PACK SIZE, BUYING POWER AND OVER EATING SYNDROME-ANY RELATION?

The quality of food one eats and the way it is eaten are both important, if optimum health is to be maintained. There are many unsolicited advices that are offered to those who are perennially looking for good foods that can provide right nutrition to the body. The basic nutrient make up of a food as declared in the front of the pack label reveals a lot but there are many other aspects such labels cannot tell the consumer. That is why health pundits always hold the view that more diverse the diet is, using a variety of foods, better it will be for keeping one healthy. Similarly the way one eats also has a bearing on the health of the individual. Faster one eats the food, more vulnerable will be the person to some of the eating disorders found prevalent in to day's society. It is for nothing that Buddhists are being projected as ideal eaters because they really enjoy eating the food slowly and with lot of respect for the food. To day's consumer is a much harried human being pulled from all directions with tons of information, often contradictory and confusing, regarding the best way to eat and live. The million dollar question that begs for an answer is whether to day's market environment will allow even a saint to desist from over indulging in food leading to predictable health consequences.

According to those who promote the concept of "Food Justice", consumers per se do not know what is really good for him but are "pressurized" by the market environment to invariably choose bad foods ( say junk foods?).  The economic compulsions further push him into the arms of the "wily" food industry who have the "expertise" to seduce the consumer through mouth watering products with low nutrient density at low cost while protective foods are priced exorbitantly high putting them beyond the reach of consumers who really need them. Those propounding "Food Justice" further feel that the State must play a crucial role in creating right environment for eating right foods. Recent policy orchestration by New York authorities to ban serving of sugary beverages beyond the size of 16 ounces is being criticized by the industry as well as some human rights activists as bordering on violation of the consumer's right to eat "what he wants, when he wants and where he wants'. What is forgotten in this semantic and sterile argument is that past history is replete with instances when the State had to intervene as in the cases of alcoholic beverages and tobacco smoking! If the State does such things for the common good of the citizen and majority consent to them it is no body's business to question the intention behind the move. 

Interestingly the New York move raises a far more serious question regarding the industrial practices which are often criticized for their negative impact on the well being of the citizenry.  Look at the advertisement blitzkrieg unleashed by the beverage industry against the government for such a small initiative and one can imagine the ferocity of such attacks if there were to be a total ban of sales of sugary drinks in the state! Is it that the industry does not have even an iota of consideration towards the consumer and is so brutal that it will go to any extent to sabotage such healthy measures? Is it not true that such mildly coercive policies are considered only when industry indulges in semantics when asked to voluntarily take action to modify their products in tune with standard nutritional and health standards? Now it is the sugar products that is making news but there are other issues like salt content in processed foods, trans fats and saturated fats which are potential mine fields for conflict between the industry and the consumer driven government policies.

An important question that is being debated is whether restricting serving size has any thing to do with obesity related problems. According to psychologists, the human behavior vis-a-vis eating food can be conditioned by the environment where food service takes place. It is the historical human weakness that when a large portion of food placed before him the tendency is to finish it off without leaving any thing back and this weakness is being exploited by the industry to push the consumer to binging. Added to this, the product pricing strategy which makes large portion sizes comparatively cheaper per unit acts as a motivation to buy larger sizes without the consumer realizing the consequences of over eating on his health. In American market larger the pack size or greater the number of units purchased, lesser will be the effective price to the consumer! Probably New York authorities have this odd behavior of the consumer in mind when the ban order was being considered. The argument that consumer freedom of choice is being curtailed cannot gel because no body prevents the consumer from buying multiple units if he really wants, though the policy makers rely on the consumer's inertia in picking up the second unit for bringing about net reduction in consumption of such dangerous beverages.

Recent trend that is perceptible in the market indicates that industry is really reducing the pack sizes not out of love of the consumers but for its economic benefits since lower quantity delivered without cutting down prices is a strategy adopted for countering inflation and protecting the bottom line. This trend was visible long ago in countries like India where substantial segment of the population has limited buying power and therefore cannot aspire to buy large packs costing exorbitantly. Thus the pack size and the buying capacity have a correlation which comes into play when food marketing strategies are worked out. The current trend in the US where pack sizes are reduced because of the economic down turn is simply a response by the industry to protect their financial health. Also coming into play is the convenience factor which is persuading the industry to go small and single use packs and if this trend grows as being anticipated, can also contribute its might in reducing food consumption in the market place. Taking into consideration these complex situations, state intervention will become more and frequent in future to protect the lives of its citizens food mercenaries.. 

