Indian decision on GMO foods premature? Who will own the responsibility for health damages in future generations?

Genetically modified crops are mired in controversies during the last two decades with many questioning their safety at least in foods consumed every day. The fact that more than 80% of foods consumed in the US are either based on GM materials or contain one or more ingredients derived from GM materials does not confer legitimacy on its cultivation or production in other parts of the world. Because of the anti people attitude of the safety authorities in that country, biotech giants have been given a free ride and in spite of 90% of the consumers demanding clear labeling on food packs containing GM foods, there is no mandatory regulations yet in place, binding the industry to be transparent in label declaration. Those who advocate GM foods take the stand that the modified food is "substantially" same as the original one while those opposing point out the unpredictability vis-a-vis the new modified crop in terms of any safety hazard. That is why many impartial observers feel that conducting large scale human trials, in multiple centers through global cooperative endeavor, only can resolve this issue once for all. But such studies being time consuming and highly expensive the GMO industry is not willing to do that. Under such a situation the reported decision by GOI to permit trials of a few crops undergoing genetic modification in the Indian soil may be untimely. Here is a take on this contentious issue as per some reports. 

"21 new varities of genetically modified (GM) crops such as rice, wheat, maize and cotton have been approved for field trials by the Narendra Modi government, say reports. According to these reports, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) — consisting mostly of bio-technology supporters — rejected just one out of the 28 proposals up for consideration. Six proposals were rejected for want of more information. The move comes while the Supreme Court is in deliberation on the safety of GM crops. GM crops is a contentious issue in the nation as it faces opposition from activists who say it is dangerous for the environment and the health of its citizens. While backers say the high yielding GM crops can address hunger issues and also bring down prices of food and commodities.  The issue is also a political one with the BJP supporting growing GM food whilst the Congress opposing it. The then environment minister Jairam Ramesh had rejected a move to grow BT brinjals in 2010, with the BJP calling it a 'wrong' decision. Only Bt Cotton is allowed to be commercially grown in India till now."

Whatever is the reason that prompted GOI to permit field trials in India, there are strong indications that some GM crops could be of doubtful safety credentials. Some of the findings which are reported so far have highlighted the following risks which may or may not be true in all cases:

GM food can cause kidney problem, ovarian disease and obesity- according to some findings of Washington university in 2004. Pesticide methoxychlor used for crop protection produces symptoms of health damage after 3 generations. Atrazine-herbicide, another GM crop protectant produced in situ during the gene modification process, produced off springs with infertility, kidney and prostate problems, cancer, shortened life span with rats. It is a travesty of truth for a senior minister in the government, in charge of environment protection to declare in parliament that no scientific evidence exists regarding non-safety of GMO foods!. In some crops due to genetic manipulation specific chemicals with pesticidal properties are incorporated and it is suspected that these chemicals can show its damaging effect after 50-70 years. No human experiment showing absolute safety of GM foods has yet been carried out. Any health problem that exists to day and not diagnosed through current methods of testing may turn out later that it is due to consumption of GM foods. The famous Italian study on GM soya using rats,over a duration of 24 months found undesirable changes in their liver, pancreas and testes. Another study in Australia in 2008 showed low fertility, low body weight in rats fed on GM foods while similar studies in Russia showed significant stunted growth and unusually high mortality.  In 2012 French scientist researching on GM corn for two years found that it caused mammary cancer, liver and kidney diseases. Alarmingly in the UK scientists observed that transgenic genes have the ability to get into the blood stream across the GI tract indicating the dangers inherent in consuming GM foods containing such genes. These findings, though not very substantial or conclusive, still raises some concern and unless safety studies with humans are carried out to prove these apprehensions are real, GM food production must be kept in abeyance.

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

Mechanical tenderization of meat-Safety apprehensions not addressed on priority

Meat products happened to be one of the most frequently contaminated foods in the US market and in spite of stiff guidelines and regulatory controls food poisoning incidences are becoming a constant source of concern to the safety authorities in that country. The industry is also mired in controversy on account of the frequent use of popular antibiotics in the feeds, contented to be for increasing the body weight of the animals during the growth stage. Obviously the antibiotics residues are bound to be in the meat derived from such animals and consequently incidence of infection can be expected to be less frequent. Still contaminated meat products make news in the US more and more frequently and there is considerable apprehension among the consumers regarding consequences of consuming infected meat products. Added to this worry is the use of newer technologies like mechanized tenderization which theoretically can increase the potential for contamination if proper precautions are not taken. Repeated attempts by consumer activists to force the meat industry to distinguish mechanically tenderized from conventionally processed products are being resisted by the processors and the safety agency seems to be willingly playing into the hands of the meat industry lobby by delaying the mandatory labeling requirement under one pretext or the other. Here is a take on this issue.

