Fat is no more a dirty word for health conscious consumers? Another twist to "fat saga"!

Every American child from its early development stage has been fed on a food myth that butter and cheese are not good for their health and the food industry in western countries found an opportunity to cash on this understanding of the consumers, churning out thousands of food products with no fat or low fat. Saturated fat was a still dirtier word because of the repeated claims by many studies that they contribute to heart disease by raising bad cholesterol level in the blood. Healthy plant oils like Palmolein and Coconut oil became a permanent item in the"no buy" list of most families since they are rich in saturated fats! What a paradox? To day both these oils are becoming popular for the very opposite reason that they are healthy! It is true that all animal fats do contain cholesterol but that is no reason to shun them indiscriminately without realizing their good qualities. It is a good development that at least some scientists of modern generation are asking hard questions as to whether dietary guidelines formulated a generation ago were authenticated by exacting scientific studies that to day are mandatory before arriving at such far reaching conclusions. 

Imagine the population of the US at 220 million in 1983 when the above dietary guidelines were imposed and that in the UK at 56 million, started the shift from normal diet to low fat diet believing the norms as absolute truth. These guidelines restricted consumption of fat to 30% of the total dietary calories and that from saturated fat to 10% of daily calorie intake. Unfortunately there was no improvement in the general health status of the people consequent to the new paradigm introduced in these countries. On the contrary there was dramatic decline of health when measured in terms of CVD, obesity, diabetes and other diseases! This is not to argue that new dietary guidelines caused this slump but it has something to do with the changes in the diet of consumers, who replaced the fat with carbohydrates from refined grain flours and sugar-rich products to meet their overall calorie needs!. It is now more or less agreed that white sugar, fructose sugars and high gycemic index (GI) carbohydrates of refined grain flours are the real culprits in damaging the health of millions of Americans, Europeans and populations in other wealthy countries.

A curious fact brought out recently by a group of scientists from the US and Scotland is that because of taking a premature decision on fat consumption then, world is facing the present health crisis. Butter is a very common food adjunct used world over for centuries and by casting aspersion on its health credentials, a whole generation of population has been shunning it ever since the guidelines were issued in 1977. Same is true with cheese and other dairy products also. Even to day there is a sustained attack on milk consumption in the US and the dairy industry in that country is struggling with declining demand, with the per capita consumption continuously falling during the last few years, from 78 liters per person in the year 2000 to less than 70 liters in 2009 and further anticipated to decline by 3% in 2020!. What was the result of this presumed mistake? The obesity epidemic, heart disease, blood pressure, kidney ailments, cancer cases have devastated the people with no hope of coming out of this crisis. Possibly consumers, in order to meet their energy requirements started depending more and more on carbohydrates in stead of fat. Added to this another folly was committed by consuming carbohydrate foods mostly based on refined floors, white sugar and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)! Further damage was done by decreasing consumption of fruits and vegetables which are considered the most health friendly foods in this planet! Is this not a right recipe for disaster?

It is too often forgotten that food cannot be considered in a fragmented format in terms of fat, carbohydrate, protein, fiber and other nutrients but should be looked at holistically through the every day diet people consume. If this is an accepted fact, then man will be well off if a mixed diet containing whole grains, healthy fats, proteins from lean meats or legumes, milk, fruits and vegetables are consumed regularly without over eating. There is a feeling now among scientists that the food market of to day is dangerously weighted against healthy foods and the consumers are not realizing the bitter truth that tastier the food more unhealthy it can be! This ground reality is being exploited by the industry in making market place foods highly tasty and mouth watering! Probably this situation may continue unless concrete action is thought of, to improve the "food environment" in the market place with more choices of healthy foods being made available while shrinking the portfolio of unhealthy foods! How this can be achieved is some thing the stakeholders in this triangle viz industry, government and the consumers, must sit together and take appropriate decisions.

V.H.POTTY

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

SUGAR IS NOT THE REAL CULPRIT IN FOOD ADDICTION? NEW FINDINGS

Overweight and obesity are the most worrying health issues of 21st century and no one knows for sure the real reason(s) behind such startling changes in human anatomy during the last two decades. Though this phenomenon was first noticed among populations in wealthy countries with high per capita income, it is no more true to say that this is a rich man's problem only because in almost all countries the ratio of over weight people to healthy ones is consistently increasing. To imagine that 25-50% of the population in a country can have abnormal body weight and shape is itself scary but this is the bitter truth the world has to face. The adverse economic, health and social consequences of high body mass index (BMI) values are very real which can sap the energy and resources of a country to a great extent. 

Over weight and obese population invariably are characterized by lower productivity in works place, higher disease rates and higher medical expenses to treat or prevent fatal consequences. In a country like the US billions of dollars are spent every year for treating obese people which is considered a drain on the public exchequer. The incidence of heart diseases, diabetes, high blood pressure and other life threatening disorders is comparatively high among them reducing the life span and quality of life significantly. Another way of looking at this issue is that such undesirable human health problems have spawned a lot of economic activity with pharma companies and medical communities engaged in treating them! Thus it is hard to decide whether such transformation is part of the modern economic dispensation and one has to live with it! What a paradox indeed! 

