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

China's Silent Revolution!-Is it a sustainable strategy?

Communist China of to day is poised to take on the US as numero ono  power in the world with its rapid industrialization and unbelievable agricultural achievements and no matter what human right activists say about the cruelty of the regime that rules the country, the living standards of people there are leap frogging each year. The GDP has seen a consistent growth of about 8- 9% which no other country in the world could achieve for a century. The strategy of inviting foreign investments into the country with technology transfer preconditions has seen localization of many of them producing goods at costs much less than what is prevalent in other parts of the world. Recent news that China is fine tuning another strategy to mimic what it has done in the manufacturing sector to increase production of agricultural crops dramatically using foreign technologies and foreign companies. Small farmers are being pushed out of their lands and land consolidation is taking place at a frenetic pace. Large agricultural farms using latest equipment and technologies are being set up and in a few years time this country may be the largest supplier of food to the world. Here is a report on this tectonic shift in agricultural front in China and its impact on the food supply in the world. 

"As the largest international market for food and agricultural products produces in America, China represents an estimated 20% of farm exports for the U.S. But thanks to the U.S., that lush market is undergoing the biggest transformation in decades — one that will send ripples throughout the global economy. What does this revolution look like? The Chinese government has been gradually pushing the country's agricultural sector toward large-scale farming, as the march toward industrialization has been turbocharged in both government policy and foreign investments.  In recent years, the country has replaced small farms with larger plots of land and mega-sized operations. Farmers and entrepreneurs are also receiving industry advice from an unlikely partner: Iowa agribusiness. Across the country, U.S. companies are investing in high-tech hog farms, selling equipment made by Deere & Co. and boosting production of China's largest crop with genetically modified seeds. The results are astonishing. China's total farm output has tripled since 1978, helping slash its hunger rate from 20% of its population in 1990 to 12% today, according to research by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The pace of the revolution is gaining speed as millions of people leave farming for a job in one of the country's numerous megacities. The government in Beijing is encouraging the mass scale migration as it plans to move 100 million people from rural, agricultural heartlands and into urban areas by 2020. Increasingly, unattended farms are being replaced by U.S.-inspired agricultural innovations: big farms, chemically intensive production, monoculture crop systems and modern technology. "More and more farmers see agriculture as a secondary job. Some farmers no longer attach importance to growing crops as they used to," Minister of Agriculture Han Changfu said in an interview with Xinhua last Friday, the China Times reported. But the government has other, unsaid motives. Not only will mass migration support economic growth, it will also transfer rural land, normally under collective ownership, to government control."

Migration of rural population to urban areas is a phenomenon found in most of the developing countries as small scale agriculture becomes more and more nonviable economically leaving very little option to the rural folks but to migrate to cities seeking better income earning opportunities. In India itself the rural population is coming down rapidly and the urban infrastructure all over the country is literally bursting at its seams due to uncontrolled influx of rural folks. What is alarming is the impact of such a trend on the agricultural front, especially on food production. It is an irony that millions of small land holdings resulting from land fragmentation happening due to successive generational shift cannot adopt modern agricultural practices which only can increase land productivity. As land is a holy cow in the country land consolidation by private players is practically impossible ensuring status quo in the food front. Though one hears about new policies aimed at land consolidation by thrashing some of the archaic laws that prevent any land reforms, nothing seems to be happening at the ground level. India needs to take a lesson out of the Chinese experience and go ahead in transforming small agricultural land holdings into reasonably big entities which can only take up modern technological means to expand food production  

significantly in the coming years. 
V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

A Crusader's fiery opposition to modern agricultural system

Given below is a reference to the campaign by a fiery activist in India against modern input intensive agriculture and the fast spreading use of GMO technology for producing food for the world. While reading the report one cannot help getting a feeling that though she has many strong points in repudiating the current system, there are lot more issues that need careful consideration and analysis before out right condemnation.  It is not necessary for the reader to agree with whatever she says but one can get a right perspective on the changing agricultural landscape in the world in response to an expanding population that is predicted to reach 10 billion by the end of this century. 