"For more than a decade, consumer groups and the U.S. federal government have been discussing the food safety concerns surrounding mechanically tenderized beef — steaks or other whole cuts that have been mechanically punctured with needles or knives to make them more tender for consumers. In the U.S., roughly one-quarter of whole beef cuts are mechanically tenderized. Mechanical tenderization of beef poses health risks because it transfers potential pathogens from the surface of the meat down into the center If the cuts are cooked rare or not thoroughly enough, the pathogens in the center may go on to sicken the consumer. A number of foodborne illness outbreaks have been connected to mechanically tenderized beef in recent years, including the 2012 outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 in Canada from XL Foods, which resulted in the largest beef recall in Canadian history. According to USA Today, at least five outbreaks in the U.S. have recently been attributed to mechanically tenderized beef, resulting in 174 confirmed illnesses and four deaths. The problem with tenderized beef is that without a label, it's impossible to tell whether or not a cut of meat has been tenderized, said Patricia Buck, executive director of the Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention (CFI). Anyone who might want to take extra precautions to avoid E. coli or other pathogens in their steak has no way to identify the additional risk without a label. That's especially concerning for children, the elderly, or any other consumers with weaker immune systems, Buck said. In a federal register notice from June 2013, the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) estimated that E. coli illnesses from mechanically tenderized beef ranged between 587 and 4,657 each year. Labeling that beef could prevent an estimated 133 to 1,497 of those illnesses, the agency said, which would translate into roughly $1.5 million in economic benefits from avoided illnesses each year. "When we're trying to reduce the prevalence of foodborne illness, labeling mechanically tenderized beef is one quick fix that has an actual impact," Buck said.'

It is not understandable as to why the industry is so fiercely opposing such consumer friendly labeling system forgetting that the very foundation of its business is built upon confidence and trust between them. Same trend is seen in the case of GM foods also where repeated attempts by the consumer organizations to label them are being rebuffed by the industry through means which cannot be considered fair. industry may claim that their products are perfectly safe but it is the inalienable right of the consumer to know what he is buying and therefore if he wants to know if the meat is mechanically tenderized he must know about it to take a decision to buy or not. If the law says irradiated foods, considered absolutely safe, need labeling why not mechanically tenderized meat products also? Further prevarication by the safety agencies cannot be condoned at all. 

V.H.POTTY

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

"REVOLT AND REVULSION" AGAINST GM FOODS-CAN IT BE SUSTAINED?

The mass movement against production of genetically modified food crops is assuming critical proportion if recent reports about global protests organized against the perpetrators of these foods are to be believed. Though there is no substantial evidence about the so called advantages of GM crops, the "innovators" and developers of the GM seeds maintain that there is no evidence of any danger caused by their seeds. It is pointed out that more than 80% of foods eaten by the Americans to day contain GM food ingredients and the population there is still "surviving", though most of them are obese and disease stricken! One of the tall claims made by the monopolistic seed companies is that GM technology increases crop yield and therefore is imperative for meeting future food needs. This is a canard and safety authorities in the US are closing their eyes to the long term dangers posed by these "nature tampered" products! Here is the latest development vis-a-vis the universal anti-GM food sentiments across the world.

"Two million people marched Saturday across the United States and in more than 50 other countries in a protest against seed giant Monsanto aimed at calling attention to dangers posed by genetically modified food that it and other companies produce. Founder and organizer Tami Canal said protests were held in 436 cities in 52 countries. Genetically modified plants are grown from seeds that are engineered to resist insecticides and herbicides, add nutritional benefits or otherwise improve crop yields and increase the global food supply. Most corn, soybean and cotton crops grown in the United States today have been genetically modified. But some say genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment. The use of GMOs has been a growing issue of contention in recent years, with health advocates pushing for mandatory labeling of genetically modified products even though the federal government and many scientists say the technology is safe. The 'March Against Monsanto' movement began just a few months ago, when Canal created a Facebook page on Feb. 28 calling for a rally against the company's practices. "If I had gotten 3,000 people to join me, I would have considered that a success," she said Saturday. Instead, two million responded to her message. Together with Seattle blogger and activist Emilie Rensink and Nick Bernabe of Anti-Media.org, Canal worked with A Revolt.org ditigal anarchy to promote international awareness of the event. She called the turnout "incredible," and credited social media for being a vehicle for furthering opportunities for activism. Despite the size of the gatherings, Canal said she was grateful that the marches were uniformly peaceful and no arrests have been reported."

