"COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING"-IS IT NOT PAROCHIAL?

Is it not an irony of history that Britishers who ruled a number of countries as a colonial power till the first half of last millennium, sucking blood out of their subjects, now wants to shun food products coming from some of these very same countries through discriminatory policies? The present move to make the food industry in that country declare on the label the country of origin of the products manufactured by them is highly deplorable and the WTO must slam this move as a non-technical barrier to free trade. It is good to be patriotic and persuade citizens to buy locally made products so that the industry there develops properly providing ample employment opportunities. But carrying this philosophy too far can hurt the world trade and will certainly attract punitive measures from the affected countries who export their products to UK.

"This retailer commitment should mean that if it says British on the label then it's British in the packet and that is a huge step in the right direction," she said. She said NFUS was still hopeful Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) would be made a legal requirement at UK and EU level across a wider range of products than those that currently qualify - beef, veal, some fruit and vegetables and eggs. "Ahead of further statutory requirements, we hope that retailers fulfil the pledges made in this initiative, particularly its extension from fresh meat into processed meat products," she said. Announcing that seven major UK retailers have signed up to the guidance, British Retail Consortium food director Andrew Opie, said many grocers already go well beyond the 'high minimum standards set out in the document'. "Supermarkets are making it easy for those shoppers who want to buy British to do so. Other food service providers need to up their game," he said. The guidelines were drawn up by the BRC with other food organisations, including the British Meat Processors Association(BMPA) and the Food and Drink Federation. BMPA director Stephen Rossides said: "Where country of origin labelling is used on meat and meat products, it should be clear, honest and not mislead consumers. The BMPA urges its member companies to follow these principles and guidelines where they apply country of origin labelling". FDF Director of Communications Julian Hunt said: "We agree that consumers should not be misled with regard to the origin of a food product and our members are committed to providing clear, honest labelling." Food and Farming Minister Jim Paice, who has had a role in encouraging development of the voluntary guidance, said: "This industry code will give consumers confidence to know, for example, that if it says British on the label, it's British in the packet. Lots of food companies already do this but it's about spreading that good practice."

Why a consumer should be concerned with the country of origin if the food products manufactured by the British food industry conform to all the safety standards, evolved and administered by the safety authorities in their own country? Why is that Chinese consumer products are flooding the markets all over the world, though quality wise they are much inferior to those manufactured in western countries?. It is simply the low price which lures the consumer to such products. It is up to the country which imports these low cost products to exercise vigil on imports so that sub-standard products do not enter the country. If all the countries in the world shun British products as a retaliatory measure what will happen to their economy? Those who campaign for country of origin label must ponder over the global repercussions of such a stupid policy.

V.H.POTTY

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

THE GREAT "HAND OUT" STRATEGY-WILL THE UK EFFORT SUCCEED?

Countries world over are concerned about the deteriorating health condition of their population due to the fast pace of modern life, over consumption of imbalanced food and leading a sedentary life with very little regular exercise. Processed food industry is invariably blamed for luring the consumers to highly satisfying foods from the sensory angle without bothering to make them healthy also. High levels of sugar, fat and salt and low fiber content are characteristic features of almost all processed foods that provide high culinary pleasure to the consumer but these foods are also known to cause a plethora of diseases including diabetes, CVD, blood pressure and many other major ailments entailing huge cost in health care in many countries. Voluntary efforts and persuasive cajoling do not seem to have any impact on the situation as reflected by increased incidence of life-style disorders amongst people at large. The British experiment in doling out cash to its citizens to buy healthy foods needs close watching though prima facie it is unlikely to have any dramatic impact.

