Plastic Parks-Will it fulfill the dream of achieving tectonic transformation in employment generation?

On an earlier occasion there was a criticism by this Blogger regarding the proposal to set up "Plastic" Parks in different parts of the country to increase the production of various plastic materials required by many user industries mainly because of the fact that plastic produced from fossil fuels is not a sustainable proposition in the long run. Of course there are new plastics emerging using new technologies based on renewable sources of carbon with minimum environmental pollution. One is not sure from the information available from the government regarding the product mix and technology mix being considered for setting up production units in these new "Parks". If even a part of the projected "benefits" touted by the government is achievable, it could be a game changer. However if the gap between "talk" and "act" evident in the past is any indication these parks also are not going to be different from others floated by other ministries like MFPI. Here is a gist of the grand vision projected by the concerned minister recently in a "conference" and readers are free to come to their own conclusions regarding whether this is a PR exercise or a realistic and honest effort.  

"A meeting of the Consultative Committee of Members of Parliament attached to the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers was held on April 7, 2015 to discuss the progress on Petroleum, Chemicals and Petrochemical Investment Regions (PCPIRs) and plastic parks. "Today's challenge in the sector is value addition and for that value addition, milking the crude for further proliferation of the downstream industries is needed," said Ananth Kumar, minister of chemicals& fertilizers, in the meeting. The Modi Government is targeting to achieve an investment of Rs 7,62,000 crores and generate employment for 34 lakh people in PCPIRs, in time bound manner. Already there has been an investment Rs 1,06,000 crores which has generated employment for 2.23 lakh people in various PCPIRs. The minister informed the committee members about government's initiatives to increase the number of plastic parks from 4 to 10 to catch up with the increasing demand. He also mentioned that the number of Central Institutes for Plastic Engineering and Technology (CIPET) will be increased from 23 to 100, to create additional capacity for skill development in the area. Ananth Kumar said that the Government is emphasising on reducing the consumption of non-biodegradable plastics, and re-using and re-cycling of other graded polymers. He said that the Government has instituted awards for green technology in plastic processing, to promote environment-friendly efforts in the industry." 

The figures quoted by the minister are indeed staggering to say the least. Investments to the tune of seven and half lakh crore are breath taking while generating employment for a quarter million people is highly impressive. The proposal to set up 100 R & D and training centers for skill development is mind boggling. How far these Parks will go for new green technologies cannot be foreseen since India lags far behind many other countries in developing technologies production from renewable resources and for those with biodegradable credentials. Probably to really put into operation these ideals and aspirations large scale foreign participation may be necessary which is linked to foreign investment policy of the government. All we can do at this juncture is to wish the minister good luck and hope for the best.   

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

Agricultural research-Public funding vs private investment

Looking back at the developments in agriculture brought about by the path breaking research at Indian Council of Agricultural Research 5-6 decades ago under the famed Green Revolution, one is tempted to ask the question whether India would have become self sufficient in cereals if this effort was left to the profit driven private sector. This is not to indict the private sector as evolving new varieties with built in economic advantages is both time consuming as well investment intensive. If to day world is debating about the desirability of GMO foods which were developed by the private sector mostly dominated by a few international companies with almost monopolistic hold over the seeds and other inputs necessary to cultivate these crops with some claimed advantages, it is because the fruits of these scientific efforts are not percolating down to small and marginal farmers. It is similar to the situation in development of new antibiotics which has hit a road block because of exorbitant cost of establishing their efficacy and safety, making it imperative for government to get involved closely in such efforts by pumping in public funds for the benefits of the public. Future developmental efforts in agricultural sector in evolving new technologies, especially involving molecular techniques, also will have to be a public interest driven one that can benefit millions of farmers without the burden of intellectual property related legal hassles. This is demonstrated by the experience in Canada where government is intimately involved in developments in agricultural front.

