Microwave heating of foods-Some concerns about its ill effects

Have we not come a long way since our ancestors started cooking their foods in open fire created by friction between two stones? Unfortunately this progress in our knowledge and modern practices are still not ensuring that the nutrients in the food are not degraded or lost during any of the cooking practices in vogue to day. Some extreme preachers promote the concept of eating food in its raw form ignoring the dangers involved in such practices. Raw milk consumption is still being practiced in some parts of the world and for these practitioners heating is a taboo fearing the loss of the original goodness inherent in the food. Similarly the habit of salad eating also presupposes that heating reduces its nutrition besides the eating quality. But to day's growing methods are radically different from what they were hundred years ago and industrial agriculture involving heavy use of chemical fertilizers and powerful insecticides and pesticides. Industrial scale cultivation became inevitable to meet the food needs of a vast expanding population. Similarly industrial scale cooking using a variety of heating modes in modern restaurants and other mass catering places are making kitchen a redundant place, to be visited occasionally for light cooking. Naturally the question arises whether modern cooking technologies destroy the nutrients present in our foods very significantly compared to yesteryear? Recent debate about microwave heating and its impact on nutrient retention is a typical case where there is no unanimity among experts. Read further below:  

"The microwave has gotten a bit of a bad rap about its effects on nutrients. Cooking and heating food by any method can result in some degradation of nutrients. Vitamins C and B12, for instance, degrade quickly when a food is heated. But other nutrients may actually benefit from the rise in temperature. For example, carotenoids, the antioxidants found in colorful vegetables like carrots and tomatoes, increase when the proteins that bind them break down during heating, said Guy Crosby, the science editor for America's Test Kitchen and an adjunct associate professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The Harvard Health Letter recently concluded that microwaving may be preferable to other methods for heating food. "Because microwave cooking times are shorter, cooking with a microwave does a better job of preserving vitamin C and other nutrients that break down when heated," it reported. "The cooking method that best retains nutrients is one that cooks quickly, heats food for the shortest amount of time, and uses as little liquid as possible. Microwaving meets those criteria. Using the microwave with a small amount of water essentially steams food from the inside out. That keeps more vitamins and minerals than almost any other cooking method." However, Ashim Datta, a professor of food engineering at Cornell University, cautioned that because microwaves heat food unevenly, nutrients are more likely to be broken down in spots that get extremely hot. In some cases, Dr. Datta said, microwaving could lead to more degradation over all than another warming method. To help avoid these problems, put a lid on food in the microwave to retain moisture, and keep the power relatively low to ensure that food is cooked rapidly, but not overheated, said Rebecca Solomon, director of clinical nutrition at Mount Sinai Beth Israel hospital in New York City.But for people who eat a balanced diet, microwave heating is unlikely to have a meaningful effect positive or negative, on nutritional intake."

Microwave heating was frowned upon in the beginning in early years of its introduction into the kitchen places because of the mistaken impression that it emits dangerous radiation reminding one of atom bomb and hydrogen bomb. Fortunately out weighing this perception, house wives started believing that microwave is a very convenient mode of cooking and hence it has become one of the most conspicuous fixtures in many modern kitchens. Scientists are always curious in following up their "feelings" about any subject through laboratory research and naturally microwave heating also raised curiosity among some of them whether nutrient loss or retention in the heated foods is worse or better than that happening in conventional cooking processes. The result is on the expected line in that there is no unanimity about this issue. What ever is said the basic principles of food technology tell us that damage to heat sensitive nutrients will always be less when duration of cooking time is less. Thus microwave heated foods exposed to cooking temperatures for a few minutes cannot be expected to suffer significantly vis-a-vis nutrients. The argument that there are hot spots in the food cooked due to nonuniform heating in the microwave owen probably cannot take away the merits inherent in this mode of heating. Suggesting covering the dish during "nuking" is a welcome one and easy to adopt to ensure uniformity of heat transfer in the the food matrix.  

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

The bacteria that controls the hunger-A new twist to satiety and hunger in humans.