"As the festive season comes to a close the British government has announced a £250 million ($390 million) industry-financed plan to promote healthy eating. Now millions of people will receive vouchers offering discounts on healthy foods. It is a part of the coalition government's 'Change4Life' programme that is targeting Britain's growing rates of obesity. The Change4Life campaign was initially begun in 2009 by the previous Labour government, which said that if the plan failed to reduce obesity within three years it might look at regulating the food industry. Now the eight month old Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition feels regulations do not do the job but a gentle push towards healthy habits may help. Now millions in England would get £50 worth of vouchers offering discounts on foods such as low-fat yogurts, wholegrain rice, frozen vegetables, fruit and alcohol-free lager. The News of the World Weekly will distribute three million books of vouchers and Asda, the British arm of U.S. retailer Wal-Mart, will hand out a million; and community groups a further million. Discounts are offered on foods from companies including Kellogg, Unilever, Nestle, Mars, baker Warburtons and frozen food brand Bird's Eye as well as some Asda own-brand goods and trainers from sportswear retailer JJB Sports. Parents will also be offered access to nutritional advice and recipes as an incentive to make healthy changes in their family's food and fitness habits. Health Secretary Andrew Lansley feels this idea is a "great example of how government, the media, industry and retailers can work together to help families to be healthy." The interim Chief Medical Officer for England, Professor Dame Sally Davies said, "Ideally we should be doing 30 minutes of exercise five times a week – or an hour a day for children…Exercise doesn't have to be painful – you could take the dog for a walk or play with your kids in the park. Anything that gets your heart pumping. And we should try to eat five portions of fruit and veg every day." However some experts have accused food manufacturers of using it to enhance their image. Tim Lang, professor of food policy at London's City University is one who is not so sure. He said, "Is it a public health strategy? No, it is a corporate brand protection strategy." He added, "I'm nervous if big companies are put in charge of public health – that's not to say they can't be good for public health – but if they are centrally involved in delivering it… I think that history suggests we need to set frameworks, level playing fields in which they then operate." Tam Fry, a board member of the National Obesity Forum added that the programme a step in the right direction but said it was too short-term to change people's mindset about food".

The criticism that the program can serve only the interests of the manufacturers of branded foods has some merit but if closely monitored and right mix of foods is identified to be healthy, it may still have "some" effect. There are bound to be logistical constraints in administering the program and only real time experience in the field will bring out the problems. If the objective is to "train" the citizens in buying healthy foods, the program has to be run for a long time requiring massive funding from the government. A better alternative could have been to put a nominal price for the foods identified as healthy and subsidize the balance by the government. If the basket of products earmarked for the healthy food campaign contains main stream foods, there would be better chance of success. The UK experiment is worth watching and if successful can be replicated in other countries facing similar health crisis.

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

AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES-ARE THEY JUSTIFIED?

One of the burning issues that divide the developing and developed countries while discussing about harmonization and unhindered working of the world trade regime is the massive economic subsidies showered on the farmers in rich countries to make their food and energy cheap. Probably these policies are put in place under the mistaken impression that low cost energy and food would be able to maintain a good quality life for the citizens. Is this surmise true? Obviously not, considering the health conditions of a vast proportion of the population there who struggle to keep some of the life threatening diseases away from their door steps! Here is a critical commentary on these subsidy policies being perpetuated in countries like the US and the EU.

"The United States currently pays around $20 billion per year to farmers in direct subsidies as "farm income stabilization"^[9][10][11] via U.S. farm bills. These bills date back to the economic turmoil of the Great Depression with 1922 Grain Futures Act, the 1929 Agricultural Marketing Act and the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Actcreating a tradition of government support. A Canadian report claimed that for every dollar U.S. farmers earn, 62 cents comes from some form of government, with total aid in 2009 from all levels of government adding up to $180.8 billion.^[12] The beneficiaries of the subsidies have changed as agriculture in the United States has changed. In the 1930s, about 25% of the country's population resided on the nation's 6,000,000 small farms. By 1997, 157,000 large farms accounted for 72% of farm sales, with only 2% of the U.S. population residing on farms. In 2006, the top 3 states receiving subsidies were Texas (10.4%), Iowa (9.0%), and Illinois (7.6%). The Total USDA Subsidies from farms in Iowa totaled $1,212,000,000 in 2006.^[13] From 2003 to 2005 the top 1% of beneficiaries received 17% of subsidy payments.^[13] In Texas, 72% of farms do not receive government subsidies. Of the close to $1.4 Billion in subsidy payments to farms in Texas, roughly 18% of the farms receive a portion of the payments.^[14] "Direct payment subsidies are provided without regard to the economic need of the recipients or the financial condition of the farm economy. Established in 1996, direct payments were originally meant to wean farmers off traditional subsidies that are triggered during periods of low prices for corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, rice, and other crops." ^[15] Top states for direct payments were Iowa ($501 million), Illinois ($454 million), and Texas ($397 million). Direct payments of subsidies are limited to $40,000 per person or $80,000 per couple.^[16] The subsidy programs give farmers extra money for their crops and guarantee a price floor. For instance in the 2002 Farm Bill, for every bushel of wheat sold farmers were paid an extra 52 cents and guaranteed a price of 3.86 from 2002–03 and 3.92 from 2004–2007.^[17] That is, if the price of wheat in 2002 was 3.80 farmers would get an extra 58 cents per bushel (52 cents plus the $0.06 price difference). Corn is the top crop for subsidy payments. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates that billions of gallons of ethanol be blended into vehicle fuel each year, guaranteeing demand, but US corn ethanol subsidies are between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion per year. Producers also benefit from a federal subsidy of 51 cents per gallon, additional state subsidies, and federal crop subsidies that can bring the total to 85 cents per gallon or more.^[18] (US corn-ethanol producers are also shielded from competition from cheaper Brazilian sugarcane-ethanol by a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff^[19][20]) "