GM food companies are citing the support of people to their products as manifested by the narrow defeat of a proposal in November last in California for mandatory labeling of foods containing GM ingredients. What is not told is that the organized GM food industry invested $ 45 million to "brainwash" the electorate into believing that GM foods are "substantially" same as the natural counterpart from which they are evolved. The FDA of the US, not considered truly independent in taking citizen friendly policy decisions, being in the grip of the GM lobby and its political supporters, will never be pardoned for this condescending attitude if the future of American citizens is jeopardized in any way because of its lack of concern for their safety and indirect support to the GM food industry. Even the present President will not be spared for his broken promise about mandatory labeling of GM foods made during his election campaign. One can only hope that the new vigor with which the people are fighting the GM food lobby may eventually succeed.

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

ECO-LABELING-CONFUSION WORST CONFOUNDED!

India is a large country with 1.2 billion plus population with diverse culture and economic standards. Any thing to be done on a pan-India scale is fraught with insurmountable problems and only dedication, commitment, perseverance and high investment can show positive result at the ground level. In spite of good intentions and massive investments, the income gap between the rich and the poor is widening and poor people in the country are increasingly being mired in endless miseries and agony which do not seem to give them much hope about their future. Food is an area where the country has done reasonably well, at least with regard to production of staple grains like wheat and rice. Of course the story of oil seeds and pulses is one of many missed opportunities and billions of rupees are being spent to bring these foods from out side the country every year. The onus on the government to protect the food supply is indeed awesome and the special purpose vehicle created for the country's food safety is still in its formative stage trying to prove its mettle during the last 5 years. Unfortunately this outfit under the name Food Standards and Safety Authority (FSSAI) has been created with a heavy bureaucratic structure with doubtful capability for showing any dynamism at the ground level. As this agency is heavily dependent on the state governments with no authority to enforce its writ, the policies often do not get implemented. Here is a take on this important area of concern to the Indian citizen, viz how food is the food taken by him!

"
The agency is working to bring on board about 55 million people engaged in various food businesses and register them with the organisation by February 2014, Chandramouli said. Currently, only one million licences have been issued to food and beverage operators. To check and maintain food standards, FSSAI is in the process of setting up testing laboratories, he said. "Our aim is to have at least one laboratory in each state initially. Later, we plan it to increase this to at least one lab for every 20 districts in the next five years," he added. There are currently 72 government laboratories, which are to be upgraded during this period. Simultaneously, 33 new such testing centres will be set up. On food imports, Chandramouli said: "Our country imports lot of food items now. Though there is no fixed figure available, but Rs2-3 lakh crore of foods come to India every year." "We don't have food and safety standards in the country which deal with food products across the spectrum. For this, we need to get the state governments and other stakeholders on board," Chandramouli said, adding implementation of the FSSAI Act continues to remain a challenge".

The above report laments about lack of allocation of funds to FSSAI during the 12th Plan and one is afraid that this could as well become an excuse for non-performance or under performance.It is common knowledge that the quality of food made in India and imported at great cost is suspect because of grossly under developed infrastructure and shortage of critical personnel to run the monitoring program sincerely and effectively. With legal system delaying trials of food fraudsters for years, many are able to get away with blatant violations of existing laws and wide spread adulteration.  One of the excuses trotted out for under performance is lack of standards available to enforce but this argument cannot be sustained when it is realized that international standards under FAO-WHO as well by different global organizations are in place for thousands of foods which can easily be adopted till domestic-specific ones are evolved. FSSAI seems to be over obsessed with licensing and wants more than 55 million food handlers to be brought into its licensing system! Is it practical? What next after registration? Does it have adequate capability to undertake surveillance of these players regularly? Millions of home scale processors, cottage units and micro enterprises cannot be expected to register with FSSAI which is both time consuming and cumbersome. Since the retailers who sell the food articles are all licensed by local civic authorities, it is easier to make them accountable vis-a-vis quality of food sold by them. The onus of selling safe food must be put on these retailers who must be punished if he peddles bad food even unintentionally. Such an environment will starve the fraudsters of a market eventually. No doubt a body like FSSAI is a necessity for the country but it must be made to work hard and diligently for the welfare of the common man.  

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

AT LAST AN ANGEL APPEARS FOR TRANSPARENCY IN LABELING IN THE US!

By now world over it has become a common belief that the fight between the consumer and the Biotech Industry turning out monstrous GM foods is an unequal one and the latter can never win this "war" for justice. It was only recently that Californian voters were "bribed" through a 45 million dollar brain washing blitzkrieg to defeat narrowly an innocuous proposition calling for mandatory declaration of use of GM ingredients in food products like all other countries in this planet do! Massive march of common men and women from New York to Washington D C last year to appeal/beg/beseech their President to ask the food industry to come clean on use of controversial GM food ingredients in American foods seems to have no effect on the politicians in that country who are under the mesmerizing influence of the Biotech industry! Against such a background the bold decision taken by a large food retailer in that country to break ranks with the apologists of GM foods is music to the ears of millions of American citizens who are overly concerned about the health of the future generations fed on a wide spectrum of GM foods. Here is a take on this important development.

