Development of boutique chocolates-Will emergence of such premium products sustain the industry?

Why do people like chocolate products? For their flavor, texture or taste? Probably this is a complicated question and answering it may be as complex as the products themselves! While most kids eat chocolates because of the sweetness and the overall texture and mouth feel, there may be many adults who can be connoisseurs of chocolates looking for some perceived traits which are not easy to be contoured or defined. Think about other beverage crops like coffee, tea or spirits and the consumer expectations can be as varied as the chemical complexity of the products themselves! Coffee tasters, tea tasters and wine tasters are a class by them selves and even to day, despite the tremendous advances made by analytical chemistry, no instrument has been universally accepted as a true tool to take a decision regarding the beverage quality. Probably the reason is that most flavors are made up of hundreds of chemicals with complex molecular structure and even to day 100% identification has not been achieved. Also making the issue more complicated is the relative effect of each component whether minor or major on the flavor bouquet characteristic of each product. This is true with cocoa flavor also. Manufacture of chocolate products has been standardized long ago and there is very little variation in its technology because the technology is highly machine oriented with very little leeway to manipulate. However this seems to be changing with some incisive research being carried out by a few major players in this sector and the result is emergence of specialty premium chocolates with varied bouquet value. Here is a take on this important breakthrough that can boost the bottom line of chocolate industry through marketing value added chocolates with significant flavor differentiation.

If one looks back at the history of beverage industry coffee and tea were the dominating ones with world's consumers vertically divided between the two. According to available data, world produces about 9 million tons (mt) of coffee and 5 mt of tea and this gives one an impression that latter is a poor cousin of the former!  But a relook at this issue will reveal that such a conclusion is too simplistic to accept because the quantity required to make a cup of coffee is three times that of tea and there fore in terms of volume of the beverage consumed tea beats coffee globally. Is it not interesting that per capita annual consumption of coffee is highest in Americas and Europe while Asia and the former Soviet Union countries are predominantly tea drinkers. Where does cocoa fit into this picture? it is well known that coco beans production largely goes for making chocolate products like cocoa mass, compounded sweetened chocolates, chocolate liquor and cocoa powder. It is the cocoa powder which finds its way to beverages like hot chocolates, drinking chocolates and as a flavoring material for candies, confectioneries biscuits , cookies and pastries. Therefore cocoa is never a competitor as a beverage material for coffee and tea. 

Chocolate industry is supposed to have manufactured and marketed about 7.5 mt last year using cocoa beans grown in countries like Ivory Coast, Indonesia, Ghana, Nigeria and a few other countries. The chocolate quality is mostly determined by the variety of beans from which it is made and major chocolate players use the much preferred Forastero variety which predominates the production though Criollo is considered a much superior variety being used exclusively for making premium chocolate products. The third variety Trinitario accounts for a fraction of the cocoa trade. The quality differentiation of chocolate products is mostly based on the variety used, fair trade practice adopted by growers including child labor, environment degradation, safety credentials,eating characteristics and handling modes. The health attributes attached to cocoa flavonoids raised the standing of this crop overnight into a frenetic consumer obsession which was tapped by the industry to churn out the so called bitter chocolates with lesser and lesser sugar and more cocoa solids. However bitter chocolates are appreciated only by a few health conscious consumers and therefore manufacturers have been looking for other USPs for increasing demand for chocolate products. The new line of research is leading the industry to design more niche products with higher price tag. Success seems to have come their way recently when researchers started studying the strains of yeast which are responsible to ferment the pulp in cocoa pods during post harvest processing operations, producing many flavoring materials that impart characteristic flavors to chocolate products.      .    

Thanks to the innovative efforts of Belgian researchers working in close collaboration with the chocolate industry, robust yeast strains have been isolated from the fermenting pulp and using these pure cultures different types of bouquet have been created giving individual personality to them. In the traditional fermentation process mostly carried out near the growing areas, the broken cocoa pods are allowed to get fermented by natural microbes, mostly wild yeasts, to depectinize and generate many artifacts that later impart a complex web of flavors to the final product. By isolating a number of strains and studying their metabolic history the scientists were able to create a pool of strains of yeast which can produce a range of flavors singly or in combination.. This makes it possible to create a new range of boutique chocolates that can match particular flavors in the same way that craft beer, coffee, tea, and wine can. What the team first hoped to do was to find robust strains of yeast that would quickly dominate the others and shorten the fermentation time, allowing cocoa producers better control over the chocolate's taste. It turned out that the different robust strains produced markedly different flavors and aromas. This was despite the fact that the recipe and fermentation process for each one was identical. The team then began to breed the yeast strains and created new hybrids that formed strong flavors that were retained in the final product, instead of getting lost due to their volatility, being trapped in the fat. This means that for the first time, chocolate makers have a broad portfolio of different yeast strains that are all producing different flavors. 

Whoever is not familiar with the range of lactic fermented products from milk? Yoghurt is one of the most accepted milk products consumed widely across the world. Look at the efforts of the dairy industry in converting a simple traditional yoghurt into a multibillion dollar roaring industry through differentiation of the fermentation process using combination of lactic acid bacteria like Lactobacillus delbrueckii, Streptococcus thermophilus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bifidus, Casei etc which can make yoghurts with different features. Same way chocolates also will now be available with varying flavor profiles using different strains of yeast for the primary fermentation process followed by standard processing. Whether  many consumers will be able to appreciate these value added products and willing to pay premium prices for them, however,remains to be seen.  

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

Calorie is not a calorie! How can that be?

It is universally admitted that too much sugar consumption can be harmful to health, especially in the long term but today's obsession with sugar gives a new twist to the controversy with people taking extreme positions to justify their views, without giving a chance to moderates for stating a balanced view. It is a famous idiom that "consumption of any thing in excess can become a poison, even if it is an elixir" and it applies to all foods, whether sugar rich, protein rich, carbohydrate rich or salt rich. Giving a new twist to the sugar controversy, in a recent publication an expert food professional has propounded a theory that "calorie in not a calorie" to highlight his view that calories derived from different foods can have varying effects on human body and cannot be expected to be equal in its impact on body. Can it be true? Let us examine.

According to this pundit, certain calories cause disease more than others. "Eat less, exercise more.' has been the gospel truth for reducing weight during the last 3-4 decades. Recall the history of American citizen's journey through the times during the last forty years and it does not require a brilliant brain to see that the policy makers have been consistently barking at the wrong tree attempting to improve the health of the citizens. First there was this euphoria about their supposed discovery that too much fat contributes to undesirable weight gain and distortion of the body. The industry willingly got into this band wagon turning out hundreds of products with low fat or no fat and interestingly the consumers trusted that these foods are good for their health. Imagine trillions of dollars raked in by the industry during the last 30-40 years exploiting the under current of fear among the consumers regarding the danger of becoming too fat! Then carbohydrate became the villain of peace and the industry grabbed this opportunity to promote low carb foods which were supposed to prevent weight gain. But no one bothered to check whether all carbohydrates are equally bad.

