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

POWER OF INDUSTRY LOBBYING-THE US SITUATION

Food industry can be applauded for many of its pro-consumer activities including developing and offering new products that help millions of families to save precious time in the kitchen through the convenience factor built into such products. Unfortunately the confidence and trust reposed by the consumers on the sincerity of the industry seem to be disappearing fast during the last 2-3 decades as the same have been misused by the industry to build an economic clout unchallenged by any organized government in most countries and in that process indulge in many practices considered unsafe by dispassionate experts. Latest to come to surface is the blatant pressure exerted by the meat industry to allow them to use some chemicals which were banned earlier in the US. Here is a take on this tragic episode which can be a forerunner for many such pro active policies, hostile to the citizen but friendly to the industry for considerations other than merit.  

According to Courthouse News Service (CNS), sodium benzoate, sodium propionate, and benzoic acid will now be permissible for use in preserving and treating meat and poultry products, despite having been previously banned. FSIS has long been of the persuasion that major food corporations would attempt to use such additives to "conceal damage or inferiority in meat and poultry," but the agency's view has apparently changed. After Kraft submitted its own company-funded trials claiming that the three preservative chemicals are allegedly safe, and that they supposedly cannot be used to disguise sub par meat and poultry products, the USDA suddenly changed its mind about them. This is all according to its mouthpiece, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which made the announcement recently about the change. "Kraft submitted data collected from its in-plant trials and from scientific studies that show that these substances do not conceal damage or inferiority, or make products appear better or of greater value than they are under the proposed conditions of use," says FSIS.

The case of safety-suspect Genetically Modified foods still rankles millions of consumers as the industry is allowed to develop and market such foods without the consumer ever knowing about it through the front of the label declaration! There are many such instances, especially in the US where many law makers are beholden to the industry for favors shown to them during election time. The US government had the temerity to even give protection to the industry from legal challenges on what they do vis-a-vis GM foods! At this rate the food industry in this country may succeed in re-introducing many banned chemicals under the pretext that they are found safe under questionable in-house, biased research findings. Viewed against this the citizens in other developed countries like those in Europe, Japan or Canada are more fortunate in having governments much more sensitive to their interests than this "most powerful" county in the world!
  

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

GLOBAL CULTIVATION OF GM CROPS-FACTS OR FICTION?

That the GM food lobby will go to any extent to expand its influence is well known but its latest claim that GM technology can only increase the crop yield is a little far fetched. So far no scientific evidence had surfaced to prove that a GM variant of a particular agricultural crop can increase the yield though reducing damage to the crop from pests and insects may effectively give more yield in some crops. In other words the loss of food through GM crops can be reduced just like the use of chemical protectants which are considered environmentally toxic and hazardous. But there are other options like use of environment friendly natural crop protectants which have established their credentials through the explosive growth of organic crop industry all over the world. The following report is an interesting expose about GM crop technology and if this is to be believed all countries must follow the US which allows more than 30 GM food varieties and make their future secure from food scarcity!

"GM crops are being grown on over 1 billion hectares worldwide thanks in part to their higher yields. This news arrives immediately after the G20 meeting, where food security was high on the agenda. Moreover, high-level reports such as the recentForesight report on The Future of Food and Farming, have shown that agriculture will need to produce far more food in the coming years. European farmers could contribute even more to the fight against food insecurity if they had access to all the options that exist for farmers elsewhere. The latest figures on GM crop cultivation underline the commitment of farmers worldwide to employ technological breakthroughs to meet the world's need for food, while also decreasing carbon emissions, saving water, and gaining economic benefits. According to the latest report by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) in 2010, 15.4 million farmers planted over 148 million hectares of biotech crops in 29 countries, up by 10 % from 2009, when there were 14 million farmers and 134 million hectares. In Europe, the number of countries cultivating GM crops increased from 6 in 2009 to 8 in 2010, thanks to the authorization of a GM potato that is cultivated for industrial use by farmers in Sweden, Germany and Czech Republic. The number of hectares of the only other authorized GM crop in Europe, an insect-resistant GM maize, decreased slightly in Europe from 94,750 hectares in 2009 to 91,643 hectares, because of lower overall maize plantings. Carel du Marchie Sarvaas, EuropaBio's Director for Agricultural Biotechnology asserted, "The figures released today are excellent news for farmers and consumers worldwide. And yet, European farmers are only allowed to grow two GM crops, while farmers in the Americas are allowed to grow 30+ GM crops. This is a sad and unfair situation for European farmers."