"Advancements in new crop varieties are important for the agriculture and agri-food industry, as yield increases, resistance traits, biochemical components and nutrient improvements have benefits for farmers, processors, and consumers.In the public sector, developing varieties with important novelty traits provide base foundations in seed quality Additional agronomic traits are later selected and added, and the varieties are sold commercially. Public and private breeding programs focus on different trait types due to the public pressure to release varieties.  Essential private breeding programs are typically funded by government or industry groups. The release of an individual variety typically costs $100,000. But despite its importance and demand, plant breeding is generating little interest with the younger generation. Plant breeding is not in the public eye very often, so many are unaware of the job options in the field. Peter Pauls, Chair of the Plant Agriculture Department at the University of Guelph sees this problem on a regular basis. "Everyone eats, but plant-related careers are under appreciated," he says. With a dynamic sector that has been changing drastically over the past 15 years as the use of molecular techniques are implemented, Pauls says young people are needed for their creative minds and technical skillsets, to utilize these molecular techniques to their full potential. For example, conventional breeding programs produce a commercially viable variety in 10 years. But using efficient molecular techniques can shorten this time because specific genetic markers can be implemented or selected to obtain desirable traits". 

After all farmers ploughing the field for a living have to be sure that the seeds being used are viable and come up to their expectations in terms of productivity and profitability. The requirements of small farmers are some what different from those of large farms which have access to best inputs and infrastructure to get assured yields and ensure good returns for their efforts. India is fortunate in having several agricultural universities across the country engaged in developing new and improved varieties of different crops with better performance credentials under Indian conditions. They also have the wherewithal to deliver the service to the farmers through their extension service network in the geographic areas covered by them. Indian farmers are that way fortunate in having easy access to the scientific innovations in these universities. Of course there is always scope for improving the interaction between agriculture scientists and the farming community. As there is no fund scarcity in the country for public sector agricultural research, the strangle hold of private players is rather limited.    

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

FOOD SECURITY AND GM TECHNOLOGY-WHAT IS THE CONNECTION?

The furious debate regarding the relevance and need for wide scale adoption of genetically modified crop technology world wide does not seem to be abating in spite of tons of scientific reports supporting as well as decrying this new agricultural tool emanating from many research institutions world over. Hardly a day passes without any publication coming out in this subject of intense interest for the consumer as well as policy makers. While the claim that GM technology can raise yield has not yet been conclusively established, it can cut down field losses due to some pests cannot be denied. Similarly long term safety of all GM crops is till uncertain though short term studies do not indicate they are harmful. Environmental issues are still to be sorted out as many fear that wide scale cultivation of GM crops can wipe out the native species over a period of time through contamination. Here is the latest on this subject which only adds to the already existing confusion. 

The US Congress adopted a clause in its 2013 agriculture budget bill that effectively bars the department of agriculture from any attempt to halt planting or harvesting a GM crop, even if the call comes from the judiciary, sparking outrage. India imposed a 10-year moratorium on field trials of GM crops in 2012. Organizations like Greenpeace and activists worldwide welcomed India's decision, but the IFPRI report describes it as a significant setback to food policy, and mainstream scientists argue that GM crops offer a way out of deepening food insecurity as growing conditions like the weather and water become compromised by climate change. IFPRI researchers P K Joshi and Devesh Roy note that the moratorium, "not based on scientific logic, will have negative effects on frontier research and demand-driven technology generation". The adoption of the US clause, nicknamed the "Monsanto Protection Act", was described by Greenpeace as a "sad day for democracy and the future of our food". Mark Bittman, a food writer for the New York Times, cites interviews with the Union of Concerned Scientists stating that GM crops purported to be weed- and insect-resistant are actually failing.  There is no reliable proof that GM crops are harmful to human beings. "That's not the same thing as saying that the potential isn't there for novel proteins and other chemicals to generate unexpected problems," Bittman writes, "which [is] why we need strict, effective testing and regulatory systems." The debate on GM crops is polarized between supporters and those who think it will have long-term impacts on biodiversity, possibly health, and lead to a takeover of food production by corporations like Monsanto. This has also been the case in Africa, where some countries have banned GM maize as food aid. Per Pinstrup-Andersen, 2001 World Food Prize Laureate and the author of a book on the politics of GM food, described India's moratorium as "nonsensical", and said it "reduces India's efforts to assure sustainable food security for its population". He is among the mainstream scientists who prefer to be open-minded on GM technology and believe that while it might not be the panacea to climate-proof plants, it is a tool with some potential to ensure food security in the coming decades.