It is now that many pundits are opening their eyes and there is almost a near unanimity that natural foods as they are, cannot do any harm if consumed in moderate quantities. If any single player is to be blamed for to day's unenviable health situation mankind has boxed itself in, it is the food processing industry which for its own reasons created unhealthy foods through more and refining techniques, losing in the process vital nutrient components like dietary fiber, vitamins, minerals and many health protecting phytochemicals. In creating such a "Frankenstein", no doubt the food scientists, technologists and engineers aided the industry in developing processes and machinery that literally 'kill" the food and make it almost "toxic", to say the least! Testing the food for its nutritional value and health credentials cannot be done in isolated laboratories and values like PER, Digestibility, BV, etc can be only a rough guide for understanding the general characteristics of a food. These values for the same food can vary enormously among individuals and such variations according to ethnicity, region, environment, genetic history and many other variables can make significant difference in assessing foods and their health value. 

Coming back to sugar, the view that calorie derived by the body from white sugar is much more dangerous than that obtained from complex carbohydrates through its metabolic system, has some rationale behind it. The terrible obesity epidemic that confronts the US is not abating inspite of cutting down on fat, increasing exercise regimen and other recommended methods and in fact obesity rate seems to be increasing unabated. How an one explain a new born baby coming out as an obese one though it had neither the access to the so called bad foods or wherewithal to exercise while in its mother's womb? Naturally it pays for the sins of its mother who is obese herself! One of the most startling discoveries in recent years has been that sugar is an addictive substance and the human brain considers it as an addictive creating more and more cravings for the same like tobacco and alcohol products. Consumption of sugar products thus creates a vicious cycle of more and more eating whether the body needs it or not leading to uncontrolled weight gain.

The industry sensing an opportunity to rake in more money, knowingly or unknowingly, strains every nerve to develop more and more products containing more and more sugar and as the organoleptic qualities of these products are such that it is humanly impossible to resist consuming them as frequently as possible. For the last few years policy makers in many countries have realized the dangers of sugar, especially the added ones by the manufacturers, and have been advising the industry to cut down on added sugar to protect the health of the consumer. Unfortunately the action taken by the industry cannot be termed as responsible with many of its members continuing to indulge in sweetening their products excessively under the excuse that reducing sugar would affect the eating quality of these foods and of course their business too!. They use camouflaged terms like cane juice concentrate, brown rice syrup, fruit puree, corn syrup, high fructose syrup and many others to mislead the consumers about the presence of sugar in their products. Voluntary action can be effective only when all manufacturers collectively agree for a certain line of action which is not happening now. Probably mandatory restraint may have to be put in place to arrest this dangerous trend at national as well as international levels.

According to American Heart Association recommendations maximum levels of added sugar should not be above 24 g or 6 teaspoons per day for a woman, 36 g or 9 teaspoons a day for a man, 20-32 g or 6-8 teaspoons a day for children of 9 years and older and 12 g or 3 teaspoons for children between ages 4 and 8 years. If this is accepted imagine how much sugar is consumed through processed foods which are available in the market from a single serving?. For example yogurt is one of the most nutritious foods having very high probiotic properties and young children can considerably boost their immunity functions by consuming 1-2 cups of the same daily. But what did the industry do to this healthy product? Sugar, flavor and a host adjuncts have been added to create texture, color and texture of the product with the result that a single serving will supply about 7-15 g of sugar to a kid of 5 years old that is almost the entire day's recommended maximum! This kid will be ingesting more sugar through out the day when other food products like chocolates, biscuits, soft drinks, ice creams, pastry products etc and it is no wonder that such kids are right candidates for recruitment to the "obesity brigade" before reaching adulthood!   

Sugar's impact on the body is by now well recognized. It is known to alter the body's hormones and stimulate the need to consume more food. As with some recreational drugs, sugar spikes dopamine, a neurotransmitter that controls the brain's reward and pleasure centers and more demand is made, unconsciously, by the body to have more sugar with satiety not realized. Naturally one needs to consume more to get the same sugar high.every day. Sugar consumption, like alcoholism, is considered to be contributing to development of fatty liver, which in turn can cause liver failure, cirrhosis and ultimately liver cancer. At least this is the hypothesis that is being put forward by many health experts though clear cut scientific proof is yet to emerge. Nonetheless it is a possible risk and a warning that sugar must be avoided or restricted to the minimum. Body's energy needs can easily be met from other foods like food grains, plant oils and proteins which constitute the every day diet. Our palate enjoys sweet sensation and therefore this drives our desire to have more sweetened products to get the pleasure they provide in the oral cavity. Unless this urge is resisted with all the will power we have, sugar will continue to dominate our life leading us to our own extinction!  

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

The Water "saga" in India-Lack of restraining policy and inefficiency of use spell future crisis!

Water is the very foundation of life on earth and man's quest in space for habitable planets focus mainly on existence of water. Of course air is also an essential prerequisite for any life to survive and unlike water it is available in plenty in this planet though its quality is questionable in many places adversely affected by uncontrolled pollution caused by man himself. As for water there is no dearth of it as more than 71% of earth's surface area is covered by water. Out of this 96.5 % is found in sea and oceans unfit for use for any human activity. !.7% ground water and another 1.7% in glaciers and ice caps in Antarctica and Greenland are considered pure. However for all practical purpose only 2.5 % of water on earth is considered fresh water fit for human use while 0.3% of earth's fresh water supply comes from lakes and rivers. These figures clearly indicate that water is not an inexhaustible resource and therefore must be conserved as much as possible, avoiding wastage with all the means available to man.

Human body is made of water to the extent of 60-78% depending on the body size and for sustenance body water needs to be replenished at the rate of 1 ml per calorie consumed through the food. On an average a man needs about 3.7 liter water per day taken directly as well as through the food while the corresponding figure for a woman is fixed at 2.7 liters a day. Drinking water or potable water has to conform to certain minimum standards and nature's water has to be cleaned up to remove undesirable and unsafe components, suspended as well as dissolved for which many technologies are available. In acute water scarce countries huge plants are able to convert sea water with 3.5% salt content into potable water with minimum cost. According to estimates by some international agencies more than 50% of the world's population will face water crisis. Even to day it is presumed that almost 1 billion people lack access to safe water while more than 2.5 billion lack access to sanitation due to water scarcity. Imagine the tragedy that is unfolding to day when about 1.4 million children die due to severe diarrhea because of consumption of contaminated water! 

