Reckless control over an industry and its consequences-India's "bitter" sugar story

It is an irrefutable fact that india is one of the top sugar producing countries in the world as well the top sugar consuming country. Whether these achievements are due to the extraordinary skills of the farmer, efficiency of the sugar industry or the proactive government policy interventions, is a tough question that begs for an answer. Another crucial issue is whether this most regulated industry is really healthy providing equity to all the stakeholders, the farmer, consumer and the industry. Though we call India a market driven economy, when it comes to sugar industry it is government driven with neither the industry nor the farmers being truly happy. Some time one feels that sugar is a product that has got more importance that it deserves. Its consumption at high levels has been implicated in a variety of lifestyle diseases like diabetes and obesity and still this is one commodity government considers as an essential one to be included as an item for subsidy under essential commodity basket distributed through PDS! 

Is sugar really an essential commodity? A highly debatable question. Health experts world over point out the havoc sugar has brought about among the population in developed countries like the US. It is an irrefutable fact that two out of three Americans are either over weight or obese and high consumption of sugar has been implicated as the major cause for this epidemic. As against the recommended maximum consumption of  45 grams of added sugar per day for sound health, the present average consumption of almost 180 grams per day proves the point that over consumption is responsible for the health crisis being faced by that country. The US seems to be on a suicidal course as its consumption of sugar and refined wheat flour is incongruously high reported at 60-65 kg each per capita annually. White flour from wheat is equally dangerous as its GI values are even higher than that of white sugar and this flour is the major ingredient in practically all the food products including bread, biscuits and cookies, pastry products, pizza, pasta and noodles and others. Can India learn a lesson from the experience of this country to prevent a catastrophic situation where people with increasing income opt for a lifestyle that is characterized by high sugar and white flour consumption? 

Sugar consumption in India is estimated to be 20 kg per capita per year which works out to about 60 grams per day, considered tolerable from health angles but the average figure hides the real fact that extent of daily consumption can vary enormously with poor segments of the population consuming much less than the average figure while well to do citizens might be taking sugar at a level higher than the average. Similarly taking refined flour (Maida) intake which also contributes to quick boost in blood glucose, the production by roller flour mills is comparatively low More than 65% of the wheat produced in the country is milled in conventional plate mills (Chakkis) and the healthy whole wheat flour (Atta) from them is consumed directly by the households for making many traditional preparations. The 900 and odd roller flour mills just produce about 12 million tons of maida which works out to just 10 kg per capita per year and therefore this is considered to have insignificant adverse impact on the health. Probably the relatively low incidence of life style disorders like diabetes in India can be explained by the lower consumption of sugar and maida by the vast majority of the population. Still any rise in sugar price due to a long term policy of restricting sugarcane cultivation or encouraging fuel alcohol will be good for the health of the consumer and economic well being of the farmer as well as the industry in the long run.

Series of farmer suicides in the sugar belt during the last few years raises the inevitable question whether government should really micromanage the industry or leave it to the market forces to determine the extent of sugarcane cultivation in the country from time to time. It is an anachronism that while the country is facing huge shortages of pulses and oilseeds which are the backbones of nutrition especially for vegetarian population, during the last two decades precious little has been done to shore up their production. The country is watching with dismay shortages of these critical foods in the market and escalating prices that deny many people access to these critical food components in India diet. Billions of rupees worth imports are taking place expending our precious foreign exchange and India has the unenviable position of being the biggest importer of edible oils in the world! As most of the sugarcane cultivation is carried out in areas in 6 states where irrigation facilities have been created to help farmers to grow this crop, pulses are relegated to the background growing mostly as drought crops with meager productivity. Successive governments must answer for this criminal negligence of both pulses and oilseed crops that has condemned the nation to a nutrient starved one. Can this be condoned? 