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

TOO MUCH GOOD FOOD CAN ALSO CAUSE PROBLEM!

The current state of knowledge regarding food technology and relation between food and health cannot be considered complete with many fundamental questions still remaining unanswered. That a human being needs 2000-2500 kC a day to cover the basal metabolism and the energy needed to carry out day to day physical activities is the global standard on which every body swears. Even here doubts are being raised if this theory holds good universally with all population because there are many instances where communities are known to flourish with lesser calorie intake. Also true is the fact that life duration is extendable by restricting the diet to contain only about 1200 kC. There are many nutrients considered essential for survival like carbohydrates, proteins, fats, essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, vitamins and minerals but whether the current recommendations regarding their optimum requirements for healthy living, are the gospel truth may be debatable.

What can be construed as too much or too less? This is a question no body will be able to answer convincingly. There are millions of people in different parts of the world surviving with low quantum of foods, often considered low quality by to day's standards and according to pundits these populations must have disappeared long ago because of gross deficiency of every nutrient man knows! How about the people engaged in physical labor for at least 8 hours a day, 6 days a week with food which will be considered as subsistence? The ground reality is that not only they are surviving but many of them are more robust than their urban cousins! In India, the ancestors of to day's generation had very simple eating habits and deficiency diseases and physical disability was practically unknown. This Blogger's grandfather lived 100 years in a remote village in Karnataka with no known ailment though his diet was basically made of greens and rice. Most villages do not have access to milk by which modern health pundits swear for good health if a vegetarian.  From a simple citizen's view can there be more to life than numbers in terms of nutrients considered essential to live? This is some thing worth pondering about.

Despite the gap in knowledge and ever expanding scientific information on food, often contradictory in nature, it is understandable that world has to adopt a median guideline applicable to most human beings. So far the experience has been more or less satisfactory though there are variations found in many cases. One of the offshoots of increased knowledge is its exploitation by the health industry for making money at the expense of the consumer. To day's multi billion dollar well being and health peddling industry is offering hundreds of products to the gullible consumers based on information generated in Universities by academic scholars and these are again data derived from limited animal studies. In many countries strict regulatory controls are in place for allowing health claims and it is increasingly being realized that health claims need to be confirmed by clinical trials under actual living conditions. One of the curious facts about health foods is that those who make claims generally get away with just a rap on their knuckle while the consumer suffers significant economic loss in buying and trying out these products.

As the debate about obesity rages every where it is the usual fashion for many, knowledgeable as well as others to repeat ad libitum that ideally consumers must shun all refined foods and opt for unrefined and coarse foods. Top on the list are whole grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes and grains like oats, barley, quinoa etc because they contain more fiber, lower carbohydrates and small levels of fat. Added to this they boast of lower Glycemic Index that is considered good for reducing the chances of developing diseases like Diabetes, CVD, Blood Pressure, Kidney Diseases, Cancer etc. The euphoria about Fruit and vegetables reached its peak when USDA recommended 50% of daily meal plate should be made of fruits and vegetables without bothering to understand the difficulty of the consumer to gorge such large quantities. After all food is consumed not only to meet the nutritional needs of the body but also derive oral and mental satisfaction and no standard recipe, however nutritive it may be, can be forced down the throat of a consumer!

While it is conceded that obesity is the result of consuming foods which are not balanced what is not realized is that even the so called junk foods would not be that bad if consumed in moderate quantities. Basically the body has no alternative but to convert the food calories consumed in excess of its needs to fat which is manifested in the form of bloated body. The cardinal principle of eating food is that under the dynamic metabolic system of human body, input calories need to be in harmony with the out put in the form of basal metabolism and physical work. If this harmony is disturbed the consequences can be either losing weight if input calorie is less or weight gain if the same is more. There appears to be a mistaken belief that "good" foods can be consumed ad libitum while restrictions on food is intended only for "bad" foods.

