A strange country called America!-A lobbyists' delight!

Genetically modified foods have received focused attention during the last few years, positive as well as negative. While this innovation that led to emergence of a number of diverse crops, in food as well as non food categories, can be considered the height of scientific glory just like the development of nuclear bombs, the way it is being promoted recklessly and with least sensitivity to the well beings of the consumer, can be ranked as the worst development in human history. GMO foods as they are commonly called are eaten by millions of people, mainly in the US where government has been shirking its responsibility by not listening to the cries of its citizens to compel the industry to make the labels of processed foods more transparent. Here is a commentary on this issue as is being focused in the government legislature currently. 

"In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) wrote in a policy statement that genetically engineered foods (or genetically modified organisms, commonly known as GMOs) were not "materially different" from regular foods. In that policy statement, the agency severely limited what it considered "material" to only changes in food that could be recognized by taste, smell or other senses. This decision was also made years before any GMO foods were sold commercially. Two decades later, we know that people care more about what is in their food than merely what they can taste, touch, smell or feel. Animal cruelty, climate impacts, pesticide use and production matter deeply to consumers. We also know that in the absence of labeling, consumers can be deceived about what's in the food they are buying and feeding their families.  The FDA's 1992 policy statement was a political statement, not a legal or scientific one. Unfortunately, its ramifications linger to this day. People can, of course, have a difference of opinion about the relative safety of the process, the product and the pesticides involved with genetic engineering. Unfortunately, people in America don't get to make an informed choice. Unlike 64 countries around the world, the United States does not require any form of labeling for GMOs. Consumers here don't have the same access to information as consumers in Europe, Brazil, Russia or even China. In the absence of a federal standard, states have taken the lead. In 2013-2014, more than 60 bills were introduced in more than 20 states across America. Despite the fact that polls consistently show that more than 90 percent of people support labeling, corporate-backed campaigns have managed to stymie the will of the people through confusion tactics and propaganda campaigns. (Eighty-nine percent of Republicans, 90 percent of independents and 93 percent of Democrats favor GMO labeling in the U.S.) In just four states where labeling has been presented as a ballot initiative, corporations like Monsanto and dominant corporate food companies have spent over $100 million to override the public's right to know. After corporations spent nearly $21 million in the most expensive state initiative in Oregon history, the vote there is still too close to call. With more than 1.5 million votes cast, there is only a difference of 812 votes. The state is now engaged in a mandatory recount. The food fight over GMO labeling is now coming to Washington, D.C., where competing proposals are being considered by Congress. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) have introduced the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act (H.R. 1699/S. 809) to make GMO food labeling mandatory across the country. Supported by 63 representatives and 17 senators, this common-sense bill would direct the FDA to use its authority to enact a federal, mandatory GMO labeling policy that would guarantee all Americans the right to know what is in their foods. About 1.4 million people have written the agency in support of labeling. However, a competing bill, misleadingly titled The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act by its sponsor, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R- Kan.), has been dubbed by consumers the Denying Americans the Right-to-Know (DARK) Act, as it would simultaneously prevent mandatory federal labeling and deny states the right to enact their own labeling legislation. It might seem odd that a "states' rights" Republican like Pompeo would introduce legislation to undermine the states while expanding the authority of the federal government. As is often the case in Washington, follow the money for answers. Elected in 2010, Pompeo was the single largest recipient of funds from Koch Industries. He's also received thousands of dollars from Monsanto and the Biotechnology Industry Organization and tens of thousands from the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which has spent tens of millions to keep consumers in the dark about GMOs. On Wednesday, the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee will meet at 10:15 a.m. to discuss this industry-backed bill from Pompeo. While most people are thinking of holidays with their families, certain members of Congress will be working to advance an agenda to prevent you from knowing what is in your holiday dinner. They are hoping to sneak past the American people, but Center for Food Safety and members of the food movement will be there to ensure that the people have a presence."