Thousands of words have been written about the importance of consuming a balanced diet in moderate quantities and many workshops have taken place to impress upon people the need to exercise regularly for maintaining good health. Unfortunately consumers do not seem to be paying too much attention to these cautionary advices as evidenced by the gross indiscipline seen among the consumers regarding their choice of foods. With massive promotion of nutrient light and calorie rich junk foods by the industry, consumers are tempted to go in for foods which are cheap, tasty and satisfying ignoring costlier options like fruits, vegetables, whole grains based products and others. The result is the galloping trend of uncontrolled weight gains often tending to cross the obesity rubicon! Who is to be faulted for this population degeneration-the industry, government or the consumer.? The answer depends on who is going to reply! The industry says that consumer must do necessary exercise to maintain good health, government has not much of an opinion on this and the consumer cannot decide what to eat. With sugary and salty foods now being bracketed with tobacco and alcohol as addictive substances, the onus seems to be on the consumer to shun these types of foods for their own good. But how can they do this unless there is strong will which cannot be expected from every body. Now comes another twist to this food addiction story narrated by some scientists who opine that it is actually the gut bacterial composition that determines the hunger and decision to eat how much. Read further below to get a better idea about the new postulations made by them.   

"Gut microbes could be the one responsible for telling people that dinner is done. Researchers of a new study have found chemical clues suggesting that when certain bacteria in the stomach already had enough to eat, they inform the brain it is time to push away the plate. In animal experiments, researchers found evidence suggesting that certain microbes in the body have a way of letting the brain know they have had enough nutrients. The signals they send also appear to have the ability to turn on and off the hunger of their host. For the new study published in Cell Metabolism, Serguei Fetissov, from Rouen University in France, and colleagues looked at the proteins produced by the E.coli bacteria, which are prevalent in the human gut, and noticed that about 20 minutes after feeding and multiplying in number, the bacteria switch from producing a set of proteins to another. When Fetissov and colleagues injected small doses of the post-meal proteins into rodents, they noticed that they reduced their food intake regardless if they were previously fed or kept hungry. Further analysis likewise revealed that one protein stimulated the release of a hormone that play a role in satiety.  "Our study shows that bacterial proteins from E. coli can be involved in the same molecular pathways that are used by the body to signal satiety, and now we need to know how an altered gut microbiome can affect this physiology," Fetissov said. Once they are provided with nutrients, the bacteria were found to produce more or less a billion more of their kind. Interestingly, they stop growing after producing about one billion and then start producing new proteins that inhibit the effect of appetite. The researchers said that E.coli could be hijacking a molecular pathway to produce signals that make animals feel full. By doing so, the bacteria also find a way to self-regulate their populations. The findings of the study show the microbes have a crucial role in the physiology of appetite and may even help people who suffer from eating disorders. "These data show that bacterial proteins produced after nutrient-induced E. coli growth may signal meal termination," the researchers wrote. "Continuous exposure to E. coli proteins may influence long-term meal pattern."

E.coli is a microorganism not liked by the hygiene scientists and its presence in any food is taken as indication of fecal contamination. This surmise is based on the fact that there are over 500 species of microorganisms which inhabit the human gut. Naturally among these colony of bugs there could be good ones as well pathogens depending on the source of fecal contamination. Thus E.coli is more known as a marker microbe for the microbiological quality of any food. However the revelation by the French scientists that it may be playing a role in controlling the hunger is indeed startling and by this score it deserves our respect. There may be significant implications of these findings for future research on obesity control. A natural question that arises in this context is whether inclusion of favorable nutrients of E.coli in human diet can bring in satiety faster and there fore lesser intake of food? This is a gray area requiring further studies. Of course the results of the animal experiments itself need not be applicable to humans in all cases and naturally the research opens up wide vistas for further studies in the coming years. If confirmed by human trials, there is even the possibility of growing E.coli under controlled conditions for producing the typical protein that is implicated in satiety and including the same in the diet for creating quicker satiety.

V.H.POTTY

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

Heirloom cocoa! What is that?

