Why is irradiation technology not catching on? Misconception, fear about safety or poor awareness?

Whoever has not heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan? People in these two unfortunate towns were the "pioneering" victims of the horrendous atom bomb attack by the Americans during World War II and even to day, after seven decades of that horrible incidence, the wounds have not healed completely. What is the connection between an atom bomb and food? Of course there is a connection in that people are reminded of the deadly effect of radiation when the modern irradiation technology was developed for food preservation and human safety. What a contradiction! The bomb is a destroyer par excellence while irradiation technology is a savior of man kind. It is this paradox that is coming in the way of popularising a technology based on gamma radiation that can kill a hoist of pathogens which are the scourge of the millions of consumers, victims of food poisoning, maiming and killing them. Why is that the world inhabited by 7 billion plus population, in spite of the unassailable safety data generated over decades of exhaustive research is not able to convince itself that irradiation is a process with zero danger and absolute safety? No one knows the reason though one can guess that governments world over have not done enough to educate their citizens at an early stage of their lives about what irradiation technology is all about and its tremendous potential to eradicate food borne diseases.

Consuming safe food is not an issue that has divergence of opinion because food borned diseases pose a major risk to the well being and quality of life. Only those who were exposed to food-borne illness know how unpleasant the experience can be and how it can be deadly if not properly and timely treated. Food scientists and technologists have been working incessantly for the last two centuries to evolve technologies that can extend the life of perishable foods without sacrificing the safety or quality. Thus thermal processing, dehydration, salt and sugar preservation, high pressure processing, refrigeration, freezing, controlled atmosphere storage and transportation etc are front line technologies in use to day and industry is indebted to them for making available foods across the globe irrespective of the length of the food chain. Though using these technologies food can be made safe, often the manufacturing facilities and the personnel involved in managing them can falter resulting in catastrophe in the form of food poisoning. Thus however beautiful or fool proof the technology is, ultimate safety still depends on uncompromising hygiene and sanitation in the manufacturing environment. Food irradiation may be a very good technology but it can be good only as long as no compromise is made on the base quality of the food and soundness of the processing facilities. 

What is irradiation? It is a simple process of exposing food materials which are perishable due to vectors like microorganisms and insects, to ionizing radiation capable of generating energy that can be transmitted without direct contact with the material exposed. Such radiation is capable of freeing electrons from their atomic bonds in the targeted food. Such an exposure reduces risk of food borne illnesses, prevents spread of invasive insects and pests, delays or eliminates sprouting in crops like potato and delays the physiological phenomenon involved in ripening in fruits. A characteristic feature of irradiation is that the foods so processed do not become radioactive as being feared by many ill informed consumers. Though radio active substances are commonly used to emit radiation, electrons can also be generated by electricity. Medical industry uses gamma radiation very widely to day for sterilizing many inputs used in hospitals. Since International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has unequivocally cleared food irradiation as a safe and effective tool for disinfection and disinfestation, more than 60 countries have approved this technology for use by different sectors of food industry. It is estimated that about half a million tons of foods are irradiated across the world annually. In fact many countries are insisting that products like spices and herbs must be irradiated if to be imported into their countries.

While countries like Brazil permit use of unlimited doses of gamma radiation in foods some restrictions are in place in countries like Austria, Germany and others. Generally gamma radiation application is categorised into low dose, medium dose and high dose depending on the intensity of the energy deployed, as measured on kiloGray scale (kGy). Low dosage means radiation should not be more than 1 kGy, medium denotes 1-10 kGy and high dosage uses radiation above 10 kGy. Low dose is effective against insects, sprouting and ripening. Medium dose is needed for delaying meat spoilage, preserve spices, seasonings and herbs. High dosage is deployed for sterilization of packed meat, increasing juice yield from fruits and improving the rehydration characteristics of dehydrated foods. To ensure adequate consumer awareness and proper transparency, Codex Alimentarius Commission insists on compulsory labeling of irradiated foods and also recommends inclusion of the "Radura" logo on the label. Both FAO and IAEA strongly favor wide scale use of irradiation for improving the food safety environment in member countries. There are global standards created by Codex of FAO and WHO agreed upon by member countries under WTO protocols and each country can adapt these standards for application within their countries. 

One of the impediments in wide scale use of irradiation technology is the enormous capital investment required for establishing the required facility which is beyond the financial capability of normal entrepreneurs. It is estimated that an economically viable treatment facility can cost upward of $ 5 million to establish and industry expects government involvement in establishing common irradiation facilities in areas where food processing and exports are concentrated. Also of constraint is the tight control on fissionable materials which are essential part of an irradiation plant and which have security connotations in terms of misuse by terrorists and criminals if they get access to such dangerous materials. Cobalt-60 radioisotope is the preferred radiation source used in irradiators though Caesium-137 can also be used if available. The latter isotope is a by-product of atomic power reactors which are working in many countries. But its availability is rather restricted because of logistical factors. Though Caesium-137 is cheaper compared to Cobalt-60, it has an inherent risk in that it is soluble in water raising the risk of radiation contamination of cooling water due to possible leak and consequent health hazards.

