SET BACK FOR INDIAN ETHNIC FOODS-CANADIAN EPISODE

Graduating from a small business into the big league is not an easy task and no lesson seems to have been learned by those aspiring to be big about the increased responsibility that comes along. The recent set back suffered by one of the ethnic food manufacturers in India being hauled up for safety violations in Canada must provide a warning about the dangers in lowering the guard by the manufacturers in conforming to the food laws of the country where their products are marketed. This particular case is relatively minor as the manufacturer was guilty of using an allergic chemical ingredient without declaring its presence on the label but it still can cause lot of damage to the image of the brand as well as that of the country.

"In what could be considered a setback to the Rs 500-crore Haldiram's Food International Limited, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency(CFIA) has warned its country's citizens against consuming the city-based group's petha sweet as the product contained sulphites, which are sulphur-containing compounds used as additives to preserve food and beverages, but which, in rare cases, can also lead to life-threatening reactions in allergic or sensitive persons. According to sources, the Toronto-based importer of Haldiram's Petha - Quality Natural Food - has voluntarily recalled the product from the markets. The importer has also cautioned Canadian citizens, especially those suffering from allergies, not to consume the sweet as it may lead to life-threatening reaction. This sweet, believed to have originated from Agra and sold across the world including Canada, contains sulphites as one of the ingredients whose quantity has not been declared on the packaging. Director of Haldiram's group on Nagpur Sushil Agrawal admitted that they had received a message to this effect from their Canada-based dealer and they would soon be initializing steps to make necessary changes. The company has recalled about 20 cartons costing about $300 (Rs 15,000). "It's happening with us for the first time but it's not a serious matter. They just wanted to have percentage of Sulphite contents printed on the packets. We anyhow mention use of Sulphite as one of the ingredients but haven't specified its percentage in parts per million (PPM). Now, we will paste new stickers having mention of Sulphite percentage in PPM on the packets," he clarified".

Petha, generally made from ash gourd traditionally in some regions of Uttar Pradesh in India by micro enterprises or home based small units, many of which lack adequate infrastructure for maintaining uniform quality and ensuring consistent safety assurance. It is for the marketing organizations who undertake the responsibility of exporting these products to provide at least the necessary technical inputs to generate confidence amongst the buyers. India food industry is known to ignore the importance of technical personnel in quality and safety assurance, often employing cheap and under qualified workers to man their operations. The consequences of such neglect, what ever be the reason, can be catastrophic in the long run and the "writing on the wall" is clear-"change for the good or perish"!

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

THE "TAX CRAZY" GOVERNMENT-AIR IS NEXT TARGET?

During the last six decades there has been incessant chanting by every government that ruled India that food processing is critical to the development of country's economy. Every politician with every hue does not lose an opportunity to give an expose regarding the low value addition to agricultural commodities achieved in the country and predominance of low value food items in the basket of national exports. That food industry is a logical corollary to agricultural sector is indisputable and GOI did recognize this truth when the specialized MFPI was set up in late 1980s. That this ministry was invariably "managed" by a junior minister. is another matter that reflects the gap between preaching and practice. Umpteen number of seminars, conferences, workshops, meetings with GOI babus have been making the point that processed food must not be taxed at all for at least for a few years to enable the processing industry to establish itself on a firm foundation and making packed foods available to the consumer at the lowest cost possible. Every Finance Minister (FM) of GOi had ignored this so called sun-rise industry and tried to milk it as much as possible to enrich its coffers! Here comes the latest blow to the industry with the present FM putting another economic burden on the food sector through his ill-advised levy in the form of excise duty which ought to be condemned in no uncertain terms.

"The entire food processing industry is feeling the pinch of this announcement (excise duty). We have written a letter to the Finance Minister. I hope he will look into it," Minister of State for Food Processing Harish Rawat told reporters here. He said that industry bodies have complained that the 130 items on which 1% excise duty has been increased include food items as well and this will lead to an increase in prices. Food inflation came down to 9.52% for the week ended February 26 from 10.39% in the previous week. Rawat, while inaugurating the National Seminar on food ingredients and additives on the sidelines of the Aahar 2011 international food and hospitality fair, said, "The ministry has requested the Finance Minister to keep GST and other taxes at a minimum level." The All-India Food Processors Association (AIFPA), which organised the seminar, has sought the removal of 1% excise duty on food and agricultural commodities, besides the waiver of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on food items. "With GST also, there should be no tax on food. When you tax food, you are taxing the value addition in the sector and this will lead to price rise as cost of inputs will go up and my worry is this will further increase the inflation," AIFPA President Piruz Khambatta told PTI.