Chocolate industry is one of the high profile industries that supply cocoa bean based confectionery products liked all over the world. However a close look at the industry reveals that cocoa bean is a pretext to sell more sugar and fat to a consumer community which does not seem to have any clue regarding the real quality of chocolate that reflects the magnificent delicate flavor of good cocoa beans. The industry in its frenetic rush for making more and more money also ignored the flavor aspect. In stead it was making products with attractive labels like bitter chocolates, hand crafted chocolates etc. Its R & D activities in agronomy were concentrated more on yield and the beneficial health attributes as per some published scientific reports because of the presence of flavonols in the original unprocessed beans. This trend seems to be changing after efforts by some major players to analyze the flavor profiles of different cocoa beans grown and evolve or discover new varieties that can yield raw materials with better flavor make up. Here is a take on this new development that can be expected to enrich the chocolate market with high end products with comparatively higher prices.  

"That's why leaders in the industry have created the Heirloom Cacao Preservation (HCP) initiative. It's a joint effort between the Fine Chocolate Industry Association and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Agricultural Research Service, and an outgrowth of the booming artisanal chocolate business. The program is utilizing the industry's most discerning palates, along with genetic analysis, to identify—and hopefully preserve—the fine-flavored cacaos of the world. HCP's purpose is to increase the availability of quality cacao and encourage farmers to grow it in a market that's currently overwhelmed by flat-taste, high-yield varieties."The chocolate industry has lost sight of its fundamentals, which include flavor," says Mark Christian, founder of the C-spot, a go-to website for chocolatiers and passionate connoisseurs, who is involved in the initiative. "Most chocolate people don't know good chocolate."Founded in 2011, HCP has so far designated seven "heirloom" cacaos in the world, with provenances in Belize, Costa Rica, Hawaii, Bolivia and Ecuador. The panel of tasting judges is made up of  prominent figures in the chocolate industry, including executives from Guittard Chocolate, Scharffen Berger and Valrhona. They review the historical, cultural, botanical and geographical makeup of each cacao. But most importantly, they are adding one last innovative metric: genetic profiling. "We're going to enter the next wave of chocolate," says Christian. "Chocolate has yet to be data-driven." Actually, corporate chocolate giants such as Lindt, Hershey's and Mars have long had an interest in genetics—but mostly as a tool for preserving and propagating cacao beans that consistently provide the highest yield and can withstand drought and diseases. And the USDA's Agricultural Research Service, the Cocoa Research Center in Trinidad and the International Cocoa Collection of the Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center in Turrialba, Costa Rica, all have ongoing programs to analyze and catalogue general data on cacao genetics. But the HCP endeavor is a completely different type of project, one that prizes quality over quantity. It's the first systematic effort by the chocolate industry to look at genetics in terms of flavor. Historically, when the industry identified a tree with a high bean yield, cacao farmers would propagate that variety by taking cuttings of a mother tree and grafting them onto a less desirable type of cacao tree, a process known as cloning. For example, a high-yield bean might be grafted onto the rootstock of a more disease-resistant tree, creating a variety that could more effectively keep up with the industry's demands. Two of the most popular high-volume, fast-producing varieties are CC-N51 in Ecuador and Cacao Mercedes in West Africa, which can both conceivably produce fruit in as little 18 months after being grafted. But cacao of this pedigree is generally low quality when it comes to taste and better suited for bulk production of cocoa butter and cocoa mass critical for making Snickers but a detriment when it comes to crafting a quality bar with few ingredients. Until recently, agronomists claimed there were only three varieties of the Theobroma cacao tree: Criollo, Forastero and Trinitario. But in 2008, Juan Carlos Motamayor, a tropical agronomist for the USDA's National Clonal Germplasm Repository and lead scientist of cocoa genetics at Mars Incorporated (makers of M&Ms, Twix, Milky Way and many other candies),published a study in the journal PLOS One that upended industry beliefs. His team conducted genetic analysis on samples from the three known species. After comparing DNA snippet patterns, they discovered 10 distinct cacao genotypes. A few years later, most believe the number is probably much higher, says Lyndel Meinhardt, a research leader at the Agricultural Research Service's sustainable perennial crops lab. The Mars research, he says, accounted for samples from only a handful of germplasm banks and collections in the world, and didn't represent cacao genotypes still out in the wild that have yet to be discovered. Meinhardt is helping to build a genetics database of cacaos known to have the finest flavors and has already genotyped HCP's first heirloom samples. The current count is 14 types of cacao, but that number is expected to grow—the USDA continues to make efforts to locate more diverse botanicals in unexplored areas of the Amazon."

