Calorie counting in foods-Uncertainties regarding label declaration!

Why should the food industry print on the label the so called nutrition information? Those who came up with the idea of nutrition labeling were honest in their intention that such information would help the consumers to select the best foods from the market from the health point of view. But does it really happen the way it is intended to be?  Probably not! Why? The human biological system varies from person to person and the efficiency of utilizing the nutrients also will also vary. Therefore the figures printed on the food pack can at best indicate maximum efficiency without taking into consideration the individual variations or the extent of processing the food has undergone. Calorie values exemplify this paradox. The calorific value of food declared is based on the estimates arrived at through the Bomb calorie meter test where food is burned under controlled conditions to find out the calorific value. Unfortunately the human system cannot be expected to be as efficient as a bomb calorie meter with the digestion system depends on the compliment of enzymes and the microbiome that inhabit the GI tract. As a thumb rule more the food is processed or cooked more efficient is the digestion efficiency. Why this factor is important can be understood in the context of the critical role played by food calories in leading to over weight and obesity. Here is an interesting expose regarding the role of processing and cooking in calorie generation once the food is ingested and their fate within the system   . 

"Unfortunately, of course, in today's overfed and underexercised populations, nature's way is not the best way. If we want to lose weight we should challenge our instinctive desires. We should reject soft white bread in favor of rough whole wheat breads, processed cheese in favor of natural cheese, cooked vegetables in favor of raw vegetables. And to do so would be much easier if our food labels gave us some advice about how many calories we would save by eating less-processed food. So why are our nutritionist advisers mute on the topic? For decades there have been calls by distinguished committees and institutions to reform our calorie-counting system. But the calls for change have failed. The problem is a shortage of information. Researchers find it hard to predict precisely how many extra calories will be gained when our food is more highly processed. By contrast, they find it easy to show that if a food is digested completely, it will yield a specific number of calories. Our food labeling therefore faces a choice between two systems, neither of which is satisfactory. The first gives a precise number of calories but takes no account of the known effects of food processing, and therefore mismeasures what our bodies are actually harvesting from the food. The second would take account of food-processing, but without any precise numbers."

Ideally a healthy person must derive full benefit from the food he consumes and the nutrition guidelines do not make a differentiation between cooked foods and raw foods, the values of the latter being used universally in all guidelines across the world. If calorie needs are determined based on the theoretical calorie yield and if the calories contained in the diet are not absorbed, naturally the question arises whether man really needs so much calories as being recommended? Obviously consumers looking for 2000 kC from the food they consume will go by the theoretical values presented to them in the label. While a consumer eating minimally cooked or refined food will not derive the theoretical values because of the digestion inefficiency, those consuming highly processed foods will get almost 100% of the calories declared on the label. Another dimension to this paradox is that refined foods require less energy expenditure for the biological digestion system, eating minimally cooked foods calls for comparatively higher energy input by the body leaving very little for conversion to fat and consequently to weight gain. Sounds confusing? Well that is the reality and that is why health pundits universally condemn highly refined and over cooked foods because of their higher energy mobilization and fat deposition potential. No wonder consumers are realizing this "unpalatable" truth and shifting towards whole cereals and pulses and raw fruits and vegetables to avoid many life threatening health afflictions and improve the quality of life.  

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

GARBAGE DISPOSAL-NEW INITIATIVES IN CHENNAI

Urban lives in India face the threat of overwhelming garbage accumulation near their dwelling places as most civic bodies do not have functional processing facilities for the huge waste generated day in and day out. While every citizen has a right to get the much needed civic services in return for the taxes paid by him, it is a matter of shame that these "receipts" are misused and mismanaged leading to a situation where the citizens are left to fend for himself whether it is water, power, roads, parking lots, parks or noise pollution or waste clearance. The audacity of the civic body in raising conservancy charges for those generating garbage is really breath taking as Chennai is a city where the all pervasive Coovum river stink hits any visitor who lands there! As the tax payers there are vigorously protesting this arbitrary move by the civic body, they are being asked to set up their own processing facility investing their funds! What a city! Here is a take on this latest development in Chennai and the on-going tussle between the tax payers and the civic body on the garbage issue.  

"Commercial establishments in the city are likely to set up their own bio-gas plants for processing their food waste.The Chennai Corporation, at a meeting in Ripon Buildings with representatives of hotels, marriage halls and other commercial food business operators asked the traders to commission decentralised waste processing facility based on a technology of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC). The meeting was organised to resolve a deadlock on the issue of conservancy charges in Chennai. At the meeting, Corporation officials indicated that new conservancy charges levied on these establishments, which had been fiercely opposed by them, would be reduced if the traders' association commissioned their own plants based on such proven technology. A number of food-business operators, including large hotels and marriage halls, had been asked to pay more conservancy charges by the Chennai Corporation. The city has more than 20,000 commercial entities including large food-business operators and marriage halls that generate large amount of municipal solid waste every day. As the commercial establishments did not agree to the increase in conservancy charges by the Chennai Corporation, a series of meetings were organised over the past few months to resolve the deadlock. Commercial establishments that use 1,100 litre bins for conservancy were asked to pay Rs.1.31 lakh to the Chennai Corporation, according to the new proposal. Similarly, the establishments that use 120 litre bins were asked to pay Rs.14,600. The charges for marriage halls with a seating capacity of more than 1,000 were increased from Rs.12,000 to Rs.86,400 per year. BARC had already knocked on the doors of the Chennai Corporation to sell its garbage segregation technology and the civic body has suggested that commercial establishments use the indigenously-developed technology."