"Shiva's fiery opposition to globalization and to the use of genetically modified crops has made her a hero to anti-G.M.O. activists everywhere. The purpose of the trip through Europe, she had told me a few weeks earlier, was to focus attention there on "the voices of those who want their agriculture to be free of poison and G.M.O.s." At each stop, Shiva delivered a message that she has honed for nearly three decades: by engineering, patenting, and transforming seeds into costly packets of intellectual property, multinational corporations such as Monsanto, with considerable assistance from the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the United States government, and even philanthropies like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are attempting to impose "food totalitarianism" on the world. She describes the fight against agricultural biotechnology as a global war against a few giant seed companies on behalf of the billions of farmers who depend on what they themselves grow to survive. Shiva contends that nothing less than the future of humanity rides on the outcome. "There are two trends," she told the crowd that had gathered in Piazza Santissima Annunziata, in Florence, for the seed fair. "One: a trend of diversity, democracy, freedom, joy, culture—people celebrating their lives." She paused to let silence fill the square. "And the other: monocultures, deadness. Everyone depressed. Everyone on Prozac. More and more young people unemployed. We don't want that world of death." The audience, a mixture of people attending the festival and tourists on their way to the Duomo, stood transfixed. Shiva, dressed in a burgundy sari and a shawl the color of rust, was a formidable sight. "We would have no hunger in the world if the seed was in the hands of the farmers and gardeners and the land was in the hands of the farmers," she said. "They want to take that away." Shiva, along with a growing army of supporters, argues that the prevailing model of industrial agriculture, heavily reliant on chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fossil fuels, and a seemingly limitless supply of cheap water, places an unacceptable burden on the Earth's resources. She promotes, as most knowledgeable farmers do, more diversity in crops, greater care for the soil, and more support for people who work the land every day. Shiva has particular contempt for farmers who plant monocultures—vast fields of a single crop. "They are ruining the planet," she told me. "They are destroying this beautiful world."

No matter who says what world has to come up with new ideas and programs to goad the farmers to produce more food to meet the increasing demand for food without expanding the current level of land utilization. In stead of squabbling on this vital issue, it is time that all countries put their heads together to arrive at a consensus regarding the most feasible way of achieving increased production of foods. While debating about the best route to go about the imposing task, what is not negotiable is that safety of humans and quality of the environment they live in. Predominantly private initiatives in seed development and evolution of new farm technology must give way to more government controlled programs that will have no strings attached vis-a-vis direct economic returns. Privatization of fruits of research and finance linked intellectual property regime cannot be allowed to dictate to the world the terms of utilizing the scientific results for the common good of the people inhabiting this planet.

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

Is the world giving up vegetarianism slowly/-Current trend does indicate that!

The remarkable growth of gluten-free food sector in the US and Europe is a big mystery defying any logic. Though number of people affected by gluten allergy is substantial, the galloping growth of this segment of food industry does not explain such a frenetic pace of development. According to market watchers not even 20% of the consumers buying gluten free foods really need them for health reasons. Whether the marketing hype or heavy promotion by the industry is responsible for this phenomenon is not known. Definitely superior eating quality of these products cannot be the reason as substituting gluten in many products with other ingredients does compromise on some sensory qualities! As in many cases scare about unsubstantiated health hazards of some food components on health, gets ingrained in the minds of the consumers leading to such large scale avoidance of such products. Gluten is also implicated in some health disorders like Celiac disease in a few people and many articles, most of them motivated by vested interests, appear from time to time regarding the virtues of avoiding gluten in foods by the consumers. In contrast, knowing fully well the harmful impact of consuming meat based foods regularly and the advantages inherent in plant based foods, consumers do not seem to be too much concerned leading to a situation where vegetarian food portfolio is shrinking progressively these days! One can only hope better sense will prevail on human beings regarding the dangers posed by animal foods and switch over to plant foods sooner than later. Here is a take on this puzzling market trend reported in the US and other Western countries.

