FOLIC ACID IN BREAD-UNIVERSAL FORTIFICATION NECESSARY?

The issue of food fortification is a complex one and authorities world over are pulled between the desire to improve the health of their population and apprehension regarding the adverse effect of universal fortification. In a case like iodization of salt there was irrefutable data that even those having adequate iodine level in their system are not adversely affected by iodine coming from fortified salt. However this is not true with fluoridation of water because fluorides in excess can cause problem in many cases. In a country like the US most processed foods are fortified, obviously to restore part of the nutrients lost during manufacturing process but the over all effect of such fortification is still uncertain, some even claiming that such fortification improves only the financial health of the pharma industry which makes these nutrients for supply to the food industry! Latest controversy comes from New Zealand where animated discussions are taking place to make fortification of bread with Folic acid vitamin mandatory. The obvious basis is that such fortification prevents birth of children with neural tube defect (NTD). Like other cases this is also a complicated issue that can have multiple dimensions. Here is a take on this.

"Plans to introduce mandatory folic fortification in a bid to reduce the number of babies born with neurotube defects have been rejected by the Government. Minister for Food Safety Kate Wilkinson said today bakers will be able to decide whether or not tofortify their bread products with folic acid, as they have done for the last two years. "Folic acid plays an important role in reducing NTDs in babies, but fortification of bread is only one part of a wider package of initiatives," said Wilkinson. The plan has been advocated by the Paediatric Society in a bid to see a reduction in neural tube defects which can cause conditions such as spina bifida. However, the food industry has advocated to keep the status quo, saying any change reduces consumer choice and exposes the entire population to folic acid. Food & Grocery Council (FGC) chief executive Katherine Rich said it made no sense to effectively expose every man, woman and child to high levels of a folic acid in an attempt to reach a small number of women. "There is enough evidence to suggest our folate levels have increased considerably under voluntary fortification and that with more time to continue this work that trend is expected to continue. "The food industry supports the Government's aim of improving folate levels in women of child-bearing age." Rich said the last report to the Ministry for Primary Industries showed there were 34 lines of packaged fortified breads already available for consumers".

The argument that to target a small percentage of population vulnerable to NTD, it is not justifiable to force the entire population to consume higher level of Folic acid is indeed valid. Besides the economic cost involved in fortification, no one knows the long term effect of consuming higher levels of Folic acid in humans than that recommended for sound health. Probably voluntary efforts by the industry to target pregnant women only through special Folic acid enriched products may be more logical than making such practices mandatory. Besides it is normal for pregnant women to take additional nutrient supplements during pregnancy as per the advice of their doctor. After all it must be remembered that a normal balanced diet based on a variety of natural foods like whole cereals and pulses, fruits, vegetables and spices may not need any supplementation at all at any time in life. For those eating meat and fish regularly the question of Folic acid deficiency may not arise at all.

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

RECYCLING OF ORGANICS-WILL IT EVER BE PUT ON AN ORGANIZED SYSTEM?

World over environmental pollution is an area, well recognized as a potential way of courting disaster for this planet. However very little organized efforts, here and there, do not make any meaningful impact on pollution. Global warming and its consequent impact on the denizens in the form of hot weather, uneven rainfalls, gigantic floods and unbearable drought conditions have not received adequate attention in wealthy countries like the US where people do not want to scale down their comfort levels in day to day life through even small sacrifices. Euphorically called "food scraps" that emanate from the dining tables of millions of house holds and food service organizations are enough to feed many hungry people in most under developed countries provided they are salvaged in time through systematic efforts. However for this to happen, such operations have to be be feasible technically or economically. Next best thing is not to allow these scraps to be a nuisance to the community around through age old composting process. Though theoretically it should be possible to do this by every player in this saga, there are practical constraints that come in the way of such practices being adopted by all. Here is a take on this problem from an American perspective.