In most developing countries about 90% of fresh water exploited is used by the agriculture sector and there is a fierce competition between potable water sector and irrigation sector for tapping the available water supply. In contrast a developed country like the US uses only 30% of its water resources for agriculture through deployment of modern cultivation and water conservation technologies.  However in India, of the 700 billion cubic meters (BCM) of water consumed annually 88% goes for irrigation while the industry accounts for 8%. According to projections for future India is likely to tap about 833 BCM water by the year 2025 from all sources out of which 81% will go for irrigation while 11% will have to be supplied to the industrial sector. The industrial need will go further up demanding more than 18% of the water available. Household needs which stands at a mere 5% to day may go up to 11.% of the total fresh water available. Thus there is a clashing scenario for water among farmers for irrigation, industry and the house holds for daily use and unless agricultural technologies are upgraded to use less water without harming the productivity expectations, India will be in a dire straight in a few years from now!

It is interesting to see that our thermal power power plants gulp more than 70% of the industrial water which will further increase if the present government's thrust for more power plants, especially nuclear plants materializes after recent agreements with the US government for collaboration in the nuclear energy sector. Industry wise Steel industry consumes about 7-10 cubic meters (CM) of water for every ton of steel produced, paper industry needs 75-100 (CM) per ton of paper produced, power industry's need is 75-100 (CM) per megawatt hour generated while soft drinks industry consumes 3-5 (CM) per cubic meter of products made. As electricity production in the country is massive, total power needs by the power sector become huge while other sectors do not produce even a fraction of the end product output by the power industry, hence their apparently smaller share in the industrial water use..

Generally food processing industry needs huge volumes of water and especially soft drink sector depends heavily on water as its products viz beverages contain almost 100% water by volume. Similarly others like fruit and vegetable canning, bakery industry, dairy sector, breweries and distilleries, sugar factories, poultry farms etc all require water to maintain peak hygiene and sanitation, letting out in the process large volumes of spent water. Pollution from food and beverage industry is considered vey high and in spite of tight fisted laws existing in the statute book most of them go scot free because of lax enforcement by the pollution control agencies working at the state level. If the new government's "make in India' mantra becomes the national strategy, the industrial sector will need much more water than that is predicted.

Conflict between the industry and people for water access may intensify and the recent controversy in Gujarat regarding diversion of water from Narmada meant for irrigation to a giant soft drink manufacturer is still fresh in our minds. Similar incidences of diversion of water intended for irrigation being diverted for sugar and distilleries in Maharashtra are just a preview of such mega conflicts in future. We may recall the shameful incidence in Plachimeda in Kerala where a soft drink giant set up a plant in the beginning of 2000 which had to be abandoned due to local uprising by people because of supposed over exploitation of ground water and alleged pollution of ground water by the effluents let out by the factory into surrounding fields. India is in a Catch 22 situation with such a dilemma faced by the nation to meet the expectations of one and all vis-a-vis water and government must address this problem sooner than later to prevent discontent among its citizens in the coming years.

A national policy on agriculture can draw the necessary road map for water sparing crops and developing varieties that can be grown with sea water. Enormous wastage of water happens through the chain of activity of human beings in their every day life and sooner this tendency is curbed better it will be for the country. The agricultural sector presents a paradoxical picture where a section of farming community gets high share of water while another section has to eke out a dreary existence using drought based agriculture! Water intensive crops like sugarcane and paddy must be taken up to the minimum extent possible while development of varieties that need significantly less water must be a priority for the scientists in ICAR and agri varsities. Similarly it is time a national water policy is evolved to "optimize" use of water, conserve water resources without running the danger of over exploitation, launch intensive waste recycling efforts and massive sea water reclamation as the country has a long coastal area with easy accessibility. A country like Israel which is a willing collaborator of India can teach us lot of lessons in increasing water supply from our precious resources and its optimal use.

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

Buy one, get one free! Another marketing ploy to tempt consumers to buy more than what they need!

What is the big difference between the consumer and the retailer? Very simple, one wants to buy best quality goods at lowest price possible and the other wants to sell as much as possible at greatest profit! Thus every day we can see this war of wits taking place in the market place all over the world. Government is a side player working to ensure that citizens are not cheated through its policy interventions and make the selling as transparent as possible. There are established regulatory frame work for the food industry to abide by and violation will attract punitive measurements including closing the shop for defaulters and fraudulent players. The labeling regulations can be an effective insurance against misrepresentation and facilitate consumers' right to know what he is buying. But in spite of all the safeguards marketeers constantly device ways and means to mislead the unwary consumers through doubtful but legal tactics.

A classical example is the manipulation of the packaging size and shape in such a way that most consumers are not able to perceive that they are being taken for a ride at the super market isles! It is perfectly legitimate to use any size or shape for designing packaging units as per the convenience of the industry. Theoretically it is the responsibility of the consumer who has to be watchful while buying his needs from the market for which sufficient guidelines are available. Transgression by the industry can come in many ways against which no legal recourse may be available. For example there is no law which says that industry must use only particular shape or size or unit prices should be stamped on each packet. "Maximum Retail Price" or MRP can indicate the recommended sale price of a particular pack size and it cannot be compared easily with another brand with different pack size. Of course smart consumers can always calculate the price per kilogram and compare the same among competing brands but most consumers have neither the time nor the inclination to spend too much time in the market for doing such elaborate arithmetic jugglery.

MRP declaration can be very deceptive as it can be easily manipulated by the industry for its gains. By introducing packs of sizes not used by others, MRP can be stamped with a higher figure and retailers can be given higher margins to push their products aggressively. Many manufacturers use bigger looking pouches and bottles while keeping the content size same to give an impression to the consumer that their packs contain more materials than that of their competitors. Of course a diligent consumer can call this bluff by carefully reading the label. Another area of misleading packs is in the declaration of ingredients which are not as transparent as many think. For example if wheat is a component of a particular formulation, the manufacturer has the liberty to use the terminology "whole wheat atta"  or "maida" and in these days of great awareness about health most consumers will prefer a product with whole wheat flour rather than maida. Similarly in multigrain products one particular ingredient may be more than 90% while others may be present in "trace" amounts. Even the list of ingredients supposed to be in descending order can be inaccurate as there is no way to determine, especially by a lethargic enforcement regime, the presence or absence of a particular ingredient and its concentration. 

