CHICKENS ARE COMING TO ROOST-HERE ARE THE "JUMBOS"WITH JUMBO CONSEQUENCES!

When antibiotic resistant bacterial pathogens emerged in Western countries, many took solace that it would not happen in India. But if recent reports are to be believed India is on the threshold of such a contingency it the present poultry farming practices are any indication. Use of popular antibiotic drugs, commonly prescribed by physicians to cure illnesses among human beings, by poultry farmers is a controversial subject with many health experts claiming that constant exposure to such antibiotics lead to many pathogens learning to over come the lethal effect of these vital drugs over a period of time. It is true that there are a few strains of pathogenic bacteria which are not killed by any of the known antibiotics leading to a situation where human lives are exposed to fatal dangers. According to some investigative journalists, Indian farmers have also learned how to "fatten" their birds by administering sub-lethal doses of some antibiotics and the processed meat from them often contain antibiotic residues which are consumed regularly by the consumers without being aware of the adverse consequences of the same. Since there are no stringent regulations which are enforced, this undesirable practice is spreading fast in the industry. Here is a take on this critical issue. 

"Poultry farmers can now afford to count their profits before their chickens hatch — and they are big, with chickens weighing on average twice as much as they did 50 years ago. The broiler chicken of today, a product of controlled breeding, weighs around 2.2kg as compared to 1.2kg before 1960, say veterinarians and chicken farm owners. Contract farming started in India in the early 1960s, taking over from multi-breed coops that contained birds of various breeds and ages. Contract farming involves the industrialised breeding chickens of the same age and variety.This method of poultry farming employs improved feed formulations and vaccination, says R Prabhakaran, former vice-chancellor of Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University. "Selective breeding has increased livability of the birds," he said. "Since the 1960s mortality rate of chickens has reduced from 10% to 2% due to improved nutrition and hygiene in farms." The downside of scientific poultry farming is that medication administered to the birds may find their way to the table. A study by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) in July showed that one in two chickens in the country had antibiotic contamination. Farms give chickens feed mixed with antibiotics that act as growth promoters. Most stop the antibiotics a few days before slaughter. This allows the birds to flush out the remnants of the antibiotics. "Farms should ideally not feed birds antibiotics at least 10 days before slaughter," Prabhakaran said. Because farms seldom follow this, antibiotic residue in meat passes on to humans. Scientists have shown that large-scale use of antibiotics by the poultry industry has caused antibiotic resistance in people who eat chicken regularly, leaving them vulnerable to a range of bacterial infections. Scientists have shown that large-scale use of antibiotics by the poultry industry has caused antibiotic resistance in people who eat chicken regularly, leaving them vulnerable to a range of bacterial infections. Chickens also pass on residue of antibiotics through their faeces, which may spread through water and soil and eventually end up in crops, putting even vegetarians at risk of antibiotic resistance."

Though stopping feeding of antibiotic tweeted feed materials can be stopped 10 days before processing the birds to avoid significant presence of residues, there is no guarantee that the meat from such birds would be free from antibiotics. Regular consumption of such meats can also destroy some beneficial microbes in the intestine causing over all decrease in immunity. Besides the poultry excreta and waste which at present are not scientifically disposed off, also contain significant amounts of antibiotic residues which can potentially contaminate the soil and water. A country like the US is mulling over this issue and remedial measures are being seriously considered. Probably alternate set of antibiotics, which are not used by humans can be considered for use by the animal food industry which can considerably reduce the dangers of further evolution of antibiotic resistant pathogens in future.

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

PULL BETWEEN PROFIT AND HEALTH-THE HOBSON'S CHOICE!

Every country in this Planet is on the horns of a dilemma regarding the right mix of policies that will protect the consumers without sounding the death knell for the food industry which manufactures all types of food products to "satisfy" the consumer. While consumers rely on the national safety vigilance system to "discipline" the industry in terms of the quality and safety of the products in the market, who will be responsible if the very same consumers become "sick" by over eating and gluttony? How can any one blame the industry if it responds to consumer needs and turn out products meeting their expectations while making money in the process? Is it justified to ask the industry to give more importance to health promotion than to the needs of the palate? In a fair competition one who satisfies the consumer most will win the game and that is what every player is trying to do. Of course governments with their vast powers can provide a level playing field by including restrictive conditions that promotes health and insist that the industry works within the frame work laid out. Here is a critique on this issue by a discerning analyst which reflects the ground realities in the food sector. 