"A. C. Gallo, president of Whole Foods, said the new labeling requirement, to be in place within five years, came in response to consumer demand. "We've seen how our customers have responded to the products we do have labeled," Mr. Gallo said. "Some of our manufacturers say they've seen a 15 percent increase in sales of products they have labeled." Genetically modified ingredients are deeply embedded in the global food supply, having proliferated since the 1990s. Most of the corn and soybeans grown in the United States, for example, have been genetically modified. The alterations make soybeans resistant to a herbicide used in weed control, and causes the corn to produce its own insecticide. Efforts are under way to produce a genetically altered apple that will spoil less quickly, as well as genetically altered salmon that will grow faster. The announcement ricocheted around the food industry and excited proponents of labeling. "Fantastic," said Mark Kastel, co-director of the Cornucopia Institute, an organic advocacy group that favors labeling. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, the trade group that represents major food companies and retailers, issued a statement opposing the move. "These labels could mislead consumers into believing that these food products are somehow different or present a special risk or a potential risk," Louis Finkel, the organization's executive director of government affairs, said in the statement. Mr. Finkel noted that the Food and Drug Administration, as well as regulatory and scientific bodies including the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association, had deemed genetically modified products safe. The labeling requirements announced by Whole Foods will include its 339 stores in the United States and Canada. Since labeling is already required in the European Union, products in its seven stores in Britain are already marked if they contain genetically modified ingredients. The labels currently used show that a product has been verified as free of genetically engineered ingredients by the Non GMO Project, a nonprofit certification organization. The labels Whole Foods will use in 2018, which have yet to be created, will identify foods that contain such ingredients".

It takes courage and conviction to swim against the tide and the action of this retail chain is all the more praise worthy considering the stakes involved. Of course they are truthful in stating that their action is guided by the desire of most of their customers who wanted such labeling and their business is expected to expand by 15% within a short span of time. One point that may disappoint some is the time frame given viz 5 years to bring about this changed policy. It has to be admitted that unilateral action in putting GM label on products made by hundreds of suppliers is not an easy task and the 5 year time frame appears to be reasonable if this aspect is considered. The unfortunate American consumer must be happy that such a trend is visible during their life time, after giving up any hope that the GM food industry would ever oblige them by making the labeling truly transparent as the law has intended.

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

GM FOOD LABELING-THE WAR IS HOTTING UP!

The mandatory "front of the pack labeling" is intended to respect the right of every citizen to know what is inside a food pack and compare the same with what is offered by others in the market. Almost all countries have labeling regulations with little variations but basically the objectives remain the same. While consumers whole heartedly welcomed such initiatives for the benefit of the community at large, it is the industry which consistently and aggressively resists such regulations, fearing an adverse impact on its financial health. If food industry appears on the wrong side of the consumer family it is because of such gross insensitivity to the well being and sufferings of the very consumers who after all provide its "bread and butter". The on-going war on mandatory GM labeling policy being put on the ballot initiative in California, USA for eliciting majority opinion is being furiously resisted by the industry and millions of dollars are being invested to defeat the proposal. It is very difficult to imagine the reason for such a negative attitude of the industry, considering that what is being asked from them is to declare if their products contain genetically altered ingredients. After all there are many processors who do not use GM ingredients in their products and an opportunity "window" opens up for the consumer to buy those products if labeling is insisted upon. Here is an interesting critique on the subject and consumers all over the will be looking for a massive endorsement of the policy initiative in California.

"This November, Californians will vote for or against Prop 37, the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act. The outcome of that vote will likely determine whether the U.S. will one day join the nearly 50 other countries that allow their citizens to choose between genetically engineered and non-genetically engineered food through the enactment of laws requiring mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms(GMOs). The election is three months away, but the battle lines were drawn months ago. Lining up against the consumer's right to know — and throwing plenty of money into the fight — is a long list of industry front groups, food conglomerates and biotech companies. Near the top of that list is the powerful Washington, DC-based Grocery Manufacturer's Association (GMA), a multi-billion-dollar trade association. The GMA represents America's $1.2 trillion "Big Food" industry, led by supermarket chains, Monsanto and other biotech companies, animal drug companies, multinational food manufacturers, and junk food restaurants — all of whom rely on the use of dangerous chemicals, pesticides, animal drugs, and GMOs to produce cheap, contaminated food".

