Eating vegetables-The wide gap between nutritional needs and actual availability in the US

Fruits and vegetables form an important component of a healthy diet and their neglect in preference to other foods like meat and highly processed foods has led to a gigantic health crisis in many western countries. Blaming the food processing industry for marketing their so called unhealthy foods rich in sugar, salt and or fat is not fair because every consumer has a right to choose the food he or she wants with out any compulsion. If we concede this basic reality, why is the consumer invariably neglecting these protective foods and patronizing high calorie, high fat, high salt foods available in the market. There  may be many reasons such as easy availability of packed foods, their low cost, high convenience factor, shelf stability, high taste coefficient etc. But one of the critical factors which emerged recently in a country like the US is a shocking mismatch between production of fruits and vegetables and actual availability nation wide. This means even if the consumer makes a conscious move to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables in his diet,production and an imbalance in supplies force him to  continue the faulty consumption pattern predominated by processed foods.Here is a take on this shocking revelation as reported recently raising many eyebrow recently.

"If you  are looking for proof that Americans' vegetable habits lean towards french fries and ketchup, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has it: Nearly 50 percent of vegetables and legumes available in the U.S. in 2013 were either tomatoes or potatoes. Lettuce came in third as the most available vegetable, according to new data out this week. And while the USDA's own dietary guidelines recommend that adults consume 2.5 to 3 cups of vegetables a day, the agency's researchers foundthat only 1.7 cups per person are available. "The dietary guidelines promote variety," Jeanine Bentley, a social science analyst at the USDA's Economic Research Service, tells The Salt. "But when you look at it, there isn't much variety. Mostly people consume potatoes, tomatoes and lettuce." (The data technically tally domestic production and imports, then subtract exports, but researchers commonly use them as a proxy for consumption.) The federal dietary guidelines do not recommend relying primarily on potatoes, tomatoes and lettuce for most of our vegetable needs. They prescribe a varied mix that includes dark leafy greens, orange and yellow vegetables, and beans—along with those potatoes and tomatoes. And they want us to eat them because they help reduce the risk for heart disease, stroke and some cancers as well as help keep us at a healthy weight. So the vegetables that are available don't really match what we're supposed to be eating. What about what we are actually eating? Some 87 percent of adults failed to meet the vegetable intake recommendations during 2007-2010, according to recent survey datafrom the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The survey found a lot of variation state to state — with 5.5 percent of people in Mississippi getting enough vegetables to 13 percent in California meeting the recommendations.

Most people are likely to be eating tomatoes and potatoes, but as the USDA has noted, we often get them in the not-so-nutritious forms of french fries and pizza. About one-third of potatoes, and two-thirds of tomatoes, were bound for processing — think chips, sweetened pizza sauce and ketchup. All these numbers beg some questions: Do our lopsided habits mean that Americans are merely eating what's on offer, a kind of supply-side theory of diet? Or are all those potatoes and tomatoes crowding out spinach and Brussels sprouts because they're what consumers demand?
"We have a serious disconnect between agriculture and health policy in our country," said Marion Nestle, a leading nutrition researcher and author at New York University. "The USDA does not support 'specialty crops' [like vegetables] to any appreciable extent and the Department of Commerce' figures show that the relative price of fruits and vegetables has gone up much faster than that of fast food or sodas." So while Americans are told to eat fruits and vegetables for their health, the government has meanwhile mostly just subsidized other crops that end up in cheaper, less healthy processed food. "Price has a lot to do with this," she adds. Although this week's USDA report focuses on the limited variety of vegetables available to American shoppers, other agency data suggest that the country simply doesn't offer enough vegetables, period. A 2010study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine estimated that the U.S. vegetable supply would need to increase by 70 percent — almost entirely in dark leafy greens, orange vegetables and legumes — in order for Americans to meet recommended daily allowances at the time.