There is some criticism about Indian Governments 2012 policy of imposing a moratorium on GM food crop cultivation though one cannot find fault with this step considering the rich diversity this country has vis--a-vis food and agriculture. The argument that such a policy will stifle research is misplaced because there is no stopping of research and development of this tool and if the scientific community can come up with GM foods based on "confined" research with safety questions fully solved, Government may be able to justify lifting the ban for the benefit of the country. Any attempt in introducing GM crops must satisfy the need to protect indigenous species through multiple gene pool collection and maintenance. No self respecting country can pass on the responsibility of developing such new technology to private sector monopolists like Monsanto or Cargil which can have potential danger of exploiting the farmers through stifling restrictions and restrictive patenting. Of course a rich country like the US has opted for a policy of protection to the GM seed industry in a big way with least concern to the well being of its citizens, third world countries should not mimic this strange country and opt for farmer and consumer friendly policies only.  

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

FOOD SCIENCE RESEARCH-WORRISOME ETHICAL ANGLE

Privatization of research in agricultural and food sciences has ramifications with far reaching consequence. If GM foods have become predominant in the US, the major reason is the investment made by a few corporate giants whose financial clout is as much as, if not more than, that of many independent countries combined! Their power is all permeating with no seats of governance beyond their lobbying and influence as exemplified by their ability to "smuggle" through GM foods into the food plates of Americans unnoticed and unannounced in a non-transparent manner. The adverse consequences of privatization of research will be phenomenal when it comes to poor nations which do not have the wherewithal to buy modern food technologies as most of them are under the monopoly building patent regimes. Realizing that there could be adverse PR for them, many food giants are moving into a mode where public research institutions are systematically being infiltrated to create many public "scientists with private agenda" to fool the world. Here is a report that could be quite disconcerting to any sane person caring about probity and integrity among scientists.

"We have heard a lot in recent years about the questionable or sometimes downright unethical corporate business practices of "Big Pharma" and "Big Tobacco"–now, even "Big Soda." But what about "Big Food?" Well, according to recent reports, some experts are convinced the corporate food and agribusiness industry is also in need of some watch-dogging. According to ABC news, premier scientific researchers, such as David Allison of the University of Alabama, are increasingly being funded by the big names in corporate food, and their financial ties to such companies as Coca Cola, Kraft, McDonald's, Mars and Nabisco (just to name a few) may be threatening their objectivity: "Critics say Allison is part of a concerted effort by big food to co-opt scientists not only by funding their research but by offering them lucrative speaking and consulting deals, in an effort to confuse U.S. families about the health effects of popular food products. Such tactics, critics say, are similar to those once used by Big Tobacco." In a recent commentary published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), researchers warn that "the food and beverage industry has created or funded front groups reminiscent of the tobacco institute that give the appearance of grassroots support." One such group the JAMA writers cite is the Center for Consumer Freedom, an organization which in truth was founded by a $600, 000 gift from big tobacco and is funded by powerful agribusinesses (as well as America's most prominent tobacco and alcohol barons). The center is known for maliciously opposing public health and advocacy groups such as PETA, Mother's Against Drunk Driving, Center for Science in the Public Interest, The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine".