The above approach by the industry to collectively take up common industry interests for research and development is indeed welcome. The individualistic research then can be devoted to creating unique products with exciting features in competition with each other. For example if a new cocoa variety is discovered with high health attributes by the collective research, individual companies can use the same to create their own branded products which can be promoted with their own resources. Other industries also can use this strategy to create a pool of basic knowledge as a foundation upon which individual branded products can be built. In India the idea of industry cooperation research institutions resulted in setting up several of them but its success was not some thing that is worth mentioning. Probably these were not well conceived and industry also must bear some responsibility for the failure of such attempts as there was very little confidence on the ability of scientists to work wholeheartedly for the industry. The example of the cocoa industry is a model that should serve to guide such future collaborative scientific efforts, nationally as well internationally. 

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

Unlimited hunger for power-the driving force of the Food Safety Regulator in India!

The duty of any government to safeguard the health of its population through regulatory and deterrent policies forms the foundation of  national laws enacted and enforced from time to time. The three main stakeholders of food landscape in a country are the consumers, the manufacturing industry and the government. Of course there is a fourth party with some stakes in the food scenario viz the growers of the foods but food laws generally are molded keeping in mind the marketed foods thus sparing the farmers. In India we have a power hungry food authority, a predominantly bureaucratic organization which is focusing more on what levers of controls it can hold rather than worrying about the well being of the citizen. What a tragedy! Though conceived with lot of good features the food regulatory guidelines are distorted to increase the powers in the hands of the bureaucrats holding the reins. The draconian measures introduced last year to bring the industry to its knees by "ordering" them to get its "approval" for every product being marketed, was squashed by the judiciary terming it as "arbitrary", a humiliation that should have compelled it to mend its ways. Unfortunately this  agency has become so shameless it is reported to be trying to circumvent the court orders by manipulating the rule book, in quest of dictatorial powers over the industry! Here is a take on this sordid goings on in the country in the name of food safety.  

"The Indian Drug Manufacturers' Association (IDMA) and Vital Neutraceuticals, a city-based company best known for challenging the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India's product approval advisory process, are set to write to the government highlighting what they say are "illegal" measures of the regulator. At the heart of the matter are product approvals again, which the company and the IDMA fought to scrap last year. It was the verdict by the Bombay High Court in the Vital versus FSSAI case in 2014 that paved the way for the scrapping of the latter's approval advisory process by the Supreme Court this year. The apex court in its order dated August 19, 2015, had declared advisories as being arbitrary and hence illegal.The FSSAI has adhered to this directive but has also indicated it will bring back approvals once regulations are done It is this move by the regulator that the IDMA and Vital are seeking to quash. "There is no question of getting the product approval process back again because food safety regulations are based on the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. And the Act does not indicate anywhere that food business operators should be subjected to a product approval process if they have used ingredients in their products as per law. If they are looking to get the product approval process back again, this time through the regulation route, then they will have to amend the Act. Because all food safety regulations are based on the Food Safety and Standards Act," said GV Kamath, director, Vital Neutraceuticals. The company and the IDMA, which was a party to the Bombay High Court case last year, will write to the Prime Minister's Offifce (PMO) and the health and food processing ministries apprising them of the situation. The letter was expected to go out in the next week, Kamath said, in view of the "urgency of the matter". Ashish Bahuguna, FSSAI chairman, when contacted today, said, "Once regulations are formulated, the process of approvals can be re-introduced." He did not disclose when this was expected. But sources said it could take up to a year. Some food safety experts have questioned the regulator's stance, saying if the list of ingredients under the food safety regulations of 2011 is being expanded then why consider regulating product approvals".