Another issue that is hindering universal application of irradiation technology is the hesitation on the part of the industry to adopt the same because of the mandatory requirement of labeling irradiated foods that will distinguish it from products made with other technologies. There can be some apprehension that when such a declaration is made on the label, it raises doubts in the minds of the consumer regarding the quality and safety of these foods vis a vis that of other products in the market. It is similar to the labeling war that is going on Genetically modified foods where industry opposes such distinctive and compulsory declaration precisely on same grounds. Really speaking there is no need for declaring the foods treated by irradiation process as distinct as the food material is not changed in any way and there is no residual radiation left behind after the treatment. Unfortunately the consensus politics at the international level seeking wide acceptance among the countries and wide scale application in most countries led to the provision of mandatory labeling of irradiated foods. How this logjam can be broken remains to be seen. One way for solving this issue amicably could be to make industry declare compulsorily on all packed foods the technology used to manufacture all the products marketed. For example canned products can carry a declaration that it is thermally processed or pH modification process for acid preserved products or chemically preserved for those where preservative chemicals have been used. Of course it is uncertain whether industry is amenable to such a proposal.    

New technologies such as irradiation that can make food safer have historically been a tough sell as far as the public is concerned and they face severe backlash at least in the beginning due apprehension about the health implications among the public. Many countries were on the threshold of clearing irradiation technology during early 2000 but retracted because of fear about public criticism. Is it not a tragedy that in spite of irrevocable and irrefutable evidence in favour of irradiation process extraneous considerations are holding it to ransom coming in the way of universal adoption? Can any one refute the fact that treating food products with ionizing radiation can reduce the presence of mould, E coli, salmonella, campylobacter and parasites without reducing nutrition or food quality?. International authorities such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization have unreservedly endorsed it. Take the example of a developed country like Canada where irradiation technology was approved for use since 2002 on potatoes, onions, wheat, flour, whole wheat flour, whole and ground spices and dehydrated seasoning preparations. Why is it that industry is currently using it only on spices, that too sparingly? .

Surveys in many countries suggests that public sentiments range from comfortably oblivious to vaguely supportive of this technology. Interestingly vast majority of consumers who respond to such surveys , more than 70% express their ignorance of existence of irradiation technology. An encouraging trend is that generally more consumers are positive about their views on the technology compared to those who are negative in their perception. Another revelation that comes out of consumer surveys is that more than 80% consumers want compulsory labeling of irradiated foods though they are not clear why that should be so. Looking from another angle, if milk labels contain words like pasteurized, UHT treated etc why not irradiated beef and other food stuffs processed using gamma radiation also declare the technology used. Some critics are concerned that if irradiation technology is used widely, meat industry may lower their guard vis-a-vis maintenance of high standards of hygiene and sanitation. Whether this is really a problem may emerge only when irradiation becomes the standard process of vector destruction in industries like meat processing and other easily perishable and vulnerable food stuffs. If world is facing to day a serious health crisis because of the wide spread contamination of foods due to infection with more than two dozens pathogenic microorganisms, a choice needs to be made to day whether we want irradiation technology to be made compulsory especially for meat products. The fact that more than 50 million people get sick every year, almost 2 lakh are hospitalized and more than 3000 people die because of food poisoning from pathogens is a strong enough reason for the world to move in the direction mentioned above. 

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Safety of PET bottles for packing medicines, foods and beverages under cloud-Will the real truth emerge ever?

What do we understand by the oft used word PET when it comes to food packing? Probably common man may have no clue about the chemical nature and the implications underlying its use by the food industry. But there is a general awareness that all plastics are not good when it comes to their use for food contact applications. It is true that plastic materials, mostly made from fossil fuels, have taken over the lives of people in to day's world because of convenience and cost. Glass and metal containers are unbearably costly though they are much more safer than plastics. There are a number of plastic materials varying in their characteristics and functionality and food industry has a wide choice before them for packing foods. Protection from air, moisture and tainting from the environment are the primary concerns when plastics are used as far as the industry is concerned but environmentalists are more worried about the pollution caused by the used plastics which take more than 800 years to be completely degraded in nature. World over restrictions are being placed on use of plastics and make recycling a priority to save the planet. 