It is a sad reflection that a supposedly democratic country like the US does not give its citizens the right to decide what food they eat by making no distinction between natural and GM crops in the food labels, though in majority of the cases environmental impact and safety to humans have never been established. The US consumer is some what lucky that they have an active judiciary which is responsive to consumer concerns by intervening by preventing unlimited cultivation of GM sugar beets and Alfa Alfa! The recent efforts by the GM technology giant Monsanto to make a back door entry to India through its GM Brinjal is too fresh in the memory of many concerned people and thanks to the eternal vigilance amongst a few consumer activist organizations, it is unlikely that GM crop cultivation will ever be on a viable scale in this country.

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

AN UNHOLY INFLUENCE ON HOLY PORTALS!-A DESPICABLE ACT

The recent Wikileaks expose of American double standards in dealing with other countries must be seen in the light of the unbridled power this country has been enjoying during the last two decades and it is a matter of speculation why this nation has frittered away the goodwill through arrogant behavior manifested in the cable messages from their embassies across the world. Whether these leaked out papers will pass muster from legal angle or not, they do serve a purpose in understanding the mindset of rich countries like the US towards other less fortunate counterparts in this planet. Leaving aside the political aspects, what strikes as odd is the pompous approach made by this country to the Christian religious Head at Rome to "canvas" for selling its GM technology to poor countries so that the giant US monopolies that sell dubious technologies make more money at the expense of poverty-ridden population of Africa, South America and Asia.

"US diplomats pushed the Roman Catholic Church to support biotech food in developing nations, according to secret U.S diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks. Efforts to push genetically modified (GM) crops globally extended even into the halls of the Vatican. Embassy cables in Spain, Austria and even Pakistan indicate that US diplomats stand with the biotech industry, although issues are still disputed in court and the public at large eyes the biotechnology dubiously, states a Truthout report. The leaked cable documents a meeting that took place with a U.S. diplomat, a USAID official and Catholic leaders in Rome to discuss biotech foods in 2005. The U.S. representatives reported afterward that the Vatican seemed more concerned about the potential of the biotechnology to entrap farmers into economic subjugation and rather accepted the biologically altered products themselves. US diplomats used the vocabulary of a "moral imperative," citing the need to feed growing populations as an argument useful to respond to opposition to the biotech food industry among Catholic activists and clergy".

It is well known that genetic manipulation of food crops through biotechnological tools can yield many disease resistant varieties but their safety is not yet established beyond a shadow of doubt. Age old technique of hybridization which helped to usher in the Green Revolution of nineteen sixties and seventies is considered akin to natural evolution but manipulation of the gene at the molecular level to evolve new varieties is fraught with unpredictable consequences. It is true that more than 80% of the American foods to day are derived from GM crops, though most consumers are unaware of it and in the short term nothing catastrophic has happened so far, except for the phenomenal health down turn the population there is experiencing during the last decade or so. Since no mandatory labeling is in force for distinguishing between natural and GM crops, the consumers are forced to accept these foods with no choice. The "imperial" power cannot expect other democratic countries to shove these GM foods through the throat of their population who may be famished but are proud of their freedom and human rights

V H Potty

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

POWER LOBBIES VS KNEELING POLICY MAKERS-MISFORTUNE OF A COUNTRY

The practice of lobbying is as old as the man himself and working through the power corridor to get what is desired by individuals and groups is not considered a crime under ant national or international law. But bribing those in power directly to influence legislation and derive unfair advantage is a crime that cannot be condoned. Unfortunately, the democratic system of government is easily susceptible to such distortions, detrimental to the interests of the honest tax paying denizens. More powerful the lobbying groups become, greater will be the damage to the society. In wealthy countries where industries are predominant playing an important role in the day to day life of the denizens, many government policies are shaped by the varying interests of the organized industries with undesirable consequences. Here is a scenario drawn from the US, a country being literally run by the lobbyists, as portrayed by a knowledgeable critic which has a lesson for other countries aspiring to be wealthy through industrialization.