Is this not a strange country, considered one of the oldest democracies in the world, when the government there, whether Democrats or Republicans, have been refusing consistently to listen to its citizens for better transparency on the part of the food industry in conveying what it is using as ingredients in various food formulations? Almost all civilized nations across the continents have regulatory restrictions in using GMO food ingredients in foods made by the industry, except the US and repeated attempts by the consumers there to force the industry to label their products truthfully are rebuffed by the politician-industry nexus and powerful lobbyists. The present attempts by a few enlightened members of the legislature, with no allegiance to any lobbies or vested interests, to pass the much needed country wide legislation, may not succeed as most of their colleagues are captive followers of the industry, beholden to it for the past favors done in terms of campaign contributions for their election! However this symbolic move will increase the resolve of the citizens to fight this inequity better and in a more forceful way in the coming years.  

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

THE GREAT CHEESE STORY-WHY AMERICANS ARE OBESE!

Does any government has a role to play in deciding what its citizens must eat or what should not be eaten? This issue received a sharp focus recently when some of pro-active policies are being taken up by governments in a few countries to discourage consumption of patently unhealthy foods. Higher taxation, limiting large sized packs and more forceful labeling regulations have been the chosen routes for achieving the goal of herding the consumers to live more responsibly and avoid social burden through diseases like diabetes, CVD, obesity, cancers etc. The on-going tussle between the farming lobby and consumer interests invariably ends up in favor of the former because of close nexus between agriculture lobby and the governing political class. Here is an interesting commentary by a critic regarding the systematic blows being delivered to the consumers by the American government through some of the most idiotic policy orchestrations to oblige its farming lobbies with almost all multinational giants investing heavily on an agenda of protecting their financial flanks.   

"Also, the Golden Age of Cheese was not purely the result of individual choices. It reflects decades of pro-cheese U.S. agriculture policy. I am not making this up. The nation's cheese binge is a case study in the broader dysfunctionality of federal farm legislation, the latest iteration of which is being debated in Congress. Yes, there are real social trends at work, too. An aging population consumes less milk as fluid and more in solid form; a wealthier population can afford a richer diet, including cheesy dishes eaten at restaurants. But the country's appetite for cheese also reflects U.S. policy. Since the New Deal, Washington has tried to protect dairy farmers through price 

supports and production controls so arcane that only specialists can understand them. As a 2004 Agriculture leaving Department report explained, the net effect of dairy programs is to prop up fluid milk prices even when producers make more of it than people want to drink — plenty of excess to dump on cheese manufacturers. "Thus, consumers see lower butter and cheese prices and higher fluid milk prices than would appear in the absence of the programs," the USDA found. Not surprisingly, fluid milk consumption has stagnated while cheese consumption has grown. Of the 188.9 billion pounds of milk produced in 2008, some 82 billion were sold to cheese makers, according to the USDA. On top of those warped incentives, the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 authorized the Agriculture Department to collect a fee from all dairy farmers and turn the money over to a corporation known as Dairy Management, which promotes consumption of cheese and other dairy products".

Cheese and ice cream are two products liked universally and one of the reasons for this phenomenon in a country like the US is the ridiculously low prices at which they are offered in the market. In contrast fluid milk consumption is deliberately depressed by making it much more costlier which has the effect of stagnating consumption by those who find it increasingly difficult to buy it due to escalating prices. The twin objectives of satisfying the farmer as well as the industry are achieved by increased retail prices of milk to the consumer and supply of excess milk production to the dairy processing industry to turn out products like cheese, butter and ice cream at relatively low prices. It is the consumer who is left behind in this convoluted situation as drinking milk is progressively reduced and consumption of high calorie and high fat foods is increased putting the consumer health in jeopardy. This explains the tripling of the population that has become over weight and obese in the last 40 years and to day more than two thirds of American population are categorized as either over weight or obese! It is the unfortunate political compulsions that make the ruling class blind to the dangers of wrong and unhealthy food and environmental degradation due to pollution, global warming and other scientifically proven findings. If the US is facing frequent hot weathers, droughts, floods and similar abnormal situations to day, one must thank its government for the wrong policies being pursued by it. 

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

"MICROMANAGING" DIETARY GUIDELINES-IS IT THE BUSINESS OF THE LEGISLATURE?