With a dietary landscape like that, it's entirely possible that Americans are choosing potatoes and tomatoes, at least for now, says Lindsey Haynes-Maslow, a food systems and health analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "What I see here with lots of potatoes, tomatoes and lettuce … [is] that people are used to these items, and habits are hard to break," says Maslow, adding that relying mostly on the potatoes, tomatoes and lettuce "doesn't cut it," nutrition-wise. Still, she says, "If more Americans got used to eating more fruits and vegetables they might be demanding more of it," she says. "But it's really hard to demand something you've not grown up with." That's why behavioral economists are so keen to figure out how to nudge kids to try and develop a taste for more vegetables — they're researching everything from financial incentives to arranging food differently on the lunch line. And there's some hopeful news in that department: The CDC recently reported that, since the passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, there's been a big increase in the number of schools serving two or more vegetables and whole grain-rich foods every day.Most interesting of all, that food isn't just on kids plates: It's getting eaten, too. A Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity study of kids' lunch habits following the passage of the bill found that kids ate more fruit, threw away fewer vegetables and ate more of their now-healthier entrees, too."

To add further misery to the citizens in that country, even the available basket of fresh produce is heavily loaded in favor of potatoes, tomatoes and lettuce with greens and other healthy vegetables constituting hardly 10-20%! Over all the production base needs to be expanded by almost 70% if ideal situation is to be attained.Most painful data is that the prices of vegetables and fruits have been going up much faster that that of junk foods providing another justification for low income groups to ignore them for economic reasons. Obviously this is not an acceptable situation for any responsible nation professing to protect its citizens from diseases consequent to shortage of protective foods and their high cost. It is not that the US government is not doing any thing in this front but much more needs to be done to address this vital issue in the coming years.

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

How can consumers get justice for defective foods in the market? Why not create food Omdurman in each taluka?

Food authorities in India seem to have learned some what from the recent noodle fiasco reflected by their recent decision to involve a multiplicity of organizations, in carrying out support activities across the length and breadth of the country. On the face of it this looks to be sound in concept though at the ground level how it works out remains to be seen. Though one can criticize the safety agency under the Health Ministry for hundreds of reasons or alleged lapses, when it thinks about "out of the box" solutions, that deserves appreciation. The latest decision is such a case where the agency must be applauded. Of course translating the idea into a vibrant and workable system will require the agency to set aside its bureaucratic instincts and carry all the stake holders along with then, in executing a task, by no means, a simple one in a country like India with complex dimensions. Here is a take on this latest "thinking" as reported recently in the media.    

"In an attempt to have stricter vigilance over food products after incidents like Maggi noodles and other similar packaged products which were found hazardous to human health, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), which functions under Union Health Ministry, has decided to outsource surveys and food testing to various organisations related to food safety. Under a funding scheme,the FSSAI would associate with central and state government agencies, consumer organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other institutions, including government universities and colleges working in the area of food safety for undertaking surveys and food quality tests, etc under its Information, Education and Communication (IEC) activities."

If the logic of "out of the box thinking" can have potential to improve the system and ensure better confidence of the consumer on the effectiveness of the vigilance body, another possibility is to  create another mechanism to involve the consumer in tackling adulteration and other complaints pertaining to thousands of products in the market. Currently the citizen has no way to get redressal of his complaints because he has no where to go to narrate his problem. Why not create an Omdurman with some authority in each taluka in the country to receive such complaints, look at them to decide whether they are silly or unreasonable and after filtering them draw up a list of sales outlets who indulge in such practices for further action by the food authorities. It is possible that there could be many cases which may look silly but drawing up a list of retail outlets or food companies having such tendencies to cheat consumers will be a useful guide for further surveillance and action. A person with some background of food basics should qualify to be an Omdurman with some authority so that food inspectors will respect their reports for taking action. They can also be the eyes and rears of the fafety agency in the market place.  

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

Transparency in food labeling-Industry vs consumers

Does "front of the packet" labeling regulations which are in vogue in most countries in the world, in one form or the other, serve any purpose at all? If one goes by the views of the manufacturing industry such restraints are unnecessary because it has the best of the intentions in protecting the well being of the consumers! Probably if one goes by such yardsticks, there is no necessity for any food safety or quality regulating laws, leaving the onus of ensuring these aspects to the "good intentions" of the industry! What a quixotic logic! Whether the industry likes it or not many consumers patronize packed foods because they believe that the regulatory system that keeps a vigil over the doings of the industry is doing a satisfactory job. Look at the recent "noodle mess" in a country like India where consumers putting faith in their regulatory regime, however idiotic it may be, are reducing buying of processed foods in a very significant way as being reported by market watchers due to belief that the product is "toxic" as being claimed by the regulator. If what is happening in a country like the US, considered food processing capital of the world, is any indication food industry seems to be bent on "cheating" the consumers of their right to know what they want to buy and eat through "money muscle" and political clout. It is a disturbing trend and consumers world over must resist such blatant attempts by the industry to manipulate food laws to make them more are opaque. Here is a take on this unfortunate events taking place in the US.  

