What is "healthy food environment'?-Can a public policy create it?

Remember how our thinking about smoking changed over the last fifty years? What was unimaginable then, namely banning smoking in public places, is now a reality in almost all countries across the world. Why did this happen at all? Because of the overwhelming evidence that tobacco is too dangerous to the people and the society as a whole, and a collective approach was needed to curb the smoking practice with a punitive regime that would push more and more people out of the vicious circle of smokers. Warning on the cigarette packs, high taxation on tobacco products and banning of smoking in public can be considered as restriction on the personal freedom, yet we did it and the result is there for all to see. It is not that tobacco has vanished from the face of this planet as such a thing can never happen when more than 7 billion people are living in this world with at least a few who can be considered incorrigible to follow the societal values. We can see this in alcoholism and psychotropic drug addiction with some not amenable to reforming them selves easily. Can food be the next mass action issue and the world has to unite to bring sanity among the people vis-a-vis addiction to unhealthy foods?

It is not that world is not doing any thing in this regard as every country is concerned about the adverse impact of "bad" foods on the health of its citizens and to a limited extent preventive policies are put in place to curb consumption of bad foods. Unfortunately different people have different notions when it comes to defining a bad food though every one agrees to the need to safeguard the safety of foods from fraudsters and uncaring food handlers and processors. But unsafe food is not the only bad food though such foods bring about damage to health and life quickly. There are thousands of food products manufactured and marketed by the food industry which harm the health slowly over a long period of time and they are also bad foods to be restrained from reaching the vulnerable consumer. Here is where class action is needed with contributions from the government, activists, legal fraternity, consumer groups, public bodies etc through concerted effort and coordinated programs. 

There appears to be some movement by the legal fraternity in the US to sue the food industry collectively for the cumulative damage wrought on the citizens there through manufacture and marketing of health damaging foods over the last several decades. This reminds us about similar action taken in suing the tobacco industry some years ago through American judicial system with a huge success and it is history that the tobacco industry had to shell out billions of dollars as reparation for its failure to foresee the adverse consequences of suppressing evidence about the dangers of smoking and luring innocent citizens into the dangerous practice of smoking! Similar legal challenge against the food industry cannot be ruled out in that country and if the industry continues to indulge in shenanigans without caring for the well being of its constituency, viz the citizens who provide them with their "bread and butter", a day may not be too far away when they will be forced to face the ignominy that literally "killed" the tobacco industry in the last millennium!  

Without waiting for any move to punish the industry can there be any other alternate options to the consumer community and the policy administrators to do some thing to reverse the present trend of increasing consumption of bad foods and consequently the rapidly hurtling of the country into the abysmal health trap with no hope of redemption? It is in this context that we have to appreciate new initiatives sprouting in many local communities and civic administrations in the form of encouragement to local foods, grading of foods on a uniform health scale and trying to create a healthy food "environment" that will help the much harried consumers to pick and choose foods which are least detrimental to his health. The present labeling system will have to give way to more efficient declarations in terms of nutrition and health. The traffic light system of labeling comes to our mind which has been implemented in some countries which helps "innocent" consumers in avoiding products with "red" light indication and going in for more and more "green" light labels. The healthy food environment movement which originated in Canada which aims to change the community environment and societal attitudes, deserves admiration because of the soundness of its concept and ease with which such environment can be created in public places.

To understand this concept better we have to look at out present food environment and observe how the consumers are behaving when selecting their foods. If we have an environment where only 100% junk foods are available on the table, even the best intentioned consumer will have to eat unhealthy foods only as there is no other alternate option to him. Even if a small sprinkling of healthy foods are included on the table, only iron-willed consumer will go straight to these foods, vast majority rushing to take tastiest foods but unhealthy in nature! Therefore reversing the situation by changing the menu to include predominantly healthy foods and just a few items of unhealthy items, may help many consumers to pick the healthy ones, creating a chain effect and in due course such food service settings will become a "done" thing in many public functions. 

According to the Canadian pioneers of this new strategy to lure away consumes from the clutches of unhealthy foods, an optimum mix of foods for creating a healthy food environment could be to include in the mix of foods offered about 50% high nutrition products, 40% moderately nutritive foods and about 10% junk foods so that no one can complain that one is forced to eat foods not liked by him. This presupposes that foods are graded according to the nutritive value and those who arrange foods are aware of the system. It is here that those in the community with some expertise in food and nutrition can help the organizers to choose the items on the menu as per their health promoting values. As a thumb rule foods made from whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, poultry meat and fish with no added sugar, salt and saturated fats can be considered healthy while those made with partially refined raw materials but containing high nutrition components like dairy ingredients, high fiber food components and nutrient rich materials like fruits and vegetables can be considered as moderately healthy foods. Junk foods are just empty calorie rich items containing low levels of health boosting nutrients like proteins, vitamins and minerals, mostly rich in sugar and fat.

Can this approach be tried first in the canteens of state assembly complexes and Lok Sabha buildings, to be progressively introduced in all canteens working in various ministries in the states as well in the center. Railways can be another organization which can try this approach though there could be resistance from many passengers. But with a little bit of patience and perseverance, there is no reason why it would not be a success eventually. Further spread of this concept among thousands of bus stations across the country and temples with large foot prints should also be possible. Future licensing of restaurants must be linked to compulsory inclusion of healthy foods in the menu at least to the extent of 50% of the menu! If even a part of this ambitious program is implemented, the present government in Delhi might become the darling of the nation, remembered by the young generation which will be the long term beneficiary of this visionary attempt.

