Bottled water-A necessity, convenience or wasteful practice?

Water is essential for survival of life in this planet and human beings need about 1-2 liters of water every day for managing all the metabolic activities in the body and as a means of replenishment of lost water through all excretions. After all human body contains about 53% water, 25% fat and 21% bone and practically every metabolic reaction in the body is mediated in an aqueous medium. Dehydration beyond a limit can be fatal and therefore water intake regularly both direct as well as indirect is a must for survival. Americans have the 8x8 rule for water consumption which means one must drink 8 servings of 8 ounce water daily working out to approximately 1.8 liters. Interestingly the indirect water up take can be substantial as most fresh foods have water content varying from 60-90% and therefore serves the minimum need for water without much risks of dehydration. Water can also be toxic if taken in quantities higher than that which the body can cope up with, the most common consequence being draining of electrolytes through urine. Therefore there has to be a reasonable limit on water consumption while minimum quantity required by the body must be met with through direct consumption. 

Plain but safe water was consumed during earlier years and even to day in many American and European cities from piped water supply which was considered safe as a potable source of water. In fact they are so proud of their water supply systems, in a country like Italy attempts were made to brand the water supplied in some towns so that people could use it straight without looking for commercially bottled water! to quench their thirst. In sharp contrast in countries like India water supply systems are a sham and apology for what it should be! Practically no where in India one can drink from piped or the so called protected water supplies because they are neither treated properly nor sanitized fully with potential to spread water borne diseases like cholera, jaundice and dysentery. Funnily Government of India has launched its much touted Food Security Act to ensure that people get their daily calorie needs practically free through massive subsidies from the public exchequer. However it never occurred to this political rulers that water is equally crucial for ensuring healthy living style and the focus was never there on modernizing the water supply infrastructure in this country. Worst sufferers are rural people accounting for about 67% of the 1.3 billion population where even unsafe water is not available to manage their daily chores.

Bottled water industry globally is a major money spinner and in many societies holding a branded bottled water is a sign of modernity! The promotion of bottled water has been so intensive many kids in modern times are unaware as to the source from where water comes! It is like the dairy industry which offers pasteurized packed milk or UHT milk in laminated cartons and no wonder many kids are unaware about the existence of cows and buffalos which are the major sources of milk in the world. There was a time when mineral water was the rage because of the mistaken notion that these waters were coming from health spas and springs containing valuable and essential trace minerals required by the body. From such a situation where only a few major players were manufacturing bottled mineral water products, the scenario has metamorphosed to day when there are thousands of bottlers across the world packing just potable water conforming to well laid down standards with safety guaranteed. Probably to day's over dependence on bottled water by humanity can be attributed to the failure of governments to safeguard the urban water supply system year after year!

Look at a country like the United States of America where water intake by the citizens has been mostly through the sugar sweetened soft drinks route which also pumps in lot of sugar whether it is refined sugar or high fructose syrup. That is the beginning of the era of obesity in that country which is there for every one to see! Bloated and distorted bodies of people dot the landscape in the US with its own terrible consequences such as wide prevalence of diabetes, hyper tension, heart disease etc. Though from time to time demands were raised to tax these beverages heavily in order to reduce the consumption of soft drinks, nothing much was done at the government level through any orchestration of restrictive policies. The soft drink intake increased year after year and this "addiction" to these drinks was found to be very difficult to be curbed giving unlimited scope for the beverage industry to make a bonanza in terms of high volumes of sale and enormous profits. If there are a few giants in this area dominating the beverage landscape across the world, thanks are due to the benign attitude of the governments as well as increasing demands from the consumers, mostly youngsters who identified themselves as the "pop soda generation"! 

