WHO IS THE OWNER OF THE GARBAGE?-A NEW LEGAL TANGLE

Food industry is considered one of the biggest polluters both solid as well as liquid types and in spite of more and more stringent pollution control measures being promulgated in most countries the problem does not seem to be going away. By far plastics have been blamed as post processing pollutants caused by the consumers after opening and using the contents and if a recent report is to be believed almost 5 million tons of plastic wastes flow into seas and oceans making these water bodies literally toxic to marine creatures supposed to be thriving in this habitat Of course all these "garbage" materials do not originate from food processing but still it is substantial. Beverage industry which manufactures cans sells billions of units of different varieties of drinks, mostly in plastic and glass bottles, metal cans and laminated pouches and boxes, has not bothered to see beyond their factory gates as to what happens to these packaging materials once the contents are consumed by the people. While glass bottlers are recycled for economic reasons, some attempts are being made to recycle plastic bottles also. Billions of cans and bottles which end up in the garbage and public places do not seem to have any "ownership" because the industry from where they originate does not seem to be too much concerned about the nuisance caused by them. But all of a sudden some industry players are claiming that their used containers, cast away so recklessly, should not be used by any one for any purpose. Here is a ring side view of a developing story that pitches world's largest soda maker against an entrepreneur who is trying to use these discarded containers for promoting his home scale soda making gadgets by sending a message that industrial products create so much waste and pollution that can be avoided by making better soda at home..   

"Here, here. Even if, just like in Sodastream's cages, it's not just Coke's bottles and cans that are the problem. You can't just single out Coke for being the problem here, it's an entire culture of disposability. Ultimately it does seem like Coke wants it both ways: Disclaiming responsibility for ownership of cans and bottles when littering is concerned or there is a suggestion, as Lloyd has suggested many-a-time here on TreeHugger, that beverage manufacturers should be legally required to take back their bottles and cans, but then saying they own them, via intellectual property and trademarks, when the same waste product is used against them. Even if the law comes down against Sodastream on this one—and I could see that happening—common sense clearly favors Sodastream, especially as Coke is not being singled out. Sodastream is holding all disposable beverage containers up to the same ridicule here. If Sodastream were saying something positive about all those cans no doubt Coca Cola wouldn't have a problem with it".

The commercial soda manufacturer has taken exception to the use of discarded cans in exhibitions promoting the home soda machine and is threatening to sue him if he does not desist from such practices fearing that it will show commercially available products in bad light. It may be a logical action considering that use of containers in such exhibitions can adversely affect the reputation of the brand assuming that the promotors criticize the products directly for its quality or healthiness. However in this case all that has been done is sending a message that commercial bottling in general produces enormous wastes and pollutants. It will be interesting to watch further development in this evolving battle between the two adversaries which can rightly be called a "David Vs Goliath" war! One is tempted to ask whether if beverage manufacturers claim ownership of used containers scattered all over the world, will they also take up the responsibility for their safe disposal without harming Mother Nature?  It is morally reprehensible for any one to claim ownership of public garbage but shirk the responsibility to clean it up! Dont they know that playing the "dog in the manger" game does not pay or the "having the cake as well as eat it" attitude cannot work always!

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

A FLAWED AGRICULTURAL POLICY-DROUGHT AND CONSEQUENCES

Diversion of valuable food materials that can quench the hunger of millions of people for non-food purpose is nothing but a crime against humanity and this is what is going on in a supposed to be "civilized" country like the US. It is understandable that renewable energy is a priority for the whole world because fossil fuels cannot last for ever and world cannot sustain itself without energy with every human endeavor anchored to energy use. While energy from solar, wind, geothermal, wave and other sources is being tapped with increasing efficiency, there is one area where man is doing harm to himself by using food materials like corn soybean, sugarcane and Palm oil for converting into automobile fuels to extend the supply of fossil fuels. It is understandable if there is a vast surplus production of food that needs to be utilized without wasting them but the present situation indicates that world is short of foods unable to feed millions of people in Africa, Asia and South America. As the North American drought is spreading across the continent mercilessly, the corn and soybean production is plummeting causing world wide concerns regarding its impact on food prices. It is here that the US, a major producer of corn in the world  has to show its statesmanship and magnanimity by temporarily suspending its "corn for ethanol" policy at least for two years. Here is a commentary on this issue with which many dispassionate observers agree.  