"But composting your lunch isn't like recycling a pop can. Early tests of potential interest are mixed. Even some avid recyclers balk at recycling table scraps, which can bring smells and insects to their kitchens. And the environmental benefits are debatable. Skeptics don't think curbside food-scrap collection is worth the expense and extra pollution. "If it does not save money and doesn't do much for the environment, why are we doing it?" said Winston Porter, president of the Waste Policy Center in Virginia and a former assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. "We are not exactly running out of mulch in this country." 
If there is a will there is a way, so goes an old saying and for people with determination can still set up small composting units in areas slightly away from the kitchen, provided the house is a villa or a bungalow with some open space in the premise. A better approach could be community composting units collectively operated by volunteers which need a collection network that will clear the scraps at least twice a day on a predetermined schedule. It is praise worthy that some civic bodies are operating composting plants, selling the mulch for use in small gardens but the scale of operation is too small to make an impact as desired. This is where government must step in for creating an infrastructure in each urban settlements for scientifically processing food scraps and other biodegradable organic matters. The incentive based schemes such as the one reported from South America where families are given fresh vegetables grown in gardens maintained by the civic body in return for their garbage, can be considered by all countries for solving their urban garbage problem.

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

SUGAR BY ANY NAME IS SUGAR!-A NEW STRATEGY FOR PEDDLING SUGAR

Industry's ways to fob of the consumer are mind boggling indeed! After the universal front of the pack labeling practices were introduced a few years ago, it was no more possible for the manufacturers to hide what each product contains in terms of its ingredients and nutrients. At least this was the thinking of the policy makers. This was supposed to have ushered in an era of transparency the consumers could feel comfortable. However those who designed the labeling policies did not reckon with the ingenuity of an industry which has least concern for consumer well being and more interested in boosting their financial health. There are hundreds of instances where industry uses devious ways to mislead the consumer, some contravening the rules and others using loopholes in the statute book. Here is a latest case of mislabeling of a product, though legally it might be difficult to take the manufacturer to task. It concerns suppressing the information regarding the sugar ingredient in a product by using the scientific alternative terminology that can confuse an ordinary consumer to no end. Here is a take on this latest labeling "circus".

"While the name thing may sound like mere semantics, the stakes for the food industry are actually pretty high. FDA issued a guidance three years ago suggesting that manufacturers shouldn't use the term evaporated cane juice to describe sweeteners made from sugar cane syrup because the term hides the fact that ultimately it's sugar. Of course, because it's a guidance, and a draft one at that, the agency technically can't enforce it. Earlier this year, northern Californian Katie Kane sued the yogurt company Chobani in federal court, claiming its use of the term "evaporated cane juice" misled her into buying the company's Greek yogurt. Her class-action suit is seeking unspecified damages, and she relies heavily on FDA's guidance in her argument. We contacted Chobani. It wouldn't comment on why it uses the term "evaporated cane juice" instead of sugar. But a Chobani spokesperson told The Salt in an email that its labels are not misleading and that it plans to "vigorously defend" itself against Kane's charges. While some folks appear to be distancing themselves from the name "sugar," corn refiners have been on a longstanding quest to put on the sugar mantle. Alas, for them, the FDA ruled earlier this year that the makers of high fructose corn syrup could not change the name of their product to corn sugar. Either way, it might be best to keep in mind a version of the famous Shakespeare line: Sugar by any other name tastes just as sweet — and has just as many calories".

It is true that cane sugar is made from sugarcane by extracting the juice, cleaning it up, concentration and crystallization leaving behind the molasses. Technically evaporated cane juice and a sugar syrup has a vital difference in that the former contains all the natural ingredients which include minerals, vitamins, phytochemicals and waxy substances which were originally present in the cane. But a larger question is whether the manufacturer has really used the natural concentrate which has a characteristic brown color and chlorophyll small, making it an untenable ingredient in a product with snow white color! In the statute book there is no additive by name evaporated sugar cane juice and therefore no standards of identity for such an ingredient. For those watching out for sugar containing products it can be misleading as they may not be aware that the product contains sugar. If such leeway is given to industry next move may be to use the expression "extracted juice from peanut" in place of peanut oil to hide the fact the product contains fat! It will be interesting to watch the outcome of the legal proceedings against the industry which camouflaged the use of sugar by expressing the term evaporated sugar cane juice.