"By all accounts, Americans want a more transparent food system. Recent polling suggests the majority of Americans favor labeling that tells them exactly how and where their food is produced. And yet, several bills are currently moving through Congress that could make it much harder to learn about the source of our food. These bills would prevent state and local governments from requiring labeling of GMOs; remove country-of-origin labeling (COOL) requirements for most of the meat we buy; and make it harder to know where pesticides are used. The international trade agreements now being negotiated also include provisions that could make such information less available to consumers.  The food industry is spending an enormous amount of money to promote and lobby for this legislation. Food companies may have shelled out over $100 million* in the first six months of 2015 alone, according to federal lobbying disclosure reports. Businesses and trade groups promoting these policies say putting more information on food labels will send the wrong message about food safety, add costs, and pose barriers to trade. And in some cases, they worry it will open U.S. food producers and other companies to punitive import-export taxes. But good food advocates disagree. "This is basic transparency," says Patty Lovera, assistant director of the advocacy group Food & Water Watch. "We're not saying anything's unsafe," says Environmental Working Group(EWG) policy analyst Libby Foley. "We're saying it's about consumer choice." Here are the numbers the food industry doesn't want you to see: So far this year, food and beverage companies have spent $51.6 million on a series of lobbying including efforts efforts to defeat GMO labeling laws such as the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 (H.R. 1599), which opponents have dubbed the "Deny Americans the Right to Know" or DARK Act. According to a recent analysis by EWG, nearly a quarter of this money—$12.6 million—comes from just six companies: Coca-Cola, General Mills, Kellogg's, Land O'Lakes, and PepsiCo. Other big spenders in these efforts include the Grocery Manufacturers Association ($5.1 million); American Farm Bureau (nearly $1 million); and the National Restaurant Association ($2 million). Many state farm bureaus have also chipped in—among them, Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Oregon. Big name food producers, including Campbell Soup, Mars, Inc., Mondelez, Nestlé, OceanSpray, Safeway, and Unilever, are all spending significant amounts money on this issue as well."

Why is this happening in a country where literacy is almost 100%? May be it is precisely this reason that the industry is apprehensive of the consumers understanding the significance of what is presented on the label and shunning products which he considers not good, safe or environmentally unsatisfactory. An issue like declaring presence of GMO ingredients in a product has been blown out of proportion and American consumer is presently being denied this right because the regulatory authorities are overtly friendly with the powerful industry interests, ignoring the consumer feelings on this issue. Same is true with many safety related issues which invariably are loaded against the hapless consumer. In contrast in a country like India, the food safety agency is overtly antagonistic to the industry as proved by the recent unjustifiable ban on noodles with suspect testing results! What is required is a balance system that is equitable to the consumer as well as the manufacturer. May be it is an Utopian dream with least possibility of becoming a reality. 

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

"Green" plastics-Will Polylactic Acid emerge as a viable choice?

The dominance of synthetic plastics derived from fossil fuels in to day's world is scary as petroleum sources are not going to last for ever and the question as to what then is driving the scientific community feverishly to innovate and come up with viable alternatives based on renewable sources. While cellulose based plastics are manufactured and used for a variety of applications, their functional properties do not come any where near that of synthetic plastics. An yet another problem associated with petroleum based plastics is their near indestructibility and their biodegradability credentials. It takes almost 800 years for most plastics to degrade in nature and disposal in land fills posses enormous dangers to the safety of the environment including water resources. Emergence of poly lactic acid based plastics was thought to be an answer to this problem. Unfortunately these biodegradable plastics cost too high to be commercially viable. The major factor in this cost escalation is the manufacturing technology which appears to be too complex and expensive. Recently a group of scientists from Belgium have come up with a new approach for producing cheaper poly lactic acid base material which if true can be a ground breaking development Read further below.    