"Consumer demand for products without gluten, however, is rising rapidly. Health-conscious Americans were first to avoid it in significant numbers. Sales of gluten-free food and drink there have surged from $5.4 billion to $8.8 billion over the past two years, according to Mintel, a market-research firm. They are set to grow a further 20% by 2015. Europe is now quickly catching up: there is double-digit sales growth in most countries, with Britain leading the way. This makes for tasty business. Sales in America of food untainted by gluten are forecast to grow by a further 61% by 2017, with similar increases expected in other rich countries. Shops have reshuffled their shelves and restaurants rewritten their menus to keep up with demand. Big supermarkets have been slimming down their range of vegetarian products and are stocking more gluten-free lines. Even small convenience stores in remote parts of rural Ireland and Italy now stock ranges of gluten-free bread and cakes. Restaurants, in particular, have rushed to launch menus that banish the stuff. The number of options that leave out gluten in British restaurants has tripled since 2011, says Emma Read at Horizons, a data firm. That is less because restaurateurs fear losing bookings from diners who want to avoid gluten, but more that they worry that their family and friends will not come along either. Yet some retail analysts fret that the wheat-free bubble will eventually burst, as it already has for meat substitutes. Many doctors say that only a few of the one-in-ten households that now regularly buy such products have a member with coeliac disease and a medical need to avoid gluten. But research from Monash University published last year shows that many more people may be sensitive to other allergens that are found in wheat. And according to a survey by Kantar, a research firm, only 22% of people who buy gluten-free food say they do so for non-medical reasons. This could be one foodie trend that turns out to be much more than a fad."

A fad is a fad which is bound to burst one day and this latest bubble about gluten free foods being demanded by a vast segment of the consumers will have to burst eventually. Regarding meat foods considerable efforts are needed to persuade consumers to progressively increase consumption of plant foods as meat industry cannot continue its operations in a sustainable form in the foreseeable future throwing out a plethora of problems vis-a-vis human health and environmental degradation. Attempts to create artificial meat through biotechnology is a welcome effort but it will ever be economically feasible is doubtful. Whether consumers will accept such products is another imponderable factor. In the long run humanity has no alternative but to switch over to plant foods which only can sustain this planet. It is better that the food industry world over gets reconciled to this truth and work on a long term strategy to expand its plant food portfolio as quickly as possible.

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

FOOD, SUSTAINABILITY AND HUMAN HEALTH-NEW DIETARY POLICY

Human health has been the primary concern during the last few decades of food and nutrition research and from time to time pearls of wisdom used to be offered by this expert community for the benefit of the citizens and policy makers. Alas, where this has taken the world to as the extent of health related problems and deterioration of the environment due to mindless/reckless exploitation of the resources of this planet is mind boggling. Though there is a late realization that increased meat consumption and ever expanding demand for meat products could cause a plethora of health afflictions, at the ground level there is no evidence that meat consumption rate is coming down. On the contrary many countries on the threshold of economic development have population with higher purchasing capacity and bigger aspirations whose appetite for meat foods is continuously growing! Americans are in the forefront as far as industrial production of meat foods, especially beef products is concerned while addiction to pork is galloping in the new economic super power country, China. Millions of farms across the world raise meat animals like poultry birds, cows, buffaloes, pigs and sheep/goats whose population is in billions, slaughtered every day to satiate the hunger for meat from the carnivorous segment of global population numbering over 6 billion out of the 7 billion people inhabiting this planet. If environmental scientists are to be believed these animals constitute the largest threat as far as green house gas emission is concerned. What is reprehensible is the prevarication among policy makers regarding any positive policy orchestration that will discourage people from eating animal derived foods. Against such a background comes the refreshing news that American authorities are considering seriously to enunciate policies that will guide their citizens to change over to a diet containing more and more plant foods and reduce meat consumption to the minimum. Here is a take on this.

"Every five years the federal government issues dietary guidelines to provide practical advice for healthy eating. There have been instructions to eat more whole grains and less saturated fat, sugar, and sodium. The 2015 update for the first time may tell Americans to pay attention to how their food is grown, not just what's in it. In July the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, a 14-member panel appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, circulated a draft document that suggests Americans reduce their consumption of meat and dairy and eat more plant-based foods. The draft was based on studies showing that lowering meat consumption cuts greenhouse gas emissions, lessening the contribution our eating habits make to climate change. Final guidelines are due to be issued in late 2015. Earlier versions of the dietary guidelines, which form the basis for federal food and nutrition programs like subsidized school lunches, have encouraged Americans to eat leaner meat, but not to eat less meat altogether. "A dietary pattern that is higher in plant-based food and lower in animal-based foods is more health-promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impacts—energy, land, and water use—than the current average American diet," Miriam Nelson, a Tufts University nutrition professor who chairs the advisory panel's subcommittee on food sustainability and safety, said at a public meeting in September. Members of the advisory panel declined to be interviewed. The panel's embrace of sustainability has drawn fierce opposition from conservatives. The House Appropriations Committee instructed Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who is responsible for approving the final guidelines along with Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell, to make sure the committee doesn't "pursue an environmental agenda." Capital Research Center, a conservative think tank focused on environmental issues, recently issued a five-page report titled "Meet the 'green' radicals who want to plan your menu." Some in the meat industry also oppose the proposed dietary guideline change. "We agree that more plant foods should be consumed, but not at the expense of nutrient-dense protein," Betsy Booren, vice president for scientific affairs at the American Meat Institute, said in a statement after the draft came out in July. Marion Nestle, a New York University nutrition professor and critic of the food industry's influence on policy, applauded the advisory panel for making the connection between environmental protection and healthy eating. "We don't have an agricultural policy linked to health policy," says Nestle, who served on the dietary guidelines panel in 1995. "We should."