Are the policy makers really so much concerned about the nutrition and health of the citizens who elect them to make laws that ensure their welfare? If one goes by the action of many governments during the last three decades it is very difficult to answer the question as positive. Every one knows that business and commercial interests far outweigh any other considerations when it comes to taking decisions on policies that affect the citizen. Why is that Genetically Modified foods have conquered more than 80% of US market while almost all other countries in the world have banned their use in food products? Because the GM lobby has seen to it through its money power to influence every elected representative who mold the policies to toe its line. Latest instance is regarding the use of Potato in school lunch program in the US where Senate had to intervene to protect the interest of the Potato farmers when sound nutrition considerations require the amount of this starchy vegetable to be reduced. Here is a take on this interesting development.

"In January this year, the USDA proposed new nutrition standards for school meals based on the IOM report. These included the IOM's recommendation of no more than one cup a week of starchy vegetables. Please note: the proposal does not call for elimination of starchy vegetables. It calls for a limit of two servings a week (one cup is two servings). What's wrong with that?  Plenty, according to the potato industry, which stands to sell fewer products to the government and could not care less about spreading the wealth around to other vegetable producers. Potato lobbyists went to work (apparently the sweet corn, lima bean, and pea industries do not have the money to pay for high-priced lobbying talent).  The Potato Council held a press conference hosted by Senators from potato-growing states. The result?  The U.S. Senate added an amendment to the 2012 agriculture spending bill blocking the USDA from "setting any maximum limits on the serving of vegetables in school meal programs." Mind you, I like potatoes. They are thoroughly delicious when cooked well, have supported entire civilizations, and certainly can contribute to healthful diets. Two servings a week seems quite reasonable.  So does encouraging consumption of other vegetables as well. But what's at stake here goes way beyond the choice of one vegetable over another. At issue is Senate micromanagement of nutrition standards under pressure from food industry lobbyists". 

If national policies are determined by such special interest lobbyist, what will be condition of the citizen who trusts the government to protect his interests? Imagine GOI succumbing to pressure from egg lobby in India and pass a decree that every midday school meal program should have one egg each per beneficiary! Or what if a decision is taken that bread must be used for such programs compulsorily? It is a travesty of justice that recommendations of technical bodies vested with power to evolve citizen friendly guidelines are side lined purely for favoring the industry lobby. Consumer activists and Social NGOs must raise their voice against such tendencies, visible more and more these days. 

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

GM FOODS "CONTROVERSY" IN THE UK-ENTRY THROUGH ANIMAL FEEDS

Ban on GM foods in Europe continues to irk the promoters of genetically tampered food raw materials with multi billion dollars commercial stake. It is well known that the GM foods lobby has powerful influence with decision making authorities in many countries through investment of vast resources to mold their views. In a shocking revelation, the food authority in the UK seems to have adopted some of the arguments of GM food lobby "verbatim" while recommending clearance of these foods in the market under the pretext that food prices might go up if such restriction is continued.

"A powerful lobbying organisation representing agribusiness interests helped draft a key government report that has been attacked by environmentalists for heavily favouring the arguments of the genetically modified food industry. The revelation comes after the resignation of two government advisers who have criticised the close relationship between the Food Standards Agency (FSA), the body that oversees the UK's food industry, and the GM lobby.Emails between the FSA and the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC) show the council inserted key sentences strengthening the case for GM food that ended up in the final report. The report, "Food Standards Agency work on changes in the market and the GM regulatory system", examines how GM products are entering the UK, where the growing of GM products is banned, through the animal feed system. It acknowledges food prices could go up if GM products continue to be excluded".

The industry lobbying to allow GM foods is understandable because the cost of raw material inputs and their supply are increasingly under pressure since GM versions of soybean and corn are predominantly grown outpacing the natural varieties. But a regulatory agency like FSA needs to be impartial while considering the pros and cons of adopting a controversial approach involving mass consumption of GM foods with uncertain safety credentials. It is also deplorable that some GM foods have already entered the food chain through the back door by becoming part of many animal feed preparations. How safe it is for the consumers to eat animal foods derived from such animals is not known. Also not understood is the necessity for this country to go against the collective wisdom of the EU community.

V.H.POTTY

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