'Flavoring is an incredibly important component of creating processed foods, because it allows the industry to create products with the flavors of delicious high-quality ingredients, despite none being present.  The better a product tastes, the more likely we will be to buy it, so it's no wonder that creating these flavors is a big business. As the 60 Minutes story reveals companies use sugar, fat, salt, and other flavors created in chemistry labs, that human biology craves, to create pleasurable experiences for eaters.  Employees of the company, out on a trip to look for the next new flavor for soda, admit to Safer that they are trying to create flavors that are irresistible and addictive. For this reason many in public health argue that the processed foods industry is a big part of the reason for our world's obesity epidemic.  Processed food companies make more money by selling more products and they do this by designing these items to be irresistible.  Consuming more processed foods of course means more calories and that leads to weight gain.  This is why many public health advocates would like to place limits on companies' abilities to use sugars, fats, and salt in their foods. I doubt however, that many would argue that food companies want consumer to be overweight.  Weight gain instead, is simply an unintended consequence of maximizing sales through the creation of cheap, high calorie, hyper-palatable addictive foods.  Safer asks Givaudan VP of Global Strategy and Business Development, Bob Pellegrino, about this issue.  Referring to obesity, Safer asks if the food industry wants his company to create flavors so that people want more.  Pellegrino answered, "I don't think it's creating a desire for moreness, as well as it's a desire for memorability, so that people will repeat the purchase of the product and enjoy them."  Do you see the difference?  I don't either".

It is not that industry does not play the role of a truant in many instances by their surreptitious promotional activities, misleading advertisements, unrealistic and bloated claims, focused targeting of kids etc. But if there is a framework or set of guidelines to be followed by the industry, applicable to all, there is less likelihood of the industry getting the bad name as is happening now. Industry cannot take a simplistic view that consumers must take the responsibility for their health through appropriate selection of good foods and practicing adequate exercise in stead of leading a sedentary life style and this way bad foods will disappear from the market shelves in no time! The situation is becoming increasingly alarming when many foods rich in sugar, fat and salt are being considered an addictive similar to tobacco and alcohol. A global consensus has to emerge regarding the mandatory "healthy" food practices based on to day's knowledge about food and its effect on life style disorders like CVD, Diabetes, Hypertension, Cancer, etc.

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

PRIORITY FOR PROFIT OVER SAFETY-THE BPA PARADOX

Bis-Phenol A BPA) seems to be assuming larger than life size because of the raging controversy regarding its presence in some foods due to contamination from the plastic food containers and packaging materials used by the industry. Based on available scientific data many countries have banned BPA use in plastics and limits have been imposed on the maximum tolerable levels in processed food products. It is almost disgusting to see large industrial conglomerates affected financially by the ban, trying to lobby and pressurize the US government not to set limits for BPA in foods

"The food industry response is the latest obstacle in a regulatory history that's been hobbled by BPA's powerful producers. In a Fast Company article last year, David Case described how five major U.S. companies used "Big Tobacco's tactics to sow doubt about science and hold off regulation of BPA." Industry-funded studies that touted the benign nature of the additive butted against independent ones that found it harmful to humans. According to Case, only five companies manufacture BPA in the U.S.: Bayer, Dow, Hexion Specialty Chemicals, SABIC Innovative Plastics (formerly GE Plastics), and Sunoco. In 2007, these companies made 7 billion pounds of the substance. Together, their BPA sales bring in more than $6 billion a year".

"The food industry's threat to boycott the bill has kicked health activists, parent groups, and environmental non-profits into gear. These groups have issued statements reminding Congress that BPA restrictions have been enacted in five states and are under consideration in 13 more. They have also cited the Center for Disease Control report that 93 percent of Americans' urine contains BPA, most likely contracted from food containers".

"Some countries and manufacturers have already taken action. In April of 2008, Canada became the first country to ban the chemical. In March 2009, six major U.S. baby bottle manufacturers stopped using BPA, and House and Senate leaders proposed the first legislation to ban it. In March, the Environmental Protection Agency declared BPA a "chemical of concern." Also in the works for this year is a World Health Organization assessment of the effects of BPA exposure on very young children and further research from the EPA and the National Institutes of Health".

A redeeming feature of the on-going tussle is that the user industries, some of them international leaders in their own fields are voluntarily shunning use of BPA containing packing materials, probably fearing a backlash from their consumers. Many baby bottle manufacturers are also avoiding use of BPA containing materials like poly carbonates which were once the industry standard, for fabrication of baby bottles.

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