THE "GRAS" MESS!-WHO CARES FOR THE CONSUMER, ANY HOW!

Many consumers are lulled into believing that if a food product contains an ingredient that is declared as Generally Recognized As Safe ("GRAS") is really safe to consume. But few realize the real meaning of GRAS and who decides about the GRAS status of a substance. According to recent reports there is a conflict of interest on the part of the manufacturer because such determination about GRAS is made by the manufacturer himself with no independent verification by any statutory authority. Probably the underlying philosophy seems to be that industry will never compromise on the safety of the consumer. Unfortunately this is a travesty of truth and history is replete with instances about many GRAS ingredients causing serious health problems, long term as well as short term.

Those who propound the theory that industry should have such a liberty hide under the provision of safety act that the regulatory authority concerned can always haul the culprits if their claim is found to be untrue. world over regulatory agencies find themselves unable to monitor and implement statutory rules let alone take up responsibility like checking the safety of the so called GRAS substances used by hundreds of manufacturers without safety clearance. Of course there is a provision that if challenged the user industry must provide data to back up their claim to classify the ingredients under GRAS list. Here is the latest instance of the US food industry using a sweetener enhancer, presumably synthetic in nature, under the garb of GRAS and the reaction by experts on this ill defined provision allowing use of ingredients self declared as GRAS 

"What does it mean when a food ingredient is labeled "safe"? The question seems straightforward, but the answer proves to be disorienting. Recently, the biotechnology company Senomyx, Inc. was in the news following confusion over a safety determination for one of its products. The San Diego-based company develops, manufactures, and sells a variety of flavor ingredients for use in food and drinks. Their latest product – a flavor modifier called Sweetmyx – is a "sweetener enhancer," which allows food and beverage manufacturers to reduce sweetener use while maintaining taste intensity. Under a 2010 agreement, Pepsi holds exclusive rights to use Sweetmyx in non-alcoholic beverages.

On March 11, Senomyx issued a statement announcing, "Sweetmyx flavor ingredient, previously referred to as S617, has been determined to be Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, administered by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)." Shortly after the announcement, news outlets reported that Sweetmyx had been determined safe by the FDA. A Reuters headline read, "FDA says Senomyx sweetener enhancer safe" while a subhead by the financial news outlet Barron's declared, "The biotech received a nod from the FDA for the sweetener Sweetmyx." Subsequently, the value of Senomyx stock shares jumped as high as 26 percent on the day before closing up 17 percent. So what's the problem? The FDA Does Not Determine "Generally Recognized As Safe" Status. 

The FDA issued a statement the day after Senomyx's announcement, underlining the fact that the agency had not made the GRAS determination and even going so far as to chide Senomyx. "When making a GRAS self-determination, companies should not state or imply that the FDA has made a GRAS determination on their food ingredients," the agency said. Whether or not the wording of Senomyx's announcement was purposefully misleading, the situation did highlight serious confusion over how GRAS determinations are made and what it means for food ingredients to be labeled "safe." The GRAS Process For new ingredients (or by legal terms, "substances") to be added to food, companies must comply with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. Food Safety News points out that under the law, "Substances are added to food either as food additives or as GRAS. The difference between the two paths is significant: FDA must sign off on food additives, but companies can use GRAS substances without FDA approval. Notably, companies make their own GRAS determinations, which they may or may not voluntarily submit to FDA for review."

Is it not a tragedy that the manufacturer of the above product, scientific community, user industry and the regulatory agencies indulge in an ostrich like policy without bothering to think about the far reaching consequences of using substances with very little understanding of its nature in day to day products. The secretive way in which such things happen with sickening regularity must be frowned upon and there must be international protocols that stipulate the methodology for assessing safety of food ingredients.  

For further reading refer http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/12979http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/12979

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

"NATURAL" FOOD INGREDIENTS-WHERE ARE THEY?