"The bioplastic PLA is derived from renewable resources, including the sugar in maize and sugarcane. Fermentation turns thesugar into lactic acid, which in turn is a building block for polylactic acid. PLA degrades after a number of years in certain environments. If it is collected and sorted correctly, it is both industrially compostable and recyclable. In addition, PLA is biocompatible and thus suitable for medical use, for instance in absorbable suture threads. PLA is also one of the few plastics that are suitable for 3D printing. However, polylactic acid is not yet a full alternative for petroleum-based plastics due to its cost. The production process for PLA is expensive because of the intermediary steps. "First, lactic acid is fed into a reactor and converted into a type of pre-plastic under high temperature and in a vacuum. This is an expensive process. The pre-plastic – a low-quality plastic – is then broken down into building blocks for polylactic acid. In other words, you are first producing an inferior plastic before you end up with a high-quality plastic. And even though PLA is considered a green plastic, the various intermediary steps in the production process still require metals and produce waste," said Prof Bert Sels from the Centre for Surface Chemistry and Catalysis. The KU Leuven researchers developed a new technique. Michiel Dusselier, a postdoctoral researcher, explained, "We have applied a petrochemical concept to biomass. We speed up and guide the chemical process in the reactor with a zeolite as a catalyst. Zeolites are porous minerals. By selecting a specific type on the basis of its pore shape, we were able to convert lactic acid directly into the building blocks for PLA without making the larger by-products that do not fit into the zeolite pores. Our new method has several advantages compared to the traditional technique: we produce more polylactic acid with less waste and without using metals. In addition, the production process is cheaper, because we can skip a step."

Whether this development can lead to large scale production of the new plastic materials remains to be seen. At least there is a hope that an alternative option is available on the table. Of course lactic acid production from biomass materials through intervention of microbes can still pose a logistical problem because of competition from fuel industry which also is working on fermentation route for making green fuel. Already there is some criticism regarding diversion of food materials like corn, plant oils and other organic carbon sources for production of alcohol and other fuels to replace fossil fuels. World has to take a holistic view of this critical area and only cooperative endeavors can succeed ultimately.  

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

Emergence of LED based bacterial destruction technology- Opening up a new avenue for safeguarding foods

Technology for food preservation has evolved over a hundred years in the past and from the early findings that salt, sugar, acids can protect foods from deterioration by pathogenic microorganisms, modern food technology has been able to innovate newer processes with more reliability and assurance. Canning was considered the most trustworthy process and during various wars canned foods formed the backbone of the fighting soldiers. Emergence of technologies like irradiation, High pressure processing, controlled environment storage/packing, HTST etc are now available to the industry for different types of products. Ultimately the effectiveness and acceptability of a technology depend on its ability to preserve the quality of the food processed, achieving cent percent kill of microbes and the cost of using the technology under commercial conditions. Recent claims that blue LED rays can be an effective tool in the hands of technologists to preserve foods, offer a new option that may be acceptable to the industry. Here are more details of the same as reported recently.

"Blue LEDs in conjunction with cold temperature and acidic conditions can kill off foodborne pathogens making chemical-free preservation a possibility for a range of foods. Fresh-cut fruits and ready-to-eat meats are just some of the foods which are mildly acidic (pH 4.5) that could use this preservation technology to avoid the use of chemical preservatives and present the 'clean label' that consumers desire. A team of scientists from the National University of Singapore (NUS) has found that blue light emitting diodes (LEDs) have strong antibacterial effect on major foodborne pathogens and are most effective when in cold temperatures (between 4 and 15°C) and mildly acidic conditions of around pH 4.5. These findings were recently published in the Food Microbiology journal in June 2015. While LEDs are most commonly known as an energy-saving light source, they have also been known to have an antibacterial effect. Bacterial cells contain light-sensitive compounds that adsorb light in the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum (400-430 nm), which is mainly blue LED light. Exposure to illumination from blue LED light can hence start off a process within the cells that ultimately causes the cells to die. Existing studies on the antibacterial effect of LED illumination mostly evaluated its efficacy by adding photo sensitisers to the food samples, or by using very close distance of less than 2 cm between the bacterial suspension and LED light source. These conditions would not be viable for application on food preservation. The NUS team, led by Assistant Professor Yuk Hyun-Gyun, from the Food Science and Technology Programme at the NUS Faculty of Science, is the first so far to show that factors such as temperature and pH levels, which are typically related to food products, can affect the antibacterial effect of LEDs.
In this study, the team placed three major foodborne pathogens — Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium — under blue LED illumination and varied the pH conditions from acidic to alkaline. The team found that higher bacterial inactivation was achieved at acidic and alkaline pH conditions than when neutral. In particular, acidic conditions were more detrimental than alkaline conditions for L. monocytogenes. For E. coli O157:H7 and S. Typhimurium, alkaline conditions were most detrimental although acidic conditions were also sufficiently effective in deactivating them. A previous study in 2013 by the same team had also looked at the effect of temperature on blue LED's ability to deactivate bacterial cells and found the antibacterial effect to be most enhanced in chilling temperatures. Asst Prof Yuk said, "Taken together, our two studies point to a potential for preserving acidic foods in combination with chilling temperatures without chemical treatments. This could meet the increasing demand for natural or minimally processed foods without relying on chemicals such as acidulants and artificial preservatives to preserve food products."