We all remember another such episode involving this so called "Authority"when it tried to punish the noodle industry whatever its intention was by orchestrating a safety scare openly propagating a story that the products made by them are poisonous and dangerous. It further banned them resulting in a loss of Rs 450 crore by the manufacturers who were forced to burn the residual stock. Imagine the loss of this unfortunate victim of FSSAI vendetta as it could not manufacture and market the product for more than 3 months till the the ban as lifted by the court. Probably this Authority will again get a rap on its knuckle if such arbitrary and dictatorial measures of insisting on prior approval of all products and their variants are brought through backdoor in order to quench its ever increasing hunger for brutal authority to lord over the food industry in India!

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

Stifling innovation-How can governments indulge in such unethical activities?

Ever heard of the term infanticide? That is sacrificing one's own child, whatever be the reason. Why should a parent commit infanticide? Is it because of the potential for the child to become more famous than the parent? Whatever be the reason it is ridiculous that such things happen in real life. Innovations are like children and scientists creating them are like parents to them. Like every parent, innovators also want their findings to be of benefit to the society. But in a quixotic development in the US, the very government which professes its strong commitment to science and technology is reported to have made attempts to "kill" a novel food product developed by a "daring" entrepreneur, through unfair means though there is no explanation forthcoming from the concerned authorities as to why they did it. The case pertains to the successful development of a product by a start up venture that can replicate the taste and other parameters associated with natural egg from poultry birds, based on alternate formulation not involving real eggs. The new product had all the desirable qualities associated with natural egg and could have saved millions of consumer dollars because it was cheaper and healthier than the real egg. Here is a take on this unusual action on the part of US government agencies vested with the responsibility of providing wholesome food to its citizens.   

"A US government-appointed agricultural body tried to crush a Silicon Valley food startup after concluding the company represented a "major threat" and "crisis" for the $5.5bn-a-year egg industry,according to documents obtained by the Guardian. In potential conflict with rules that govern how it can spend its funds, the American Egg Board (AEB) lobbied for a concerted attack on Hampton Creek, a food company that has created a low-cost plant-based egg replacement and the maker of Just Mayo, a mayonnaise alternative. In a series of emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (Foia), AEB staff, a US department of agriculture official and egg industry executives attempted to orchestrate the attack. The documents were obtained by Ryan Shapiro, a Foia expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Shapiro's Washington DC-based Foia-specialist attorney, Jeffrey Light, and passed to Hampton Creek.Just Mayo is just not mayo: FDA says eggless mayonnaise must change name. Among the efforts coordinated between the AEB, the USDA and the egg industry:
    * Outgoing AEB head Joanne Ivy advised Unilever on how to proceed against Hampton Creek after the food giant filed a false advertising lawsuit against its rival last year.
    * The Department of Agriculture's national supervisor of shell eggs joined the AEB in its attack on Hampton Creek, suggesting Ivy contact the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) directly about Just Mayo with her concerns. The FDA later ruled Just Mayo must change its name.
    * The AEB attempted to have Just Mayo blocked from Whole Foods, asking Anthony Zolezzi, a partner at private equity firm Pegasus Capital Advisors and self-described "eco-entrepreneur", to use his influence with Whole Foods to drop the product. (Whole Foods still sells Just Mayo.)
    * More than one member of the AEB made joking threats of violence against Hampton Creek's founder, Josh Tetrick. "Can we pool our money and put a hit on him?" asked Mike Sencer, executive vice-president of AEB member organization Hidden Villa Ranch. Mitch Kanter, executive vice-president of the AEB, jokingly offered "to contact some of my old buddies in Brooklyn to pay Mr. Tetrick a visit".
    * The AEB's research arm, the Egg Nutrition Center (ENC), tested the strength of Hampton Creek's patent for its egg replacer, Beyond Eggs, using a consultant, Gilbert Leveille. Leveille concluded that the patent was "not very strong and could be easily challenged with an alternate product", he said in an email to Kanter. "Were I in your position I would focus on nutritional quality and on the emerging science, much of which ENC has sponsored," Leveille wrote.
The emails, totalling 600 pages, show the AEB has become deeply concerned about Hampton Creek. The San Francisco-based tech company has attracted $120m in funding from some of tech's biggest names, including the Founders Fund, started by Facebook backer Peter Thiel, and Vinod Khosla's Khosla Ventures.