As for food scientists, some blame has to be born by them because many products innovated by them ignore their health impact on the consumers while the industry, which mass produce them indiscriminately and promote them through high pressure advertisements, commercialism and often false claims, will have to take a major portion of the blame squarely on their shoulders. The so called junk foods loaded with empty calories are the staple among low income consumers because they are priced low to make them attractive. It is also a paradox that healthy foods like fresh foods, vegetables and similar ones are priced sky high making them beyond their reach. 

In the evolution of food industry, new technologies and high capacity equipment to manufacture newer products continuously have progressively enabled them to reduce the cost of processing and increase its capacity and capability to cater precisely to the palates of the consumers. High fat foods and those containing high sugar levels are invariably tasty and often addictive enough to capture more and more consumers almost on a permanent basis. This has made the industry less and less careful in marketing healthy foods. The profitability of the industry is also very high when it comes to making junk foods. Consumers have witnessed the endless charade among health experts regarding the real culprit for the damage to human health and among the health food makers making tall claims regarding their offerings like low calorie foods, low fat foods, low sodium foods etc. Health supplements containing many ingredients with doubtful and unproven benefits are flooding the market with no one certain about their credentials and credibility. 

There are hundreds of treatise regarding the addictive attributes of sugar whether it is sucrose, glucose or HFCS. This has spawned an entire industry offering low calorie foods and low sugar products playing upon the fears of the consumer. If people are developing tendency to over eat, sugar has been implicated while some believed it is a disease. Now comes the report that it is not sugar to which people are addicted as being propagated during the last three decades. The addiction is attributed to eating itself rather than to any particular ingredient. It is believed with some scientific certainty that only the psychological compulsion to eat due to the pleasure and satisfaction it generates when eating food is responsible for this phenomenon.  Over-eating is more a behavioral disorder and is similar to the compulsion with gamblers to back to the slotting machines and the card tables again and again in spite of losing heavily.

If the above findings are true, where lies the solution for tackling the obesity epidemic? Can industry be really blamed for making products with high palatability and acceptability since it is their mission to give consumers the very best and win the fierce competition in the market. If they are forced to compromise on the sensory aspects, can they survive in the market?:No matter how bland a food is, compulsive eaters with food addiction will invariably reach for the food when the urge to eat develops. Alcohol products and tobacco items are examples where no amount of policing, control, price escalation and government intervention has worked in the past in any part of the world. What is needed is education, persuasion, treatment of food addicts and industry initiative to improve the nutritional quality of their products with least compromise on sensory aspects. 

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

SUCROSE VS FRUCTOSE VS HFCS-WHICH IS BETTER FOR HEALTH?

Sugar, that historic source of sweetness is traditionally used for preparing almost all foods that need sweet taste. It is derived from Sugar cane in many countries while a few producing countries use Sugar beets as a source. Chemically both are same, viz Sucrose, a disacharide containing the monomers Glucose and Fructose. Sugar cane cultivation was mentioned in history as early as 8000 BC as being grown in Africa, According to some reports India was the first nation to make crytal sugar in 350 A.D though regular production started only in 500 A.D. The major competitor for sugar cane as a source of sugar,viz Sugar Beets made its appearance relatively late in 19th century in Europe and to day this accounts for 30% of global sugar production.

Is there any difference between sugar from the above two sources? Theoretically both are sucrose and taste wise there ought not to be ant difference. One major difference in to day's modern world is that R & D on sugar beets has been substantial while sugar cane production continues without much of a new development either in cultivation or in processing except for use of stainless machinery for most of the unit operations in newly set up factories. Another positive development has been in the area of utilization of Bagasse, the left over residue during crushing, with most modern sugar mills having co-generating facilities using it as a fuel. Besides the molasses left over after recovery of crystal sugar became the major source of alcohol for chemical industry, beverage industry and Gasohol industry. Brazil one of the major growers of sugar cane produces huge quantity of alcohol used in automobile industry.

Not till 1975 any one heard about high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) which is made from corn through hydrolysis of starch extracted from it and conversion to a product containing glucose and fructose by chemical or enzymatic isomerization process. As the American corn is dirt cheap, being priced low because of heavy subsidization of corn production by the government there, food industry adopted this sweetener immediately to improve their bottom line. On sweetness scale sucrose and HFCS score equally with practically no difference in their taste perception. While HFCS was hailed as a harbinger of good things to come for the industry as well as the consumer, there was a sour note a few years ago that threatened to mar the explosive growth of HFCS industry. With the rabid spread of obesity in the US, threatening the health security of the country seriously, HFCS became the "whipping boy" and serious questions were raised regarding the role of HFCS in making people obese.