Quality and safety requirements of plastics vis-a-vis food contact applications are more or less standardized though there could be small variations in the methodology used to determine their suitability. Safety authorities in developed countries focus on the foods consumed in their countries and tests using model systems reflecting these foods are used to arrive at the permissibility of various packaging materials. However in India there is a sea change in the chemical, physical, biological and sensory characteristics of foods we eat here and therefore the interaction between food and the packaging materials used needs to be assessed by appropriately tailor made tests. The safety aspects of some of the packing materials used for ethnic foods or traditionally consumed foods in this country have not yet been determined conclusively as the authorities concerned is rather slow in tackling this crucial issue with any sense of urgency. The responsibility of the plastic manufacturer ends once a certificate is generated by testing laboratories using standard testing protocols involving simulated solvent systems for acidic, neutral and alkaline foods. What is appalling is that once such a certificate is produced the manufacturer can produce tons and tons of the materials and sell to the food industry without any further overseeing or vigilance from independent authorities. 

The issue of safety of PET bottles for packing pharmaceutical products became a debating one after some concern was raised recently and the government's knee-jerk reaction in setting up a committee to "look" this controversy. Consumers are genuinely concerned about the impact of packing medicines in PET bottles which is becoming a standard practice of the industry which finds it a better packing material compared to glass due to logistical and economic reasons. This has compelled the authorities to arbitrate on this issue. The demand of consumer organizations and environmentalists to ban PET plastics must be based on an assessment of the balance between risk and advantages and scientific data therefore is necessary. The government approved testing laboratory to which this problem was referred, came out with a shocking conclusion that PET bottles are not safe for packing liquid drug formulations because of high levels of leachates passed on to the contents from the container. The controversy became more "controversial" because both drug industry as well as the plastic industry questioned the veracity of the report alleging that too few samples were tested and no important decision should be taken based on the findings of a single laboratory. Probably they may have a valid argument and further testing can be ordered in multiple laboratories controlled by the government on a proprity.     

If we go back to history of this problem it was due to the diligence of an Uttarakhand-based non-governmental organization (NGO) that works in the health sector which raised this issue requesting the ministry of health to impose a ban on the use of PET for pharmaceutical packaging. The present impasse is due to the testing results showing high levels of some chemicals in the products tested. The Government is sitting on the recommendations of a technical group set up to examine this issue which categorically suggested banning of liquid pharmaceutical formulations to be packed in PET bottles and eventually extend this ban to the entire industry. More concerns were expressed with regard to the potential impact of the contaminants leaching out from the bottle on the health of children and other consumers with normal health as well as with weak state of health. There are documentary evidences to support the adverse impact of leachates like Chromium, Antimony, Lead and Diethylhexyl Phthalate at concentrations much beyond the safety limits. According to experts health risks to people can manifest in the form of diseases like cancer, diabetes, endocrine damage kidney damage, reproductive diseases and obesity when these contaminants are present at levels far exceeding the safety standards and this cannot be ignored that easily. calling for emergency measures to tackle this issue once for all.

An interesting argument put forward by the packaging industry is that instead of banning PET blindly, some way should be found to modify the technology of manufacture of this commercially important material to make it safer. A larger question that begs for an answer is why the industry did not take adequate precaution before and was indulging in making and selling a material of doubtful safety credentials? Similarly why it should have been left to an NGO to raise this issue of grave concern where as a responsible and diligent government with enormous powers at its command was sleeping over it all these years with least concern for the health of the 1.3 billion people it is "ruling"? Is it not criminal and shameful? Probably there will be lot of "passing the buck" game when some thing seriously happens due to possible systematic poisoning of its helpless citizens! God forbid such a contingency.

What is perplexing in this entire saga is whether PET bottles and films are safe for packing water, beverage and foods? In India food safety is a portfolio in the domain of the Health Ministry which incidentally also controls the drug industry. Though there are a few reports indicating that PET bottles are safe for packing water, beverages and most food products, there is no clarity as to the minimum thickness of the bottle, impact of long storage and exposure to temperatures prevalent in tropical countries. The same question that has bedevilled the drug industry vis-a-vis use of pet bottles for packing drug formulations does bother the food sector also and there is practically no report of any real time study using any food product packed in such containers. Here again the safety is assumed or presumed based on model systems using standard solvents and solutions which might not really represent any foods we consume in this country. Also to be borne in mind is that in the absence of overseeing of the PET production facilities, food industry has to depend on the unilateral view of the manufacturers that their bottles are food grade. If toxic materials like Chromium, Lead, Antimony and Diethylhexyl phthalate have been found in drug preparations in quantities beyond the permitted levels, there is all the more reason that chemically complex food can leach out much more of them over the duration of their shelf life. It is a million dollar question as to why the Indian government and the research institutions specialized in food, packaging, health and toxicology controlled by it are sleeping over the issue for so long! 