Expiry date stamped in many packs can be misleading because no one is certain as to what it means! In India "best before" date is being insisted by the food safety authorities but the question remains whether what happens if one buys products beyond this date? Technical problems do exit in this area as adequate data regarding the real shelf life of food products are not readily available. Besides various formulations, presence of different ingredients, varying processing parameters followed by different manufacturers and the variations in the environmental conditions in different geographical areas make it difficult for any one to predict when a product can become unsafe to consume. Unnecessary wastage of foods, especially in wealthy countries which can support a significant number of poor people in the poverty ridden countries in Asia, Africa and South America, is receiving the attention world over these days and many politicians and social activists are suggesting that consumer should not throw away date expired foods. Though there is a demand for printing a date beyond which the food is not safe, there does not appear to be any takers from the industry for this demand due to logistical and practical reasons.   

One of the most elegant strategies now being adopted by the industry is to tap on the gullibility of human beings to temptations of buying at bargain prices more than their actual requirement which possibly drives them in hordes whenever a price slashing sale is announced. The native instinct of pursuing activities that is economically advantageous makes man fall into the trap of marketing pundits who constantly devise and design promotional programs to satisfy this instinct. The memory of the public is too short to remember and recall bad experiences associated with a particular product and economic consideration outweighs all other emotions in going for another product by the same manufacturer. Probably this is at the core of the spate of cases in the market where a few manufacturers are positioning their products promising free supply of a food packet for every purchase of the same product. Whether this is a straight forward situation or there is a hidden agenda in such schemes will have to be carefully examined.

"Buying one and getting another one free" is a practical way of liquidating stocks of products which are slow moving or for products nearing the "best before date". What the consumer feels about it is not very well understood and the experience of the industry in undertaking such schemes is also not in the public domain. But unquestionably every consumer must be wondering why these products are being sold literally at half the price and their suspicion about unjustifiable price tags of many of the products in the market gets strengthened. A common sense consumer always debates the rationality of a product like Corn flakes commanding prices as high as Rs 400 per Kg while the basic material used in the process viz, Corn is available at a relatively low price of about Rs 20 per Kg! Another dimension to this tangle is the eternal distrust of the industry by the consumer vis-a-vis quality and a dramatically reduced price can raise doubts regarding the real quality of the product offered for sale.  

Offering newly launched products at reduced price is a genuine marketing strategy by a new player or by an established manufacturer but the natural price or "viable" price is subsequently recovered once the product or the brand attains critical sales volume. Similarly giving "free" another product from the same company or from another known company is very common as both get almost free publicity. After all during these days of high sound bite electronic media, promotion does not come cheap and diverting a part of the advertisement spend on schemes involving "giveaways" is quite normal benefiting mutually. Though consumer stands to benefit from such periodic schemes, it is imperative to be on guard to ensure that the product has still significant shelf life as per declared expiry date. When ever a consumer buys these products, it is better to keep in mind that food products tend to lose their quality progressively with time and too much of stocks may eventually end up in the trash can due to signs of spoilage!    

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

FOOD LABELING -DOES THE CONSUMER UNDERSTAND IT?

Consumers world over are befuddled by the label declarations that appears on the front of a food pack, especially with reference to the dates printed by the manufacturer before releasing to the market. The labeling laws vary from country to country, though the intentions of the law makers are to help and guide the consumers to pick and choose products that are safe and good. The million dollar question is whether these laws are really helping the consumer or not while wading through the isles of a super market where thousands of products are displayed trying to attract the attention of the consumers and persuade them to buy their wares in preference to others. If reports from different parts of the world are to be believed, labeling creates more confusion and uncertainty among the consumers, most of them being ignorant of the implications of the date figures displayed on the label.

Why do the law makers insist on the industry to make label declarations on each and every pack of processed/packed foods that go out of the manufacturer's premises? There was a time during the evolution of food industry when consumers used to buy their foods based on appearance and touch as packing was not in vogue then. The world being a small place such a situation was normal with small communities with access to local markets where fresh foods were sold loose without tamper proof seals as that exists to day. Naturally number of food items to choose also was a minuscule of what is being offered in modern markets. It is only when centralized processing and distribution of the products over a wide geographical area started about 5 decades ago, the necessity was felt for uniform declaration mode that can communicate with the consumer regarding the nature of the content present inside the sealed packs. Over a period of time labeling regulations became more and more stringent and demanding because of the perceived helplessness of the consumer in choosing the right product of their expectation.

Food industry development in any country traditionally follows a route where processing forms a small part of the food landscape and with economic development the extent of processed foods in the every day diet starts climbing progressively. In many wealthy countries processed foods form as much as 80% of the daily diet of the population while in poorer ones it could be as low as 10%. The necessity for transparency between the industry and the consumer is some thing no nation will be prepared to compromise and therefore in keeping with the aspirations of the consumer, regulatory authorities tend to be more and more demanding from the industry to inform truth about their products. Thus labeling is a tool that is vital for creating confidence among the consumers regarding the quality and safety of manufactured food products. It is unfortunate that industry players in many parts of the world tend to focus too much on profitability ignoring the consumer concerns.

Most recent example of the industry trying to roughshod the interests of the consumer is the big fight now in view in the US for the consumer right to know whether industry products in the market contain genetically manipulated ingredients or not. While every one agrees that Genetically Modified (GM) foods are not natural measured by any standards, what is being disputed is the safety of foods in which GM food components are used, especially on long term use or their multigenerational consequences on the consumer.It is strange that the federal as well state governments in that country lack the courage to take a scientifically and ethically sound decision regarding the right of the consumer to know the presence of GM food ingredients in the foods they consume. In stead the so called ballot initiatives are organized where people are asked to decide whether they want GM food label declaration to be made mandatory! No wonder the GM food giants bankroll this referendum by pumping millions of dollars to brain wash the citizens that GM foods are absolutely safe and natural and need not be declared on the label. Safety activists are no match to these industry giants and most of the referendums end up in favor of the industry.    

Coming back to date marking in food labels. a recent survey by the public safety organization NSF International found that most people are confused by the label declarations made in thousands of products marketed even in an enlightened country like the US where literacy rates are considered high. More damaging is the assertion by this agency that food labeling causes more foods being thrown away by the consumers because of their perception that the food is unfit for consumption after the dates indicated on the label. The survey found one in four Americans do not throw away food past the expiration date while more than half throw out food based off the "best used by" date and another third discard food based on the "sell by" date. What is not realized is that the "sell by" and "best used by" dates are more for the sellers than the consumers and the products can often remain in good condition for a week or two after the marked date. 78 percent of people throw away most dairy products after the label date has passed without realizing the marked date is almost always a "sell by" date, a guideline for the stores. Similarly eggs are often still good after the date expiry and people can always crack one open to see if the yolk is flat, which would indicate it has gone bad. 