No wonder many industry captains feel that they do not need any prop from the government and they would be happy if the rigid bureaucratic stranglehold by the government is done way with immediately. If governments do not want to help in any significant way, at least there should not be any road blocks that can affect the morale as well as the motivation of the entrepreneurs. Interestingly total revenue collected by various government agencies through their multiple taxation regimes on food industry is so minuscule that fore going the same will not be a sacrifice in any way. On the other hand, such a step will provide the necessary spark for a strong industry capable of generating millions of job opportunities and a host of products so vital for the consumers. Probably a strong industry after attaining some critical size may even contribute to the exchequer substantially in the long run.

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

ROAD SIDE VENDING-INADEQUATE VIGILANCE

Street vending is a phenomenon that is here to stay and almost all countries in the world have some or the other form of open air eating on the sides of many roads in most of the urban areas. The transformation of the street vendor who is a humble and low income entrepreneur into modern business man is remarkable in a country like the US where Food Trucks are taking over the functions of providing open air foods to customers with some loyalty to fresh foods cooked in front of them. Even in the case of modern food trucks there are issues concerning quality and safety of food offered by them though the chances of any epidemic of food poisoning is relatively less. In the traditional road side vending hygiene and sanitation become a casualty because of many reasons which include low awareness and high illiteracy amongst many of these vendors. Unless safety authorities exercise effective vigilance, the unsuspecting customers can become a prey for food borne diseases. The sudden interest by the Mumbai food safety agency in announcing stricter monitoring regime is note worthy but whether this will be translated into practice is a million dollar question!

"In a bid to crack down on unauthorised roadside vendors selling food in unhygienic conditions, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) will now form special ward-level squads. These squads will carry out regular surprise visits in their areas to ensure quality of food items. The decision was taken after a pani puri vendor in Thane was caught on camera while urinating in a vessel which he was using to store pani. After the news reports, MNS workers had vandalised food stalls across the city, thereby pressuring the civic body to take immediate measures. Officials had said that a meeting of top health department officials of the BMC was called to chalk out an action plan. Civic officials said instructions regarding the formation of special ward-level squads have been issued. The official also said the quality of the food served by these vendors will now be under scanner. Additional Municipal Commissioner Manisha Mhaiskar said these squads will also keep a check on those vendors having BMC's licences too. On Tuesday itself, surprise visits were conducted in and around the city".

Is it not a wonder that only very few cases of food borne diseases are reported in the country in spite of the sad state of affairs vis-a-vis safety enforcement environment? Could it be that the effect of daily prayers by the God-fearing population is manifested in the form of protection to them from food related disorders? Or does an average Indians possess an extra ordinary GI system that is immune to most food borne infectious vectors prevalent in the country? According to some reports most of those affected by minor symptoms of stomach upset caused by food do not bother about it, managing the same with over the counter anti-bacterial drugs available cheap in the country. One always wonders as to how populations in countries like the US or in Europe suffer from serious food poisoning incidences in spite of the operation of a supposedly modern food industry and most exacting hygiene environment that exists in those countries. Probably an agency like WHO can study this peculiar phenomenon to unravel the mystery!

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

FOOD PROCESSING FACILTIES-SANITIZERS AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS

Citizens world over are worried about over use of antibiotics in the production and processing of foods, especially animal products because of inherent fears regarding any potential resistance some of the disease causing pathogens may acquire. According to one estimate more than 80% of the antibiotics manufactured in the US is consumed by the meat industry, not for fighting infection in the animals but to make them grow faster and bigger! In contrast there are many synthetic chemicals legally permitted for use in food processing facilities for disinfection and sanitation. However continued use of same chemical or sanitizer in a facility may be counter productive in that there is the likelihood of some infecting microbes developing resistance to the use of this chemical and contaminating the products going through such facilities. Though the mechanism of developing resistance to sanitizers is different from antibiotic resistance, food industry still has to be weary about such developments in the interest of safety of products manufactured. A wide choice of chemical sanitizers makes it possible to rotate them periodically that will prevent build up of resistant organisms over a period.