Though blue light rays are used widely for a variety of applications, its utility to food preservation is some what new deserving further development to bring it to wide scale use commercially. The major constraint has been that photo sensitizers are required to activate the kill effect of the blue rays. Also the efficiency of blue rays depends largely on the distance between the food sample and the source of the light. Though cold temperature and pH conditions can enhance the kill effect, how suitable equipment can be designed for large scale commercial application needs to be addressed. If these problems are overcome, blue ray technology may find wide applications in future in the industry, retail stores and domestic refrigerators, especially to protect cut fruits and vegetables, meat cuts and other perishable foods

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

BIS Vs FSSAI-Why this dichotomy?

When Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) was created with great fanfare, it was expected that food industry in India could deal with one single government agency from licensing to product monitoring. It is another matter that what the industry got was a thoroughly bureaucratized top heavy obese organization with no technical expertise to carry out the awesome task of protecting the citizens from fraudulent practices by some of the unscrupulous segment of the food processing industry which is bent on making a fast buck ignoring the health perils posed by their sub-standard and unsafe products. Honest industry players who want to play strictly by the rule books are unnecessarily harassed as seen recently by the brutal action to ban a particular brand of noodles based on unreliable and questionable test results. To add to the burden posed by FSSAI, another irritant has been introduced by way of bringing another government agency viz Bureau of Indian Standards "BIS"  to approve tin plate quality. Here is a take on this latest development against which the industry is protesting.    

"The Bureau of Indian Standards' (BIS) quality control order on tin plates issued in April will affect India's metal packaging industry of around Rs 5,000 crore. The Draft Steel Quality Control orer includes 'Cold Reduced Electrolytic Tinplate', an import component used in packing baby food, milk power, mango pulp, coffee among other edible and non edible items. Industry body Metal Container Manufacturers Association (MCMA) feels that the order, which will come into force by next month, needs to be reviewed as it will impact the metal packaging industry, which employs over a lakh people. According to MCMA President Sanjay Bhatia tin can is an "industrial product and not an item of mass consumption". Industry consumes around 550,000 tonnes of tin mill products (tinplate/tinfree steel etc), of which about 60 per cent is prime and 40 per cent non-prime. Domestic availability is about 325,000 tonnes and the balance is imported from different countries such as Japan, Korea, Brazil, Europe, USA, China, Venezuela, etc. "The firms in these countries follow rigorous global quality control orders and since we do not import large quantities they will not take pains to get BIS certification, which will impact us as we will not get good material at competitive rates," Bhatia told PTI. Prime material is mainly required for edible products like processed food, fruits and vegetables, dairy products, edible oil etc while non-prime (secondaries arising out of Prime) are required for non-edible products such as in packing of paints, industrial oils among others. "The order brings a non-tariff barrier in order to protect the domestic producers, but the production in the country is not sufficient enough to meet the demand of the industry both in terms of volume as well as grades," he countered. In certain applications industry requires continuous annealed material, high precision shearing in terms of squareness for products like battery jackets, scroll tinplate sheets which the domestic producer is not in a position to supply, he said. "We have approached the Prime Minister's Office, Steel Ministry, Commerce Ministry, Ministry of Medium and Small Enterprises with our demand. A similar order had come in 2007-08 and the government had taken it back. We are hopeful that something can happen this time as well," he added. The order will also reduce the competitive strength of metal packaging industry as it is likely to result in increase in cost of raw material involved in BIS marking fees and other related expenses as compared to other packaging material like plastic, paper, glass, Bhatia said."