While the issue of safety of pet bottles for packing food and medicines is sill being debated, there is a tug of war between the PET industry and glass industry, both of them having a vested interest in the business generated by the products they make. According to the PET bottle industry more than 200 manufacturing may have to close shop if the Government enforces an across the board ban for food, beverages and pharma products which together account for about Rs 2000 crores market, almost 50% of the total production of 6 lakh tons per annum. In contrast glass bottle industry which was once the prime materials used by both food and pharma industries is witnessing a decline in its growth because of the increasing preference shown for PET bottles. One of the last bastions for glass bottle is the liquor industry which consumes almost 50% of the production estimated at about 3 million tons per annum probably because of the ability of glass to retain the flavor in its original form. Only cheap liquors have switched over to PET bottles in preference to glass because of cost considerations. If banning of PET bottles does materialize there is no option for the industry but to go back to glass bottles. Thus what is a lose to PET industry will be a gain for the glass industry. We will have to wait and see how the situation is going to develop in the next few months. In the mean time glass industry must invest in new technologies that can give glass bottles with lighter weight and extra strength to with stand rigors of handling and transportation . 

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

"Make in India"- Slogan Vs reality

There was a time when world was frowning on Japanese made products for their low quality compared to those from western countries. See how this tiny country, shattered by World War II, became one of the most industrially advanced countries within a span of 25 years after the War. Same thing happened in Korea too, which, through its sheer hard work reached a stage to day when it can stand shoulder to shoulder with Japan, the US and other wealthy countries. How about China? It is another story which is a lesson to aspiring countries like India as it is the second most economically powerful country to day after the US. True there are many reasons to counter argue that India is not like China as we have an over dose of misguided democracy where accountability does not exist at any level, be it top echelons of the power structure or the lowly rated daily worker. Our Prime Minister must be admired, for nothing else, but for his courage of conviction when he coined the famous slogan, "make in India" exhorting the industry to expand their production base to manufacture quality products! Are we realistic in expecting such a thing to happen in our life time?

Quality and reliability are the two pillars on which reputation of products rests. Unfortunately in to day's India both are conspicuous by their scanty presence. The country's infrastructure in monitoring quality is practically non-existent. The quality monitoring agencies, most of them, are highly bureaucratized, resulting in delays and inefficient execution of their duties. There is a shortage of technical skills for which no action is being contemplated though every state is competing with each other to start more and more capitation fee based engineering colleges with doubtful credibility. Look at the land bill controversy which is being played out in the open by the politicians who do not care to be the laughing stock in the international landscape! Farmers whose cause these remorseless politicians are claiming to be championing do not think about the relentless suicides going on in the country side as the farmers are caught between deep sea and the devil! Their land, many of them too small to be viable, cannot bring them adequate returns, pushing them deep into debt burden while selling their land to buy more time is not allowed under the existing laws. Talking of entrepreneurs, there are many serious aspirants with high hopes who want to start new industries but where will they go for getting the wherewithal to venture into manufacturing arena? Bureaucrats, financial institutions, technology agencies and industry promotional departments of the government just pay lip sympathy without raising a finger to help them out. Sorry situation indeed.

Coming to food industry sector, will any serious entrepreneur venture into this area after the recent foolish move by the government to penalize one of the most reputed global companies without giving them even an hearing before taking such a severe penal action? The food safety and quality system is in shambles with bureaucrats running the show and the state machinery supposed to "control" the industry is archival and under functioning or malfunctioning. How can we swallow the bitter truth that 16 of the 30 states do not have even a single food testing laboratory? The judiciary in the country and the money chasing, irresponsible lawyers espousing the cause of food fraudsters, have contributed to this mess by causing inordinate delays in clearing thousands of cases, many of them 10-20 years old. Food Parks and similar grand sounding schemes have not borne any fruit till now though hundreds of crores of rupees have been spent on them. Food exports from India are grievously hurt because of the callousness, dubiousness and recklessness of the manufacturers and exporters. Look at the recent ban of import of snacks from India by the US because of quality and safety considerations and it is a pity that a major exporter claims that Indian laws under which they manufactured the products are different causing rejection! How naive and frivolous such an argument can be!  

Here is a telling commentary on the present sorry state of affairs in the country vis-a-vis the manufacturing sector which self revealing:    