The AEB represents egg farmers across the US and its board is selected by the secretary of agriculture. This year the politically connected AEB provided 14,000 eggs for the White House's annual Easter egg roll and Ivy was photographed with President Barack Obama"

It is matter of shame for the wealthiest country on earth to adopt unfair means to subdue a new entrepreneur in the narrow interest of protecting the fortunes of the natural egg industry. The argument that encouraging strong competition to the natural egg might adversely impact the poultry industry resulting in loss of employment to a few people will not jell because establishment of a new industry that caters to the same market will also provide employment, thus becoming an employment neutral development. What is forgotten in this debate is that the formulated egg products are much more healthier than their natural counterpart in terms of lower cholesterol and other adverse health parameters. It is a curse for this country that most law makers are lobbyists for one industry or the other because of the political donations they receive which the Federal court had made legal. However these law makers are forgetting that their primary responsibility is to the voters who elected them rather than the lobbyists, reposing trust and confidence on their ethical credentials, integrity and seriousness to address the issues affecting them.

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

Farming in Canada-The much hated Supply Management System distorting the market landscape

Why do Canadians pay two to three times more for their milk purchase compared to their counterparts in other countries? It might appear shocking that a developed country like Canada has in place a tightly controlled dairy sector held in a vice like grip by the bureaucrats endowed with the responsibility of sustaining the diary economy of the country. The archaic system does not permit the farmers to expand their cow population beyond a quota allowed by the government to prevent a milk glut and consequent price crash. While imports could be much cheaper a deliberate custom duty imposition make them as costly as the domestically produced milk. How this country can break this system to synchronize with that in other countries is a million dollar question. According to critics a cow in Canada can be costlier than an automobile because of the restrictions on the entry of new dairy entrepreneurs into the existing cozy club! Read further below to understand this ridiculous situation to decide whether to laugh or cry! 

"The reference price for milk is going up again today by 7.8%, forcing milk-using industries to pay more coast-to-coast for an important input. Soon, consumers will feel the price hike when they buy fluid milk or other dairy products at the grocery store. Given that productivity has been rising for centuries in agriculture, one might wonder why we keep paying more for milk instead of less. The reason: Theseproductivity gains are being wasted away in our inefficient supply management system. The creation of the Canadian Dairy Commission in 1966 produced Canada's first national agricultural supply management system. This system relies essentially on two major forms of government involvement in agricultural markets. Largely through a quota system that controls the quantity of milk offered, it sets up planning and administrative control over pricing and marketing. And it relies on customs tariffs that are set high enough to keep foreign products out. Through these measures, the government ensures a captive market for Canadian farmers. The establishment of quotas is equivalent to issuing rights to sell a certain quantity at administratively set prices. Milk quotas were initially distributed free of charge but later changed hands on centralized exchanges, becoming increasingly expensive.An average of more than $22000 was required to make use of a cow and sell its milk in Canada in 2002. In 2003, according to Statistics Canada, quotas amounted to an average of nearly $1.1-million per dairy farm and a total of almost $17.6-billion for all dairy farming operations in Canada. This represents close to half the entire permanent long-term asset base of milk producers. To set up a dairy farm, almost as much would have to be spent on quotas as on the assets truly required for milk production, such as animals, land, buildings, farm machinery and equipment. Thus quotas have become a barrier to entry for anyone wishing to start a new dairy operation. The paradox is that farmers already in the market have no interest in ending the quota system. Quotas constitute an "asset" that farmers can sell and that is often used to guarantee loans from financial institutions. Abolishing supply management would result in quotas losing their entire value, posing serious problems for farmers and their creditors. Supply management also deters adapting production to economic conditions. Efficient farmers who might wish, for instance, to raise their production cannot do so because they are not authorized to exceed their quotas. Instead of trying to win market share to the benefit of consumers through various strategies in areas such as pricing, quality, product differentiation, advertising, service or forms of marketing, Canadian farms under supply management must devote an increasing share of their resources to covering the cost of quotas. From a geographic standpoint, evolution of the system is blocked. It is very difficult to modify the proportion of quotas that each province receives. This rigidity is a source of conflict between provinces and of added uncertainty for farmers. Because of quotas, it is impossible to take advantage of more favourable production conditions in different parts of Canada if and when they arise. The costs of the supply management system are, of course, reflected in retail prices. These artificially high prices correspond in reality to an implicit tax that governments have authorized farmers to impose on consumers. The OECD estimates the assistance provided to Canadian dairy producers through supply management at $2.7-billion in 2003, equal to more than 60% of the value of total dairy production that year. It also found that Canadian milk prices have been two to three times higher than world prices since 1986. This has no doubt contributed to a drop of nearly 15% in per capita milk consumption in Canada between 1986 and 2003."