It is unfortunate that bureaucracy in the country is trying again to overlord the manufacturing sector putting such types of hurdles reminding one of the old days of "inspector raj". Sympathize with poor Prime Minister who is talking day in and day out about strengthening the industry by removing impediments so that his "Make in India"  dream takes off in a big way. Probably he has not reckoned with the vice-like grip of bureaucracy in this country which does not see any thing beyond its self interest-that is wielding power without accountability. Why should there be any standards set by BIS when tha responsibility of food standards management is vested with FSSAI? Industry has a case when they are protesting against such arbitrary policy decisions affecting their functioning in a serious way. It is not that BIS is inferior to FSSAI as both organizations are epitome of inefficiency and unreliability when it comes to protecting the consumer. Ultimately industry has to blame itself for its subservient attitude to babus in the government by their behavior bordering on sycophancy! It must stand up with no fear or favor from the government for causes which are right and sensible.

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

"Made in India" food products not up to international mark? Why?

When Indian Prime Minister started his "Make in India" campaign last year with the honest intention to see more and more Indian made products in the international market, there were many who had reservations about the success of such an effort. It is true that manufacturing sector has great potential to expand employment opportunities, especially to those with low skill levels and thus contribute to socio-economic upliftment of the nation. Prime Minister even went to the extent of saying that the country would roll out "red carpet" welcoming foreign investors in stead of "red tape" of the bureaucrats which is a curse on the country. Alas not much has happened during the last 15 months of the government, though many are willing to give a chance for the reforms to come through in the coming months. Functioning of the Parliament, as being seen during the last one year is a big dampener to our hopes but it is time the government focuses more on administrative reforms not requiring the stamp of parliament so that most of the bottlenecks at the bureaucratic level can be sorted out. A recent report highlighting the sorry situation regarding export of processed foods, as highlighted by large scale rejections due to quality and safety factors at the buyers' end, offers a sad picture which must be addressed without much delay. 

Much before the controversy around Maggi raised an alarm over food safety standards in India, the voluminous rejection list of Indian food and cosmetic items in the US served as a precursor to the need for better regulations of food safety laws in India.India has always been one of the top three countries to face rejections in the monthly refusal list of food items by the Operational and Administrative System for Import Support (OASIS), of the US FDA(Food & Drug Administration). In June 2015, 170 Indian products, 185 in May and 143 in April, were rejected by the US FDA, marking the second highest number of refusals in all the three months. Ironically, India has one of the best food laws in place on paper, which requires even a roadside peanut vendor to get a licence from the government. However, the problems lie in the poor implementation of laws. In 2006, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) was established as an independent statutory authority for all food-related laws under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The Act repealed a plethora of previous central Acts including the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which was the principal law governing the food sector in India so long. The new laws were aimed to address the issue of food safety, apart from food adulteration. The FSSAI- broadly based on Codex Alementarius Commission, a benchmark for international food safety practices- became the central regulatory authority responsible for regulating manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import of food. The commission dates back to 1963, when the Food and Agricultural organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) along with its 185 member states formed the standards. "The biggest problem with food law is that it was hurriedly copied from Codex but was not sufficient to address problems in the Indian food sector. Most importantly, at the ground level, the food inspectors have no competency and capacity for effective monitoring. The FSSAI has just made the inspector raj more pronounced," said a food consultant on the condition of anonymity.

It must be admitted that the country does not need to evolve standards for various products being manufactured here because of the existence of thousands of such standards evolved by international organizations. But when it comes to traditional food products, unique to the country, they have been severely neglected by the food scientists in India though there are half a dozen research organizations of some repute and at least two dozen universities across the country imparting training and research skills to aspiring food scientists. As for Food safety management agency we have seen how it became butt of a joke internationally through its unjustified ban on a brand of noodles which was fortunately overruled by the judiciary. If India is to make a dent in the export market in food sector, it cannot achieve this through export of bread, biscuits or chocolates. This has to come through trasditional foods, thousands in number, languishing locally across the country for want of scientific inputs to standardize them, modernize their making process and design appropriate machinery for commercial production. Can our PM inspire the food scientists through carrot or stick to shift their focus of research to traditional foods in stead of wasting their time on western foods? Unless this is done the "Make in India" slogan will remain a slogan only!

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