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

THE FOOD BUSINESS, NO BODY'S BUSINESS!!!

Food business is getting more and more murkier as the "war of attrition" now going on between a hostile consumer activism on one side and the not too transparent food industry under attack. It is difficult to take sides because both the warring parties have their jobs cut out and it is for others who are less biased and more receptive to reasoning to decide about what they want to believe. The stakeholders in food business include the manufacturer, consumer, government, social activists, environmentalist and scientific community. While government has its massive vigilance and safety enforcement responsibilities as mandated by the governing system in vogue, consumer needs to be well informed about the quality and safety of food available in the market. The manufacturer who is in business will invariably focus on his bottom line and no one can blame the industry if it offers products most acceptable to the consumer. Scientific community and social activists work for improving the quality and safety of food by focusing on inappropriate practices and unhealthy trends while the environmentalist has a role to ensure that food production does not vitiate the healthy environment of the human habitat.

What should be the criteria one should use in selecting the right product from the market shelves? Most consumers "eat" the products through their eyes and are attracted by the presentation of the product with all the glory of a slick appearance. The eyes also play a role taking stock of the situation and helps in selection of desired product. The front of the pack labeling regulations in vogue in almost all countries generally provide very valuable information about the nature of the product, its weight, ingredients used, expiry date, nutritional content and some times the retail price also. Branding of food products by reputed manufacturers is meant to create a lasting experience in the minds of the consumer about their good quality. If the product appeals to the consumer, repeat purchases become a reality. Many accusations and insinuations hurled at the organized industry will have to be viewed critically and objectively because mislabeling, misinformation, false claims, lower quality of products, uncertain safety credentials will all ruin the reputation of a normal company and therefore every opportunity must be given to seek clarification through discussion and transparency in order to really crucify them.

How funny it is for any one to blame the industry for all the "sins" in the world with no rhyme or reason! A plethora of diseases like CVD, blood pressure, diabetes, kidney ailments, liver problems, obesity, cancer etc are supposed to be caused by processed foods! If so what has been the role of government agencies with enormous power in preventing these "merchants of death", as the food industry is being called to day? Are not the food scientists, nutritionists, health professionals etc equally responsible for the modern day "sickness" that ails the society? Has the citizen, on whose name the fight is going on to apportion the blame. no role to play or no responsibility to be careful in food selection? These are inconvenient questions no body wants to answer because every body is guilty of not doing what he or she is supposed to be doing, trying to pass on the buck to others!

Recently there has been serious accusation regarding the role played by the flavor companies in promoting unhealthy foods, making them too attractive to be shunned! With a fair degree of transparency already in place under the labeling provision, a literate consumer has all the tools available to discriminate between bad and good foods and if this power is not exercised judiciously who is responsible for the consequences of this folly? It is true that there are a sizable number of manufacturers who indulge in unethical practices in labeling correctly but the existing mechanism of taking them to task is well designed, at least on paper. This is an area where industry must introspect and sooner they practice transparency in labeling and marketing, better it will be for improving their image among the consumers. Unless confidence on the industry to play a fair game is generated this slanging war will go on and on perpetually. The role of scientific community is not above board in this murky blame game because there is practically no unanimity on any scientific aspect relating to food quality, safety, nutrition, healthfulness and acceptability. There are millions of publications emerging every year on different aspects of food but there are controversies galore with practically no unanimity on any issue! How can a consumer understand these matters steeped in technical terms and what the industry can do in using the information correctly? Though WHO and FAO are in the forefront in unifying and synchronizing standards of food safety, each country has the liberty to use or ignore them depending on its economic interests, ignoring the impact on the consumer.     

In an interesting debate recently some one asked why the industry has to make food taste so good, tempting the consumer to over eat! The insinuation is probably directed at some of the major flavor manufacturing companies who are being blamed for seducing the food processing industry to make the food products more and more flavorful and tasty. How can any critic blame that there is an unholy nexus between the flavor industry and the food manufacturers for a high degree of secrecy shrouding their activities? After all secrecy is a part of industrial culture in a fiercely competitive market place and there is no place for any charitable considerations. Added to this, provocative statements like "flavors are so stimulating, they hijack our brain." do not help to douse the passion evident in the arguments of critics blaming the flavor industry. Food manufacturers are blamed for manipulating the product recipes by "dumping" ingredients like sugar, fat and salt which are supposed to stimulate appetite setting in motion a cycle of desire and consumption" among the consumers leading to a society of over eaters! Advocating transparency will have to be tempered with the fact the it should not try to destroy the industry and this is where moderation is called for. While industry can do better by being more transparent without affecting their economic interests too much, consumers cannot be over aggressive in seeking information that cannot be placed in the public domain and only way this can be done is through better and more effective communication between them. 

As obesity, food safety and chemicals in foods constitute some of the most pressing issues of concern to the consumers as well as the policy makers in the government, industry cannot sweep them under the carpet and if business environment is to improve, these issues must be adopted as those of the industry also. Future depends on the success of food industry in integrating these issues into their business philosophy. 

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