"BUTTON CELL" HAZARDS-NEED FOR MORE PARENTAL VIGILANCE

Toys are here to stay when it comes to "pleasing" one's kids and keep them away from troubles. Also many toys can be educational medium, though not of any deliberate design, to evoke curiosity amongst children. Especially in many urban settings toys in the form of animals and other real life models provide the first glimpse to children at early stages about the diversity of the universe. Of course with the electronic media and visual images available on the television channels, children can get a much better appreciation of real life situations. Still toys provide companionship and a sense of comfort when they are "owned" by the kids. While safe toys posing no risk to the health or life of the children are the imperative objective of the toy industry, there are have been many instances of children coming harms way through unsafe toys. Battery cells, especially the button type, used to power many electrical and electronic toys, pose the greatest danger, if parental caution is not exercised or insufficient overseeing by adults.

"There has been an increase in the use of "button" style lithium cell batteries in recent years, which are used in manyhousehold productions including remote controls, flashlights, watches, hearing aids, cameras, children's toys and books, and musical greeting cards. There has also been a significant increase in the number of battery ingestions, particularly among children. New research published in the June issue of the journal Pediatrics has found that between 1985 and 2009, there has been a 6.7-fold increase in the percentage of battery ingestions, including 13 deaths involving button batteries that become lodged in the esophagus. Certain battery types, especially the 20-millimeter lithium cell battery, can also cause serious injury if not promptly removed, such as tissue tears, burning, and internal bleeding, because they continue to generate an external current, even when weakened. Toby Litovitz, MD, from the National Capital Poison Center and department of emergency medicine at Georgetown University School of Medicine, analyzed data from three sources: The National Poison Data System, the National Battery Ingestion Hotline, and the medical literature. Age was a significant predictor of severity of complications. Children younger than 6 years old were involved in 62.5% of the button cell ingestions and 85% of the major effects occurred in children younger than 4.Litovitz also looked at how children and adults obtained the batteries and found that ingested batteries were removed directly from the household products about 62% of the time. The batteries were loose 29% of the time. More than 37% of the 20-millimeter lithium batteries ingested came from remote controls. Children are not the only ones affected. About 36% of the ingested batteries were from hearing aids. In older adults, the batteries were mistaken for pills'".

If sociologists can find fault with foods from the industry for their potential to be choking hazards, toys present much more risk, especially in the form of button cells and small AAA batteries. Of course the toy industry cannot be blamed entirely because these cells are embedded inside the toy body and cannot be removed easily with out adult help. In spite of such built in safety features parents will be better off by restricting access to electronic toys to the duration only during the periods when they can effectively supervise and rest of the time such toys could be stowed away beyond the reach of children. World is going through turbulent times with increasing dangers lurking around from different quarters and button cells should not add to the existing threat perceptions.

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

"EATING FOOD CAN BE DANGEROUS"!-A LIKELY FUTURE SCENARIO?

World over value addition "mantra" is chanted monotonously as if it is the only route for salvation. In India, this has become the fashionable thing to say in all seminars, conferences and conventions connected with food processing. Unfortunately no one seems to be clear what they mean by value addition to raw food materials produced in the country side. Even Planning Commission has given value addition a high priority because such activities promote employment besides boosting the GDP of the country. In this juggernaut, the interest of the consumer is largely ignored. With global examples of developed countries where value addition figures are as high as 80%, we do not seem to understand that in spite of such high value addition many of these countries are beset with mortal diseases like CVD, diabetes, blood pressure, cancers of various types and others, most of them attributed to products emanating from the food processing factories there.

This is not to indict the food industry as a whole for their omissions and commissions but to take a balanced view about its role in economic as well as social development in the country. To be fair to the food sector, it must be complimented for saving billions of dollars worth of foods from the ravages of infection, infestation and other damaging vectors. The greatest role food industry plays is in the primary sector involving fresh produce preservation, modern warehousing infrastructure, cold stores and transportation and manufacture of nutritionally balanced processed foods. Where it is going wrong is producing high calorie, high fat, high sodium foods catering to the whimsical sensory desires of the consumers, most of whom have no idea what bad and unbalanced food can do to their health in the long run. It is a pity that the situation has become so alarming, harsh proposals like imposing heavy taxes on such foods and a time may come when the labels may have to carry warning symbols, like on cigarette packets, that "eating foods can be dangerous to health"!

If 100% of the food material produced can be processed into convenient products with long life and high sensory quality, the industrial development can become phenomenal, employment generated will be astronomical and revenue through taxes to the government may be very high. But can man survive on a diet solely based on processed foods? In spite of the modern enrichment technology, a processed food can never be same as a fresh food, though such statement may be heretic for many. Variety is the spice of life and humans crave for variety in every thing they yearn for. Food is no exception. The nutrients in whole grains, fresh fruits and vegetables, fresh milk and fresh animal products are present in harmony with each other and their efficiency in terms of utilization by the body cannot be matched by any recipe concocted by man to mimic nature.

A consumer will be much better off if he can moderate consumption of processed foods (with high value addition) with natural, fresh and whole foods finding place in the regular diet at least to the extent of 50% of the quantity consumed. Probably man may have to go back to the old family values and re-invent ways and means to restore the place of kitchen in providing healthy and economic foods and family bonding through exciting recipes, new taste sensations and happy environment. Food industry should not grudge such an attitudinal change amongst the consumers. It has a crucial role in delivering the food material to him in prime condition and in as natural a condition as possible.

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