"In food processing the question often arises regarding the need to rotate sanitizers on a regular basis to ensure continued efficacy. The concern is that extended use of a particular chemical sanitizer will select a resistant population thereby rendering the sanitization regime ineffective. Before addressing this question, there are some aspects of bacterial resistance to antimicrobials that need to be clarified. There are numerous antimicrobial compounds available for use both in vitro and in vivo. Antibiotics, disinfectants, preservatives and sanitizers are all considered antimicrobials, but their modes of action and likelihood of developing a resistant population are very different and sometimes confused. Resistance is a term that can be defined differently depending on the scientific forum in which it is used. It is important to note that use of the term resistance in many instances must be interpreted with some caution. Where antibiotics are used in the treatment of infection, resistance can be defined as a significant reduction in susceptibility resulting in a high likelihood of treatment failure. In terms of chemical sanitizers, resistance can be defined as the microorganism's ability to survive exposure to an antimicrobial compound regardless of concentration and contact time. Unlike antibiotics, an increase in minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of a sanitizing chemical does not necessarily correlate with treatment failure. Should the MIC for an antibiotic used against a particular microorganism increase, the consequences can be significant indicating possible therapeutic failure or the need for a different course of treatment. Where sanitizers are concerned, increased MICs are often misinterpreted as indicating development of resistance. In cases where a microorganism has adapted to survive at reduced antimicrobial concentrations or lesser contact times, the term tolerance is more appropriate".

"Microbial Resistance. Resistance can be innate, acquired or achieved by adaptation:

Innate or intrinsic resistance is related to the general physiology of the microorganism and stems from properties or mechanisms already present. For example, Bacillus sp. are intrinsically resistant to benzoates due to their ability to metabolize this compound. Acquired resistance results from genetic changes that occur due to mutation or through acquisition of extra-chromosomal genetic material such as plasmids. Acquired resistance has been studied extensively in relation to antibiotic use, but as yet, limited studies have been done with regard to chemical sanitizers. Resistance through adaptation occurs following a successive increase in antimicrobial exposure to sub-lethal concentrations. This type of resistance is often unstable and the microorganism can revert to a sensitive state if the antimicrobial is removed from the growth environment. Chemical sanitizers are effective against planktonic cells but cells within a biofilm have been shown to survive sanitizer exposure. Biofilms are aggregates of microorganisms that adhere to each other and produce a protective matrix consisting of polymeric substances such as exopolysaccharides. The ability of the biofilm matrix to exhibit increased tolerance to environmental stresses, such as sanitizer treatment, may be due to several factors. These include chemical interaction of sanitizer with the biofilm matrix, the production of degradative enzymes that breakdown the sanitizing chemical and physical separation of sanitizer from cell surfaces due to the protective effect of the polymeric matrix. In this instance, by definition, microbial cells have not developed resistance, but have created surroundings that enable cells to tolerate the hostile environmental conditions. Antibiotics are used to combat infections in humans and animals, whereas chemical sanitizers are used to control microbial contamination on hard surfaces. The mode of action of chemical sanitizers differs markedly from antibiotics. Antibiotics have specific target sites such as DNA or protein synthesis and can be species specific. Chemical sanitizers, however, have multiple target sites and affect multiple cellular components through physicochemical interaction and chemical reactions. When used at maximum permissible concentrations they act indiscriminately in a relatively short time frame, physically damaging the cell by destroying the cell wall and denaturing components such as proteins and nucleic acids essential for cell survival. Because chemical sanitizers attack a cell on multiple fronts, development of resistance to sanitizers through genetic mutation or modification is unlikely. Chemical sanitizer use in the U.S. food industry is regulated by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and, by law, users must adhere to label instructions. Approved-use concentrations of hard-surface sanitizers are greater than the tolerable range for microbes normally encountered in food processing. With this in mind, no evidence exists that proper use of sanitizers in food processing will result in the development of a resistant microorganism population. All chemical sanitizers have advantages and disadvantages. Some may have better efficacy against bacteria than against yeasts and mold, whereas others may have greater tolerance to soil load. In instances where the microflora of a food processing line has shifted due to changing production conditions, sanitizer rotation may be advantageous. Therefore, rotating sanitizers in food production facilities is a worthwhile action when spectrum of microbial activity rather than development of resistant microorganism population is the primary concern".