One natural question that arises out of the above situation is why the industry is opposing the transparency sought to be achieved through the new labeling policy when there are divergent views regarding the safety and environment dangers posed by GM foods. If irradiated foods, with tons of safety studies concluding that they are safe, needs to be labeled under American law, why not GM foods? A logical question that must replied by those opposing GM labeling proposal. It is amusing to note the stand taken by the antagonists of the proposed policy of compulsory labeling regarding the impact of such a move on the future of Biotechnology as if this modern wonder science is restricted to only developing GM foods! One important consideration about this issue is regarding the logistical difficulties that may arise once California voters approve the proposal because California is one of the 50 states in the US and food industry will have to either declare GM foods for entire country or separate labels need to be printed on products made and marketed in that state. Probably Food and Drug Administration deserves blame for this dilemma as this agency has shirked its responsibility by not passing such a law with national foot print, applicable to the entire country, probably bowing to the lobbying power of the GM food industry giants..

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

GM FOODS-THE GREAT LABELING WAR!

Labeling regulations which are in force in many countries have been evolved to provide useful information to consumers regarding the nature of foods sold, its nutritive value, expiration date, price per unit and any others of relevance. The system currently in vogue has served admirably in most cases though there are rumblings from some quarters seeking more information about the foods marketed. The information provided is mostly confined to the products and no one questions the nature of technology used to prepare the foods. One of the exceptions to this rule was made in the case of irradiated foods where some countries insist on declaring irradiation process on the label. The endless campaign to compel the food industry to declare whether a particular food is made through genetic engineering technology or whether the product contains ingredients made by genetic manipulation is running its course in countries like the US where a massive procession was taken out by antagonists of GM foods to the Office of the President of that country demanding compulsory labeling of such foods. This is a very controversial subject with no unanimity regarding the safety of GM foods on a long term basis with opponents and supporters marshaling "evidence" in support of their stand. While the food safety authorities in the US has not changed its stand taken in 1992 that GM products are safe to consume, there are many states which are taking initiatives to force their local governments to impose such labeling restrictions. The State of California, considered one of the most progressive states in the US is considering  compulsory labeling regulations based on a referendum to be carried out soon to seek people's view. If passed by a majority, no food industry can sell any product containing GM food ingredients in that state. It will be interesting to watch the developing situation which will shape the future of GM foods in the US. Here is take on this controversial subject.     

Voters will soon decide whether to make California the first state in the country to require labels on products such as sweet corn whose genes have been altered to make them resistant to pests. Proposition 37 promises to set up a big-money battle pitting natural food businesses and activists against multinational companies including PepsiCo,Coca-Cola and Kellogg. Backers and opponents have already raised nearly $4 million combined for campaigns to sway voters, an amount that's likely to swell into the tens of millions of dollars as the November election approaches. So-called GMO foods — those made from genetically modified organisms — have been declared safe by U.S. regulators. But concern persists about the unforeseen consequences of this laboratory tinkering on human health and the environment. The outcome in California could rattle the entire U.S. food chain. An estimated 70% to 80% of processed foods sold in supermarkets could be affected, industry experts said, along with a variety of fresh fruits and vegetables. The measure qualified for the California ballot with nearly 1 million signatures; labeling in the state could set a precedent that's followed nationwide. "This will be a big fight," said Shaun Bowler, a UC Riverside political scientist specializing in initiatives. "This is a popular issue because people are very afraid of the words 'genetically engineered.' And the people who sell this stuff are worried about losing sales." Backers of the initiative are encouraged by a pair of recent national opinion surveys showing that about 9 out of 10 consumers support labeling. A California-specific poll, released Thursday by the Business Roundtable and the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, showed Proposition 37 has an almost 3-to-1 ratio of support, with 64.9% of prospective voters favoring it, compared with 23.9% opposed. 

Why the US alone is resisting this labeling demand is some what unclear though strong lobbying by GM food giants with billions of dollars at stake may be behind this anachronism. Over 50 countries have compulsory labeling rule for GM foods and nothing untoward has happened during the last few years such restrictions were in force. The fact that GM food labeling controversy has become a political foot ball match between the States and the Federal Government is making the situation more dicey. It is not clear how similar propositions to label GM foods never got majority support in some 20 states where balloting had taken place during the last few years. Whether California balloting will break with the past remains to be seen but if pre-referendum polls of overwhelming support from the people, are to be believed, food industry in the US will have to work out a different strategy to market their food products in that state since  almost 80% of foods in that country are based on GM ingredients.

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

HOW NATURAL IS NATURAL? A NEW DILEMMA!