Whether it is the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, the so called financial wizards in these august bodies never cease to chant the mantra of "economic liberalization" and WTO pressurize every country on this earth to ensure exports without restrictions levying practically no import duties! Yet here is a country which likes to preach to the poor countries about the virtues of free trade and open economy. Subsidy is supposed to be a dirty word to these wealthy countries but look what are they doing!.Canadian government is reported to be subsidizing its dairy industry to the tune of almost 1.5 billion dollars every year. While the dairy farmers are fattened by this subsidy, the per capita consumption of milk in Canada seems to be falling to the extent of 15% during the last two decades, which is not an encouraging sign! 

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

Bihar-Heaven for food adulterators and fraudsters?

Though Bihar has been hogging all the lime light lately for all wrong reasons, what is sad to hear is the pathetic infrastructure the state has for protecting the citizens from rampant adulteration of almost all foods sold in the market place. There are lakhs and lakhs of retailers and traders selling a diverse basket of foods that include essential materials like cereal, pulses and edible oils while milk vendors, thousands of them, selling milk at the door steps of many households. According to some studies the extent of adulteration in these essential food items can be as high as 50-60% with the hapless citizens there being taken for a ride with or without their knowledge. While many adulterants might be innocuous and considered economic offenses, there are many instances when food materials contain dangerous components, extraneous to the original food with the potential to cause serious health disorders. Unless there is constant vigilance and deterrent action the food criminals will have no fear of the law. How can any responsible government in a state like Bihar rest in peace when its citizens are exposed to dangerous adulterants in their day to day foods? Obviously this does not seem to be a priority area deserving attention at the hands of the current rulers in the state. Here is a take on this unfortunate state of affairs in that state vis-a-vis food safety. 

"ood safety is a matter of concern, thanks to a nationwide row over Maggi. Bihar's food safety wing has, however, only 14 officers to man its 38 districts.  In contrast, the food safety officers number 554 in Tamil Nadu, 273 in UP, 178 in Gujarat, 169 in Madhya Pradesh and 87 in Jammu & Kashmir, according to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) website. Bihar food safety commissioner Anand Kishor candidly admits this wing is understaffed. "But the health department has accepted a proposal to create 625 posts of food safety officers. The finance department will soon give its nod to it," he said."

Is it not ridiculous that the FSSAI vested with the responsibility of ensuring food safety in all states in the country is wasting its time and resources chasing the noodle manufacturers showing its "fangs" on imaginary safety issues while the common man who hardly consume any noodle is left to fend for himself? They are more concerned about punishing one noodle manufacturer than taking action to protect the poor people of Bihar! Otherwise how can any one explain the sordid state of food safety management that exists in that state where just 14 personnel are supposed to "look after" 38 districts through preventive and deterrent actions which only can keep the fraudsters on their toes? Even in a smaller state like Tamilnadu there are 20 times more personnel to carry out surveillance in the market than that in Bihar. Will the situation improve after the installation of the new "Lalubetaraj" there? Unlikely because the Rs 1000 crore animal feed scam is still fresh in the memory of every concerned India. 

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