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

BAGGED SALAD-IS IT ABSOLUTELY SAFE?

As per the recommendations of nutrition experts, in order to maintain a good health one must eat large quantities of fruits and vegetables which supply many micro nutrients besides dietary fiber. This has created an opportunity to the fresh produce industry to offer fresh salad preparations in super markets which boast of tremendous convenience to the consumer. Preparing fresh vegetables for making salads is an involved process requiring time and lot of care which most modern families do not have and this situation has led to massive patronage of "Bagged Salads", ready to be consumed on the dining table or at any time. However countless recalls of salad products made by reputed manufacturers  due to suspected contamination with pathogenic bacteria during the last few years have literally created a panic in the American market with more and more consumers hesitating to buy them due to fear of contamination by virulent E.coli and similar disease causing bacteria. If such fears are not removed from the minds of consumers, there may be a possibility of significant reduction of intake of these health protecting foods in that country. Here is a take on this unfortunate development.

"Bagged salad is easy to open, great on a hot summer day and a super easy dinner. Is it safe to eat? Let's see what the experts say. I eat bagged salad and unless I am reporting a bagged salad recall will buy the Dole and Fresh Express products. I am careful and if there is a bagged salad recall, I check what's in my frig. This week, Fresh Express had a recall of 8,000 cases  of Hearts of Romaine. I have Fresh Express at home but it's Iceberg Lettuce. Apparently, I am not alone, a contributor of US Food Safety, Doug Powell, a professor of food safety at  Kansas State University, was quoted on nbcnews.com, "We call it faith-based food safety,"and most of it is faith-based." Powell and Christina Bruhn, a researcher in food science and technology at UC Davis, say that while figuring out what fraction of the lettuce may make you sick is a gamble, they still place their bets on the bagged stuff. "I go to the biggest grocery store I can find," he said. "They have requirements for what they put on the shelf." Even the crisp heads of lettuce in a farmer's market stall can be suspect, said Powell. They may be fresh and local, but that's no guarantee of safety. "The lettuce was sitting swamped in water for days," he said. "If I go to a farmer's market, I don't want to know that it's lovingly grown. I want to know you've taken steps for microbiological safety. If you can't answer those questions, I don't want to buy your lettuce." I will take my chances".

It is not understandable as to how greens can get contaminated if proper agricultural practices are used in producing them in the farms. Why such contamination problems are more prevalent in the US is also a mystery. Whether contamination takes place in the field or during handling, packing, distribution or retailing is also not clear. The industry has to take full responsibility for such a situation as contaminated products should not have come out of their premises unless tested rigorously by quality testers. The irradiation technology which has an answer for decontaminating tainted foods needs to be deployed more extensively if a fool proof distribution system is to be put in place. Consumers must realize that any technology used can have marginal influence on quality and it is trade of between safety and absolute eating quality! Safety authorities in the US must consider mandatory irradiation of products like bagged salads in the interest of consumer safety.

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

PLASTIC FROM BACTERIA-TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE?

Fast depleting fossil fuel resources is raising alarms all around with private and public funded research efforts striving to evolve alternate sustainable energy sources. While tapping solar energy, wind energy, wave energy, geothermal energy, etc can help to fill the gap to some extent after the era of easy and cheap fossil fuels, still there is no clear solution to this vexing problem. One of the areas where fossil fuels have contributed enormously is in the manufacture of a variety of plastics for packaging consumer products including food and it is an irrefutable fact that both production and disposal of plastics pose technical, environmental and economic challenges. There are alternate technologies for production of plastics from basic chemicals produced by the plants and some microbiological sources though they have not yet gained universal acceptance. Recent break through in research studies to convert carbon dioxide, the very villain of peace to day in the global warming debate, are considered exciting and here is a critique on this development with some far reaching future potential to clean up the Globe.