"More than one-third of our corn crop is used to feed livestock. Another 13 percent is exported, much of it to feed livestock as well. Another 40 percent is used to produce ethanol. The remainder goes toward food and beverage production. Previous droughts in the Midwest (most recently in 1988) also resulted in higher food prices, but misguided energy policies are magnifying the effects of the current one. Federal renewable-fuel standards require the blending of 13.2 billion gallons of corn ethanol with gasoline this year. This will require 4.7 billion bushels of corn, 40 percent of this year's crop. Other countries seem to have a better grasp of market forces and common sense. Brazil, another large ethanol producer, uses sugar instead of corn to make ethanol. It has flexible policies that allow the market to determine whether sugar should be sold on the sugar market or be converted to fuel. Our government could learn from the Brazilian approach and direct the E.P.A. to waive a portion of the renewable-fuel standards, thereby directing corn back to the marketplace. Under the law, the E.P.A. would first have to determine that the program was causing economic harm. That's a no-brainer, given the effects of sharply higher grain prices that are already rippling through the economy. The price of corn is a critical variable in the world food equation, and food markets are on edge because American corn supplies are plummeting. The combination of the drought and American ethanol policy will lead in many parts of the world to widespread inflation, more hunger, less food security, slower economic growth and political instability, especially in poor countries".

Of course America is a sovereign country with full power to dictate its own policy, deemed to be appropriate to its population but under today's globalized environment can one country decide unilaterally what it will do without bothering to think about the consequences of its action?. If past history is taken into consideration, the US is the biggest food donor in the world and one can assume that same humane consideration will prevail over its response to the new situation emerging in the food front. As a super power with vast technological superiority, this country can always think of other feasible alternatives for fuel production and the non-food biomass conversion to ethanol or high fat algal production can be a feasible alternative if pursued vigorously on a priority basis. The US must provide leadership to the rest of the world in ensuring that every grain of food is conserved and no human being goes to bed with a hungry stomach!

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

THE NEW CHOLESTEROL PHOBIA-WHY THIS AGRESSIVENESS?

The multi billion dollar Statin industry must be elated by the latest recommendations from an expert panel in the US regarding compulsory screening of children for high triglycerides and cholesterol in their blood to detect early signals for development of obesity.  It is true that in the US the single most critical health issue today is the wide scale prevalence of obesity with one third of the population obese and another one third over weight based on the yardstick of Body Mass Index ( BMI). If Statin industry has reached where it is now generating billions of dollars of business, thanks are due to the aggressive program of lipid profiling of the adult population pursued as an annual health check up effort. The present attempt to expand the lipid screening to young kids is a logical extension of the efforts of the industry to ramp up its financial health at the expense of the citizen! The fact that some of the members of the medical panel that made the above recommendations have had financial connection with drug industry raises the needle of suspicion regarding the intent of this exercise. Here is an analysis of this latest development vis-a-vis cholesterol screening in the US.    

"Moreover, the recommendations are based on expert opinion, rather than solid evidence, the researchers said, which is especially problematic since the guidelines' authors disclosed extensive potential conflicts of interest. The guidelines were written by a panel assembled by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute ( NHLBI) and published in Pediatrics, in November 2011. They also were endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The guidelines call for universal screening of all 9 to 11-year-old children with a non-fasting lipid panel, and targeted screening of 30 to 40 percent of 2 to 8-year-old and 12 to 16-year old children with two fasting lipid profiles. Previous recommendations called only for children considered at high risk of elevated levels to be screened with a simple non-fasting total cholesterol test. The call for a dramatic increase in lipid screening has the potential to transform millions of healthy children into patients labeled with so-called dyslipidemia, or bad lipid levels in the blood, according to the commentary by Thomas Newman, MD, MPH, Mark Pletcher, MD, MPH and Stephen Hulley, MD, MPH, of the UCSF Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and e-published on July 23 in Pediatrics. "The panel made no attempt to estimate the magnitude of the health benefits or harms of attaching this diagnosis at this young age," said Newman. "They acknowledged that costs are important, but then went ahead and made their recommendations without estimating what the cost would be. And it could be billions of dollars." Some of the push to do more screening comes from concern about the obesity epidemic in U.S. children. But this concern should not lead to more laboratory testing, said Newman. "You don't need a blood test to tell who needs to lose weight. And recommending a healthier diet and exercise is something doctors can do for everybody, not just overweight kids," he said. The requirement of two fasting lipid panels in 30 to 40 percent of all 2 to 8-year olds and 12 to 16 -year- olds represents a particular burden to families, he said."