Explosive growth of organic food industry owes largely to the rising concerns of consumers regarding the safety of products main stream food industry. In spite of the fact that organic foods cost 50-100% more than commercial alternatives, people seem to be willing to patronize them with the firm belief that their kith and kin are protected. Why should the consumers be worried so much about food products from the organized processing industry? The reasons are not far to seek. Most importantly the agriculture is dependent largely on heavy use of chemical crop protectants, most of them considered toxic to human beings even in small concentrations found as residues on the harvested crops. More recently another dimension has been added to the safety concerns of the people by the large scale production of genetically modified foods and their wide spread marketing without the consumer ever knowing about this transgression of their right to know what they are eating. Unfortunately in countries like the US more than 80% of the foods on the shelves of most markets contain GMO ingredients with no indication about their presence on the front of the pack label!

How serious is the issue of safety of GMO foods now omnipotent in the US market and in a few other countries? It will be an understatement of one says that GMO foods do pose serious problems of safety as adequate data are still not generated to conclusively prove that they are absolutely safe. If so why is that the safety authorities in countries like the US are not clamping down on the industry, giving them a free rein in the market? The guess is that they are in collusion with the GMO lobby for considerations other than the welfare of their citizens! Imagine the clout of this lobby which pumped so much money for defeating a ballot initiative in California that would have mandated compulsory labeling of foods containing GMO ingredients, that too after 80% of the population there wanted compulsory labeling! Note that people are not asking for banning the GMO foods but just make the industry to declare that they are present in the products offered!

Now that increasing evidence is accumulating regarding the uncertain safety credentials of GMO foods, more and more people are demanding from the industry to give them GMO free products. It is a sad situation in the US where the current President promised to make the industry declare on the label presence of GMO ingredients but promptly reneged on his solemn assurances after the election. If to day the anti GMO lobby has some clout it is due to the relentless campaign by a few voluntary organizations around the world. It is comical to see that the governments do not insist on declaration of GMO ingredients while not allowing those making products without GMO to declare the same on the labels of their products! The relentless pressure by people's organizations is making more and more people aware of the unnatural nature of genetically fiddled foods. 

It is shocking that about 90 percent or more of four major crops — corn, soybeans, canola and sugar beets  in the US are grown from genetically engineered seeds. This poses another challenge to the user industry to source non-GMO counterparts to replace the GMO version in their product mix. Of course there is a limited production base for conventional varieties but a significant portion of the conventional varieties of those crops is exported while the organic food industry has cornered the rest. Besides, the livestock industry is reported to be increasing its demand for non-GMO crops to meet growing demand among consumers for eggs and meats sourced from animals that have never eaten genetically modified feeds. The magnitude of revulsion to GMO foods can be gauged by the recent massive protests in 436 cities in 52 countries rallying against the monopolist company that supplies GMO seeds all over the world! 

Another worrying factor is the impact of large scale shift of consumers from GMO foods to conventional ones on the price front. According to knowledgeable sources, the prices of non GMO version of Corn is commanding a premium price of almost 75-100% in the market and if the supply restraints become more acute the prices can further increase in the near future. Same applies to other crops also and the US is facing a massive dilemma in tackling this issue as it is difficult to grow conventional natural crops in fields which have been cultivating GMO crops. Recent finding of GMO wheat in a field in Midwest America was traced to a GMO wheat trial taken almost a decade ago by the GMO industry and is it not shocking that even after 10 years traces pf GMO crop remained raising enormous worries about the consequences of increased consumer resistance against GMO crops. Will the Americans be forced to eat GMO foods under such a situation even if labeling becomes mandatory as otherwise it will be starvation for them? 

Another dimension to this problem after the protests have gained a critical mass is who will vouchsafe the authenticity of non GMO crops. The policy makers and administrators do not seem to be capable of stemming this tide in favor of compulsory labeling. If so what logistical problem is going to arise once labeling is made mandatory? Most critical requirement will be to test foods for the presence of GMO ingredients and provide credible certification to those willing to avoid their use. Testing requires sophisticated facilities and experienced bio analysts both being in short supply. Probably the GMO lobby may be laughing all the way to their banks after putting the country in such a fix. It is time the US government addresses this concern and establish the much needed testing and certification facilities sooner than later.   

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