It is rather amazing that sugar is intricately linked to vote bank politics and  to say that the industry is controlled by a few sugar barons with political power and clout is an understatement!.  Successive governments have played into the hands of the sugar industry by instituting regulatory controls that distort the sugar landscape in the country. It is an irrefutable fact that vast number of people are employed by the sugar industry and tinkering with it may turn out to be disastrous if not carefully planned. What will happen if the sugar industry is totally deregulated leaving it to the pulls and pressures of the market? If sugar prices to day are ridiculously low making the entire industry sick, the responsibility must be borne by successive governments which held it in its vice like grip because of vote bank considerations. Why should the government give unlimited licenses to sugar mills which eventually become sick though those well connected politically prosper because of many reasons?  If such a total decontrol takes place only fittest ones will survive and there may be temporary hike in prices for the consumer which will not be felt especially when food costs are constantly on rise without the consumers raising any serious alarm.

It is said that when India sneezes the sugar world catches the cold! This is because of the influence of surplus sugar lying with sugar mills which are not allowed to be exported beyond a certain limit and naturally if too much is exported the global prices crash and vice versa. With the recent decision by the government to mandate blending of petrol to the extent of 10% with ethyl alcohol the demand from the fuel industry is likely to grow manifold. However has the country enough capacity to produce alcohol from sources like molasses at present?  Probably not and is it not then incumbent upon the government to give priority for more production of alcohol rather than white sugar? Brazil has shown to the world how sugarcane crop can be harnessed to make more sustainable fuels and its example ought to be followed by India. If sugarcane crop is diverted for alcohol production there might be some price hiccups in the market but consumers will not mind it when they are already coughing up Rs 150-200 for a kilogram of commonly used pulses. 

Look at the global scenario vis-a-vis sugar and alcohol. Brazil produces more than 35 million tons (mt) of sugar compared to India's production of 28.5 mt in an year. While Brazil exports 23.8 mt of sugar Indian export is pegged at 2.5 mt reflecting the high control government has on the sugar industry in the country. World wide sugar production and consumption are more less balanced though the industry carries a large stock as a buffer against wide price fluctuations. Brazil is also in the fore front in utilizing sugarcane for alcohol production as recently it has increased the mandatory blending level from 25 to 27%  Interestingly Brazil uses only 40% of its cane production for making sugar while the balance goes for alcohol production. In contrast India has not even been able to enforce effectively the 5% blending policy so far and the reason attributed to this shoddy performance is shortage of alcohol in the country..It is against this background that government has to think of diverting the sugarcane crop directly to produce alcohol instead of relentlessly pursuing sugar production through unnecessary and burdensome subsidization policies. Government does not seem to be worried about the enormous outgo of foreign exchange on import of petroleum fuels and an effective policy to ensure alcohol blending can substantially reduce our petroleum import bills. As added bonus the country will be able to reduce its carbon foot print significantly as ethanol-petrol blend is less polluting compared to petroleum fuels. 

As a part of such a policy the country must incentivize setting up alcohol production units which can directly convert sugarcane juice into ethanol. If the avowed policy of mandating 20% blending by 2017 is to be realized India will need about 4.5 billion liters from the current production base of 1.5 bn liters of fuel grade ethanol. Though the established capacity of 350 distilleries is placed at 1.5 bn liters, they also produce rectified spirit to the extent of 4 bn liters per annum for industrial and other uses. It may be difficult to divert the latter to fuel ethanol production as it will adversely affect the industry which uses alcohol as its feed stock. As increasing biofuel ethanol production solely from molasses is impractical, direct conversion of crushed sugarcane juice seems to the only alternative available to the country. One ton of sugarcane is supposed to yield 70 liters of alcohol and naturally a huge quantity of sugarcane may have to be diverted to direct ethanol production which could limit sugar production to some extent. Sooner the government takes a policy decision on this crucial sector better it will be for the country. .

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

Another debate about safety vs advantages of GMO foods-Where lies the truth?