Maintenance of food processing facilities is critical to limiting hazards from a multitude of vectors that include microbes also. With CIP technology being used widely in many automatic plants, more care is needed to flush out contaminating organisms that may be harbored in bends and crevices. As frequent testing of the inaccessible parts of the plant is not practical, use of more than one sanitizers through rotation based on a certain schedule may be desirable. Product recalls which are assuming alarming proportion are financially burdensome and a scientific sanitization policy can pre-empt such contingencies.

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

HOW ABOUT "HUMAN" MILK FROM ANIMALS? ANOTHER CHALLENGE TO BREAST FEEDING

The slogan that "breast milk is the best milk" has to day become synonymous with bringing up healthy children and more or less almost all potential mothers are sensitized to this reality through countless campaigns, educational programs and investment of vast resources by national and international bodies. But there has always been danger from the powerful baby food industry to sabotage this situation in order to regain their lost business in terms of peddling manufactured infant foods with doubtful credentials. Now comes the frontal assault from this lobby with the help of some "motivated" scientists through a sustained campaign to promote a new product claiming it to be as good as the mother's milk, if not superior! Here is the story.

"The scientists have successfully introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk. Human milk contains high quantities of key nutrients that can help to boost the immune system of babies and reduce the risk of infections. The scientists behind the research believe milk from herds of genetically modified cows could provide an alternative to human breast milk and formula milk for babies, which is often criticised as being an inferior substitute. They hope genetically modified dairy products from herds of similar cows could be sold in supermarkets. The research has the backing of a major biotechnology company. The work is likely to inflame opposition to GM foods. Critics of the technology and animal welfare groups reacted angrily to the research, questioning the safety of milk from genetically modified animals and its effect on the cattle's health".

It is shocking that when GM foods are still at the center of a fierce controversy regarding their safety to adult humans, here is an attempt to expose the tender children to the potential hazards posed by GM milk. While no one has any quarrel regarding the excellence of GM technology and appreciation regarding human ingenuity in evolving these "unnatural" technologies, tinkering with food under various excuses, is not acceptable to any decent citizen who values all that is natural. There is only one country in the world which is reckless enough to expose its citizens to more than 30 different genetically manipulated agricultural crops with out the latter being aware of its presence in the market. With long term consequences from ingesting GM foods, especially as part of the staple diet, not exactly known, one can only wonder as to the intention of the US government in colluding with the GM lobby in the back door entry of these "unnatural" crops into the food system. While touting the new technology for producing human milk-like material from cows through GM techniques, the protagonists are forgetting that mother,s milk is much more than a chemical entity to be replicated through human intervention and the love, bondage, kinship, mother,s warmth etc can never be provided by any 4-legged animal, no matter how excellent the technology may be.

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

"FOOD" CALORIES VS "FUEL" CALORIES-CAN THE CONSUMER BE SENSITIZED?

Food industry has come a long way during the last one century and to day consumer has the wherewithal to understand fully the history and characteristics of food being purchased from the market. Food industry has been forced to be more transparent about the products offered by them and the mandatory labeling regulations provide detailed information about the contents based on which consumer can buy the requirements with great discretion. Information such as calories, saturated fat, trans fat, dietary fiber, sugar etc tells a lot about the health value of a product, though such developments did not had much impact on the obesity epidemic that is ravaging the population in many wealthy countries. Another dimension to labeling is the need for letting the consumer know about the energy efficiency of a food product during its journey from farm to the fork. This is an issue which is becoming critical with each passing day with the fossil fuel crunch facing humanity assuming dangerous proportions due to their non-renewable nature. The DECAL system of labeling which is becoming popular in some countries may help food industry to educate the consumer regarding the energy input that has gone to make and deliver the product at the retail shelves.