With the consumers disenchanted with the processed foods that dominate the market, food industry seems to be changing its strategy to retain the customer base through new labeling tricks. Every one likes everything that is natural. Right? Here is where the industry finds solace and a new approach in marketing is emerging. It is the fear of the unknown that drives people to natural foods and this is also the basis on which organic food industry is flourishing to day. If the FDA of the US is to be relied upon a food can be called natural if no added color, flavor or synthetic substances but whether such a simplistic view can satisfy the aspirations of the consumer vis-a-vis the term natural. A critical question that begs an answer is what if a natural food undergoes modern day processing when some additives like thickeners, sugar, salt, etc are added? If a natural juice is to be produced what one has to do is just squeezing the edible portion of the fruit to get the juice but to get uniformity of the product, derived from fruits of different sweetness, color and flavor, industry is forced to add certain ingredients, mostly natural substances which does not affect the original quality in any way. While this may be perfectly in order what is being objected to is to use the word "natural" on the label. Why not blend juices of different lots to make the final product really natural with minimum quality variation. In the US where there is a powerful legal lobby, such a situation provides an opportunity to haul the industry to the courts for mislabeling. Here is a take on this subject which provides an interesting insight into the working of food industry in that country.    

"In approximately 20 lawsuits, the first one filed in New Jersey, lawyers claim the company adds chemically engineered "flavor packs" to its juice, making it taste the same year-round. On Thursday, lawyers will come together in Washington to argue before a panel of judges about where the lawsuits should be heard as a group. Tropicana declined to comment but said in a statement that it is committed to full compliance with labeling laws and to producing "great-tasting 100 percent orange juice." The orange juice lawsuits are just the latest disputes over "all natural" claims. Over the past several years, a number of major national brands have been attacked for what consumers have called deceptive labeling. Tostidos, SunChips, Snapple and Ben & Jerry's ice cream have all faced similar attacks. The lawsuits have become common enough that the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents more than 300 food and beverage makers, had a panel that discussed the topic as part of a conference in February. Lawyers representing food and beverage companies have told their clients to be wary. Part of the problem, lawyers agree, is that consumers are looking for healthier products, and companies have responded by creating and branding their products as "all natural." The Food and Drug Administration, the agency that oversees packaged food labeling in the United States, has no definition of what counts as "natural." As long as a food labeled "natural" doesn't contain added color, artificial flavor or synthetic substances, the agency doesn't object. That's not enough guidance, some lawyers said. "The whole natural issue is a mess," said Michael Jacobson, the executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based food safety and advocacy group that helped get the makers of 7UP and Capri Sun to stop making natural claims about their products. Jacobson and others say the FDA's lack of guidance has left lingering questions. One question has been whether a product with high fructose corn syrup, which is made by processing corn but does not occur naturally, can be labeled natural. That was the issue in a 2007 lawsuit over Snapple drinks. Snapple has said it no longer uses high fructose corn syrup in products marked "all natural," and a New York judge ultimately ruled in Snapple's favor and closed the case last year, but other lawsuits are still questioning the use of the term".

Labeling on front of the package is an important means of informing the consumer about the nature of the contents inside the sealed pack which is a constitutional right of every citizen under freedom of information provision. Consumer reposes so much confidence on the government of the land to protect their rights and violation of this trust ought to be frowned upon. If the industry is allowed to get away with breaking this trust, hauling them before the judiciary is a perfectly valid action. On the other hand allowing the legal attorneys to entice the consumer to go to court to extract fat compensation on silly score also cannot be justified. In the present case one is not sure whether using the term natural on juices without adding water or other unnecessary additives is such a crime deserving judicial intervention. Industry must also introspect as to the need to use the term indiscriminately as long as the product conforms to the standards laid down in the statute books. what the regulators can do is to tighten the standards without giving any scope for misinterpretation by the industry.

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

MORE TRANSPARENCY IN MEAT LABELING-NEW US INITIATIVE

It has been a mystery as to why meat products made in the US never had labels declaring the nutritional content while all packed foods carried such information on the front of the pack  conspicuously. Interestingly most safety episodes that occurred in the country had their origin in the meat packing houses, probably because of failure to follow strictly the recommended slaughtering and handling practices by the industry. While nutrient composition may not have anything to do with product safety per se, it still serves the purpose of persuading the consumers to ponder over the implications of consuming meat products because of the presence in them of cholesterol and saturated fat besides total lack of fiber. It is gratifying to see that the above anomaly is sought to be rectified by the authorities concerned through mandatory notification. Here is a take on this development.   