What is indeed alarming is that if the water market is restrained through restrictive policies, the consumption of sugary drinks is bound to increase as non availability of bottled water forces consumers to go for the unhealthy pop soda type of products. This has been borne out by the disappointing results of efforts made to ban bottled water in the school premises which ended with the disastrous consequence of a rise of 33% in the consumption of sugary drinks in the US. In 1998 Americans were drinking about 54 gallons (180 liters) of fizz beverages per capita on an average while this figure was just half in the year 1977. Shockingly the obesity among Americans doubled between 1077 and 1998 indirectly establishing a relationship between soft drink consumption and obesity. Increasing evidence about the bad consequences of sugar based drinks and heightened awareness about this among the consumers arrested the growth of soft drink industry in 1998 and then emerged a trend of declining intake of sugary drinks. Amazingly without the government there doing any thing significant to discourage consumption of soft drinks, the per capita consumption started going down and in a stunning reversal of the past trend, actual consumption fell down precipitously from 54 gallons to 44 gallons to day! 

Does it mean that overall water intake of the population has suffered any grievous blow with undesirable consequence? Not at all as the bottled water industry capitalized on the travails of the soft drink industry going for massive production increase since then. The loss of soft drink industry is proving to be a gain for the bottled water industry. From a meager consumption rate of less than ten gallons of bottled water per capita in 1998, it jumped to 21 gallons per capita in 2014. Taken together the decline of soft drink industry and the phenomenal growth of the bottled water sector it is expected that the latter will overtake the former within the next 10-12 years. Another intriguing factor is the renewed affinity of the consumers to piped water source and of the 58 gallons of water an average consumer drinking to day more than 60% comes from the public water supply taps. It will be very difficult to precisely predict how far people will switch their loyalty from the tap to the commercially bottled water. But the trend is that the bottled water industry is growing impressively in countries like the US and according to some estimates in the US alone the production is around 10 billion gallons per year to day.

There are two crucial issues that cannot be overlooked when we talk about bottled water industry. These are the wide scale use of PET bottles and dependence of many in this industry on public water supply. Use of PET bottles raises the inevitable question whether the safety of bottled water can be uniformly assured across all the countries because the difference in the quality of bottles can be significant and therefore the extent of leaching and safety credentials of the residues leached out can also be different. Already there are disturbing reports that liquid pharmaceutical products packed in PET bottles in India show abnormal levels of heavy metals like antimony, lead and chromium which were far beyond the safety limits prescribed by the WHO of the United Nations. Besides the contents packed in these bottles also showed high levels of the toxic chemical called diethyhexyl phthalate. This was brought out by tests at the reputed National Testing House in India, carried out as directed by the government. Though there are vehement protests and denials from the industry sectors including food, pharmaceutical and pet bottle manufacturers, this has become an issue that is not going to fade away soon.

The other issue is the indiscriminate exploitation of ground water by the water bottling industry causing water shortages in nearby communities. The bitter experience of a major bottling multinational company in Kerala a few years ago which resulted in shuttering its bottling unit in the face of fierce local agitation against over exploitation of the ground water cannot be forgotten easily. Such incidences of local opposition to setting up bottled water manufacturing units in many places in the country is likely to be a rule than an exception. Even sourcing the water from the public water supply system can distort the water availability in the urban areas. Of course it is a big dilemma for any government to ensure the industry has a sustainable source of water for their successful functioning. Desalination is thought to be the answer, at least in coastal area where sea water is available in abundance but there is reluctance to set up such plants by the industry because of cost considerations.

In India people seem to have resigned to a situation where water is going to be a scarce resource and even if available it is not safe to drink. This naturally has led people to go for domestic water purification gadgets based on technologies like reverse osmosis (RO), ultra filtration, resin treatment, UV disinfection, etc. Water treatment gadgets have become a foundation for establishing a roaring industry in India where there are many players catering to households with different income levels. Though RO based treatment is technologically sound, more that 65% of water intake is wasted to be flushed out and whether this is a sustainable approach is a matter of debate. From time to time simple gadgets not depending on power have been developed and one of the latest based on silver nano particle impregnated filters offers enormous potential for providing safe drinking water especially to rural areas.Though a liter of water in PET bottle costs about Rs 20, some feel that the organized industry's growth at 22% CAG cannot be easily wished away. Compared to the situation 15 years ago, on average the consumption of bottled water has increased from less than 5 liters per capita an year to more than 10 liters though this is much less than the global average of 25 liters. In spite of such impressive growth, the safety of bottled water, which is supposed to be assured through the safety certification and licensing by the BIS is under a cloud because of the mushrooming of hundreds of small plants coming up in smaller towns with neither a legal license nor any oversight by the concerned authorities. 