"There is big money at stake here and the people truly intended to benefit from the subsidies are the ones most directly squeezed out by the subsidies themselves. Ethanol and its $0.45/gallon subsidy is a primary culprit in this phenomenon. Our nation's farmers use ten million hectares of arable land in order to grow corn for ethanol alone. When farmers forgo one crop in order to grow another the ripple effect drives up the price of all other growables. And rising corn prices drive up the price of livestock that feed on grains. In sum, 90% of all agriculture subsidies go directly towards staple crops such as corn, wheat, soybeans and rice–all grains (and we still subsidize tobacco growth!). This ensures that the subsidies are neither in our economic, nor nutritional interest. A grain intensive diet (and the proliferation of processed edibles like high fructose corn syrup) have a distinctly negative impact on the health and weight of their eaters. When farmers want to fatten up their livestock, they feed them grains instead of other feed alternatives. As our subsidies incentivize the growth of grains as opposed to other edibles (like lettuce, peppers, tomatoes, etc.) it is no coincidence that Americans have a growing (sorry for the 2nd such cheesy pun, I had no choice…) obesity problem as well."

The trade negotiations between the "haves" and "have nots" do not seem to be getting any where with the rich nations unwilling to do away with their subsidy regimes for fear of offending the powerful farm lobbies who have tremendous influence on the political class through unlimited funding of elections. The tragedy is that the subsidies not even benefit the small farmers in these countries as 80% of the hand out is cornered by big sharks, year after year creating a situation wherein small farms are systematically being gobbled up by the large players. While what is happening in a country like the US is of concern to the citizens there, it also has global implications. World economy is affected because the livelihood of millions of small and micro farmers in many poor countries is gravely threatened by depressing the global prices of exportable commodities and probably it is time collective action is taken to right the wrong that is being perpetuated for decades with least sensitivity to the sufferings of a vast majority of populations living in African, Asian and South American continents.

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

THE "SALTY "DILEMMA-SELF CONTROL VS MANDATORY REGULATION

Salt has been known to mankind for centuries and why it has become a villain in human foods during the last 5-6 decades must raise alarms all around. Probably one of the most logical reasons could be the increasing dependence of the population on manufactured industrial foods which are invariably "salted" very heavily for enhancing taste and acceptability, almost bordering on addiction. It is fairly well known that foods containing high levels of salt, sugar and fat are liked by most consumers and these "hyper" foods can be as addictive as cigarettes or opiates. If processed foods are the main culprit for the modern health crisis, what can be done to arrest the deteriorating situation? The most logical answer is to make the industry realize their "mistake" and reduce salt content in all foods by substantial amounts. But most democratic countries prefer the industry to exercise voluntary restraint in cutting down on salt without any pressure or force from the government. Unfortunately such an approach does not seem to be bringing any dramatic impact on the salt front as is being realized by many countries in the West. The recent finding that health benefits because of compulsory regulation of salt in processed foods can bring about 20 times more health benefits, as compared to voluntary restraint, may persuade many countries to restrict salts in packed foods through appropriate regulatory policy.

"However, in a press release, the BMJ reports that the study authors discovered that "the health benefits across the population could be 20 times greater if the government imposed mandatory limits… amounting to a reduction of 18% in ill health from cardiovascular disease." Reuters reports that the study also found that 94% of Australian men and 64% of women in the country eat more salt than is recommended. The news agency also cites an unnamed study which reported that 90% of all Americans consume too much salt as well. "When it's so excessive, it makes sense for the government to step in to take action," Cobiac told Reuters. "It's cost saving to the government in the longer term to reduce salt content in food." In an interview with BBC News, British Heart Foundation senior dietitian Victoria Taylor added, "We're making progress without the need for compulsory limits and as a result we've seen a reduction in salt intake… But as three quarters of the salt we eat is already in the food we buy, we need to build on this work and watch carefully to make sure the food industry doesn't slip back into old habits."