As with any other issues, the confrontation between herbivores and carnivores is also a controversial area, each side marshaling data to justify their stand. Added to this is the powerful meat lobby which stands to lose if there is a tectonic shift in food consumption behavior of the population in favor of plant foods. There are also a few nutrition apologists who are sticking to their unsubstantiated stand that non-plant foods do not provide good nutrition and ensure healthy growth of children which is a slap in the face of more than a billion population who are vegetarians by culture, faith, religion and conviction. India which is predominantly a vegetarian country by nature and economic compulsions survived for centuries with minimum adverse impact on health of its population. Their abstinence from meat eating has in no way diminished their talents or mental agility even a wee bit as Gujarati Jains, Marwadis of Rajasthan and Iyer population of Tamilnadu have produced some of the best performers in fields like business, administration and other human endeavors. Now that a nation like the US with almost 100% of the population carnivores is turning around and appreciating the virtues of plant foods in preference to meat foods, it is time the world wakes up to follow its example and save this planet from slow annihilation!   

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

ECO-LABELING-CONFUSION WORST CONFOUNDED!

Ever since mandatory front of the pack labeling became a part of the processed food industry landscape, debates continue unabated regarding the sufficiency or otherwise about the information provided on these labels by the manufacturers. Consumers are always happy to get as much information as possible on the label which will help them to make judicious choice while doing their purchase. While the major aspects of labeling cover information with regard to nutrition, weight, manufacturing date, expiry date etc, increased consumer awareness about sustainability issues, water wastage, carbon emission, energy usage etc, appears to be generating an entirely new labeling initiatives broadly called ecolabeling.  As consumers seem to be appreciating such an initiative, ecolabeling is becoming an important consideration in a fiercely competitive market. Unfortunately the ecolabeling field is getting too much crowded with all and sundry offering such certification based on different standards without any uniformity.

"Growing consumer awareness of food production methods and sustainability issues has led to the rise in recent years of ecolabels in the food industry; over 200 seals and logos currently represent some ecological, ethical, ingredient or sustainability attributes in the global food industry. That number is expected to rise in 2013, and the mushrooming number of ecolabels could have adverse consequences, according to specialty research consultancy Organic Monitor. The company will present its latest findings on the global market for ecolabeled food and drink at the upcoming Sustainable Foods Summit. Organic products comprise the bulk of the estimated US $75 billion ecolabeled food and drink market. Most sales are from Europe and North America, which have legally protected organic logos. However, many new organic labels are being introduced in Asia, Latin America and other regions – over 84 countries have introduced national standards for organic products, with most having separate organic labels. The lack of harmonization between these standards is leading to multiple certifications and an exponential rise in organic ecolabels".

Organic foods movement which started about two decades back has achieved tremendous success because of the consumer perception that commercially produced foods by the mainstream industry was ignoring the environment and safety of the citizens while marketing their products. Most ecolabeling to day is focused on such consumers who are more concerned about sustainability of many activities in the day to day life routines. What is appalling is the proliferation of organizations selling their sustainability logos based on different and varying standards resulting in confusion for the consumers for making informed choices. It is against such a background that a need is keenly felt to consolidate various standards and bring about a uniform one for adoption by the entire spectrum of food industry.   