Ultimately a global debate may be needed to take a rational decision on whether bottled water supply or piped protected water supply  or purification of water at the house hold level is preferable in the long run. Some experts point out that the wide scale use of RO technology is not very efficient as more than two thirds of water received is wasted in the process. Others view is that the PET bottle based packed water also cannot be considered a solution due to some of the deficiencies highlighted above. Probably the most desirable option could be for a massive expansion of protected water supply system where ever it is feasible by investing in this sector as a top priority. Whether the governments in developing countries will adopt such a strategy remains to be seen!

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

HYDROGEN PEROXIDE-THE MIRACLE CHEMICAL THAT DESERVES MORE ATTENTION

Any chemical entity with some destructive potential is viewed with fear by humans and Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2) is no exception to it. This is a chemical which can kill most bugs at optimum concentrations and cause grievous injury to human beings if not handled carefully. No wonder it is declared as a hazardous material when it comes to handling, storage, transportation and use. As it is not a stable chemical, tending to decompose into water and nascent oxygen at higher temperatures with high oxidizing potential, its concentration for different applications will require careful calibration for getting optimum result. Though it is historically established as a powerful disinfectant from time immemorial, only recently its use without any harm for applications in ensuring bacterial and viral disinfection is being appreciated. Probably its dirt cheap price is responsible for it being overlooked by the chemical and pharmaceutical industry which always go for high vale business! If H2O2 has been fully exploited, many of those expensive chemicals used to fight infections would not have been there at all, saving billions of rupees for the public!   

The atmospheric ozone is responsible for generating H2O2 through interaction with water and the so ubiquitous rain water which falls on the earth is, in fact, a solution of H2O2 that has many beneficial effects to protect environment and vegetation. It is believed, supported by some scientific studies, that rain water is much superior to irrigation water for better plant growth because of the H2O2 content in it. Interestingly rain water that falls through highly polluted atmosphere containing many chemical substances contains much less H2O2 because of its reaction with such oxidizable pollutants. Probably the practice by some progressive farmers to spray dilute solution of H2O2 (1000-2000 ppm)  on their plants is for making up the depletion this chemical in the rain water due to environmental pollution. It is suggested that even for house hold gardening, use of water containing H2O2 may be beneficial for better plant growth.

The fear of H2O2 is some what misplaced because it is a harmless chemical at levels less than 10% and pharma grade H2O2 is even used for infusion for treatment of some health conditions. Besides food industry also uses this chemical in the processing of cheese, egg and whey products. Aseptic packing technology depends heavily on use of 35% H2O2 in the process for cold sterilization of the carton material before filling with HTST treated products like milk, juice and other liquid products. H2O2 is globally available in different concentrations and qualities. While 3% solution of pharma grade is commonly available, others like 6% beautician's grade, 35% technical grade, 35% food grade and 90% rocket grade are offered for specialized users. 

H2O2 is a naturally occurring biological substance in human body, generated and decomposed through many biological reactions, all controlled by the body under different conditions. Primarily H2O2 is produced in places within the body, viz, Lungs, Gut and the Thyroid. Some of the enzymes involved in the body like D-amino acid oxidase and acyl-CoA-Oxidase produce this chemical through reaction with certain amino acids and fatty acids. Plasma amine oxidase and xanthine oxidase systems also generate H2O2. Since high production and accumulation can be dangerous to the tissues, H2O2 is contained in specialized cells in the organelles like peroxisomes which also contain H2O2 decomposing enzymes like Catalase in abundance. 

Human immune system is designed to be activated in response to infection by bacteria, virus and other transgressors when large amounts of H2O2 is produced by the white cells which, in turn kill the invading vectors, neutralizing their adverse consequences. If H2O2 concentration becomes too high it can cause grievous damage to the cell DNA and other critical proteins which many believe is responsible for serious diseases like cancer, diabetes etc.