Reproduced below is a recently published treatise on genetically modified foods, their safety aspects and advantages. This is quoted below without any bias or prejudices and readers are free to come to any conclusion regarding the issues covered here:

In 2008, Duane Grant, who runs farms in Idaho and northern Oregon, began growing sugar beets from seeds that were genetically modified. As a result, he says he now uses fewer chemicals, tills the soil less often and gets larger yields from the same acreage — increasing profits and reducing his environmental footprint along the way.  "I am proud of that fact," he said. But that pride does not translate into support for a burgeoning consumer movement that would have mandatory labels placed on products containing sugars like his, such as juices, soft drinks and breakfast cereals, and on any other product containing a genetically modified organism, or GMO. Grant considers such labels irrational — a sentiment that aligns with the broader food industry, which has been spending tens of millions of dollars in recent years to avoid them, fearing they would drive customers away. Despite two decades of assurances from biotechnology firms, food processors, federal regulators and even a substantial share of scientists that GMO foods are safe, ballot initiatives and citizen petitions seeking labels on GMO foods are springing up as quickly as the industry can pay — or sue — to defeat them. Meanwhile, sales of foods labeled GMO-free have been steadily gaining ground on consumer shopping lists, and polls suggest that more Americans than ever favor labels that identify GMO foods.

This has even some supporters of genetic engineering wondering if it's time to rethink the labeling question. "If you give people a choice and value, that wins," said David Ropeik, a risk-communication consultant. He has begun calling on the industry to let go of its "fear of fear" and embrace GMO labeling, which is required in at least 64 other nations, including Japan, Australia, Russia, Brazil and more than a dozen European countries. But Grant, like many industry stakeholders, remains skeptical. "To allow popular perception of harm — or benefit — to be the basis for mandatory labeling would not result in food being safer," he argued. "It would result in the scientific community being pushed to the sidelines in favor of food-fad-of-the-day mob regulation."

Whether or not that's true, food makers are spending lavishly to avoid mandatory GMO labels. In 2012, for example, opponents of a California labeling proposition — including Monsanto, ConAgra and other genetically modified seed makers alongside food companies like Sara Lee, Coca-Cola and Kellogg's — spent a staggering $46 million, primarily on lobbying and advertising, to defeat the measure. Similar efforts in Washington the following year prompted the state's attorney general to sue the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA), alleging that the leading food industry lobby was hiding the identity of the contributors to its anti-labeling campaign in violation of state election laws. The GMA eventually came clean, revealing that dozens of contributors — including Nestle, Del Monte, Coca-Cola and Hershey — had chipped in $7 million to kill the measure. In almost all such battles, the companies easily outspend label supporters. Monsanto and Dupont Pioneer, for example, were among a long list of food industry interests that contributed over $15 million to defeat a labeling measure in Colorado during November's elections, according to state records. Supporters of the bill managed to raise a tiny fraction of that amount. The initiative failed. Dupont, Monsanto, Kraft Foods, PepsiCo and other food industry players pumped more than $30 million into efforts to quash a similar ballot initiative in Oregon — twice the amount supporters were able to muster. The industry is now locked in a fierce legal battle with Vermont, which passed a GMO labeling law last year, and companies have lobbied hard for federal legislation that would bar other states from following suit. A bill that would do that was introduced last spring by Rep. Mike Pompeo, a Republican from Kansas who, as it happens, received the largest single contribution — $10,000 — from the GMA for the 2014 election cycle, according to federal data. The bill did not make it out of committee, but Heather Denker, a spokeswoman for Pompeo's office, said he plans to reintroduce the bill in coming weeks.

The industry justifies all these expenditures on a variety of grounds. For starters, companies say, a hodgepodge of differing state labeling laws would be unworkable, and even a federal labeling rule would make food more expensive. They also argue that genetic modification, which involves the insertion of foreign genes into an organism — so far mostly crops like corn and soy — so that it expresses a new and ostensibly desirable trait, is really just one among a variety of plant breeding techniques that have been used for decades without complaint.