Cholesterol is considered a villain in most heart disease and build up of this chemical in the arteries leading to atherosclerosis is considered a direct consequence of reckless eating habits evolved in wealthy countries like the US. Vast agriculture subsidies and skewed government food policies have spawned a whole generation of cheap but highly unhealthy foods to which the citizens have ready access while healthy foods like fluid milk and fruits and vegetables are priced out of the reach of the common man. Over eating of meat and related products rich in cholesterol practically every day makes the cholesterol induced "crisis" a formidable one to manage. Recent attempts by the government, though belatedly and half-heartedly to make one day a weak meat free was sabotaged by the meat industry fearing a slide down of its fortunes. The obsession with pre-empting possible diseases during early childhood which is characteristic of the American system seems to have driven the latest proposal of lipid screening for children. But the over weight does not develop over night and those with a tendency with increased BMI only need to be tested sparing most kids the trauma of lipid profiling process unnecessarily. One can only hope that better sense will prevail with the US government eventually after considering the pros and cons of implementing the latest recommendations.

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

MEAT PRODUCTS AND ANTIBIOTICS-THE LABELING GAME!

Increased emergence of bugs resistant to some of the commonly used antibiotics for treatment of serious diseases in human beings is a cause for alarm globally. While part of the problem can be attributed to the indiscriminate prescription by physicians of all hues and colors to treat any and every fever with strongest antibiotics available in the market, meat industry has to bear the major burden for such a situation because of large scale use (or mis-use?) of antibiotics in raising meat animals. It is scandalous that more than 80% of the antibiotics produced in the US goes for feeding meat animals, under the pretext that meat so produced will be safer from pathogens like Salmonella, virulent E.coli and others. However a reality check shows that antibiotics are used to improve the production economics as the animals grow faster using less and less feed inputs. The hapless consumer, in spite of his yearnings to consume antibiotic free meat products does not have ready access to such products because most of the meat produced comes from farms which liberally use antibiotics in their day to day operations. Here is a take on this vexatious issue that seems to be caught between the powerful meat lobby and aggressive consumer activists organizations.  

"Currently, there is no labeling standards for drug free meat products, but until there is, the researchers say, foods labeled "organic" are, by definition, required to be antibiotic-free. In addition, they say consumers can generally rely on labels that explicitly say "no antibiotics," but should be wary of terms like "natural," "antibiotic-free," "no antibiotic residues" and "no antibiotic growth promotants," as these terms can be misleading. But a coalition of agricultural advocacy organizations – including the American Meat Institute, the National Cattleman's Beef Association, the National Chicken Council, the National Pork Producers Council and the National Turkey Federation -  do not agree that there is a problem. "The research is clear that the contribution of using antibiotics in food-animal production to the human burden of antibiotic resistance is quite small, if it exists at all," the coalition said in a letter to Congress in June".

It is a shame that the government in the world's most powerful country, viz the US is unable to come to the rescue of its citizens through restraining policies that will discourage the meat industry from using antibiotics recklessly. Adding insult to injury, the powerful meat lobby does not concede the point that its large scale use of antibiotics is responsible for the drug resistance encountered in may pathogen infections, in spite of massive scientific evidence to the contrary! What prevents the US authorities in insisting on compulsory labeling of antibiotic treated meat is indeed baffling, the only charitable interpretation being its vulnerability to the lobbying power of the meat industry. Though consumers have an alternative in organic meats, the fact that they cost heavily compared to normal meat excludes many of them with limited income from patronizing such expensive products. Access to safe food is a fundamental human right and no government can shirk its responsibility in ensuring the same, no matter how powerful the food industry may be!    