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

SPICE EXPORTS-STIFFENING INTERNATIONAL SAFETY NORMS

India's dominance in world trade in spices appears to be in danger if the industry does not rise to the challenges posed by new and more stringent quality and safety regulations which are being implemented by many buyer countries. According to the spice industry rejection rates of Indian shipments of spices are becoming alarming and considering that safety is of paramount importance, especially in Japan, Europe and the US, there should not be any surprise if these countries start clamping down on imports from India. The conventional attitude that buyers have no choice but come to India is no more relevant to day and if urgent pro-active steps are not taken to streamline many of the present industrial practices with more stress on safety, there are countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, China and some countries in Africa ready to step in to satisfy the spice needs of the world sooner than later. Here is a commentary on the subject which is an eye opener for spice industry for taking steps for self correction.    

"Indian spice traders and producers are facing challenges like food safety, sustainability and traceability. Food safety regulations are affecting spice exports especially to the countries like Germany, France, England, Japan and Australia. India is biggest producer and exporter of spices in the world. As the regulations varies from country-to-country, it is becoming hard to maintain all the required standards. According to reports, the total export of spices from India during the current financial year, up to November 2011, is 351,900 tonnes valued at Rs 6,209.08 crore. But considering the volumes, the export shows a decline of five per cent in the current year as compared to the previous year. The spices exports for the financial year 2011-12 is fixed at 500,000 tonnes valuing Rs 6,500 crore. The countries that import the maximum of spice products from India are Malaysia for chilli and coriander, USA for pepper, celery, spice oils and oleo resins, China for mint products, Saudi Arabia for cardamom, UAE for turmeric, Bangladesh for ginger and garlic, Pakistan for cardamom large and fennel, UK for cumin, Japan for fenugreek, Nigeria for curry powders and Nepal for other seed spices. Geemon Korah, CEO, Kancor Ingredients Ltd said, "These regulations are badly hitting our export markets. Therefore sustainability is a major issue. The maximum containers are rejected from European countries, Japan and Australia. We are largest exporter of chilli and ginger to these countries." "India is the largest producer, consumer and exporter of spices in the world today, contributing about 48 per cent of the world's requirement of spices. As the global demand for spices is spurring up, it throws up several challenges, mainly for food sustainability, traceability and safety standards. These are not just issues, but threats that can affect the very existence of the spice industry in the country," said A Jayathilak, chairman, Spices Board of India",

There is no point in blaming the buying countries for stiffening the safety standards because increasing knowledge about food contamination and its fatal consequences are forcing the whole world to do that for preventing food poisoning among their population due to imported foods. The Fenugreek "episode" in Europe last year for which imported sprouts from Egypt were blamed brought new focus on this issue and many importing countries are taking measures to prevent repeat of such incidences in future. If India has been caught in this "whirlpool", the country has to blame itself for the situation. No doubt Spices Board is doing a reasonably good job in disciplining the export trade but unless there is an unwavering commitment to quality and safety by the industry, the exports are bound to suffer in the long run.

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

   

LOOKING AT FOOD THROUGH ENERGY LENS-NEED FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION

Specialists always tend to look at their field of specialization in isolation without being aware of the dynamics of nature where every human endeavor is interconnected. There was a time when food scientists started looking at the whole food system from within and what came out was a shock for many of them. This refers to the efficiency of protein derived from different food sources and the comparison was between plant foods and animal based products. It became clear that to get one kg of animal protein man has to expend 7 kg of plant proteins and awareness about such gigantic waste started sweeping across the world transforming many meat eaters into vegetarians. Recent debate about the interconnection between food and energy is igniting a new sense of urgency for making conscious efforts to reduce energy consumption by the food sector as much as possible. Here is a gist of the debate which brings out many interesting revelations not known widely hitherto:

"It's important to understand the many interconnections between the food and energy sectors in order to make good consumer choices and develop prudent public policy. A recent Scientific American article by Michael E. Webber makes a big contribution to this effort by examining the food system through the "lens of energy use." Webber explains that looking at the food supply in this context "reveals opportunities for smart policies, innovative technologies and new dietary choices that can potentially solve food and energy problems together. The same steps would also make our bodies, and our ecosystems, healthier." So how much energy is required to grow food? According to Webber, about 10 percent of the U.S. energy budget is associated with "producing, distributing, processing, preparing and preserving the plant and animal matter we consume." And what's the rate of return on that investment of energy? Unfortunately, it's not very good. "The energy used to make food is vastly greater than the amount of energy we get out of it," writes Webber. In the United States, it takes about 10 units of fossil energy to produce one unit of food energy.This ratio is not sustainable! Americans need to find ways to reduce it if there's any hope of decreasing our own food-energy consumption, and so does the rest of the world, especially as the population is projected to top nine billion by 2050".

