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

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

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

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

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

How does Indian food safety vigilance compare with that of USA?

If number of violations and indictments for the same in the food safety area is compared between the US and India, probably we may get some solace that this country is in a better position, especially if health damages from such foods are kept in view. But scratching the surface further, we can realize that such solace is totally out of place because of massive deficiencies in our data base and relatively tough "bellies" Indians have, practically immune to many infectious food borne pathogens. There are neither regular inspections, nor massive product calls nor fast indictment of violators in our country. Can we say with any degree of confidence that any food or water consumed in our country is safe as measured by international standards? Take for example our water supply systems in metro areas. There is no city or town in the country which can assure its citizens that its so called protected water delivery system can pass the safety test where as in a country like the US even water from a toilet tap is relatively safe! Recently there has been some move by the law makers in the US to bring about further improvements in the safety vigilance system there which is commendable. Here is a take on this new initiatives being attempted to overhaul the food inspection machinery that is operating in that country.

"U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is asking the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to increase the number of food facility inspections it performs and deal out greater fines to facilities found to have unsanitary conditions. He also called for an "easily accessible, real-time" source of information for restaurants and consumers who want to know about the conditions of the facilities that produce or warehouse their food.According to a press release from Schumer's office on Monday, in 2014, FDA cited more than 90 food warehouses and other facilities around the country for unsanitary conditions, including rat infestations. Food from those facilities could pose a public health threat, Schumer said. The press release cited a number of examples of facilities that received warnings, including a Brooklyn-based food warehouse containing rodent carcasses and feces, as well as insects at a rice producer and dead mice and rats at a cookie-production facility.FDA currently inspects "high risk" food facilities once every three years, while other facilities are inspected even less often. Even facilities with minor problems should be inspected more often than once every three years, he said.
Schumer outlined a three-part plan he feels would rectify seemingly widespread problems with food facility sanitation:
    1. More inspections. Any facility with problems that merit a warning letter from FDA should be immediately categorized as "high risk." FDA should also increase the number of inspections for high-risk facilities. When facilities provide evidence that they are no longer high risk, they return to a lower classification.
    2. Searchable database of problematic facilities. Restaurants and consumers need a clearer way to tell whether or not they're receiving food from clean facilities. "The FDA should provide an easy to find, search and navigate database of these facilities and their violations on their website or through another forum FDA believes can most effectively inform consumers," the press release stated.
    3. Increased penalties for violations. For fiscal year 2015, the fees associated with re-inspections of problematic facilities were estimated at $217 per hour. That's not a heavy enough fine to encourage strict compliance with food safety regulations, Schumer said."

What is very interesting is the relatively high level of awareness about the problems of consumers vis-a-vis food safety among the law makers and the extent of their involvement in consumer protection programs of the country. In contrast our law makers, if we go by their standards of behavior in the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha or state legislatures, have no time for any thing but shouting, demonstrations, personal fights and many non-issues of total irrelevance to the needs of the citizen. Bills are enacted into law with hardly any discussions and implementation details are rarely worked out. To day's Food Security Act is nothing but a sham, "managed" wholly by the hardened bureaucrats with very little commitment or honest objective. In a country of scarcities in every food category and high prices, probably people may have to build dedicated temples for the "Food God" to protect them from food fraudsters and criminals with very little concern or value for the lives of ordinary people and offer prayers regularly!

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com