More substantively, GMO supporters argue that there is no evidence to suggest genetically modified foods present any more risk than conventionally bred fare, a view generally held by a long list of scientific organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the World Health Organization. Taking a similar position, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which regulates food from GMO crops in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency, has seen fit to leave GMO labeling a strictly voluntary affair. "As a public health agency, we base our policy decisions on the best science available," said Theresa Eisenman, an FDA spokeswoman, in an emailed statement. "The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived from genetically engineered plants, as a class, differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way or that, as a class, such foods present different or greater safety concerns than their non-GE [genetically engineered] counterparts."
Although the FDA's review process is voluntary, virtually all producers of new GE products submit them to the agency for approval. Since the mid-1990s, the FDA has signed off on over 150 varieties of genetically engineered crops, though not all proved commercially viable. Most GMO-derived ingredients found on shelves today are from crops that were tweaked to improve resistance to pests and certain herbicides, but newer products with consumer-facing traits are in the pipeline. This includes the Arctic apple, which has been engineered to resist browning.
On Feb. 13 the USDA determined the apple was safe to grow, and the FDA is currently reviewing it. Eisenman also said that the agency is reviewing two citizen petitions urging the FDA to create a mandatory GMO label but that no decisions has been made — much to the chagrin of many consumers who remain unconvinced that GMOs are safe.  A survey published last month by the Pew Research Center, for example, found that while nearly 90 percent of scientists surveyed said they considered genetically modified foods safe to eat, only 37 percent of the general population agreed. An ABC News poll from last summer found similar results, with more than half of respondents saying they believed GMO foods were unsafe. In a 2013 New York Times survey, 93 percent of respondents said they wanted GMO ingredients identified on food labels.

Critics of such surveys argue that they only demonstrate ignorance of GM technology. Ropeik, for example, pointed to a 2013 study conducted at Rutgers University, in which participants were asked, in an open-ended question, what sort of information they would like on their food labels that isn't already there. Only 7 percent mentioned genetic modification. A more recent survey from Oklahoma State University found that 80 percent of respondents said they supported mandatory GMO labels. The same large percentage, however, also wanted labels on foods containing DNA. Such cognitive dissonance suggests to industry stakeholders that environmental advocates are simply exploiting consumer ignorance to force a label on technology they don't like. "It's clear to us that it's really meant as a skull and crossbones," said Cathleen Enright, the executive vice president for food and agriculture for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group representing Monsanto, DuPont and other GE seed makers. "We shouldn't be using labels as a scare." Scott Faber, the vice president of government affairs with the Environmental Working Group, a public health advocacy based in Washington, D.C., disagreed. "If you're framing this as a debate about technology, you're really missing the bigger picture," he said. "It's about what consumers are entitled to know, broadly, about their food." He argued that the jury remains out on questions of GMO safety, not just at the dinner table but also in the fields, where cross-pollination with conventional crops is difficult to control and where heavy reliance on GM seeds is contributing to the emergence of new herbicide-resistant weeds, which in turn drives farmers to ramp up use of toxic chemicals. "These things have only been in the market for 15 years," Faber said, "and they've not been submitted to long-term studies, so it's still way too early to render a judgment one way or another on their safety." In the absence of consensus, the marketplace may be providing the differentiation many advocates seek. Labels certifying GMO-free foods are booming, with the lead certifier, the Non-GMO Project, placing its imprimatur on over 20,000 food, beverage and body care items. Nielsen, the market research firm, said sales of such products increased 15 percent last year, to nearly $10 billion, and it ranks the GMO-free sector among the fastest-growing food trends in the market today.

The USDA's organic certification already acts as a vouchsafe against GMO ingredients, and Whole Foods has taken the lead among major retailers in catering to consumer demand, requiring that by 2018, all products in its U.S. and Canadian stores either avoid GMOs or carry labels to indicate that they contain them. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has floated an even broader long-term solution: placing special bar codes on food packages that consumers can scan with their smartphones, obtaining all the information they could ever want about the food involved — where it was made, how it was processed, whether it was grown using hormones or antibiotics, what sort of allergens it might contain and, of course, whether it involved genetic modification. Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for the GMA, suggested that the bar code solution has merit. "Our members are always looking for ways to use technology to provide consumers with more information about their product choices," he said. Until that happens, though, the GMA and its like-minded industry partners plan to keep battling the mandatory label movement — and to let voluntary non-GMO labeling provide consumers with the choice they're looking for.