Such devious practices by scientific community, though few in number can bring considerable disrepute to the whole scientific world and must be condemned and ruthlessly eradicated. It is unfortunate that for every scientific finding there are multiple views and some time such non-unanimity can lead to dis-unity and animosity which must be discouraged. Honest divergence of view is healthy but supporting some thing which is blatantly wrong and anti-consumer for "money" is unethical and dishonest. Scientific community must ostracize such black sheep from their midst if they have to reclaim the high moral ground and citizen's respect. Already there is considerable confusion prevailing regarding the safety of many food additives, processing operations, safety of packaging materials, nutritional data, health parameters and use of chemicals for food protection and the world can do without another controversy concerning the integrity of food scientists.

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

FOOD ALLERGY-NEED FOR MORE RESEARCH

Food allergens pose serious life threatening risks amongst a significant segment of the population in many countries and early detection can save precious lives. While such allergies are on the rise in western countries, no reliable data exist in most of the developing countries including India. Statistics on population affected by food allergy are neither accurate nor reliable since such data compilation is far and few in many countries. Probably traditional eating habits and lesser consumption of processed foods in the developing countries might be giving the impression that food allergies are far and few in these countries. No one knows for real the ground reality regarding the extent of such incidences prevailing in many developing countries. There is even a view orchestrated recently that the projected figures for food allergic population is exaggerated and the very methodologies now in use to detect allergies are not fool proof, calling for more studies in this area.

"The articles looked at allergies to cow's milk, hen's eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, fish and shellfish, which account for more than 50 percent of all food allergies. The review authors found that food allergies affect between 1 percent and 10 percent of the U.S. population, but it's not clear whether the prevalence of food allergies is increasing. While food challenges, skin-prick testing and blood-serum testing for IgE antibodies to specific foods (immunoglobulin E allergy testing) all have a role to play in diagnosing food allergies, no one test has sufficient ease of use or sensitivity or specificity to be recommended over other tests, Dr. Jennifer J. Schneider Chafen, of the VA Palo Alto Healthcare System and Stanford University School of Medicine, and colleagues, said in a news release. Elimination diets are a mainstay of food allergy therapy, but the researchers identified only one randomized controlled trial (RCT) — the gold-standard of evidence — of an elimination diet".

One of the reasons for lack of reliable information on food allergies could be the overwhelming incidence of infectious and other diseases that occur amongst the population in developing countries, especially those who inhabit the tropical and sub-tropical regions of the world. Probably this has deflected any attention on food allergy cases, considered far and few in these countries. It is for consideration whether under the "unique identification number" project of GOI, information on food allergies can also be included amongst the personal details of each citizen.

V.H.POTTY

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

TURNING "JUNK" TO "GOLD"?- THE NEW ALCHEMISTS

In a move to improve the image of the industry, conscious attempts are being made to improve the health aspect of processed foods without affecting the attractiveness of the products to the consumer. This is an area worthy of cooperative efforts between academic researchers and market driven industry managers. Issues like high fat, high sugar, high calories, high salt, lack of dietary fiber are haunting the industry and it is time now for the two creative stake holders to come together to modify many of the popular existing food products to incorporate positive health features without adversely affecting their organoleptic quality too drastically. The future of food industry lies here.

"Every year scientists are given huge amounts of money by the larger corporations to find ways in which junk food can be turned into healthier junk food. The corporations have no option because the junk they created is destroying health to such a massive extent that the economy is paying for it in ways that nobody ever would have imagined. Since this food has an almost cult like following and many families actually live on the stuff, action had to be taken before some clever lawyer discovers a new reason to institute a class action that could potentially destroy big business or, at least, let it hemorrhage badly".

The tobacco class action episode cannot be easily forgotten when the industry had to fork out billions of dollars towards damage to consumers who were affected by cigarette smoking. It is possible that same can happen to food industry also one day for peddling unhealthy foods knowing pretty well that their consumption can lead to obesity, CVD, blood pressure, kidney diseases etc. It is better late than never!

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