Today, the world consumes 120 million tons of the chemical ethylene to make the world's most widely used plastics. Almost all of that ethylene is derived from fossil fuels. Between 1.5 to 3 tons of carbon dioxide is released for every ton of ethylene produced, which is why plastic has such an enormous carbon footprint. Now, researchers have inserted a gene into bacteria that turns it into one of the world's most efficient factories for ethylene by eating carbon dioxide, instead of releasing it into the air. On the opposite end of the plastic production line, a newly discovered fungus in the Amazon eats plastic, finally giving us a way to get rid of the stuff. The new cyanobacterium works in the opposite way of traditional plastic production: Its photosynthetic capabilities means it harnesses today's photons from sunlight (as opposed to old photons stored in the energy of chemical bonds in petroleum) to add carbon from the air to ethylene molecules. This saves six tons of carbon dioxide emissions for every ton of ethylene created: Three tons are absorbed by bacteria and three are avoided from the usual fossil fuels, says the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. "Our peak productivity is higher than a number of other technologies, including ethanol, butanol, and isoprene," said NREL principal investigator, Jianping Yu, in a release from the Lab. "We overcame problems encountered by past researchers. Our process doesn't produce toxins such as cyanide and it is more stable than past efforts. And it isn't going to be a food buffet for other organisms."

The new genetically modified bacteria offers exciting possibilities if harnessed properly. The fact that it can create the basic building blocks of plastics by absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide has future repercussions for both the packaging industry as well as environmental managers since it will considerably reduce the green house effect due to carbon dioxide while providing an inexhaustible source for making plastics for consumer use. The commercial feasibility part of the research has to be established in no uncertain terms and if technical feasibility is confirmed all countries in this Universe must join hands to evolve this technology further to the point of global use. The technological developments for optimizing the production of ethylene by the bacteria and exploitation of the Amazon fungus must be a common property of the mankind and there should not be any reservation on the part of NREL to share this with the world community at large.

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

DRINKING WATER-DOES IT COME UNDER FOOD CATEGORY?

Can drinking water be considered a food? Do the FSSAI provisions apply to this material? A section of the packaged drinking water manufacturing community seems to be holding the view that no safety authority restraints can apply to them and they have the freedom to put any muck in the market without being questioned! Ii is interesting to note that more than two thirds of the water processing units in the state of Karnataka have no ISI certification from Bureau of Indian Standards (BSI) because of their perceived feeling that it was not mandatory. While the state administration was not able to bring to books these delinquents, it was left to the judiciary to compel them to seek the quality certification from BIS without which consumer safety is compromised. Here is a take on this consumer protection ruling from Karnataka High Court for which people of the state should be grateful.

'Holding that packaged drinking water comes within the purview of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, the Karnataka High Court on Friday said that certification from the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) is mandatory for packaged drinking water. The court also directed the State government to take action to prohibit and prevent the manufacture and sale of packaged drinking water without BIS certification. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vikramajit Sen and Justice Aravind Kumar passed the order while disposing of a public interest litigation (PIL) petition by Lochamesh B. Hugar of Hubli complaining inaction by the authorities against manufacturers of packaged drinking water operating without BIS certification, and a batch of petitions filed by the manufacturers claiming that certification from BIS was not necessary. The Bench also directed the authorities to take action against the manufacturers if they found them operating without certification from BIS. However, noticing that there are 564 packaged drinking water manufacturing units without BIS certification as against 224 with BIS certification across the State, the court has given an opportunity for those operating without BIS certification to apply for certification. The Bench said that all manufacturers will have to submit applications for BIS certification in the prescribed format within 15 days. It directed the authorities concerned, including the BIS, to process the application within three months and notify the deficiencies, if any, in these units. The Bench said that entire exercise will have to be completed within four months. Meanwhile, the court has given liberty to the authorities to initiate action against those manufacturers who fail to adhere to the directions and comply with conditions for manufacturing packaged drinking water".