In Idaho, Duane Grant suggested that identifying and labeling products that don't contain GMOs would be a lot easier to do these days anyway. "The fact is, about 80 percent of the food in the U.S. now contains ingredients produced using GM technology," he said, "and it has been that way for years."

After reading the above, what type of conclusion a lay man can come to? More confusion and more questions! One thing which strikes one is that both sides have their own strong views and may have some merits in their contentions and unless there is a unanimity consumers may not accept GMO foods unreservedly!

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

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

FOOD AID-QUALITY VS QUANTITY

Though the United States of America has developed a hate-love relationship with most countries in the world during the last two decades, it still remains one of the most charitable countries in this planet. According to available information the US contributes more than 20% of the global development aid followed by Germany, about 10%, of 120 billion dollars committed for development of poor countries. The Millenium Development Goals (MDG) signed in the year 2000 by all UNO members seek, among other things to eradicate poverty and hunger in the world and halve the population suffering from hunger by 2015 by committing 0.7% of GDP of each developed country for this Mission.

It is true that there is no compulsion on the part of any country however rich it may be to provide economic aid to poor nations which lag behind in the development ladder due to many reasons. Of course centuries of exploitation by the colonialist countries like Britain, France, Portugal, Spain and others had left many of the countries under their yolk unconscionably poor measured by any yardstick and unless these poor countries are provided massive economic and technological assistance they will always remain as lagers! MDG sought to address this problem which if not tackled with priority can endanger world peace seriously.

The three biggest colonialists Britain, France and Spain ruled almost half the world at one time and it is their moral duty that their erstwhile colonies are helped to become truly independent nations with reasonable standards of life for their citizens. Unfortunately the US had to assume the mantle of the global savior by providing economic aids to many of these poor countries. It is not a mean task to feed 55 million hungry people in 46 countries which the US has been able to do it last year costing millions of dollars to its Exchequer and the world must salute this country for its humanitarian effort. Obviously such endeavors can also attract criticism and some critics do believe that the economic aid provided by the US is an extension of its selfish agenda, viz furthering the interests of its farmers and industry. More over the aid helps only 55 million people out of about a billion hungry ones spread over the three continents.

The aid arm of the US, globally known as USAID channels the government program of food assistance

works through host governments, multilateral institutions, NGOs and private companies to ensure maximum efficiency in aid delivery. The African Growth Opportunities Act of 2000 ( AGOA) is intended to benefit the targeted countries through capacity building and it is tribute to the success of this program that countries like Angola, Kenya, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Senegal and South Africa were able to export to the US goods and services worth $ 44 billion last year. Improvements in efficiency and impact of the program need assessment from time to time and a recent study report by the Tuft University of Massachusetts regarding the need for changing the orientation of the aid programs from quantity to quality is indeed revealing.

According to the findings of the above group, the American government should not be smug in its feeling that every thing is fine but must realize that delivering any and every food to the hungry is not enough. Quality needs to be upgraded and differentiated depending on the nature of the targeted groups. Tailoring the type of food delivered to specific consumers is the need of the hour as the nutritional requirements of recipients like children under the age of two, sick children, pregnant women new mothers and sick people. Most striking recommendation was for trying combinations of foods which are always better for the consumer than are combinations of nutrients in a single food. How far such wide ranging changes in aid paradigm are feasible, remains to be seen.

One of the most stringent criticisms against American food aid is about the stipulation that the budgeted amounts must be spent in America paying for American goods and services while Europeans allow 95% of the aid to be spent in the recipient country which is valid to some extent. Probably the food aid program in the US may see some see change in the coming years though the quantum of aid may shrink taking into consideration the current economic downturn in that country. What ever be the quantum of aid, it must be spent more efficiently through precise targeting and well balanced food products. The philosophy that "provide them calories, hunger is taken care of automatically" must give way to a policy "provide better food, make hungry people lead quality life".

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