"While authorities are now making an example out of Maggi, it's hard to believe that this is the only consumer product in India that fails to meet safety norms. In fact, a 2015 report by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, the national food regulator, revealed that almost a fifth of all food samples tested were adulterated or mislabeled. In 2012, a government study revealed that over 68 percent of milk sampled was adulterated with potentially harmful additives such as detergents, hydrogen peroxide, and even urea.
While some commentators in India tend to blame foreign multinationals for producing lower-quality goods for Indian consumption, even when this claim turns out to be true, the real fault lies with Indian authorities. With a patchwork quilt composed of a central regulator and an array of state government regulators, many of which are woefully understaffed, it's a miracle that this system finds any product quality lapses at all. In such an environment, it's hard to see how Prime Minister Narendra Modi's grand "Make in India" initiative to turn the country into a global manufacturing powerhouse can possibly come to fruition. India is not yet a major exporter of manufactured food products, but it does export its generic pharmaceutical products to over 200 countries. Could a Maggi-style disaster be awaiting the Indian drug industry?
If you believe the results of a 2014 academic study by a team of researchers from the University of Maryland, the University of Ottawa, and the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington, D.C., think tank, the answer could well be yes. The researchers tested samples of antibiotic and tuberculosis drugs labeled "made in India" and sold in India, Africa, and other non-African middle-income countries. They found that 10.9 percent of the products were of poor quality — that is, they either contained none or less than the required dosage of active pharmaceutical ingredients. Of this 10.9 percent, 7 percent contained less than the required dosage of active ingredients, while 3.9 percent were duds without any of the necessary active ingredients. Drugs without or with less than the required pharmaceutical ingredients will be ineffective, and therefore potentially harmful since they won't treat the condition they're meant to address.
What's more, poor-quality drugs were more likely to show up in Africa than in India or other middle-income markets. While some of this difference could be due to counterfeit drugs and poor storage conditions, the authors of the study claim that a more plausible explanation is that Indian companies are directing lower-quality drugs to the African market. Roger Bate, one of the researchers on the drug study, believes that Indian drugmakers or their distributors are deliberately doing this since regulation in African markets is even looser and laxer than it is in India. For those who claim that Western multinationals are producing lower-quality products for India, the shoe might be on the other foot. Meanwhile, U.S. regulators are poised to keep Indian drugmakers on a tight leash. In May 2013, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., a major Indian drug company,pleaded guilty to seven felony charges and paid a $500 million fine for fabricating data, committing fraud, and selling adulterated drugs in the U.S. market. Regulation may be at the heart of the issue. India's national drugs regulator, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization, has a staff of a little more than 300 employees, or about 2 percent the size of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). What's more, it only has authority over newer drugs; pharmaceuticals that have been on the market for over four years are under the regulatory jurisdiction of state-level regulators, who are understaffed and, in some cases, corrupt.
Low-cost Indian generics also continue to draw the ire of advanced economies like Canada, whose socialized medical system is trying to cut costs by importing cheaper drugs from India. Currently, some 5 percent of generic prescriptions in Canada are filled by drugs made in India. Meanwhile, in the United States, a whopping 40 percent of over-the-counter and generic drugs consumed are made by India's pharmaceutical companies."

What has been said about pharma products is true with respect to food products also. Can we be serious in bringing about a drastic change for the better and take actions, many of them painful, to streamline the food processing sector through scientifically sound, financially supportive, entrepreneur motivating, technically supporting, land acquisition facilitating and venture promotion policies without wasting more time on political chicanery? Being one of the top producers of many food materials like cereals, milk, fruits and vegetables, plantation crops, meat , poultry and fish, why can't we take up a massive program of establishing thousands of food processing units across the country with least bureaucratic hassle? Then only Indian can really claim that it is the food basket of the world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"FLAVORING" towards self destruction?-The hidden ingredients in industrial foods with uncertain safety credentials

If processed foods have become popular with every segment of the consumer population, the industry must thank two important causes which have driven consumers into their open arms. First the cocktail of flavors churned out by the omnipotent flavor industry which are used liberally by the food manufacturers ever increasingly to attract more and more adherents into their fold. Second the element of convenience built into these products that relieve the house wives from the kitchen drudgery, making available more time for them to go for income generating employment as well as to spend more time with their families. Unfortunately parallel to the rise of food processing industry, two important social and nutritional situations have shifted significantly to a direction considered highly undesirable. The manufactured foods do not transfer the emotions of a mother, where as foods made within the confines of a home have this invisible and immeasurable "wave' reflecting her concerns and love for her siblings as well to the husband. Nutritionally the food industry has focused more on taste and flavor ignoring the health implications their foods will have on the family. Who is the culprit for this undesirable changes in our food environment?

Of course the first culprit could be the consumer himself who unwittingly get trapped by the mouth watering or eye appealing foods offered by the industry because of tireless promotional activity of the market forces as well as his own gullibility to fall for best tasting foods instead of moderating that desire to factor the health effect of such foods. From time to time pundits, be it psychologists, food scientists, sociologists, medical community or government agencies, have been discussing regarding why the consumer, ignoring his own health, flock to junk foods with empty calories and court diseases like obesity, CVD, Diabetes, Blood Pressure, Cancer etc through wrong eating practices. Probably there may not be a single cause that must be driving the consumers to such health damaging foods. Governments world over try to persuade the consumers to shun fast foods and junk foods through education and consumer guidance which do not seem to be working at all if obesity statistics in some countries like the US are to be believed.