Since extensive use of H2O2 for sterilizing water at home instead of chlorine has come to stay and as chlorine is not considered a safe chemical for domestic use, it is a question of time before this consumer friendly humble chemical becomes a universally accepted sterilizer for water, environment and food materials. A combination of H2O2, sugar and water is also reported to be an excellent pesticide spray that can destroy most of the field insects and pests at least cost with no residue left behind unlike the present day cocktail of poisonous chemical pesticides. Ease of using dilute solutions of H2O2 through conventional bottles with drop dispensing spouts make its use more convenient and as H2O2 solutions are stable for long at refrigerated temperatures or in domestic freezers a small stock of the product can always be kept for use after dilution through drop dispensers as when needed. 

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

"MILKING" THE CONSUMER BY THE MILKER! A UNIQUE INDIAN TRAIT!

Are you a regular milk consumer? Of course who does not consume milk in one form or the other as a part of the daily diet, especially in a country like India where more than 75% of the population is vegetarian by birth or economic compulsions. It was not long ago that milk distribution was in the hands of the so called dairy farmers who supply liquid milk to each and every house-hold. As these milk suppliers are small, owning 1-12 cattle, their reach is also limited to a few house-holds near their area of dwelling. Many senior citizens of to day might not have forgotten the olden days when they were young, the very familiar sight of a cow or buffalo coming to their houses early morning, milking being done in front of them so that no water is added by the supplier and enjoying the taste of fresh milk. The Varghese Kurien-led white revolution ended this era with almost all urban families depending on factory processed pasteurized and packed milk delivered by milk agents with contract for distribution service from a central dairy.

It may be far from truth if one believes that the old milk supply mode has completely disappeared to day. In fact in many small towns and suburban areas small dairy farmers are still thriving either because consumers have logistical problems in accessing to processed milk or there is inadequate supply of the product in their area. These consumers have to depend on "fresh" milk supply from the local dairy owners and the delivery mode is through cans and other vessels and bottles. One of the advantages here is that the milk from the unorganized sector is always cheaper to the extent of 20% compared to that of packed milk. Though India is considered the top notch nation among the milk producers world over, the extent of milk production that goes through the organized sector is still not very substantial, bulk of it consumed locally without routing through the collection net work of organized dairy units.

Is it the economic reason the major consideration for the consumer to patronize local milk vendors or is there any other factor that weighs heavily in the minds of people to opt for local milk in preference to packed milk? It appears there is another important factor that drives people into the open arms of local milk vendors even in areas where packed milk is available. Many consumers walk to distant milk sources in order to buy "fresh" milk at any cost! This phenomenon is attributed to the "mindset" or the "obsession" of many consumers for freshly milked product which they think is much superior to pasteurized milk. It is a common India psyche that any food which is old is invariably inferior in taste and nutrition! There are many consumers to day who refuse to consume frozen foods because of the same belief. How far they are justified in nurturing such beliefs?

Pasteurization of milk is an innocuous science based process which neither destroys the freshness nor reduces the nutrition. Modern processes treat the fluid milk at high temperatures for a few seconds only and the heat input under a closed system is insufficient to affect the flavor or nutrients in any way. In fact this process improves the safety of milk dramatically by killing all disease causing microorganisms. It is conveniently forgotten by those proponents of fresh milk that when fresh milk is brought home it is subjected to "cooking" in a milk cooker for long time and they do not seem to be much bothered about its effect on flavor or nutrients by this extremely rigorous heating regime.

What about the quality of fresh milk supplied by the local vendors? If the food safety authority in India is to be believed more than 65% of milk vended loose are adulterated, mostly with water. But a significant proportion is also mixed with many injurious substances like urea, detergents, used oils etc putting the health of the consumer in jeopardy. It is a common knowledge that India is the pioneering country that perfected the "art" of counterfeiting animal milk using man made chemicals entirely, eliminating the need for a cow or a buffalo! What is perplexing is that unless such milk concoctions are analyzed in sophisticated laboratories, many consumers will never be able to find out truth. Those who separate cream every day for making butter and ghee can only find out whether the milk is pure or not. During the ghee making process, such milk samples yield voluminous residues which are more fluffy devoid of any flavor typically associated with pure milk.