"Americans use more oil than people in any other developed country, about twice as much per capita, on average, as Britons. Indeed, our appetite for petroleum, like our fondness of fast foods, has spawned a kind of obesity epidemic, but one without conspicuous symptoms like high blood pressure and diabetes. And because we don't see how much energy goes into the products and services we purchase, we're shielded from knowing the full extent of our personal energy demands — and unprepared when rising fuel prices increase the cost of everything else. This illusion stems, in part, from a measurement problem: while we expect and understand labels on our food products that quantify caloric, fat and nutrient content, we have no clear way of measuring the amount of energy it takes to make our products and propel our daily activities. There's no reason we can't have energy labels, too. For example, in Europe, Tesco, a supermarket chain, has begun a "carbon labeling" program for some 500 products, which displays the amount of energy consumed and greenhouse gases generated from their production, transportation and use. We could do the same thing here, with labels providing a product or service's "daily energy calories." Along with physical labels, imagine a smartphone app — we'll call it "Decal" for short — that would scan a product's bar code and report how much energy it took to produce that item. Like the nutritional data on the backs of food products, Decal would give consumers a user-friendly, universal measure that they could use to compare products or count their daily energy intake. For example, the app would enable an energy dieter to scan two otherwise identical loaves of bread and see which one required less energy to produce. Decal would have applications beyond the grocery-store shelf. By synchronizing with on board computers in cars, buses and trains, it could tell you how much energy you use during daily errands and commutes. It would sync to a smart energy meter in your home to evaluate how much power you're using and which appliances are the biggest guzzlers. And at the end of the day, the app would generate your total energy diet: a Decal "score" that would quantify how many total energy calories you've consumed. Once Decal took hold, the Department of Energy could recommend daily energy allowances, in the same way the Department of Agriculture recommends daily intakes of different nutrients. Experts could offer "diet" plans for energy-efficient lifestyles, and the Internal Revenue Service could offer tax rebates to families that achieve certain energy-calorie reductions".

Though conceptually it is a good idea, how far this will be effective at the field level remains to be seen. From the logistical point of view, adoption of DECAL by a few large companies may not make any impact because consumer will have no way to decide which products are better from energy expenditure angle when choices are limited. Added to this there is the issue of quality and how can the industry persuade the consumer to buy energy efficient products in preference to tastier ones which might have a higher DECAL value? If front of the pack labeling laws which have been in operation since last 2-3 decades did not persuade consumers to go for healthier foods as reflected by its lack of impact on the continuing obesity saga, will the DECAL score declaration help in moderating fossil fuel consumption? No one can be sure.

V.H.POTTY

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

PRIVATE FUNDING FOR PUBLIC CAUSE-A BACK DOOR ENTRY FOR GM LOBBY?

That GM food industry will leave no stone unturned to promote their agenda of subjugating the farming communities, especially in the developing world is well established now, the latest example being the surreptitious proxy attempt to enter India through the GM Brinjal route. Of course this aborted attempt ended in a fiasco, as is known to every one following the devious designs of the GM food giants which want GM foods to predominate in the coming years. The perpetual dependence of farmers for seeds on these GM companies will ensure that these countries are faced with agricultural colonialism for decades to come. That a renowned public charity organization like Gates Foundation can become a partner for these neo colonists is a sad reflection on the current environment in the world. It is all the more reprehensible that the UK, one of the most virulent colonialists till a few decades ago, wants to revive its past glory, by becoming an active partner in this objectionable move.

With world food prices rising the Gates Foundation has announced $70 million to fund research into threats to food production in the developing world but are they funding the right projects? The Gates Foundation has formed a co-funding partnership with the United Kingdom's Department for International Development (DFID) and they will work together to identify and fund research and projects that help small farmers increase their yields and incomes. The UK's DFID will contribute $32 million over the next five years to the effort. In the joint Media Release the UK's International Development Minister, Andrew Mitchell, said: "For many of the poorest people in Africa and Southern Asia, the crops they grow not only provide most of their food but also an important source of income. It's these people who are hit hardest by food price spikes. Working with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, we can drive new ways to make direct improvements in people's lives, whether by making disease-resistant crops more widely available so that small-scale farmers can grow and sell more, or by developing crops with added nutritional benefits that will give their families a better diet."

GM foods are still mired in controversy and unless there is near unanimity regarding the safety of these crops a public organization like Gates Foundation should not have lent their financial and moral support to the venture under question. It is immoral to talk about small farmers and the GM technology in the same breath as they are totally incompatible with each other. Can any one support a move to surrender the conventional agricultural heritage of millions of farmers in Asia, Africa and South America to the new unknown technological powers that want to make them like the US where more than 30 crops are grown using GM seeds? Sustainable agriculture based on local expertise and simple techniques can only solve the problems of poor countries who are groaning under heavy debt burden and under-developed agricultural infrastructure.

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