"US consumers will now have convenient access to important nutritional information about the raw meat and poultry products they most frequently purchase, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Under a new FSIS rule, packages of ground or chopped meat and poultry, such as hamburger or ground turkey, will now feature nutrition facts panels on their labels. Additionally, 40 of the most popular whole, raw cuts of meat and poultry, such as chicken breast or steak, will also have nutritional information either on the package labels or on display to consumers at the store. "Providing nutrition information on meat and poultry products in the store gives shoppers a clearer sense of the options available, allowing them to purchase items that are most appropriate for their families' needs," said Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Elisabeth Hagen. "These new labels mark a significant step in the agency's efforts to help consumers make more informed food purchase decisions."  The new nutrition facts panels will list the number of calories and the grams of total fat and saturated fat that a product contains. For example, consumers will be able to compare the calories and fat content for ground turkey versus ground beef, or for pork chops versus chicken breasts, right in the store. Additionally, a ground or chopped product that includes on its label a lean percentage statement, such as "85% lean," and is not considered "low in fat" also will list its fat percentage, making it easier for consumers to understand the amounts of lean and fat content in a particular product. Consumers will no longer have to guess which products fit their diets". 

The anomaly in the food safety monitoring system in the US can be attributed to the fact that two distinct agencies are involved dealing with safety aspects, USDA and FDA and synchronization of the rules between them is happening too slowly allowing the meat and poultry industry to take liberty with the quality and safety of products they make. Besides inadequate inspection of processing facilities due to shortage of qualified personnel is great handicap faced by the enforcement agency concerned. Politicking with food safety between the two major parties is adding further uncertainty to the situation. While one party is totally aligned with and committed to the interests of food industry over riding consumer concerns, the other is not bold enough to think or plan any thing to resist the lobbyists who exercise enormous influence on the political class in general. The new mandatory labeling regulations for meat products therefore can be considered a huge success to the harried citizens of this country. 

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

ORGANIC FOODS-NEED FOR A NEW APPROACH

Organic foods market is on a steady climb and can be expected to become a significant player in a few years to come. The major reason for people patronizing this version of food is because of apprehensions about the risks posed by the main stream food industry which is being hauled up for a series of serious safety violations requiring massive recalls of many suspected consignments from the market. The organic food certification is a complex procedure involving frequent checking and monitoring and like any human endeavor certification agencies can be vulnerable to mismanagement and some times manipulation causing some serious concern. It is a tribute to China that it is trying to make the organic certification process as transparent as possible to infuse more confidence among consumers, especially the international buyers. If the policy orchestrated recently is implemented organic foods from China may become darling of the prospective buyers. Here is a take on this development in that country.

"A senior staff member from one of China's 23 official certification bodies, who spoke on condition of anonymity, disclosed that
a new national standard will be unveiled in March to ease the chaos. The standard will include four important changes from 

the original, in 2005. This staff member has been working in organic food certification for about eight years. He said the first two changes

will concern the transition period, akin to probation, when a farm applies for the certification of land. It lasts for 24 or 36 months, 

depending on the crops grown there, and farms must begin following organic practices three or four months before the transition period.

Under the current standard, as soon as farms enter the transition, they can obtain yellow certification, indicating their products are moving

toward organic.Green certification is granted only if the farm passes probation. "The problem with this stage is that, under the current

standard, a farm can get a transition period certificate, even if it only stopped applying chemicals on the crops three or four months

earlier,"the senior staff member said. Under revised procedures, no certificates will be issued in the first 12 months of transition.

"That is to say, the farm will have to stop using chemicals for at least 15 months before it can receive a yellow certificate," he said.

Also, farmers will not be allowed to label their products "organic transition food", which has been used to denote food that was better

than ordinary but not as good as organic.The staff member also said the new regulations will set the acceptable level of pesticide residue

at zero.The current standard allows "one-20th of that found in ordinary food".

China can do well with some image make over after a series of food adulteration episodes that has shaken the confidence on its reliability and safety and this has caused some erosion of its food export business. China has a better chance of enforcing harsh control regimes to safeguard the image of its industry and there is no reason this new initiative will not succeed though corruption and corruptible enforcement officials can still derail the program. Probably other countries may have a lesson to learn from China in initiating such new novel features in the regulatory regime.

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

FOOD IMPORTS-LOGICAL REFORMS

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

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

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


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

THE GM "MONSTER" BEING REVISITED-AMERICAN CONSUMER SAGA!"

The GM controversy has a checkered history ever since the technology bursted on the scene about two decades ago. The million dollar question being asked to day is whether foods created through GMO are really safe for long term consumption by human beings. At least one country and its government, seem to be believing that they are safe and had the audacity to clear many GM foods which have entered the main stream industry surreptitiously without the consumer being aware of it. It is appalling that more than 80% of the processed foods in the US contain GM food ingredient without carrying any label declaration to inform the consumers under the "Right to Know" principle enshrined in the Constitution. A new awareness seems to be emerging among the population there that they are being "defrauded" through concealment of the fact about GM foods in different processed products and one can expect more fierce campaigns in future by the people to force the hands of the government there. Here is a take on this latest development in the GM food front from the country which will have to answer to the world if there are any serious long term consequences arising out of thousands of GM crops being popularized by its Transnational companies with vested interest!