If consumers are afraid of adulteration, it is advisable that milk is always purchased from organized dairy units, if accessible. To day pasteurized milk can be preserved for 48 hours if unopened under cooler conditions and sterilized milk with 6 months life can be very safe. With milk surplus being reported all over the country, it is imperative that the distribution net work of dairy processors is expanded with much more vigor so that it is accessible to every nook and corner of this country. The impetus for criminals to adulterate milk is provided by the less than dynamic management of hundreds of dairies in the country and uniformity of quality and conformation to national standards are invariably the casualty when it comes to products from some of the public dairies. But, in spite of all their inefficiencies, they still provide a bulwark against unsafe and dangerous milk duplicates being churned out by unscrupulous criminals masquerading as milk vendors!

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

WHERE DID INDIA FALTER IN ACHIEVING REAL FOOD SECURITY?

Comparing India with China is a favorite past time to many national and international analysts and this is understandable considering that these countries together account for almost one third of the global population besides becoming self governing entities around 1947-48. With a level playing field the routes chosen by them have taken since becoming responsible nations invariably provides an opportunity for drawing conclusions regarding their success and failure. Of course India has been a democratic Republic since 1950, China went under the influence of Marxism with relatively close society and very little personal freedom. Looking at to day's situation, from the macro economic angle, China has overtaken India long ago to become a super economic power rubbing shoulders with the US and Europe. Where did India go wrong in not realizing its full potential to achieve much more than what it has done so far?

Take the food production front where China has done exceedingly well and its annual food production is estimated at around 380 million tones as compared to less than 200 mt by India. China's grain production is double that of India though the former has lesser arable land and same area of irrigated land. Probably one of the reasons for this laggard record may be because of the highly restrictive import policy India had till the advent of WTO where as China has a liberal agriculture import policy. Another critical factor is the the fragmented nature of the land holding, with average size being less than 2 acres. This in turn has come in the way of large scale mechanization of agricultural operations during the last 6 decades. Of course China has its own limitations because of the collective land-ownership system of land which is a severe constraint on farm borrowing and consequent poor economies of scale. Though China's ratio of investment in agriculture to agri-GDP is similar to India where it has outscored India is in investing significantly in agri-parks and dairy towns, which are fully integrated models right from cultivation to processing (financed by the agri-banks). 

It is interesting that though both countries have faced severe drought-like conditions or floods frequently, Chinese have been able to cope with these natural disasters much better with minimum hardship to citizens. Look at the fresh-water storage capacity where China scores very high marks as its 1,000 cu. m per capita figure is almost five times that of India. Similarly in water conservation measures also Chinese are much better placed as depletion of ground water table is significantly lower as compared to many parts of India where gross tube-well abuse is prevalent. It is scary for Indian agriculture when future is considered as it requires much more water by 2050 to sustain the agriculture because the water footprint is being depleted faster, especially in the Ganges and other major river basins. India also continues to grapple with the river-linking project in terms of environmental impact issues. On the other hand, China is already implementing many large-scale water projects (Three Gorges Dam, north-south aqueducts using Yangtze's water). Indian policy makers approach to the fresh-water storage and sustainability issue has been mired with slow decision-making and legal opposition by environmentalists. However, India scores better on micro-irrigation with its Government subsidy schemes.

India and China build significant grain reserves each year. India's grain reserve is around 50-60 million tonnes (20-22 per cent of annual production) whereas in China it is about 150-180 million tonnes (35 per cent of annual production). Due to this huge reserve, the food system is less dependent on flows from the global market and helps China contain food inflation in tough years. In terms of grain-storage infrastructure, China has the capacity to store up to 200 million tonnes of wheat and paddy, while India's capacity is 87 million tonnes. In India, there is an erosion of value of approximately 7-8 per cent (about 18 million tonnes) of total food production worth about $6 billion annually, due to unscientific and insufficient storage and supply-chain inefficiencies. Given China's large trade surplus and foreign currency reserves, any grain imports would not have material impact on their fiscal position. India may face a sharp currency depreciation and ballooning balance of payments if it were to resort to large-scale grain imports. Hence, India needs to enhance storage capacity and increase buffer stock to meet food needs of the population for at least five to six months. 