Nutrition and health experts with good intention suggest that diet should be rich in healthy ingredients but it is rarely stated how much can be consumed without any adverse consequences. In a country like the US the food industry as well as the regulators seem to be ignoring the unjustifiable practice of using serving sizes too large, giving an impression to the consumer that it is safe to consume the amount. Similarly playing with the pricing of the product which favors large packs or serving sizes while smaller sizes are priced disproportionately high, is very common. It is slowly being realized that label declarations about nutrients must be expressed on smaller serving sizes and single serve pack sizes need to be scaled down significantly to make consumers accept them more readily. After all all food products contain either one or more of all bulk nutrients like carbohydrate, fat and proteins. Just because whole grains contain high fiber and other beneficial components, over-consumption can still lead to gaining weight. Same is true with nuts like Almonds, Walnuts, Pecan, Cashew nut etc which contain good quality fats but uncontrolled consumption can still be dangerous. Whether it is a fruit or a vegetable rich in carbohydrate or legumes rich in proteins, consumption beyond a limit can be harmful. This basic message must percolate down to the masses for a better diet and a more disciplined eating.

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

DESPERATE SITUATION-DRASTIC REMEDY

A recent report implicates food contaminants as one of the causes of uncontrolled weight gain and these include thousands of chemicals used in foods during processing for achieving different functional features and these include growth hormones, antibiotics and migratory chemicals from plastic packing materials. This is contrary to the common wisdom that is prevalent currently blaming over consumption of high calorie foods much beyond the normal needs of the body. These unnatural substances introduced into the food under one or the other justification are collectively being classified under "obesogens" and they are capable of causing heart disease, diabetes and high cholesterol that can lead to further complications with aging.

If this is true, exercising control over eating may not be sufficient to deal with the problem. Though statistics about "fat" population in India cannot be reliable in the absence of any organized survey by government agencies, it is guesstimated that it could be around 1% working out to a staggering number of 11 millions. Percentage-wise Americans score over Indians in this regard as 3% of males and 7% of females are reported to be obese with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of more than 40. Being thin is often taken as healthy or slim to distinguish from being fat and many thin looking people could be afflicted with the so called "normal weight obesity"(NWO) which is difficult to be noticed under normal health check up regime.

There is a mistaken impression that BMI is the most reliable indicator of a healthy body and those with BMI less than 25 live blissfully thinking that they are immune to disorders commonly associated with over weight. Those with low BMI can have high visceral fat content or the so called 'internal' fat surrounding the internal organs which can be equally dangerous if not treated in time. How ever no reliable information is available regarding the number of people affected by NWO. This probably explains increasing number of patients looking normal, undergoing cardiac by-pass surgery these days because of arterial blocks, caused by high triglycerides and cholesterol. Most commonly adopted procedure to treat over weight problem is controlled dieting, physical exercise and resorting to drug therapy. In a freak finding, scientists from Germany have recently reported that fat people can lose their body weight significantly by spending some time in mountainous places, much above sea level because of the rarefied air that enhances metabolism and reduces appetite.

Dieting itself is under a cloud because of the potential for dieters becoming compulsive over eaters after denying food for themselves for some time, probably due to changes in brain activity involving the hormone norepinephrine. Such considerations compel people to go for Bariatric surgery which is emerging as a drastic remedy to overcome obesity in people desperately trying to shed their weights after failing to do so through conventional weight reduction programs. Such procedures are carried out mainly to reduce the size of the stomach or removal of a part of the stomach or resecting and re-routing the small intestine, all aimed at cutting down on food intake in one sitting. Lap-Band system and Intragastric balloon inserted into the stomach and inflated after wards can also reduce stomach volume. 5-9 BMI reduction is possible through these surgical techniques. It is unbelievable that more than 1.5 lakh people undergo such surgeries in the US with about 0.2% mortality. What is causing concern is that that many of those undergoing the surgery develop complications such as vomiting,diarrhea, dysphagia, reflux, leaking at the surgical connection between stomach and intestine and abdominal hernia.

It is a Hobson's choice for many obese people between living under great risk of dying due to diseases like CVD, diabetes, and serious disorders early in life and going for intervention surgery with reasonable assurance of a normal life though it involves hospitalization and unpredictable after effects.

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

FOOD FOR LIVING OR LIVING FOR FOOD?