While on paper, products with ISI mark give some confidence to the consumer regarding their quality and safety, in practice BIS is not an organization best known for its efficiency. It is common to see many products in the market place with ISI markings either spurious or sub-standard as this quality certification  agency has neither the required personnel nor the infrastructure to implement their standards. Some times it is not clear why there should be a separate certification requirement for only water which after all is a part and parcel of the food system and hence the onus of ensuring safety of drinking water must be on FSSAI which has the wherewithal to prosecute offenders more efficiently than a toothless agency like BIS. Those who went to court questioning the operation of BIS in drinking water quality management, has a valid point in that FSSAI already covers water also and ISI certification is therefore redundant. Same is true with others like AGMARK also and it is time that country's food quality and safety enforcement agencies are integrated leaving the entire function to a single agency.

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

BIOBUTANOL-THE NEW SAVIOR FOR THE PLANET?

It sounds far fetched when a whiskey manufacturing company proclaims that the waste products from his distillery can save precious food and help the world to meet future food problems! Before outright ridiculing of this claim it is rational to look into the basis of the claim and see whether there is some substance in it. According to these innovators, the industrial waste generated during the manufacture of whiskey has sufficient residual energy left, to make Butanol, a valued fuel, considered better than ethyl alcohol. While generating Butanol can be a profitable activity, it also solves the problem of waste disposal and pollution potential of these wastes incurring heavy cost to the distilleries. The product aptly named Biobutanol has been found to be more energy dense and can be used more easily in blends with gasoline. Since it is still in the development stage, only future will tell whether it is economically feasible. Here is a take on this new development that is exciting for the automobile industry. 

"Can whisky help solve the world's shortages of both food and fuel? A team of scientists in Scotland is banking on it. The people behind Celtic Renewables have invested five years of research and now a business venture in the idea that the waste products from whisky distilleries can be converted into biofuel to power cars and trucks. Mark Simmers, CEO of the company founded last year, says the biobutanol Celtic Renewables makes from whisky waste is not only better suited to use as vehicle fuel than the bioethanol commonly pumped now, but it also dodges the food vs. fuel quandary facing the biofuel industry at large.  Speaking from the whisky capital of the world, Simmers said there were two things driving him and his colleagues - who started out researching the whisky waste-to fuel idea at Edinburgh Napier University: finding a "large, guaranteed feedstock that is not food," and also finding a reliable, cheap, local source of fuel for vehicles in remote parts of Scotland where gas is expensive. Simmers describes biobutanol as an "advanced" biofuel compared to bioethanol. It can be used in any unmodified vehicle on the road, where bioethanol requires some modifications. Butanol also mixes better at a chemical level with conventional petroleum products, meaning a higher ratio of biofuel to petroleum can be used when mixing gas for consumers at the pump. The other big plus, as mentioned above, is that no corn or other crops are needed to produce the whisky-waste biobutanol. One of the biggest challenges to the biofuel industry comes from organizations fighting its production on the grounds that farmland in poor nations - where cheap food is in short supply - is being used to grow crops expressly for biofuel production, which pays better than food production. Celtic Renewables is still in the trial phase of its production, but it hopes to be producing biobutanol for the commercial market by the end of next year".

According to estimates Scotland, the Mecca of Scotch of Whiskey generates about 1.6 billion liters of Pot ale and 1, 87, 000 tons of Draft, both wastes from the distillation line which can be useful in making Biobutanol. This development is all the more interesting considering that in most countries valuable food commodities are diverted to make Bioethanol for blending with gasoline and there is substantial opposition world wide against such "misuse" of food items for non-food purpose. If Biobutanol production is found to be sustainable and economically viable, large quantities of Corn now being used for making Bioalcohol can be better used for feeding millions of hungry people, especially in the African continent. Auto industry should be happy because Biobutanol has much better physical characteristics than ethanol in terms of blending and energy content.

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