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

MICROSOFT AND FOOD-A QUESTIONABLE INVESTMENT

No one disputes that this Planet is heading for difficult days in a few years' time if food production does not keep pace with the expanding population. The debate revolves around the means required to achieve quantum jump in food production. Options like expanding the area of cultivation, increasing productivity through better inputs to agriculture and reducing wastage are good to talk about but are mired in uncertainties and road blocks which are difficult to be overcome easily. Genetically engineered agricultural crops are touted as an answer to the vexing food problem but unfortunately the GM technology has not been able to convince majority of scientists that it is a safe bet beyond a shade of doubt regarding its credentials to achieve perceptible yield increase. Another dimension to this problem is the inability of many poor farmers to cultivate available land due to economic limitations to harness the essential inputs to agriculture. Recent entry of large charitable organizations into efforts to generate technologies that can work efficiently without vital inputs like nitrogen fertilizers and water is a welcome development. Here is a report about such an effort by one such organization which wants to evolve cereal plants with an ability, like leguminous plants, to fix atmospheric nitrogen and self generate the required natural fertilizer.

"It is one of the largest single investments into GM in the UK and will be used to cultivate corn, wheat and rice that need little or no fertiliser.  It comes at a time when bio-tech researchers are trying to allay public fears over genetic modification. The work at the John Innes Centre in Norwich is hoped to benefit African farmers who cannot afford fertiliser. Agricultural fertiliser is important for crop production across the globe. But the many of the poorest farmers cannot afford fertiliser - and it is responsible for large greenhouse gas emissions. The John Innes Centre is trying to engineer cereal crops that could get nitrogen from the air - as peas and beans do - rather than needing chemical ammonia spread on fields. If successful, it is hoped the project could revolutionise agriculture and, in particular, help struggling maize farmers in sub-Saharan Africa - something the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is keen to do. 'Major problems' Professor Giles Oldroyd from the John Innes Centre, who is leading the team, said the project was vital for poorer producers and could have a "huge impact" on global agriculture. "We believe if we can get nitrogen fixing cereals we can deliver much higher yields to farmers in Africa and allow them to grow enough food for themselves." However, opponents of GM crops say results will not be achieved for decades at best, and global food shortages could be addressed now through improving distribution and cutting waste. Pete Riley, campaign director of the group GM Freeze, said there was a realisation by many farmers across the world that "GM is failing to deliver". "If you look in America, yields haven't increased by any significant amount and often go down," he said. He added: "Now we're seeing real, major problems for farmers in terms of weeds that are resistant to the herbicides which GM crops have been modified to tolerate."

While the gesture from organizations like the one above is worthy of appreciation, use of the funds exclusively to go in for genetic modification to alter the basic nature of cereal plants and their genetic signature may invite criticism from those having severe reservations regarding safety of GM crops. With most consumers shunning GM foods, if offered as a choice, how far the newly engineered crops will find acceptance is a question that begs for an answer. Alternate options like traditional hybridization and other possible techniques should not be ignored because development of new strains takes long years to fructify and world should have as many options as possible when the crunch comes.

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

THE GREAT CHEESE STORY-WHY AMERICANS ARE OBESE!

Does any government has a role to play in deciding what its citizens must eat or what should not be eaten? This issue received a sharp focus recently when some of pro-active policies are being taken up by governments in a few countries to discourage consumption of patently unhealthy foods. Higher taxation, limiting large sized packs and more forceful labeling regulations have been the chosen routes for achieving the goal of herding the consumers to live more responsibly and avoid social burden through diseases like diabetes, CVD, obesity, cancers etc. The on-going tussle between the farming lobby and consumer interests invariably ends up in favor of the former because of close nexus between agriculture lobby and the governing political class. Here is an interesting commentary by a critic regarding the systematic blows being delivered to the consumers by the American government through some of the most idiotic policy orchestrations to oblige its farming lobbies with almost all multinational giants investing heavily on an agenda of protecting their financial flanks.   

"Also, the Golden Age of Cheese was not purely the result of individual choices. It reflects decades of pro-cheese U.S. agriculture policy. I am not making this up. The nation's cheese binge is a case study in the broader dysfunctionality of federal farm legislation, the latest iteration of which is being debated in Congress. Yes, there are real social trends at work, too. An aging population consumes less milk as fluid and more in solid form; a wealthier population can afford a richer diet, including cheesy dishes eaten at restaurants. But the country's appetite for cheese also reflects U.S. policy. Since the New Deal, Washington has tried to protect dairy farmers through price 

supports and production controls so arcane that only specialists can understand them. As a 2004 Agriculture leaving Department report explained, the net effect of dairy programs is to prop up fluid milk prices even when producers make more of it than people want to drink — plenty of excess to dump on cheese manufacturers. "Thus, consumers see lower butter and cheese prices and higher fluid milk prices than would appear in the absence of the programs," the USDA found. Not surprisingly, fluid milk consumption has stagnated while cheese consumption has grown. Of the 188.9 billion pounds of milk produced in 2008, some 82 billion were sold to cheese makers, according to the USDA. On top of those warped incentives, the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 authorized the Agriculture Department to collect a fee from all dairy farmers and turn the money over to a corporation known as Dairy Management, which promotes consumption of cheese and other dairy products".