If the whole world can be divided into two distinct groups, majority will fall under the category of those trying to get sufficient food for a decent living while others live for the pleasure of eating food without any consideration of the consequences of over consumption. According to WHO almost a billion people in this planet, more than 15% of world population, do not get adequate food to lead a normal healthy life while a few millions in the developed as well as the developing countries consume 150% of the normal food requirement. It is a fact that modern living style diseases like CVD, diabetes, cancers, obesity etc are also more prevalent in populations consuming foods which are qualitatively poor but calorie-wise super rich. The larger philosophical question that emerges from such a scenario is whether we live to eat or eat to live!

It is not that we do not know what is best for us to maintain a sound health but high income levels and a fantastic range of pleasure-giving food products, most of them nutritionally imbalanced, churned out by the industry, are blinding us to the potential hazard posed by irrational choice of foods and over eating to satisfy our taste buds. On another level the issue that needs focusing is how far we are justified in switching over indiscriminately to processed foods, forgetting that natural foods like fruits, vegetables, whole cereals and milk are the protective foods that safeguard our life in the long run. Processed foods, at best can only supplement our diet based on natural foods. Clarified fruit juices, refined grain flours and products derived from them, fat rich cream products, double refined cooking oils and hydrogenated fats, synthetic beverages, mass manufactured fried foods, fat rich restaurant foods, etc are available to the consumers but frequency and extent of their consumption have critical influence on their health. Claim to richness and wealth need not be demonstrated through gluttony and considerations for fellow denizens should guide our food habits. The recent disclosure that even the amount of food wasted by the rich nations in Europe, Japan, Canada and the US can feed 50% of the global population is shocking to the conscience of every human being.

For almost two decades food scientists have been suggesting that man can live 20% longer by controlling the intake of calories through the food without compromising on the level of nutrients needed for normal life. Though these findings were based on animal studies involving mice and monkeys, the revelation gives further impetus to the protagonists, advocating restriction of consumption of food calories for a better and longer life. It is a pity that man learns to correct himself only when pushed to the corner and disciplined eating gets practiced invariably when one faces the extreme situation of misery, pain and morbidity caused by one or the other disorder due to past indiscretions in food choices. Consumer education, policy orchestration and voluntary restraint by food industry do not seem to be working and it is sad that scientists are forced to look for the magical pill that will kill the appetite in our efforts to control food consumption at the individual level. The discovery of Resveratrol, a chemical present in red wine and Rapamycin drug are claimed to be able to suppress the appetite significantly and their consumption on a wide scale by people with tendency to over eat, may spare enough food that can save millions of famished people in Asia, Africa and South America!

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

THE 'e' REVOLUTION-HOW ABOUT e-FOOD?

Rapid strides made in electronic field during the last one decade, evolution of computer as an indispensable tool of modern economic drive engine and ever expanding role of world-wide web, have increased the human productivity in virtually every sphere of activity. Activities like e-mailing, e-ticketing, e-filing, e-banking, e-management, e-administration, e-communication, e-entertainment, e-business, all have become accepted as part of modern society at large, constantly trying to improve the quality of life. The recent launch of a product by the name 'e-cigarette' (e-cig)supposed to be an alternative to tobacco based conventional cigarettes is an indication as to how far electronic gadgetry can intrude into the life of the citizens.

The new trend of e-smoking is reported to be gaining some popularity and the e-cigarette that is being sold, is a battery powered device for inhaling measured doses of nicotine which delivers a vaporized propylene glycol nicotine solution. Besides the achieving controlled delivery of nicotine, the vapor generated also provides a flavor and physical sensation similar to that experienced during smoking of a real tobacco based cigarette. An e-cig is designed so as to look like a cigarette or a cigar or a pipe and even carries LED light at the other end to simulate the typical cigarette glow. When air is inhaled through the device, it is detected by a sensor which activates the heating element that vaporizes the nicotine solution stored in the mouth piece and the process is being referred to as 'vaping' instead of smoking. Nicotine solution strength can be 0.1% to 6% to cater to different demands and it can be flavored with half a dozen aromas like mint, chocolate, fruit etc. Though they are touted as an alternate to regular cigarettes, use of nicotine in the cartridge can be habit forming and due to recent detection of diethylene glycol, a carcinogenic chemical in such devices, many countries are banning them for use in their countries. One wonders how many customers will be hooked on to this new gadget at the prevailing price tag of $ 70 to $ 200 per piece with the cartridge of 5 costing $ 5 to $ 7.50. Probably in India when it is introduced, cost can be as high as Rs 6000 for a janata model and Rs 12-50 thousand for a high end piece made in silver or gold. Probably it may go well with a Rayban cooling glass!.