It is often not realized that the industry is invariably playing it safe when it comes to date marking in order to avoid any possible health hazards with a diverse consumer population base with different vulnerabilities and also to protect them selves from future litigation in the event of unexpected mishaps. An ideal solution to this Catch 24 situation is for the industry to declare on the label a definitive date beyond which the contents are not safe to consume. But it is it feasible? Probably not because of the massive data to be generated on each and every product through time consuming and costly scientific studies. Ultimately the buck stops at the consumer door and an educated consumer has to shoulder the responsibility to decide whether a date expired food is good, bad or dangerous to eat. Economic considerations are to be weighed against the safety or otherwise of date expired foods if to be consumed.

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

              

ORGANIC FOODS-THE SAFETY AMBIGUITY!

Why do more and more people opt for organic foods though they cost hell of a lot as compared to products of the main stream food industry? The answer is very simple. Because they are apprehensive about the safety of food products manufactured by the food processing sector which uses hundreds of chemicals for making a product that will have the required eating characteristics to please the consumer and adequate shelf life to cover the minimum period required for selling them in the market. Front of the labeling regulations insist on printing the expiry date and therefore consumer cannot be expected to buy old products with no life left before they can be consumed. There is a belief that organic foods are produced with no chemicals at any stage and are free from dangerous pre-harvest and post-harvest protectants to save them from insects and pests. Also some believe that organic foods are more nutritious than conventionally made foods.

Against such a background it is no wonder that the organic food sector grows almost at an annual rate of 15-20% touching a global sale of about 70 billion dollars in the current year. According to some experts if every human being switches over to organic foods, the family budget for food may inflate by 10% to 40%! Whether this due to opportunity cost or increased cost of production is again a matter of debate! Besides there is the issue of practicality regarding producing such huge quantities to meet the global demand. After all only 2% of the land under cultivation is dedicated to raising of organic foods and it is unlikely that it will grow sufficiently fast to produce significant quantities in the near future. Another disturbing development is the efforts in countries like the US to dilute the standards for organic foods to oblige the main stream food industry giants to get into this business through the back door. Otherwise how can any one justify the policy of the USDA which administers overseeing activities in organic foods area in introducing various "grades" like 100% organic, 95% organic, 70% organic and less than 70% organic? If this is not to fool the gullible consumers under government connivance, what else it is?    

The fight between organic food producers and main stream normal food industry throws out many interesting but contradictory claims and counter claims by the antagonists and the protagonists of either side. In a recent critique on organic foods, it was claimed that the increased price commanded by this category of products is not justified, looked from any angle. According to it there is hardly any difference between these two categories of foods in terms of "presence" of chemicals or pathogens or nutrient density. If this is so why the various national and international food safety organizations are perpetuating this fallacy and protecting the increased margins enjoyed by this sector? A million dollar question begging for a convincing answer! But it can be unequivocally stated that organic foods, even if they are absolutely not safe, comparatively they do less damage than their normal industry produced counterparts.

Here is a gist of the "opinion" on organic foods by an organization self styled to investigate truth and fallacies perpetuated by the food processing industry. 
   " * Pesticide residues are generally present on both organic and non-organic produce, and, on average, appear to be present in lower concentrations on organic products. However, while it seems obvious that food is healthier when not contaminated by pesticide residues, there is very limited/insufficient data available from reputable studies showing that legal pesticide residues pose any actual harm to humans when ingested at the levels permitted by law. Most of the studies tend to agree that any benefits gained from the reduction of exposure to pesticide residues achieved by consuming organic products are negligible. Know that this is a contentious area among scientists, with strong agendas in play.
    * Microbiological contaminants (e.g., bacteria such as E. coli) are generally present on both organic and non-organic products in varying degrees. Some research has found that organics have lower microbiological contamination, while other research has found the opposite. The presence of microbiological contaminants may not vary much (if at all) between the two product types; however, there is a lower incidence of antimicrobial-resistant strains on organic products.
    * Toxic metal contamination of organic produce has been found to be similar to that of non-organic produce, and most of the research has found the differences to be negligible.
    * Food additives are also limited in organic products and are therefore generally present in lower quantities than in non-organic products. However, most approved food additives don't appear to be toxic when used in conformance with established limits.
    * Other contaminants such as nitrates (found in synthetic fertilizers) appear to be lower, on average, in organic products, though they are still present. Some scientists have cited various instances in which organic foods have higher levels of secondary metabolites (e.g., polyphenolic compounds, antioxidants) as a positive feature. Others have indicated that this may pose a health risk due to the supposed increased presence of naturally occurring toxins (which some research has suggested are equally as potent as synthetic toxins), resulting from an increase in the plant's use of natural defense mechanisms".

Interestingly these critics also qualify their conclusions saying that at present many of the research conclusions with regard to organic vs. non-organic product safety are premature!. Most of the studies emphasize lack of data as a limiting factor in their conclusions. However they still aver that their conclusions are based on available data and applying simple logics! They have a point when it is claimed that there were more than 50 organic food recalls in the lat year in Canada and the US which cannot be easily ignored. Contaminants found in organic foods  include Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, cadmium and mycotoxins. It is admitted that even though a great deal of care is taken in growing and harvesting the food under rigorous conditions monitored by approved certifying agencies, contamination can still be introduced anywhere in the production process for any food and organic foods are not immune to this problem.

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

PARADOXES, IRONIES AND UNCERTAINTIES IN FOOD SCIENCE

Food is a zero sum game involving the producer, processor, consumer, environmentalist and the government and naturally as in any human endeavor unanimity on any issue is elusive. There are many areas where clarity and transparency are not adequate enough to separate the grains from the chaff. Though science and scientific research are supposed to pursue to seek truth, in this particular area of food science clarity, transparency and unbiased information are more conspicuous by their absence. Practically on all issues scientists engaged in research on food and allied areas seem to be vertically divided putting every body concerned in a quandary regarding the significance of their findings. Here are a few areas where such a deep divide is distinctly visible.