"In a February 1992 memo, Louis J. Pribyl, Ph.D., a scientist in the FDA's Microbiology Group, critiqued a draft of the policy by writing, "There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering which is just glanced over in this document." Dr. Pribyl added that "several aspects of gene insertion may be more hazardous than traditional plant crossbreeding." In a January 1992 memo, Linda Kahl, Ph.D., an FDA compliance officer, emphasized the lack of scientific data to recognize the safety of GM foods. "Are we asking the scientific experts to generate the basis for this policy statement in the absence of any data?" she asked. "There is no data that could quantify risk." E.J. Matthews, Ph.D., of the FDA's Toxicology group, warned in an October 1991 memo, "genetically modified plants could also contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants." According to Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, "Numerous agency experts protested that drafts of the statement of policy were ignoring the recognized potential for genetic engineering to produce unexpected toxins and allergens. But the policy was put into effect despite their scientific judgment that no GM foods can be presumed safe."

There are three aspects of GM foods which continue to be ignored by those who promote them. First about the right to know if the food is made differently. Second about safety of these foods for consumption in the long term. Third about environmental impact due to uncontrolled propagation of these products evolved through genetic engineering. Even if the two latter aspects about safety and environment are not clearly brought out through unanimous scientific evidence, still the first one regarding labeling should be insisted on leaving the choice to the consumer based on individual consumer perception. If irradiated foods are forced to declare the process on the label, why not the GM foods? A valid and relevant question indeed and the safety agency in the US must give a credible answer before long if the current campaigns assume a mass flavor in the coming years!

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

LABELING UNDER "TRAFFIC LIGHT" SYSTEM-WILL IT BE EQUITABLE TO ALL?

The million dollar question that haunts the consumers and policy makers world over is whether the existing food labeling practices really serve the purpose for which it is intended and if not what further needs to be done. If the label declarations are meant to fulfill the "right to know" obligation by the processing industry, the present label declarations can be considered adequate and nothing more needs to be done. However the ever growing obesity epidemic that is being witnessed in may affluent countries casts a shadow regarding the "effectiveness" of communication between the consumer and the industry. Why do people continue to consume high calorie, high fat, high salt containing foods though their levels in the product are declared on front of the label in a legible manner? Could it be because many consumers, some illiterate and others inattentive, fail to understand the implications of consuming such foods? Probably the advocates promoting the graphic depiction mode to be included in the label have most of such consumers in mind and their case is that color coded safety signals may catch attention more easily than facts and figures conveyed at present. While the UK has promoted such a system, the EU did not want the same to be introduced in its member countries. Australia wants to include the traffic light system as a mandatory practice for food industry in the country though the industry is opposing it tooth and nail. Here is a report about the turmoil that is prevailing in that country on this issue.

"Food industry groups such as the Australian Food and Grocery Council and key players in the sugar industry oppose the traffic light system -- which imposes green, amber and red indicators based on fat, sugar and salt contents in food -- arguing that it could turn consumers away from some natural products such as milk, which contains fat and saturated fat, or fruit juice, which contains natural sugar. The Nationals' conference in Canberra at the weekend passed a resolution against the traffic light system after Queensland senator Ron Boswell produced examples that gave sultanas three green lights and a red light for sugar -- the same as for confectionery. The examples produced by the food and grocery council also show milk scores three amber lights -- for fat, saturated fat and sugar -- and a green light for salt. Coca-Cola scores green lights for fat, saturated fat and salt, and a red light for sugar. While sections of the food industry are opposed to the move, recommended in the January food labelling report by former federal health minister Neal Blewett, consumer group Choice and public health advocates are strongly in favour of it".

It is true that there are incongruities in the system which is based on the levels of sugar, fat, salt, fiber etc as being pointed out by its opponents and these are to be addressed before it can become universally acceptable. How can a soft drink like Coca Cola can get a green light while natural apple juice attracts the red color? If this system can be refined and some of these anomalies are rectified there is no reason why the traffic light system cannot work reasonably well to equip the consumer to make wise choices while going through the retail market isles. One may recall the red or green "dot" sign appearing in the food packets manufactured in India which has high relevance in a country like India where vegetarianism predominates and millions of Indians are grateful to the industry for introducing such a system enabling them to buy more processed foods with confidence. Same way traffic light system can also be a boon to many consumers if properly designed and practiced.

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