Cheese and ice cream are two products liked universally and one of the reasons for this phenomenon in a country like the US is the ridiculously low prices at which they are offered in the market. In contrast fluid milk consumption is deliberately depressed by making it much more costlier which has the effect of stagnating consumption by those who find it increasingly difficult to buy it due to escalating prices. The twin objectives of satisfying the farmer as well as the industry are achieved by increased retail prices of milk to the consumer and supply of excess milk production to the dairy processing industry to turn out products like cheese, butter and ice cream at relatively low prices. It is the consumer who is left behind in this convoluted situation as drinking milk is progressively reduced and consumption of high calorie and high fat foods is increased putting the consumer health in jeopardy. This explains the tripling of the population that has become over weight and obese in the last 40 years and to day more than two thirds of American population are categorized as either over weight or obese! It is the unfortunate political compulsions that make the ruling class blind to the dangers of wrong and unhealthy food and environmental degradation due to pollution, global warming and other scientifically proven findings. If the US is facing frequent hot weathers, droughts, floods and similar abnormal situations to day, one must thank its government for the wrong policies being pursued by it. 

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

THE CALORIE "DISCONNECT"-ALMOND STORY

There is a well ingrained perception that nuts are rich sources of energy as they contain high levels of fat which is logical. Obviously those watching calorie content in their diet will naturally shun these food components as much as possible. Nutrition labeling regulations provide for information including fat content in a product, saturated fat, trans fats and calories derived from them. Most of these data are generated by multiplying the carbohydrate, protein and fat content in a product by the appropriate factors laid down under universally accepted nutrition norms. Thus knowing the proximate composition of a product enables calculation of gross energy supposed to be available to the body. New findings that the entire fat content in some of the tree nuts like Almonds, when consumed, is not absorbed by the body are indeed surprising and will probably be welcomed by diet watchers all over the world. It is interesting to learn about the logic of this new revelation as reported by a  a credible scientific group recently based on laboratory studies. 

Scientists are starting to discover that the standard way of measuring calories, established more than 100 years ago, may not be terribly accurate when it comes to higher fat, high-fiber foods like nuts. But when it comes to almonds, the count may be off by a whole lot. Food scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently published a new study that finds almonds have about 20 percent fewer calories than previously documented. That's off by a lot more than an earlier British study showing pistachios have about 5 percent fewer calories than we thought, says USDA researcher David Baer, who worked on both studies. "We were surprised," he says. Baer and his colleagues compared the feces (poop, if you prefer) of people eating a controlled diet with almonds to ones who were eating a diet without any nuts. What they found was that "when people are consuming nuts, the amount of fat in the feces goes up," Bear says. "And that suggests that we're not absorbing all the fat or calories that's in the nut." In essence, the fat in the feces shows there's a disconnect between the gross energy found in an almond and the energy our bodies actually absorb.

Why 20% of the fat consumed via Almond is excreted from the GI tract is a matter of conjecture as of now. It is possible that the masticating efficiency in human beings may not be adequate to expose the fat contained in Almond cells to digestive juices which are supposed to hydrolyze it into fatty acids before absorption across the intestine. If this is so the fat absorption factor should be highly variable depending on how any given food is eaten by different individuals. It is true that efficiency of absorption can be high when food is eaten slowly, chewed and masticated thoroughly before swallowing. Especially in the case of oil seed nuts, extraction of fat is indeed a difficult process and the oil seed processing industry employs high pressure presses after breaking the fat cells to get almost 90% of the theoretical oil content. It is the pre-pressing step involving thermal treatment that breaks the fat cells, enabling the mechanical presses to recover the oil efficiently. In the human system fat release is largely dependent on the efficiency of mastication which will determine the amount of fat absorbed eventually across the GI tract. In the light of above findings, calorie content as being declared needs to be confirmed by actual in vivo testing but on the practical side the existing system of calculated calories based on proximate composition, followed universally will still serve the purpose of diet formulations and nutrient labeling.    

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