Top on the list is genetically modified (GM) foods about which millions of words have been spoken and written. Yet no reasonable degree of agreement is in sight whether they are good, bad or indifferent, putting the consumer and the government in great disarray, making it difficult to make a value judgement. While GM food crops are banned or controlled in many countries, the US is the only nation in this planet which has taken the stand that they are safe and there is a serious allegation that FDA is influenced more by the economic clout of the GM food industry than the well beings of the citizens. It may be recalled that greatest achievement of Biotechnology is the spawning genetic engineering technique to play around with the native genes of natural food crops by introducing external genes with best traits. To day more than 80% of the food products in the American market contain GM food ingredients without the consumer fully aware of this truth. It is a intrigue as to why rest of the world avoids GM foods while the US accepts them unreservedly! Probably the major reason is that GM crops are much more input intensive and therefore costlier to cultivate. Safety questions are still to be answered unequivocally through clinical trials and till this is settled, it is unlikely that the entire world will embrace GM technology for food crops. Added to the concerns of safety scientists are the vociferous protests from environmentalists crying hoarse about the destruction of gene diversity through cross contamination of traditional crops.

Another controversial subject is the nature of diet ideal for good health. World's population can be broadly divided into herbivores and omnivores based on the dietary practices followed by them. While herbivores depend heavily on plant foods omnivores are invariably lovers of animal foods. Many herbivores do consume milk which is an animal derived food while vegans are strict vegetarians not able to tolerate any foods linked to animals. From time immemorial, the debate regarding the necessity of animal based foods for maintaining good health never resolved the issue and even to day there are fierce proponents of animal foods without which they feel they cannot survive. But such an argument cannot stand scientific scrutiny because there are millions of people, especially in Asia who can boast of excellent health without consuming any non-plant foods during their life time. It is claimed that many nutrients present in meat, fish and egg are absent in plant foods and hence vegetarians are always disadvantaged nutritionally. If the vast vegetarian population in countries like India has survived for centuries without any major ailments, how can one justify killing of animals for human food? If it is a question of taste preferences that determine the dietary practices, eating meat foods probably can be justified but not based on health and nutrition. 

One day salt is blamed for all the illnesses faced by humanity. But there are many skeptics who are equally vehement in saying that the on-going campaign to drastically cut down on salt consumption is just an over reaction of a world that does not know how to tackle the explosive growth in number of human beings facing threat of annihilation from diseases like CVD, cancer, blood pressure, kidney ailments, diabetes, Alzheimers etc. It is true that salt has a critical role in human metabolism and there has to be a minimum that is essential to maintain normal health. With adequate body mechanism to excrete excess sodium through perspiration and urination already in place, is it not common sense that salt can  be dangerous only if taken in huge quantities? Well, common sense can be wrong some time and scientists have a point when they say that salt taken through processed foods can cause excess intake if not properly moderated. Before the advent of modern food industry people have been consuming salt cured vegetables, fish and meat and pickle has been one of the most consumed side accompaniment in all meals in India. If salt is truly that dangerous, the population in India should have a high incidence of blood pressure and kidney diseases! 

Same applies to sugar also. High incidence of diabetes has invariably been argued to be the reason for diabetes though over weight and obesity are equally responsible for the so called insulin insensitivity. Again one has to remember how much sugar sweetened preparations were consumed during olden days when incidence of diabetes was far and few. The fruit preserves, flavored syrupy drinks, Indian sweet meats and hundreds of similar preparations were part and parcel of diets of people of yesteryear but people dying from diabetes was rarely heard! Added to this came the controversy that high fructose syrup, a cheap sugar substitute from Corn is more obesogenic than cane sugar though the evidence available so far is not so convincing. It is not realized that sugar plays a role only after the onset of diabetes and not before and any restriction on sugar consumption is because of the onslaught of the disease. Probably diabetes has more to do with over consumption of calorie rich foods rather than consumption of sugar alone. After all body has to convert excess calories into fat if adequate expenditure of the same is not ensured through proper physical exercise. 

The story of fat is at best a crazy one with each interpreting the scientific evidence in a different way and putting scare into people. For any given time one fat or the other is taken to the altar as healthy ones and others implied in one disease or the other. Coconut oil is an example and till early nineteen nineties it was branded as a bad oil for the heart because it solidifies at 23C and hence could cause atherosclerosis! It is later realized that short chain fatty acids like Lauric acid present in Coconut oil and Palm kernel oil can be really beneficial to human beings. Even to day many consumers refuse to believe that it is a healthy oil due to decades of stigma attached to its use. While liquid oils were hailed as the ultimate in fat consumption vis-a-vis health, the consumers were further confused by the so called ratio of Omega-3 to Omega -6 acids and it was on this score that many liquid oils became suspects for health pundits.

What about eating fish? Tons of reports exhort people to consume fish regularly in the diet as they are supposed to contain omega-3 fats so beneficial for low blood cholesterol and healthy heart. However if recent studies are any indication consumers will have to be doubly careful in eating too much fish because of increasing levels of mercury found in commercial fish which has the potential to damage brain function in human beings!   Imagine the state of mind of a family which faithfully include fish in their main diet if such reports raise doubts about the safety of fish in general! Recent studies tend to suggest that even traces of mercury can be harmful, especially to children and this throws further scare into the minds of families intending to add fish to their diets. While countries like the US may have adequate testing infrastructure to monitor and certify safety of fish products what about the fate of developing countries where food safety is more a myth than reality? 

Antioxidants and foods rich in these phytochemicals form the foundation of a thriving health food industry offering a plethora of well being products at astronomical cost mining billions of dollars from the purses of health faddist consumers. Antioxidants are important metabolic chemicals so necessary to neutralize oxy radicals generated in human body which in excess can cause carcinogenic reactions with terrible consequences. But what is not revealed by these peddlers of health foods is that most such complex antioxidant preparations have doubtful value because when they are taken through the oral route very little portion is absorbed by the blood and there fore the quantity ingested may not be adequate to push in the optimum levels of metabolizable antioxidant molecules for utilization by the body. Adding to this confusion is another study which says antioxidants tend to prevent inflammation which in turn is supposed to be not good while for healing wounds in tissues some minimum inflammation is necessary. How can a common man decide how much and what type of antioxidants can be taken without compromising on his body's ability to heal tissue damages? 

Caffeine, that rich stimulant so conspicuously present in natural plantation products like Coffee, Tea and Cocoa, is at the center of a fierce controversy regarding the levels at which it is not dangerous to human health. Unfortunately there is no upper statutory limit agreed upon by the scientists, safety agencies and the industry and the merry go around goes on and on with commercial products flooding the market containing Caffeine at levels much beyond what is present in natural beverage preparations. Why consumers are patronizing such products containing abnormally high levels of Caffeine is a big mystery, hard to understand! There are reports of death among some consumers, purportedly taking synthetic beverages containing high levels Caffeine and still safety authorities seem to be undecided about banning such products from the market!   