The stated objective of both countries' agricultural policy is to achieve self-sufficiency and food security. China has surged ahead on productivity through the use of high-yielding seed varieties, extensive use of fertilizers and pesticides (twice of India by per-hectare use). China has also focused significantly on cash crops, helped by stagnation of grain consumption and increasing consumption of fruits, vegetables, milk, milk products and meat. The Chinese Government has, since the 1970s, invested significantly into agricultural research and development (R&D), especially to create high-yield varieties of rice, wheat and maize. After the first green revolution , India's agriculture R&D has been academic and localized instead of supporting productivity at national levels.. China accounts for over 70 per cent of world's fresh-water aquaculture production and its livestock production has grown over 8 per cent annually for the last decade.

During the 1990s, China encouraged import of large amounts of new genetic material for hog, beef, poultry and dairy industries from the US, Japan, Canada and New Zealand, which has improved the quality of the genetic stock in China's livestock. While India and China have some congruency on policy front including a State-enforced minimum support price, there are notable differences in respect of wholesale agri-markets, agriculture subsidies and cooperative financing system for agriculture. Land ownership is individual in India but collective in China. While the Chinese Government provides direct subsidies to its farmers, subsidies in India are indirect. Compared to India, China has well-developed commodity exchanges and futures markets and tighter rules for converting or selling crop land for non-agricultural use. Unlike India, China has a price ceiling to minimize the effects of food inflation.

In India, less than 3 per cent of fruits and vegetables produced is processed while total processing in the agriculture sector is less than 8 per cent. By contrast, 40 per cent of food consumed in China is now processed (80 per cent in Western nations). Lack of economies of scale due to size restrictions on industry (under Small Scale Industries rules), supply-side constraints for agri-inputs because of rules governing large-scale corporate farming, and paucity of dry and cold storage infrastructure are the key shortcomings of the Indian food-processing industry.Since many sections of food processing were reserved for the small sector, there are hardly any large food-processing companies in India, except for a few transnational ones. On the other hand, over 70 of China's 500 largest companies are in the food-processing sector (in India this would be at the most 15), and this industry is growing rapidly.

India's agri-trade with the rest of the world is limited with agri-exports of $25 billion (10 per cent of total exports) in financial year 2011 and agri-imports of $8 billion (less than 3 per cent of total imports). Restrictive agri-import policies in India partly fueled by insecurity of domestic cultivators (political motivations) and some genuine and misguided concerns of disease import have led to inflationary pressure on key food articles. Bulk of India's agri-exports are rice, oil meal, cotton and spices (commodities with limited value addition) and bulk of the imports are pulses, edible oils and sugar. China, on the other hand, has a liberal agricultural import policy and is among the world's largest importers of commodities, including edible-oil seeds and even cattle. According to China's Custom statistics, agri-imports for 2010 were $65 billion and exports were over $30 billion, taking the agri-trade value to over three times that of India. China's agri-trade deficit has been growing but is balanced by exports of manufacturing and electronic goods. This has enabled it to maintain food inflation under 6 per cent as compared to the consistent 10-plus per cent for India till recently.

India and China are similar in terms of issues and policy challenges in agriculture. Both countries, due to their strong economic growth, are also experiencing inflationary pressures on food. However, India's total fertility rate of 2.6 (China's is 1.6) poses greater challenges as India's population will continue to grow faster and remain young longer, demanding high-nutrition food. Like China, India needs to focus on livestock, poultry and aquaculture (all key sources of protein), focus on R&D in agriculture by increasing budgetary allocations, promote farm mechanization through producer cooperatives, focus on replenishing aquifers through scientific water-harvesting in villages, avoid pitfalls of excess use of fertilizers and pesticides liberalize agri-trade policies to manage food prices and focus on economies of scale and integration in food processing.