Biologists consider the weakness of most people to junk foods and over eating due to factors like genetic make up, brain functions, hormonal dynamics, etc though there are no compelling evidence generated through human clinical trials of any substantial size and spread to support any of them. Sociologist feel that man's eating surge cannot be controlled through government policies though such interventions are not feasible in a democratic country with a constitution giving primacy to personal freedom and inalienable rights. The  recent attempt in New York to limit sale of jumbo sized foods and drinks ended up in a fiasco because of judicial road blocks. Taxing "bad" foods on a punitive scale tried in many countries also had practically no impact on the situation. Proximity to fast food outlets to residential areas was once cited as reasons for over eating by a section of the population and strict zoning regulations were considered for making the "fans" of junk foods to travel an extra mile to get to an eating frenzy mood. Well being industry puts out from time to time products claimed to be helpful in overcoming obesity and over weight problems but they can be at best a fire fighting operation, not striking at the root of the problem. 

Flavor industry is the least controlled one with practically no transparency in their working. No one knows what chemicals are used by them to concoct various flavor potions for use by the  food industry in different products. Flavor consists of four distinct components, viz color, aroma, taste and texture. Talking about taste we have four recognized ones that include sweetish, salty, sourness and bitterness. Pungency and Umami are also taste variants commonly patronized from specific cultural groups. Food processing industry over the years has realized that uniformity in quality is difficult to achieve when widely varying quality natural raw materials are used and in its pursuit to provide uniform quality finished products they use a variety of artificial, synthetic and flavor concentrates recovered from natural sources to standardize the products from batch to batch. Unfortunately the number of chemicals being used for this purpose is burgeoning during the last three decades and no one, including the safety authorities is sure about their safety in the long run. 

Imagine the situation now obtaining in the food production system where more than 12000 chemicals are reported to be deployed for a variety of purpose. Out of these, safety data are available only on about 5% with the remaining ones posing potential health hazards to the consumers. Food processing industry uses about 3000 additives, mostly synthetic chemicals for improving their end products to make them more attractive to the consumers. These include, acids, acidity regulators, anticaking agents, antifoaming agents, antioxidants, bulking agents, colorings, color stabilizers, emulsifiers, fillers, flavor ingredients, flour treating agents, glazing aids, humectants, raising agents, preservatives, stabilizers, sweeteners, thickeners, viscosity modifiers, nutrients, health boosters, texture modifiers etc. Whether all of them are really needed is a million dollar question for which there is no ready answer as of now.  However emergence of organic food industry has shown the way that good quality food products can still be made without using artificial additives during processing.

Consumer activist organizations are now coming together to deal with the "menace" of indiscriminate use of so called flavors by the main stream food industry and in a country like the US the movement is assuming critical proportions compelling the safety authorities to wake up to the ground reality. At present the onus of deciding about the safety of flavor chemicals rests with the flavor industry and the safety agency is a silent side player, waking up only if there is any serious incidence of harm caused by any such chemical to the consumer as reported through a complaint. It is most unfortunate that the only remedial action is generally banning that particular flavor after perfunctory examination of the case, Is this the right way to protect the consumer? Is it not most unfortunate that the globally renowned USFDA, a role model for safety agencies world over, is shirking its responsibility to its constituency, viz the citizens of that country? Common sense tells that no chemical, especially the ones synthesized in the laboratory, can be safe unless proved by human clinical trials to be safe for use in foods and this basic principle seems to be ignored possibly because of the political and financial clout of the flavor industry. One can only hope that this situation will get rectified through the renewed initiatives now being launched by various consumer groups.

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

MAKING MONEY OUT OF WATER!-A DESI COMPANY FALLS FOR THE TEMPTATION!

Conceded water is a scarce commodity on which future wars are going to be fought but using this scarce material for enriching the pockets of large industry players is really reprehensible. This is what is happening in India at present. Look at the situation in Maharashtra where a shameless Minister, after diverting millions of liters of water meant for irrigation from dams built with pubic money to the sugar mills, wineries and distilleries, that too through dedicated pipe lines extending to 300 km installed at government expense! On top of it he had the cheek to mock at the farmers who demanded water by asking them whether he should urinate into the dams for replenishing the water in them! No wonder the state of Maharashtra has the dubious distinction of becoming the capital of farmer suicides!

India will be condemned as a country with least sensitivity to the sufferings of its citizens because of its elitist policy which always put he needs of the rich and the influential above the interests of its common man. Water use policy pursued by many states gives priority to industry while drinking water and irrigation get lower priority. Why this paranoid is a big mystery though one can guess that the most politicians are in league with industry captains with liberal financial support for their elections which are becoming more and expensive day by day! By any stretch of imagination GOI cannot be said to be starved of funds if one looks at the profligacy in spending on various populist schemes with very little asset building potential. As for farmers, the backbone of India's food security, they are in a blind, caught between the deep sea and the devil, no where to go but commit suicide. It is a miracle that India is still one of the top food producing nations of the world! Why? The reason is not far to seek. Do the farmers have any choice at all as to whether he should grow some thing to sustain himself or leave the land fallow which is a right recipe for ruination.  But for the rains with which the country is blessed with most of the times, the food situation would have been a different story.   