No product under the e-food category has yet emerged in the market but there is an American company by that name which, however does not offer any specific foods that can be called a e-food. They are supposed to be specialized in supplying customers fresh meat and poultry products, bakery and dairy foods and other food items using an IT enabled program via their local accredited suppliers through out the country. They claim to offer their clients a single point of contact and coordinated services from a centralized office, all with an on-line synchronization for customers that include restaurants, hotels, pub groups, hospitals, nursing homes, contract caterers etc.

If the concept of e-cig can be applied in the food area, there is a possibility of using the device with cartridges containing food aromas that can either stimulate hunger or create a feeling of satiety. Many bakeries and eateries use their air conditioning systems to introduce pleasant aroma that attract more customers and generate better business. Similarly appetite can be increased by using permitted aromatic substances which when 'vaped' may create the necessary stimulus for eating more or less depending on what is used in the device. The 'vaping' device provides a delivery system for food associated appetite stimulants or suppressants that may have influence on the eating behavior of the consumers. Automatic electronic perfume emitting devices, now available in the country, offer another delivery system to sensitize humans for attracting them to, or keeping them away, from foods. The e-food route, at best, is a short term choice to train people for adopting a food regime that is good for them and cannot be a life term solution.

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

DINING FORMAT - BUFFET VS FORMAL SERVICE

Increasingly restaurants world over are switching over to the buffet format of service which, from the management angle, has many advantages. It requires less space, less servers, less time, entails less wastage and probably is more profitable. Traditionally Indians are used to being served whether it is in the restaurants or in their own dining rooms. In most festivals, ceremonies and celebrations serving individually by a battery of servers is the standard norm. It is only now that the buffet format is receiving attention because of cost factors, logistics and shortage of serving personnel, especially in urban centers. Is buffet system better than the formal serving system where clients are seated?. Does this shift from formal dinners to buffet dinners have any repercussions on the health of those who partake in such events frequently?. Obviously there seems to be some implications worth considering.

Formal serving can be on a frugal level or a royal scale depending on the occasion and the sponsor. The number of courses can vary from a working meal of 3-5 items or a lavish meal with 25-35 courses served by a bevy of serving personnel. While in the South, plantain leaves are commonly used for serving the meals, plastic, Chinaware and steel plates or stitched dry leaves are used by others. Serving is either squatting on the floor or on more formal occasions on tables. Buffet service involves arranging the items on one or more tables without any provision to keep the food hot when the number is small or using specially designed cheffing dishes, heated below for keeping the food hot during the entire period of serving. It is true that buffet arrangement is lot easier to manage and entails less wastage. There are caterers who can organize buffet service for large gatherings as big as 25000 at a single venue. From the consumer angle buffet provides a panoramic view of items available and choose only those liked by each individual. Even if a few items are exhausted, major items of foods will still be available keeping every one happy. Infrastructure requirement for buffet is significantly less and in urban societies buffet format is increasingly being adopted these days.

Social scientists believe that buffet meals can be a reason for over eating by many unintended participants and this factor needs to be kept in mind while discussing about the current obesity epidemic seen in many countries. Buffet format draws people with tendencies of over eating who do not exercise any caution while selecting food items 'paraded' before them and try to binge on every thing offered. Others first survey the entire range of items before them before deciding on only those which they like using their discretion. Another observation is that many diners unconsciously sit close to the buffet tables making them reach for more foods without realizing the harm such eating frenzy can cause. Good caterers position their own expert servers who do not give opportunity for the diners to transfer foods from the cheffing dishes thus trying to moderate the serving sizes unintentionally. How ever many obsessive eaters serve themselves unlimited portions as it is their right under the buffet system. Is it possible to redesign the buffet system to discourage people from eating more than what they really need? How about keeping the distance between the buffet tables and the eating place such that there is distinct disincentive in the form of walking some distance before accessing the food? Or reducing the size of the serving laddles/spoons which will prevent massive transfer from the cheffing dish to the plate more cumbersome? Or why not deliver the food in preformed trays with limited quantities of the items and diners will have to come to the food table if more is needed? The catering pundits, food scientists, social scientists and nutritionists will have sit together to tackle this global problem

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