While the food industry can be easily regulated and forced to reduce salt levels in their products, what about the restaurant foods? With eating out becoming a regular family activity, especially amongst the middle income group, these foods can be equally dangerous as far as salt levels are concerned. Regulatory bodies must take up this issue and make the restaurants conform to guidelines regarding addition of salt in prepared foods. Voluntarily it is unlikely that the eateries will agree for any reduction because the most critical factor that attracts customers is the taste of food offered and unless there is an upper limit prescribed, no one will resist the temptation to use maximum levels of salt that can ensure best taste to their preparations. Of course the lobbyists for the industry and restaurants can be expected to continue to sing the "voluntary restraint" song for delaying any mandatory rules as much as possible.

V.H.POTTY

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

AN UNHOLY INFLUENCE ON HOLY PORTALS!-A DESPICABLE ACT

The recent Wikileaks expose of American double standards in dealing with other countries must be seen in the light of the unbridled power this country has been enjoying during the last two decades and it is a matter of speculation why this nation has frittered away the goodwill through arrogant behavior manifested in the cable messages from their embassies across the world. Whether these leaked out papers will pass muster from legal angle or not, they do serve a purpose in understanding the mindset of rich countries like the US towards other less fortunate counterparts in this planet. Leaving aside the political aspects, what strikes as odd is the pompous approach made by this country to the Christian religious Head at Rome to "canvas" for selling its GM technology to poor countries so that the giant US monopolies that sell dubious technologies make more money at the expense of poverty-ridden population of Africa, South America and Asia.

"US diplomats pushed the Roman Catholic Church to support biotech food in developing nations, according to secret U.S diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks. Efforts to push genetically modified (GM) crops globally extended even into the halls of the Vatican. Embassy cables in Spain, Austria and even Pakistan indicate that US diplomats stand with the biotech industry, although issues are still disputed in court and the public at large eyes the biotechnology dubiously, states a Truthout report. The leaked cable documents a meeting that took place with a U.S. diplomat, a USAID official and Catholic leaders in Rome to discuss biotech foods in 2005. The U.S. representatives reported afterward that the Vatican seemed more concerned about the potential of the biotechnology to entrap farmers into economic subjugation and rather accepted the biologically altered products themselves. US diplomats used the vocabulary of a "moral imperative," citing the need to feed growing populations as an argument useful to respond to opposition to the biotech food industry among Catholic activists and clergy".

It is well known that genetic manipulation of food crops through biotechnological tools can yield many disease resistant varieties but their safety is not yet established beyond a shadow of doubt. Age old technique of hybridization which helped to usher in the Green Revolution of nineteen sixties and seventies is considered akin to natural evolution but manipulation of the gene at the molecular level to evolve new varieties is fraught with unpredictable consequences. It is true that more than 80% of the American foods to day are derived from GM crops, though most consumers are unaware of it and in the short term nothing catastrophic has happened so far, except for the phenomenal health down turn the population there is experiencing during the last decade or so. Since no mandatory labeling is in force for distinguishing between natural and GM crops, the consumers are forced to accept these foods with no choice. The "imperial" power cannot expect other democratic countries to shove these GM foods through the throat of their population who may be famished but are proud of their freedom and human rights

V H Potty

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

DEMOCRACY IN FOOD POLICY DECISIONS-IS IT FEASIBLE?

Democracy invariably signifies consent by a majority of the constituents involved in any decision making. It is also a people oriented system where the aspirations and sensitivities of people are required to be respected. It is another matter that most practicing democracies have evolved over the years into a system where politicians tend to overwhelm the people who elect them with policies and actions for serving their own interests rather than those of the people. Food policies also are evolved by the governments without bothering to take the real interests the people. The widespread use of GM foods in the US is a classical example where government colludes with the industry to force the citizens to eat what is not acceptable to them without keeping the latter informed about it. The food council phenomenon that is becoming widespread in many states in that country wants to address this issue by involving people at the local level in evolving and taking decisions desirable for the community.