Coming to water which is a natural source abundantly available in this planet who has the right to sell it and make money? One can understand if water is to be processed using costly equipment like Reverse Osmosis or distillation involving some expenditure which works out to a few paise per liter and charging nominally for this may be justifiable. But how can the industry justify selling the water in a country like India at a price which ranges from Rs 20 per liter? Is it not exploitation of the helpless situation under which the people live? Shirking of responsibility of good governance by practically every civic agency in the country has led to massive scarcity of drinking water in the country and the citizens with grave fear about water borne diseases like jaundice  are forced to buy the exorbitantly priced bottled water from the "water shylocks" ruling the roost, to protect the lives of themselves and their families with the government looking happily from the sidelines!

It was not long ago that a multi national company in Kerala had to wind up its business there because of severe over exploitation of the local water resources depriving the local population of this precious life sustaining material. No lesson seems to have been learned from this episode and water continues to be misappropriated by the industry with the connivance of the bureaucracy and politicians. It is true that when governments invite investors, domestic as well as global, to invest in the country, they have a duty to ensure industry friendly atmosphere and workable environment for setting up processing plants. Where were the governments during the last 3 decades when urgent action was required to be taken to establish infrastructural facilities for agriculture, industry and the citizens? In stead of splurging billions of rupees on populist schemes, the same should have been invested on projects on drinking water, irrigation, power generation, roads, railways and ports on a war footing. What is happening now is nothing but a fire fighting operation which may turn out to be too late and to little.

While multinational companies can be faulted for starving the country of water to some extent, how about the desi companies who also are indulging in exploitation of scarce water for profiteering? There are thousands of water bottling units in the country flourishing, especially in urban areas where the so called protected water supply system is a sham with no sensible citizen trusting its safety. Governments must be held responsible in making water a commercial commodity due to their lethargy, inefficiency and inaction in providing the population with safe drinking water and thus shirked the responsibility cast on them.

Is it not a tragedy that even a swadeshi company like Tatas could not resist the temptation to make a fast buck through exploitation of consumer helplessness, if recent reports are to be believed of their plans to invest in packaged water industry?  This industrial giant spanning the country is joining one of the MNCs to set up a joint venture for marketing purified water for the domestic market! The new company seems to be planning to launch its own brand of bottled water soon with franchising as an option to spread their tentacles and gobble up a significant market share in bottled water segment, estimated to be valued at Rs 2000 crore. According to Tatas the market for water is under-penetrated and and is expected to grow at about 20 per cent CAGR per annum in the country.The moot question is whether this domestic conglomerate can be faulted for falling to the temptation of capitalizing on the water scarcity in the country? Probably the enormous annual returns exceeding 100% of the investment may be too attractive to be ignored though it would be at the expense of their conscience!

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

REGULATIONS VS REALITY-FOOD SAFETY ENFORCEMENT

Food quality and safety are concerns for both the governments as well as the consumers. While governments world over have the onerous responsibility to protect the lives of its citizens besides preventing quality related frauds, consumer community is helpless in deciding on its own whether a particular product offered in the market is good and safe. It is creditable that the modern food regulations make it easier for the consumers to understand better what is inside a packet of food and the front of the pack labeling rules combined with the weights and measures control regulations are indeed revolutionary in nature. Implementing these rules and regulations calls for a sound infrastructure, adequately trained enforcement personnel and stern deterrent regime which are lacking in many countries, even if the food laws are excellent on paper.

Take for instance countries like China and India, both together accounting for more than 35% of world population, most of them not considered rich enough to lead a good quality life. But food frauds and adulteration are so rampant that it is difficult to keep track of violations that take place every day in these countries. The fraudsters and food criminals are so ruthless that they have no consideration or value for the lives of even children and old age population. On the other hand many unscrupulous manufacturers exploit the ignorance of the citizens in churning out inferior quality and safety suspect foods. Look at a super rich country like the US which boasts one of the best food quality monitoring infrastructures in the world and all one can see is a population most of which are big, fat, obese in appearance causing a big health crisis of unparalleled dimension.

Having stated the obvious, who is to be blamed for such a sorry situation which affects both rich and poor countries, whether under eating or over eating? Of course every one with a stake in food sector has to bear the blame to varying extent. Governments have invariably failed the citizens by not carrying out its sacred responsibility in disciplining the food industry in making healthy and safe foods. Industry pursuing a relentless strategy of earning more and more with least concern to the well being of the consumers, though there are some exceptions with some players still being honest. As for consumers, a reckless life style of eating unhealthy but tasty foods in quantities more than that required by the body is creating an increasingly morbid society afflicted by many health disorders. Added to this, most consumers lead sedentary living style with practically no regular exercise, needed to maintain a good health. If such a situation continues what will be the future of humanity in 100 years from now?