"I agree with Rogers' assessment, with a caveat. Even if Obama were serious about transforming the food system (which I don't think he is), he would have to contend with a set of highly profitable incumbent industries, from agrichemical makers to cheeseburger purveyors, that will defend their interests by fang and claw on Capitol Hill. And their immense lobbying power leaves any would-be reformer in the White House with little room to impose change. Of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Rogers writes "he commands a $134 billion annual budget that includes agriculture subsidies, the National Organic Program, and food-stamp and nutrition programs." True, but Vilsack has very little discretion over how that cash hoard is spent. The USDA chief mostly executes farm policy made in the House and Senate ag committees, and those entities are notoriously captured by the Big Ag and Big Food lobbies. Just as health care reform could not move through Congress without making stark concessions to the insurance industry, just as even highly compromised climate legislation has been throttled by dirty-energy interests; and just as efforts to impose financial reform languish under the boot of Wall Street and its kept politicians, any serious presidential effort to reform the food system will crash into a brick wall constructed by the likes of Monsanto and Tyson Food. Which brings us back to the role of consumers. Voting with your fork, it turns out, is not enough. We can't just "be the change we want to see" in the food system; we also have to get out there and organize for policy reform: to become, in short, a countervailing force that challenges the power of the food lobby".

Probably the wailing by a few concerned persons like the above critic may not have any impact, especially when one is up against economic giants like Monsanto or Dow Chemicals or Cargill but still such voices will inject a sense of urgency amongst consumers to counter act the wheeling and dealing amongst the lobbying groups representing various economic interests and the unscrupulous politicians. The GM Foods controversy is a typical case where the industry view is overwhelmingly being accepted by the government ignoring scientific evidence and underplaying the risks to the consumers. Developing countries like India must learn a lesson from this experience and must not permit such international "profit at any cost" players to enter and manipulate the policies in their favor. The proxy war fought recently in India on Bt Brinjal should open the eyes of the citizens regarding the lurking dangers posed by the marauding industrial interests in getting a toe-hold in the country and make GM foods all pervasive, with unknown future consequences.

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

THE "OBLIGING" MINISTER-"BATTING" FOR GM FOODS

With the unsung "demise" of Bt Brinjal on February 10, 2010 by the announcement from the Minister for Environment, curtains seems to have come down for this debate but subsequent proclamation by the Prime Minister that the moratorium is only temporary raises the possibility of resurrection of this issue sooner or later. That two senior ministers in GOI cabinet are sold on GM crops was amply clear by their pronouncements to the media at the thick of the controversy seeking large scale introduction of GM foods in the country. how ever their motivation came out clearly when it transpired that the S & T minister of GOI had used "biased promotional material" from the GM foods "lobbyists" for influencing the decision of Minister for Health on the need for clearing such genetically manipulated food materials.

"In July 2009, Chavan - in his capacity as a minister in PMO - had written an official letter to the then health minister A Ramadoss on concerns he had raised about the safety of GM food crops. And while doing so, Chavan reportedly quoted directly from the promotional material of the biotech industry lobby - International Service for the Acquisition of Agri- Biotech Applications (ISAAA). This came to light in a letter written by some scientists to Prime Minister Singh this week. No wonder, Chavan has been speaking in the same tongue as industry".

It is a tragedy that this country has ministers who do not care to toe the lines of the lobbyists forsaking the national interest for considerations other than merit. In spite of failing to contain the raging food inflation that is causing wide spread miseries all around, the minister for consumer affairs has plenty of time at his disposal to write a 6-page letter to the PM canvassing for GM foods! Citizens in this country do not need any enemy from out side when such "friendly" ( to whom?) ministers are in power!

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