THE GREAT EATING DILEMMA!-WHOM TO BELIEVE AND WHAT TO IGNORE?

Two developments during the last few years have thrown new challenges for the innocent consumers in understanding what is going on in the field of nutrition and health. First, increasing awareness about nutrition and nutritional importance of food and their safety aspects. The other issue is the vast expansion of "knowledge" through scientific and social endeavors, made available through the electronic and print media. In such an environment the consumer is in a predicament to believe and practice what is appearing in the media from time to time. In many such cases there are contradictory assertions taking opposite stands on many issues. Where will the consumer go for getting the real truth unequivocally with reasonable clarity. Here is a recent "loud thinking" by a critic regarding such dilemmas being faced by consumers more and more frequently. 

It seems like every day there's a new nutrition headline in the press: "Ditch Carbs!" "Eat the Right Fats." "Don't Eat After 7 p.m." "Fast Two Days a Week." It's difficult for consumers to sift through the myths and facts and know whom to rely on for information they can believe and apply. Between what you read in magazines, hear on the news or follow on social media, it's even possible to hear conflicting information on the same day. I recently came across two stories exemplifying this point; the first encouraged eating breakfast, while the other suggested it was beneficial to skip your morning meal several times a week. Diet and nutrition stories can sometimes be compared to tabloid magazines; they get people talking by making an outrageous claim. So when it comes to getting the latest dish, what's a confused consumer to do?

The answer to the above question may not be easy as the knowledge base is expanding at a frenetic pace and is disseminated too fast! For those who are educated and computer literate, Internet information sources like Wikipedia can be accessed but here also a reader is subjected to more and more contradictory views making it next to impossible to get at the truth. This is where information web sites hosted by government agencies will be useful and relevant. There must be an interactive web site for the citizen to approach for real time information on any issues concerning food, nutrition, health and food safety. Of course for millions of people not having access to Internet and computers such information may be out of reach. In such cases popular print media must be cajoled to earmark some pace for publishing free all clarifications on controversial issues that agitate the minds of the citizens after reading apparently contradictory claims appearing in the media. The Health Ministry of the government must take the necessary initiative for this novel consumer education program. 

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

WHERE LIES THE TRUTH?-THE TALL NUTRITIONAL CLAIMS

It is true that food industry must earn to survive in business, their activities not being charitable by any stretch of imagination. But at what cost to the Society, they can make money is a question that is increasingly being raised because of the negative impact of many processed foods offered by the industry in most of the wealthy countries in the world. Probably "life style" is a disease like an infection and it is a question of time before this infection spreads to other countries aspiring to become rich through economic development. In a free country every citizen has a right to buy or eat anything if it is found safe and the decision regarding the safety and nutritive value is taken based on the information provided by the industry through the labels that "adorn" the pack. If this is so can the industry afford to be non-transparent, vague and misleading in providing such information? Is it not reasonable to brand such devious players who mislead the consumers as criminals? Here is a critique on the wide scale "conning" of American consumers by a major segment of the industry through untruths and half truths in their their promotions and label declarations.
"It should not come as a surprise that four of the most aggressively-marketed industries are also the same ones that rely on agricultural subsidies to thrive. The vast majority of cows subsist on corn and wheat, sodas are basically bubbly high fructose corn syrup, and many cereals are a variety of crop subsidies in a box (corn, wheat, soy, and even cottonseed sometimes). I have always been a fan of quiet confidence when it comes to people, and the same applies to food. Usually, if a food needs a dozen fact sheets and a long "myth-busting" document regarding its possible negative health effects, well… let's just say "the Frankenfood doth protest too much." At the very least, many of these "truths" are heavily questioned in reputable scientific journals. Contrary to what these industries want us to believe, their foods are not essential. This is not to say that a cup of Greek yogurt for breakfast each morning or the occasional beef kebab are health hazards. However, these industries are notorious for taking credit for nutrients that are not exclusive, and usually better sourced from other foods. One thing that is impossible to refute? Prioritize whole, plant-based foods is a recipe for good health".

On industry's part it has to be admitted that they are in business, that too in a bitterly competitive market and in order to survive and grow consumers will have to be 'attracted". According to the industry what is being claimed is based on scientific findings by different groups and they should not be hauled up for using such information. Unfortunately, on a small label, only limited area is available and considerable skill is required to condense scientific data to be incorporated in such labels, without distorting the truth. There could be genuine distortion of the essence of the basic findings in some cases but to selectively use information to mislead the innocent consumer amounts to out right cheating that deserves to be discouraged. If the enforcement agency is weak, the industry invariably gets away with such types of practices. In the American context, government subsidies on staples like corn, beef, etc are enabling the food industry to offer their products at unbelievably low prices and many consumers do not need any further incentive to flock to such products. Unless there is stringent overseeing of the industry practices by the government, the current practices by the industry will continue pushing that country into abysmal depths of despair seriously compromising the health of the citizenry.

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