If excuses can solve the problem there are plenty being touted by all thes above stake holders. Some of them may be genuine which must be more carefully looked into. For example in a country like India, more than 75% of the food products available comes from the small scale processors with practically no adequate resources to carry out their operations in a way that can ensure safety of their products. On paper, India can claim to have a good food quality and safety law under the much vaunted Food Standards and Safety Authority of India (FSSAI) but at the ground level practically nothing is happening with the infrastructure for enforcement in tatters! If there is a modicum of order in this area thanks are due to the prevalence of a few giant food players with deep pockets setting up their most state of art facilities for quality control. However the small players in the country have no access to such facilities for periodic testing of their products as establishing such captive laboratories is beyond their means. The question is where will they go and how can they maintain quality and safety of products churned out by them?

There are many universities and food research institutions in the country which do have some decent facilities for food testing but they are mired in bureaucratic procedures which cause considerable delay in getting the results. Besides their testing fees are not low enough to be affordable to every one. From time to time grand statements emanate from the industry saying that it would set up modern facilities on its own to help those who cannot afford to spend too much on testing their products regularly. It is in this context one has to listen to a recent declaration by the hospitality industry regarding its intention to set up cost-effective alternative food testing facilities as per the norms of NABL across the country with easy access by the small scale entrepreneurs. Similar initiatives have to come from the processed food industry also sooner or later as neither the government is capable of addressing the issue nor the private testing laboratories are going to reduce they charges.    

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

BEWARE OF INDIAN SWEETS-CAN THEY BE HARBINGERS OF BAD HEALTH?

Most Indians have a weakness for traditional sweets and consumption of these food items increase very significantly during festive occasions. In contrast western population is hooked on to other sweet tasting products like puff pastry, ice cream and such modern foods. In the absence of any reliable statistics it is too hazardous to make any meaningful estimate regarding the size of the industry or the per capita consumption of sweetmeats in India. Considering that a substantial portion of sugar manufactured and jaggery produced in the cottage sector are going for preparation of various sweetmeat products, the per capita consumption can be phenomenal.

There are many sweets made and consumed in different parts of the country and almost all of them have a history dating back to centuries past. What is amazing is that the art of making sweetmeats is still preserved in the country even after the onslaught by western civilization 300 years ago in india and the skill required for making each one of them is passed on from generation to generation through a process of assimilation when children were growing in joint family system prevalent till a few years ago. It is only after the relentless urbanization trend witnessed by the country and evolution of nuclear families that the sweetmeat making capabilities started getting diluted progressively. Consequent to it the urban areas saw commercialization of sweetmeats which were sold through the so called "Halwais" located in every neighborhood.

Progressive shrinking of kitchen size in many high rise apartment complexes spelt further doom to the ability of modern day house wives to prepare good quality Indian sweets. Credit must go to Central Food Technological Research Institute at Mysore for foreseeing the trend and developing "ready mixes" for popular sweets like Gulab Jamun and Jilebi which to day adore most retail store shelves and the simplicity of preparation of the ready to eat product from these mixes at home kitchens ensured that next generation population is exposed to the pleasure of appreciating the fine characteristic taste of such traditional sweets. Some sweets like Gulab Jamun, Rasogolla, Bakerwadi, Shrikand etc are available in stabilized packs with a few months of shelf life.

Failure of food scientists and technologists to research into the basics of most sweetmeats made in India in the unorganized sector is responsible for the sorry state of affairs that exist to day vis-a-vis this industry. In a recent report in one of the reputed news publications, the pathetic condition that prevails in the preparation kitchens that churn out high volumes of these products have been brought out.  Preparations like Rasogolla or Laddus are  "made in the dingy lanes" of the Capital in "filthy shanties" in the buzzing presence of  worms and mosquitoes and if any consumer has the stomach to see these facilities, the craving for sweets offered by the Halwais would be killed once for all! Most shops peddling their products depend on supplies coming from these dirty shanties as they do not have their own kitchens to meet the demand, especially during festival seasons. Besides expert skilled artisans are required to make many special sweets like sonpapadi and these artisans are in short supply besides being very costly to maintain. Either due to negligence or ignorance, both the preparation kitchens as well as the personnel working there are dangerous from sanitary and hygiene perspectives. God only knows what quality ingredients are used to prepare these products and whether additives used are legally permissible. Neither the shop owners nor the vast safety assessment system of Delhi administration seems to be bothered about this sorry state of affairs which can be a potential time bomb waiting to explode one day in the form of mass food poisoning.

Indian ethnic preparations like sweets and savories have a huge potential for development and growth and this can be realized only if the working conditions and technologies used are drastically improved. While mechanization and automation of the processes may be a distant dream, at least the preparation environment can be monitored more rigorously, with those not conforming to minimum safety standards severely punished and restrained from continuing with their business once for all. There are many unit operations while making a product which are amenable to use of simple gadgets and equipment already available and this industry deserves some attention at the hands food engineers to help them in this area. Are the MFPI and FSSAI at Delhi listening? Some thing needs to be done immediately to streamline this industry so that consumer safety is not compromised any longer.

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