It is almost criminal for a country like the US to expend 10 units of fossil energy to get 1 unit of biological energy from the food produced and consumed. This becomes indeed a shocking news at an age when fossil energy sources are rapidly drying and desperate efforts are on globally to find suitable but affordable new sustainable sources of energy. As it is the US happened to be the top nation in the world when energy guzzling is monitored, most of it "savable" with a little bit of effort and sacrifice. Unfortunately there is an unwillingness to address this issue and the casualty is going to be the poor developing countries which are invariably being asked to bear the "Cross"! The rich nation club must address this issue under international aegis on an emergency basis similar to the collective efforts being made now to reduce green house gas emissions for avoiding further damage to the environment through global warming.

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

ANOTHER "EULOGY" FOR ORGANIC FOODS- A SCIENTIFIC FINDING

Protagonists of Organic foods make some claims which are difficult to be sustained based on science. One such claim is regarding yield of crops from normal soil when organic farming system is deployed. But the latest studies carried out in the US do indicate that yields can be equal to or greater than under traditional agriculture using chemical fertilizers, high levels of water and application of pesticides. This long term study spread over 30 years deserves attention by planners and farmers while deciding about any strategy to evolve sustainable agriculture in the coming years. Here is a report about the significance of this study for the long term future of the planet.

"Rodale Institute today announces the latest results of the Farming Systems Trial, America's longest running side-by-side comparison of organic and conventional farming practices. Originally created to study the transition from conventional to organic production, this 30-year study also examined productivity, soil quality, energy and economics. Key findings show:

-- Organic yields match or surpass conventional yields.
-- Organic yields outperform conventional yields in years of drought.
-- Organic farming systems build rather than deplete soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system.
-- Organic farming uses 45 percent less energy and is more efficient.
-- Conventional agricultural systems produce 40 percent more greenhouse gases.
-- Organic farming systems are more profitable than conventional farming systems.

After 30 years of a rigorous side-by-side comparison, the Rodale Institute confidently concludes that organic methods are improving the quality of our food, the health of our soils and water, and the conditions of our nation's rural areas. Organic agriculture creates more jobs, provides a livable income for farmers, and can restore America's confidence in our farming community and food system. "America's farming techniques affect the health of our families, our communities, and our planet. The Farming Systems Trial shows that organic farming is the healthiest and safest way to feed the world, provide much-needed jobs, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and protect precious natural resources," says Mark "Coach" Smallwood, Executive Director of Rodale Institute. "The Farming Systems Trial clearly documents in a replicated, scientific fashion, that many of the current myths are not true. Organic agriculture does not result in the grower losing money, does not result in lower yields, or more expensive management practices," says Dr. Elaine Ingham, Chief Scientist at Rodale Institute. "The next step forward is to educate growers, whether they are conventional or organic, in the methods used in the Farming Systems Trial to assure equal or better yields through farming practices that do not harm the environment." The trial is slated to continue with a new focus on nutrition and human health. "We have shown that organic can feed the world. Now it is time to take on the matter of feeding the world well," said Smallwood".

One of the significant findings is that unlike the input intensive conventional agriculture, organic system does not destroy the soil health that enables the farmer to continuously use the land for many many years. Also notable is the relatively less carbon emission reported under organic cultivation mode. While it is agreed that farmers are well advised to replace their conventional practices with organic production system, what is not clear is the logistics involved in such switch over. Input materials like organic manure, safe natural crop protectants and cover crops are scarce resources while the actual practical methodology needs to be popularized through training under experienced practitioners. Though the studies have shown that organic food production can ensure increased production there has to be a coordinated effort at global level to put into practice what is already known and achieve the desired results. Like the recent UNO meeting on junk foods, a similar international consultation is called for to take appropriate action and evolve strategy to transform the current farming practices into organic system.

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

FOOD TRUCK PHENOMENON-CAN IT WITHSTAND THE FATIGUE FACTOR?