Garbage processing technology is readily available but its economic viability depends on the volume of waste generated. While a city with large population will have the wherewithal to invest on large processing plants and set up the infrastructure to distribute the products like power, manure etc, hotels, restaurants, marriage halls etc cannot be expected to generate regular garbage of required volume to sustain economically viable processing units, no matter how efficient the technology is. The Chennai civic body is trying to camouflage its utter inefficiency and lack of planning by passing on the responsibility to the tax payers! It is unfortunate that in a country like India there is no national policy on garbage management in urban townships with each one following its own unimaginative and ad hoc policies putting the tax payers at great disadvantage and inconvenience. It is time that major civic bodies in the country get together and evolve a uniform policy on garbage taxing and processing that is equitable to citizens, commercial establishments and the financial health of the city.

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

HUMAN BLOOD FROM PLANT SOURCE?-A HIMALAYAN CLAIM!

There was a time when coconut oil was shunned as an unhealthy food obviously because of its high content of saturated fats. But to day the very same oil has become a much sought after ingredient in many processed foods and literally coconut oil has assumed the status of a nutraceutical because of its lauric acid content! Similarly coconut water was hailed as a healthy beverage though a critical appraisal of its composition does not show any extraordinary nutritional value. Just because it was used as a blood plasma substitute during World War II under most critical conditions mainly due to its sterile nature within the unhusked nut, it is difficult to imagine how a claim can be made that it is equal to human blood. This is a classical example of high pressure commercial promotion that can convert an ordinary food item into a super product through convoluted and misrepresenting information. Here is a take on this disgusting industry practice with least care to consumer well being!

"Coconut water—this decade's energy drink of the stars—is rich in electrolytes like sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, and phosphate. In other words, it's a banana and a glass of water. But with the help of some clever packaging, a touch of Rihanna, and a fat price tag, marketers have spun coconut water into a health beverage empire. According to health and nutrition product tester ConsumerLab's recent analysis of three major coconut water brands (O.N.E., Vita Coco, and ZICO), the beverage companies' claims are a little shaky. Two of the three brands contain significantly fewer rehydrating electrolytes than their packaging suggests. "When you start making claims comparing it to sports drinks, you expect them to at least deliver on what they are promising," ConsumerLab president Tod Cooperman told The Huffington Post. Forget Gatorade. Coconut water producers have routinely compared the beverage to an even more precious substance: Human Blood. Coconut water is "the only natural substance that can be safely injected into the human blood stream," ZICO tells consumers. It is "identical to human blood plasma," Body Ecology insists. One enthusiast goes as far as to say that coconut water is "the universal donor," and so "by drinking coconuts we give ourselves a [sic] instant blood transfusion." Several coconut water manufacturers cite the liquid's use as emergency intravenous hydration during World War II and the Vietnam War as an extra incentive for cracking open a can. "Coconut water is not the same as blood plasma," Cooperman tells me. While coconut water "had been used as an intravenous replacement fluid in very dire situations," he says, that emergency use has since been "misused by these companies." ZICO, for example, encourages consumers to drink up by stating that its product has "saved many lives." Is coconut water a life saver? Maybe: When the Straight Dope took on the coconut water transfusion question, it found that "chemical analysis indicates it's closer in makeup to intracellular fluid" than plasma, but that it "behaves like a saline solution" when mixed with plasma. Still, it's "got fewer electrolytes in it than our bodies are used to and too much potassium, so it's not an ideal rehydration fluid. But it works in a pinch." Coconut water companies' marketing claims are meant to imply that the drink really, truly belongs in your body. But the practical relationship between olde-tyme IV supplement and Rihanna-endorsed workout drink remains to be seen. So coconut water was a last-ditch saline solution employed in decades-old foreign wars—why does that mean consumers should shell out $3 to drink 11 ounces of the stuff? After all, most humans don't need to drink electrolytes at all, much less stick them straight into their veins".

It is interesting to note that coconut water contains no nutrient that cannot be obtained from other normal foods and beverages and none of the nutrients present exceed 2-3% of RDA! Compared to many juices and beverages, its sugar content is only 2.5% while the calorie count does not exceed 20 kC per 100 ml serving. If isotonicity is its USP, it cannot come any where near the typical saline solution administered for re-hydration. Interestingly the unique taste of coconut water has never been simulated satisfactorily and no known processing technology can maintain its taste and flavor once it is removed from the fruit. At best it is a low calorie, low sugar beverage which needs no preservation as long as it is in the undamaged fruit. It is time that safety authorities clamp down on spurious claims by the industry to mislead and dupe the consumer!

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