurity.

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

BAN ON ANTIBIOTICS IN PIG FARMS-RELIEF FOR HOGS OR HUMANS?

By now the topic of antibiotic use by the animal food industry is becoming increasingly a partisan issue with the industry and the consumer groups taking diametrically opposite views about the desirability or other wise of such practices. With increasing evidence emerging in Europe and other countries regarding evolution of highly drug resistant bacterial versions, a real situation is emerging where humans are left with little choice to treat serious infectious diseases due to ineffectiveness of most of the antibiotics available to the medical community.

The USDA, which normally defends agribusiness interests, recently asserted at a congressional hearing that there is a link between antibiotic use in animals and drug resistance in humans. That statement put the department on the same page as the FDA and the government's public health experts, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By targeting only drugs used for growth promotion, the FDA plan doesn't go far enough for supporters of the House bill, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, which would follow the Danish example and end all non-therapeutic uses of medically important antibiotics. Drugs could only be given to ill animals. "If we want to truly preserve antibiotics for future generations ... then we need to look beyond growth promotion," said Laura Rogers, project director of the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming, an advocacy group. The drug manufacturers contend there's insufficient evidence that drug-resistance is leaping from livestock to consumers. "It does not happen enough that we can find it and measure it," Richard Carnevale, a vice president of the manufacturers' trade group, the Animal Health Institute, said in testimony to the House committee. "We cannot say it does not happen, but we can say it is uncommon." Scott Hurd, a veterinarian at Iowa State University who served in the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service under former President George W. Bush, has often defended the livestock industry. But he said he can't criticize the FDA's decision to restrict the use of medically important antibiotics as growth promoters. "Honestly, the days of the growth promoters are numbered," he said.

It is understandable that the manufacturers of antibiotics take the stand that there is insufficient scientific evidence to substantiate the view about drug resistance because of their pecuniary interest that makes them refute the scientific findings, though they ought to have in mind the safety of the consumers affected by this controversy. There is sufficient basis for the food safety authorities world over to put a stop to this unsafe practice by the industry. Antibiotics are better known as life saving drugs and it is common sense that they are allowed remain so.

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