Street foods always had their following in many countries and no matter what steps are taken to discourage people from patronizing these foods, many of them prepared and served under some what indifferent hygienic conditions, the phenomenon is here to stay. It is very difficult to understand the precise reasons why people flock around these mobile eateries though taste and economic factors must be playing a major role. World over the focus has shifted from uprooting these vendors to rehabilitate them through training and better infrastructure. Whether it is in Thailand or in India road side vending plays a crucial role in catering to mostly low income customers while the so called Food Truck business in the US is a recent development being patronized by those requiring fast service with minimum over head cost on their fare. In the last few years the Food Truck business has been growing at a phenomenal rate in the US and naturally the policy makers are in a fix to decide whether this is just a passing fancy or there will be continued growth of this sector in the coming years. Here is a take on this developing scenario.

"It finally dawned on me that the sole reason people repeatedly ask this question is because of the rapid growth of the food truck movement over the last two years. Does rapid growth necessitate a rapid and nearly instantaneous decline in growth? That's really what I think people are asking. It could be more simply stated as "When is this ending?" which, in my opinion, is totally natural as the mind wants to reconcile any new phenomena under some form of restrictive time classification. So, in order to dissect this question, I will attempt to answer a few questions on food trucks and fads in general. First, how long must something stay in popular demand before being considered a fad? My instinct tells me that in order for a thing to pass out of fad-dom, its ascent to the top must last significantly longer than its descent into oblivion. Was MySpace a fad? Silly Bandz? Whether or not Justin Timberlake can revive the social network to its former glory is to be seen, but that's another discussion altogether. Not to say both weren't wildly successful, but they both went away nearly as quickly as they came. Eventually, hype wears off and actual value of a good or service is measured against feasible alternatives. This is truly the core of the fad question, determining the actual value versus the perceived value (layered in by hype.) With food trucks, there is an actual need being fulfilled, the convenience of quality food at an affordable price. This is probably the easiest to identify as a primary reason for frequenting food trucks and carts. The long lines and the overextended hype for certain vendors may antagonize the fad argument, but new restaurants are not immune to the same treatment of popularity at launch. Good luck getting a reservation to the newest restaurant you just read about in The New York Times this Saturday night".

Doubts about the sustainability of food trucks have arisen because new developments always face the fatigue factor due to which consumers develop disinterest over a period of time or the new players take their customers for granted affecting the quality of service. Added to this the bureaucratic procedures and controls increasingly being applied for starting new joints may discourage new entrepreneurs from venturing into this area. There is also the pressure from the established catering industry for restricting expansion of food trucks because of apprehension regarding the economic impact on their traditional type of catering business. If rules and regulations that govern food truck business are tightened further and brought on par with regular catering industry, cost of the service is bound to go up significantly. However involvement of reputed Chefs in starting food truck business can still be an attractive factor that can pull in customers who like novelties in food preparations. The biggest advantage for food trucks is their mobility and use of IT enabled Tweeter service to keep the customers informed about their whereabouts.

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

WHY PALM OIL IS "UNJUSTIFIABLY" TARGETED? IT IS TIME FOR COUNTER ATTACK

Palm oil, the cheapest edible oil in the international market, has been giving other oils a run for their money and hence it is the focus of attack by its competitors, rightly or wrongly. No matter how hard countries like US, Canada and other industrialized countries try to compete with Palm oil with their own oils like Soy, Canola etc, it has been a losing battle as evidenced by the preference of food industries world over for palm oil because of its thermal stability and functional advantages besides the low price. Indonesia and Malaysia together account for more than 40 million tons of global production and both being forest rich countries, the campaign against them revolves around the prevalent production practices which have been termed "unsustainable" but with least conviction. The western inspired Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil is to day in the forefront denigrating this oil, obviously to gain market advantage for their own oils. The latest attempts in Australia to even force Palm oil using food manufacturers to declare on the label whether the oil used is sustainable or not is a clear violation of WTO regulations which does not allow TBT for discriminating against any product in the world trade.