"Food policy councils (FPC) began holistic, whole-systems approach to the innumerable issues surrounding food production, processing, preparation, and distribution. Food policy councils harness the weight of already existing local, county, state and grassroots initiatives, working across sectors, engaging with government policies, grassroots/nonprofit projects, local businesses and food-industry workers from farm to table. Food policy councils establish a space for coordinated discussion and action regarding the food system at the local level. Rather than administering programs, the FPC would primarily serve as a forum for discussion and project incubation, helping individuals to start up programs. Food policy councils have grown in size, scale and number since the first FPC was formed in Knoxville, Tenn., in 1982. Today there are more than 40 active food policy councils across North America, with new ones forming every month. Their overall goal is to democratize the food policy system, thereby giving all people equal access not only to food but also to the policy/procedural processes that largely govern the food system and determine what options are and are not available to local communities".

How far these councils would be able to really make any impact is a debatable issue, especially when government is not involved or represented in these bodies. It is easily said that one should not depend on the government too much to solve people's problem but what if government itself is the problem? If democracy is truly practiced these councils could become channels for effective communication between the government and the people. Probably there is a case to integrate the food policy councils into the country's decision making apparatus vis-à-vis food related issues. In a country like India if and when such local set ups are created, it may be more appropriate to empower them to meet the challenges involved in tackling large scale food adulteration that is becoming more and more rampant day by day. They should not be made innocuous like the NGOs without any power, leaving them only to agitate and carry out campaigns against the government with practically no impact.

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

"BIOFORTIFICATION"-WHAT IS THE ROUTE?

Food fortification is an issue assuming importance in modern days because the food processing industry invariably causes much depletion of nutrients during conversion of raw foods into ready to eat end products. It is well known that even the basic processing techniques like milling of food grains removes major part of the nutrient "treasure" that is naturally endowed. If most of the foods in the market to day are fortified or enriched, one must thank the food industry. But it is another matter that these externally added nutrients may not be as readily absorbed by the human body as that present in natural grains. A typical case is iron supplementation where no matter what form of iron compound one adds in the food during processing, the efficacy of absorption is very low. Biofortification therefore is considered more efficient since the nutrients are generated through biotechnical means with better chance of utilization by the body. However the mode of achieving this goal will decide whether the new products will be acceptable to the consumer or not.

So a decade ago scientists began experimenting with a different approach: What if they tinkered with crops so that they naturally contained iron, zinc or vitamin A? And that's where our hero, the sweet potato, comes in. Orange sweet potatoes on our Thanksgiving tables are full of beta carotene, which the body turns into vitamin A. But our sweet potatoes don't grow well in Africa. Africans eat an estimated seven million tons of sweet potatoes a year, but theirs are white ones that lack vitamin A. So scientists cross-bred sweet potatoes until they came up with vitamin A-rich orange varieties that grow well in Africa. Hard-bitten health specialists go weak-kneed over them. More than 170,000 Ugandan and Mozambiquan families are now growing these sweet potatoes. And the sweet potato is just the first of a number of crops that have been bred or engineered to address micronutrient deficiencies. This mix of agriculture and nutrition is called biofortification, and it's one of the hot words in the global poverty lexicon. Also in the works are rice and wheat packed with zinc, pearl millet and beans with iron, bright orange corn and golden cassava that give people vitamin A. These crops are all in various stages of testing by HarvestPlus, a nonprofit based in Washington. The alliance is financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Bank, aid agencies from Canada, Britain and the United States, and the aim is to produce cheap seeds in the public domain. "Biofortification is slow, but it has a huge impact in the end," said Howarth Bouis, director of HarvestPlus. One of the questions, though, is this: Will rural Africans want to eat orange sweet potatoes? Iron and zinc don't change the color or taste of foods, but foods that produce vitamin A are often an unearthly orange.

Natural breeding is an accepted practice and if the food production has been able to keep pace with the population growth, it is largely due to hybridization technology of marrying high yielding varieties with traditional ones, though the process takes years to fructify. The green revolution in India has been achieved through this route. The process can be expedited through genetic engineering also which takes much less time but there are safety issues that come in the way of universal acceptance of GM foods. Indisputably the new emerging technologies like genetic engineering hold promise for future in many areas of food production but there has to be a consensus regarding their safety credentials which can be achieved through global cooperation at governmental level in stead of through profit driven private interests.

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