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

THE ARSENIC "DEBATE"-A MISPLACED SAFETY CONCERN

In to day's world man suspects that every thing he comes into contact with, can be dangerous and with modern style of living, the number of chemicals used in thousands of consumer products is increasing every day. Many of these have been studied for their safety and clearance for use given based on available scientific data. However with widely divergent conclusions thrown up by such studies, no firm conclusion can be drawn regarding the safety of any chemical that comes into contact with human being or consumed through foods. To cite an example both Saccharine and Cyclamate were hailed, when they were introduced as sugar substitutes, as "God sent" and enjoyed wide scale acceptance, especially by the consumers who are sugar "intolerant"! A few years later both were implicated in many health disorders by toxicologists leading to their ban in many countries. This trend was reversed later after finding the earlier studies faulty and unreliable and to day both these sugar substitutes are allowed in many countries!

Recent uproar regarding Arsenic content in Apple juice is another example of misplaced concerns on the part of some consumers and activists, in spite of the fact that arsenic is a common contaminant in air since time immemorial. Finding fault with regulatory agencies for not banning the Apple juice is totally misconceived and deserves contempt and pity! Probably those who find danger in every food they eat must think of migrating to another planet where they may get the ideal living condition aspired by them. Life on earth is based on a balance of risks and benefits associated with any endeavor and one has to get reconciled to this truth. It is true that ingestion of Arsenic by humans at high doses can be dangerous and this trace mineral is implicated in development of cancer of Lungs, Bladder, GI Tract and Skin, especially when consumed through water containing more than 50 micro grams (ug)per liter. This is the reason why only a low level of 10 parts per billion of Arsenic is allowed in drinking water.

Arsenic concentration in air can be about 0.02 to 4 nano gram (ng) per cubic meter in rural areas where air is considered relatively pure. This can go up to 200 ng per cubic meter in urban areas where industrial emissions and other factors can contribute to higher Arsenic concentration. It can go as high as 1000 ng in areas near smelters. Sea water contains arsenic as high as 1000 to 2000 ng per liter while ground water may also have same levels of this toxic metal. There are reports that water sources near volcanic rocks, sulfur mineral deposits can have Arsenic as high as 3000 ug per liter! Normally soil samples contain about 1-40 mg of Arsenic per kg. While discussing about the toxicity of Arsenic it is to be noted that inorganic Arsenic is more dangerous and out of the average consumption of Arsenic through the food, about 20-300 ug/day, 25% is the inorganic version. There is the million dollar question as to why no agency has set an upper limit for Arsenic that can be considered safe when ingested through food and probably this may be exercising the mind of many people who entertain apprehension on this score.

It is true that long term exposure to Arsenic, especially at high levels is injurious but setting up an upper limit for safety for every food is not considered practical. Water is a critical material consumed in large quantities, 2-3 liters a day and greater precaution is necessary in avoiding unsafe levels. Therefore such limits have been incorporated in potable water standards. One of the reasons for giving priority to water is that most Arsenic present in water is inorganic in nature and hence more dangerous. In contrast Arsenic present in foods is organic type with considerably less toxicity. So far no food product has been reported to have Arsenic content more than that set for water and therefore the apprehension on this score may be misplaced.

According to present data available Sea foods including fish contribute about 77% of the Arsenic exposure by average person while cereal products, vegetables, meat products and dairy products account for 10%, 6%, 4% and 3% respectively. Further the present safe Arsenic intake level is 15 ug per kg body weight per week (PTIW) while through all sources the average intake is reported to be less than 7 PTIW as per some studies. Rice is one of the food materials, suspected to have a tendency to absorb Arsenic from the soil because of profuse water use and rice products originating from the US and France have been reported to contain 0.24 to 0.28 mg per kg posing some concern at one time. Use of Arsenic containing crop protectants in the field also has been implicated in accumulation of the metal in paddy crops. Fortunately in high rice consuming countries like India and Egypt, the Arsenic levels in the rice are never known to be above 0.1 mg per kg. While continued monitoring of foods for Arsenic level is necessary to pre-empt any possible poisoning episode in future, consumers should not be unduly worried about Arsenic at least for the time being.

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