"Aimed at consumers, politicians and the food industry, the ongoing campaign in Australia to single out palm oil as a food ingredient, revolves around the Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling Palm Oil) Bill 2010.If the Bill is passed, there will be new labelling standards for producers, manufacturers and distributors of foods containing palm oil. The proposed change in law is based on the argument that "palm oil production results in extensive deforestation". Said the explanatory memorandum to the Bill: "As the major producers are Malaysia and Indonesia, this has led to the removal of wildlife habitat and has placed many species, including the endangered orang utan, at risk." The purpose of the legislation, according to the memorandum, is "to ensure that consumers are provided with clear, accurate information about the inclusion of palm oil in foods, and to encourage the use of certified sustainable palm oil in order to promote the protection of wildlife habitat".

Watching the above "circus', one is reminded of similar campaign against Brazil which was accused of environmental crime for expanding its sugar cane cultivation as a part of a long term program to cut down consumption of fossil fuel vis ethanol production. Obviously such programs are likely to hurt the Corn industry which also produces ethanol and Fructose syrup, competing with Brazilian sugar cane industry. When Asian countries pioneered the Palm oil industry with the hard sweat of their people, there were organized attempts by the West to denigrate the oil as unhealthy with potential for causing Heart disease and other related dangers and it was a hard fought battle by the palm growing countries deploying western nutritionists to demolish the insinuations. Now that the oil has become the most sought after edible oil or biofuel, new road blocks are sought to be created by calling Palm oil production environmentally unsustainable! As sellers have no choice, the Palm oil producers have to listen to the grievances of the buyers, however "unsustainable" their stand many be! The critics of Palm oil do not seem to have any conscience while arguing out their case because of the impact of unjustified action on the economy of those countries which rely heavily on export of Palm oil. More than 2 million people find employment in Palm oil production, besides thousands of small growers with limited resources to dance to the tune of the Western countries, which seem to be shifting the "goal post" from time to time, the obvious purpose being finding one or the other fault with Palm oil. It is time that producers of Palm oil start a charm offensive to counteract the bad publicity with scientific evidence that Palm oil plantations are not that bad as being made out to be by the vested interests.

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

FARMING FOR FOOD-THE SHIFTING PARADIGM

Prediction of massive starvation due to near stagnant food production and unrestricted growth of population, especially in the developing countries during sixties and seventies of the last millennium was proved false, thanks to the Green Revolution that achieved quantum jumps in food grain production. Of course this was achieved through better technologies based on greater inputs of energy and water besides causing environmental degradation affecting the quality of life in this planet. Sustainable agricultural system, now being promoted, calls for increased food production with least damage to the nature.

"Demands frequently fall under the banner of sustainability, which many define as balancing the needs of people and the planet with economic viability. The food system looms large as a major user of fossil fuels and water and a producer of greenhouse gas emissions. Several supply chain-wide initiatives made up of diverse stakeholders are developing sets of quantitative metrics that together will define how to measure sustainability".

Those countries already riding high on wealth, blessed with stagnant populations with negligible, some times even negative birth rate, can preach restraint and moderation from others which are on the threshold of high economic growth and development. It is a big dilemma for the developing world as to how they can balance the increased need for foods to their population, at the same time make agriculture a sustainable proposition as being discussed in many international fora. The present dialog between developed and developing countries on measures to reduce greenhouse gas emission does not seem to be going any where with no consensus emerging regarding future course of action and responsibilities to be shouldered by each country.

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

NEWER PARADIGM FOR FOOD PRODUCTION

There are views and views as to how best humanity can survive against food shortages, water depletion and environmental degradation. But there is near unanimity regarding the need to raise food production significantly in the coming years though how this can be achieved is a subject matter of intense speculation as a clear cut answer is still eluding the planners. 'Sustainable agriculture', a phrase very commonly used by many stakeholders in this food search, does make sense in that food production is not a one shot process and the valuable soil in which it is raised must be preserved/refurbished for at least maintaining the production level, if it cannot be raised.

A workable and realistic food policy must be evolved to work out a strategy for production of agri-livestock based foods with the definitive objective of achievable targets within a time frame. "Growing so many grains to feed cattle, pigs and poultry in feedlots affect water supplies and air quality. Producing ample supplies of fatty meats adds to our waistlines. Subsidizing crops like corn takes a big bite out of the federal budget".

Well said, but how to go about making a U-turn now, after so much damage has already been done? Is there really a solution to the problem? May be, there is scope for at least trying to bring about radical changes in the current agricultural practices in a small way without affecting the large scale farms which have to meet the food needs of bulk of the population.

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