Who ever has not read the "Guarantee" offered by the Chairman of a food company ( an MNC) to achieve cholesterol reduction if its branded oatmeal preparation is consumed continuously for 30 days! It is a travesty of truth as even those consuming oats for years are not able to reduce cholesterol unless drastic restriction in intake of saturated fat is resorted to in daily diet! If this is true, can any one justify investing on buying oats which costs at least 3-4 times the cost of whole wheat, hoping to bring down the cholesterol in quick time? Oats, no doubt is a good source of soluble fiber which contributes to good gut health but so too is Barley, a grain at least 70% cheaper than oats which contains higher levels of soluble fiber. The so called new "emerging" grains ( they are really old !) like Quinoa, Chea etc which of course are more nutritious and healthy cost almost 5-6 times higher than wheat and it is beyond one's comprehension as to why any one has to replace wheat or other grains like unpolished rice or the so called coarse grains which if consumed without refining can be as healthy as these "miracle" grains!

Under these circumstances can any consumer be in a position to decide what should be eaten or not eaten to preserve his health? Ultimately the right formula of keeping oneself healthy is to consume a diverse diet based on locally available food materials, processed to the minimum extent and containing all representative components like cereals, pulses, spices, fruits, vegetables and nuts with occasional non-plant foods in moderate quantities. Forgetting to do daily physical activities can still negate any discipline one may practice in eating.           

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

BETEL LEAVES, ARECANUT, LIME AND TOBACCO-HOW SAFE ARE THEY?

The Paan chewing and cigarette smoking represent distinct cultures of East and West, some thing similar to Roti and bread. One cannot miss the fact that on both cigarettes and bread there are millions of references in literature as they have been extensively studied and researched into by western scientists and there is practically nothing more to know about them. In contrast reluctance of scientists in the East to study these heritage habits has kept them in the dark with very little real time information available on them. Take the example of cigarettes which were implicated beyond a shadow of doubt in cancerous diseases and thousands of deaths have been attributed to smoking of cigarettes. But information is very scanty and unreliable when it comes to paan chewing, except some scattered reports that it can lead to some types of cancers in oral cavity and esophagus.

Betel leaves along with arecanut and slaked lime constitute the classical paan, commonly referred to as 'quid" in literature and chewing it was linked to the history of many countries like India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Cambodia, Solomon Islands, Thailand, Philippines, Laos, Indonesia, Vietnam and a few other oceanic countries. Probably paan chewing started as a habit among people thousands of years ago though definitive dates are not accurately known. Addition of tobacco to paan was a much later phenomenon and many believe that it is the tobacco component that causes damage to the habitual paan chewers. Betel leaves as such are not considered very dangerous and this leaf has many social, cultural and religious association in different communities in the countries mentioned earlier.

Betel leaves chewing after applying a thin coating of slaked lime generates a reddish color on contact with saliva and it probably constituted the earliest example of women getting the effect, similar to applying lip stick on their lips! It is believed that addition of lime makes the chewed matrix in the mouth alkaline enabling entry into the blood through bilingual absorption.  In some communities this leaf is considered auspicious and forms a part of many ceremonies. In Brahmin community of India any "dhana" or "dakshina" to purohits and holy people must be accompanied by giving betel leaf along with arecanut. Betel leaf and arecanut are also offered after a feast, presumably to freshen the mouth and facilitate digestion of rich foods consumed during the occasion.

According to one report 6 leaves of the Betel vine is equivalent to 300 ml of milk in terms of its vitamin and mineral contents. The leaves, on a fresh weight basis contains about 3% proteins, 1% fat, 3% minerals, 2% dietary fiber, and 0.2% essential oil. The essential oil can be extracted and it has been claimed to be antibacterial, antiprotozoan and antifungal. Interestingly Betel leaves, consumed by about 30 million people in India alone, are claimed to have medicinal properties capable of treating a mutlitude of diseases and ailments that include boils and abscess, conjunctivitis, constipation, head ache, hysteria, itches, mastitis, ring worms, swelling of joints, rheumatism, tooth ache, coughing, asthma etc. When paan is made by incorporating spices like cardamom, saffron, cloves, aniseed, turmeric, mustard, etc its medicinal value gets boosted several fold.

Cultivation of betel wines in India alone is estimated to be in an area of about 55000 hectares, involving about 4-5 lakh families and generating a value of the order of $ 200 million. If the present trend is any indication, consumption of betel leaves is bound to come down over the years causing some hardship to the growers of this leaf, often called the "Green Gold" of India. It is amazing that in a crop like betel leaves, there are many varieties being grown with different eating characteristics and if the direct consumption tends to go down, there must be some other options available to safeguard the interest of the growers and considering that this leaf by itself is never implicated in any adverse health episodes, its beneficial value must be exploited. Oleoresin extraction technology offers a ready route for exploiting the value of betel leaf essential oil and an agency like ICMR must take up in-depth studies on the real value of the constituents present in betel leaf.

Arecanut contains the alkaloid aricolene and there is a view that people with heart problem must not consume. Interestingly arecanut has a fat which is saturated in nature with high melting point and suggestions are made to use refined arecanut fat as a cocoa butter substitute though there are no takers so far for making chocolate with areca fat. The modern version of paan, Gutka is a combination of tobacco and arecanut with a few other ingredients and it is widely being consumed in India. Presently under the Indian food laws Gutka making and sale have been banned officially though it is still available in many parts of the country. One of the most nauseating social fall out of paan chewing is that most consumers do not swallow the masticated juice and in stead spit it indiscriminately in public places causing severe civic problems in many metropolitan areas. Many civic bodies and agencies have banned paan chewing in public like cigarette smoking.  

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

FOOD TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH IN INDIA-NIFTEM RAISED, CFTRI DUMPED!

Here is a quote from the Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar recently: "food processing is growing more than agri and manufacturing sectors, turning farmers into entrepreneurs. If there is one sector that has been growing faster than agriculture as well as manufacturing sectors, has the potential to create jobs in the rural areas, bridge the gap between the price paid by the consumer and that received by the farmer and create value addition and earn foreign exchange by export of value-added farm produce, it is the Food Processing Sector," "In addition, this sector does not only remain a bridge between farmers and entrepreneurs, it converts the farmer into an entrepreneur," A well "written" speech containing all the glib words in the dictionary related to food, without actually meaning any thing to millions of people in this poor country, who have been hearing these sentiments during the last 6 decades but nothing happening at the ground level!