It is to be conceded that Sucrose and HFCS are almost same in terms of chemistry, the only difference being that gluose and fructose are in free form in HFCS whereas they are chemically bound in sucrose. Theoretically when sucrose is digested in GI by sucrase enzyme within a few minutes of ingestion, the result is a mixture of glucose and fructose, almost in the same proportion as in HFCS. If this is so the logical question is why should HFCS behave differently than sucrose as being claimed by some credible scientific studies? It is by now well established that fructose metabolism in human body differs sharply compared to that of glucose but whether ingesting both together as with HFCS intake will make a difference is the subject matter of current day controversy.  

Further confusion is created by a recent finding by a group of scientists that there are two forms of enzymes that metabolize fructose. This is being touted as a reason for the behavior of fructose differently compared to other sugars. It is suggested that human body is not designed to handle fructose in high quantities unlike glucose which is fast metabolized into energy through Citric Acid Cycle. It seems that the two isoforms of the enzyme Fructokinase-C and A have different functions in the body. While one form causes fatty liver, obesity and insulin resistance the other one protects the body from on set of these disorders. What triggers this switch between these two forms is still not clear. There is also the suggestion that fructose, in presence of glucose behaves differently while high load of fructose can behave differently. These findings still do not answer the question as to why HFCS is more obesogenic than sucrose alone. For centuries humans have been consuming sugar and no adverse findings have been recorded in history due to this. Probably there may be other factors not currently understood as to why Sugar and HFCS do cause health disorders to day as diet and living styles have undergone sea change during the last 100 years.      

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

MERCURY SCARE-REAL DANGER OR ABUNDANT CAUTION?

Any safety issue raised, if it pertains to damning the industry, must be put under a thorough scanner to get at the truth. This is especially true after the unnecessary noise raised against soft drink manufacturers in India regarding high pesticide content in their products. All that has happened due to the episode was considerable market flak for their products for some time. Many pointed out at that time how our very own government is indifferent in its constitutional obligation to provide the citizens with clean and safe water which is basic for survival. More than 90% of water supplied through the so called protected water supply schemes in the country does not meet with global standards for potable water and it is only the helplessness of the people that ensures continuation of such a pitiable conditions in this country. Well to do citizenry can afford to spend what it takes to get pure water through treatment or buying treated water from bottled water industry. The latest safety issue that has hit food industry is the reported presence of mercury in some foods and the potential risks to human life.

High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), also referred to as Isoglucose or glucose-fructose in some countries, already being blamed for the obesity epidemic in the western world, is again in the focus because of some reports detecting mercury in many food and beverage products manufactured and marketed by the industry. Further investigation has turned the spot light on HFCS which is made from corn starch using alkali at one stage. Mercury contamination is thought to be occurring during the conversion of starch to glucose through hydrolysis where alkali is used to neutralize the acid after the hydrolysis. Glucose syrup is then treated with glucose isomerase enzyme to get HFCS-42 containing 42% fructose which is then concentrated to HFCS-90 by liquid chromatography. From HFCS-90 is made HFCS-55 containing 55% fructose and rest glucose. This product is equal to sucrose or cane sugar in sweetness and is most commonly used in soft drinks manufacture. HFCS-42 finds extensive use in other foods including baked goods. Food industry world over prefers HFCS to cane sugar because of cost and user convenience.

If one cares to look at the alkali manufacturing process, some processors make alkali in mercury cells and if the technology is not proper, there is possibility of mercury contamination in the product. In the age old Mercury Cell process sodium ions are reduced to metallic sodium which then forms amalgam with mercury cathode and reacting with water generates sodium hydroxide. Use of mercury tainted alkali when used in processing of foods, can transfer a part of the mercury into the foods. But use of mercury cells has been declining with the advent of processes using Diaphragm Cells and Membrane Cells, both not using mercury cathodes. Therefore how serious this problem is difficult to gauge.

Average consumption of HFCS in USA is estimated at 12 teaspoons a day for adults but it could be more with teen agers who consume soft drinks based on HFCS. The mercury content in HFCS found in some samples was about 0.57 micro gram per gram (ug/g) and this works out to 34.2 ug in 12 tea spoons of HFCS which is much beyond the safety limit of 5.5 ug per day. Mercury is linked to learning disabilities in children and heart diseases in adults. Many products in the western markets containing HFCS as first or second highest ingredient tested positive for presence of mercury and these include Quaker, Hershey's, Kraft and Smuckers, all popular brands in that country.

Should we be too much concerned about mercury ingestion via HFCS in India? Probably not because HFCS use by Indian food processing industry is practically nil since this is a country of cane sugar which is available in plenty. But we must have concern about use of alkali in some processes like chemical peeling of fruits and vegetables, alkalization of cocoa, caramel production, poultry scalding, ice cream production etc. However here also the production of the above type of food products is not considered high warranting an alarm. It may be prudent to keep in mind the potential for such risks in future when the processing sector achieves high growth in the coming years.

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