Guess when and where such a knowledgeable minister made this grandiose statement? He was speaking after inaugurating National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management (NIFTEM), claiming to be a world-class institution in food processing sector, at Kundli, Haryana. It is imperative for all right thinking persons in this country to ponder on the words uttered by this minister because a look back at the step-motherly attitude shown by successive governments in Delhi ever since the independence of this country, makes the pompous declaration sound hollow. The minister seems to be under the impression that setting up a 5-star bureaucratic institution under the fanciful name of NIFTEM would solve all the problems faced by the food processing industry in this country. For those who have been espousing the cause of food industry during the last 5 decades may wonder whether they should cry or laugh at these ministerial pronouncements with no sincerity and commitment.

It is very true that the food industry has huge potential to be developed in India and there exist formidable challenges in the form of grossly under developed infrastructure, unsatisfactory food quality and safety environment, lack of trained manpower at all levels, lousy food laws, great vulnerability of small scale and micro-enterprises to industrial sickness, uncertain marketing environment and above all government tendency to impose multiple financial levies on food raw materials as well as processed products. The organizers of NIFTEM seem to be in cloud nine, imagining (or self deceiving?) that their pet project would solve all the problems of farmers as well the processing industry! It is sweet to hear from a senior minister of Union Cabinet that NIFTEM would provide a "one-stop solution" to the industry! How can Government of India claim that an infant institution that was just inaugurated would do all the work mandated to it like developing managerial talent, advancement of food science and technology, creation of a repository of knowledge on all facets of food processing, conducting frontier area research, etc, etc, etc for meeting the needs of a huge food industry consisting of millions of micro-enterprises and small industries spread across this vast country? 

Has the government of India forgotten the fate of a similar effort way back in 1950 when late C.Rajagopalachari, the first Governor General of independent India inaugurated the currently "limping" Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI) at Mysore echoing practically same sentiments as expressed by the Agriculture Minister when he dedicated NIFTEM to the nation recently. With what face GOI will convince the nation that NIFTEM will succeed where CFTRI is supposed to have failed? Has any independent commission or evaluation group ever investigated the cause of the supposed failure of CFTRI? If this was not done what guarantee is there that NIFTEM will not go the same way as CFTRI? Does GOI believe that association with an American University would make NIFTEM a glowing success? Why not understand the basic truth that America cannot solve Indian food industry problems for which only indigenous solution has to be found.

Coming to CFTRI, this august organization had also foreign association with FAO, United Nations University and many other international agencies at one time or the other but still this did not make it an enduring institution in the eyes of citizens as well the industry in the country. Looking back one can only regret for the enormous amounts invested by GOI on it ( Rs 650 million on an average during the lat 3 years alone!), knowing pretty well, especially after 1993 that it had become redundant in the eyes of the users for which it was established. Putting incompetent and inexperienced people with inappropriate qualification and lack of industrial experience at the top during the last two decades seems to have destroyed what ever little credibility it had to justify its continued existence. A vibrant institution, once considered the Mecca of food technology in whole of the Asian continent, it had about 1200 employees with a strong group of food scientists, technologists and engineers which now has dwindled to just 600!. Its regional centers, considered "eyes and ears" of the institute set up to help entrepreneurs in important areas like Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh etc were systematically starved of attention and resources and eventually forced to close down which is a tragedy of great proportion. The newly formed Ministry of Food Processing Industry (MFPI) set up at Delhi during early 1990s did very little to prop up CFTRI and now suddenly it wakes up to set up a brand new institution, investing hundreds of crore of rupees, to achieve the very same goals which CFTRI was mandated to do! 

No body is holding any brief for CFTRI which has to blame itself, facilitated by its insensitive parent body CSIR, for the sorry state of affairs it is in to day. It all started in early 1990s when a green-horn person with almost zero credentials, imported from the US, was foisted on the organization as the Head and it is history what mess this gentleman created during his short tenure of 3 years, running away before even completing half of his term!. This disaster was followed by another one when an equally unfit person from within the institute was put at the top, over taking 48 senior scientists above him, on considerations other than merit and past track record. This era, considered the darkest in the history of CFTRI, was marked by mindless push for increasing the number of publications of no use to the industry, frenetic chase for filing record number of impractical patents for record purpose, self glorification of the individual at the expense of the organization, deliberate shunning of small industrial entrepreneurs, gross mismanagement, unsustainable attrition rate of good scientists, stink of corruption and malpractices and rapid sliding of the morale of the employees. Though there was a change at the helm of affairs in 2012, it was like jumping from the frying pan to the fire with the new incumbent, probably a well meaning person, who does not have necessary industry background and food science strength, being appointed to lead the organization. Claiming to be a devoted scientist of some repute he seems to have very little comprehension about food technology and hence can do very little to bring the institute from its present state of morbidity. What can the industry expect from such an organization?  

NIFTEM cannot be a monument with large sophisticated and architectural building being put up at enormous cost but it needs people with necessary background to run it efficiently. Right now it does not make sense from where NIFTEM is going to get hundreds of trained food experts with adequate experience in food industry working, as there is a severe dearth of such personnel in the country at present. True there are mushrooming universities all over the country offering "courses" for a variety of degrees with "Food" prefixes but most of them are teaching shops, capable of transferring text book information to the entrants, with practically no facilities for hands on practical experience. Even the old training set ups in Mumbai, Kanpur, Kolkatta and to some extent in Nagpur and Ludhiana do not have adequate training infrastructure of high quality and if this is so one can imagine the conditions in other training places located in universities. It is no wonder that the food technology graduates from CFTRI are preferably picked up by the industry as it has still the best infrastructure and experts to churn out reasonably good materials. 

This Blogger was, is and will be of the view that setting up NIFTEM was a wrong move on the part of GOI whatever be the political compulsions for such a project. In stead, it would have been far better and effective to rejuvenate CFTRI by bringing in an industry experienced leader in stead of all sorts of people with absolutely no insight about the industry and with limited vision who can only think of irrelevant projects like milk from drumstick leaves or development of non-caloric fats or other nonsensical subjects of no interest to the industry or the farmers or the citizens at large. Re-establishing regional centers in as many states as possible is the need of the hour. Changing the present culture of servicing only large and transnational food companies and barring easy access to the fruits of research for unorganized and small industries as well as new entrepreneurs need to be reversed. Thousands of ethnic foods for which India is renowned must be taken up for "technologizing" their mass production as a priority. There is even justification to make all food technology institutions in the public sector like NIFTEM, DFRL and others in the country as regional arms of CFTRI so that an integrated approach with multipronged thrust for accelerating industry development can be achieved in a holistic way. These centers can have "food business incubators" for helping local entrepreneurs to launch new ventures and provide the much needed escort service  to make them really viable.

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