FOOD LABELING -DOES THE CONSUMER UNDERSTAND IT?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              

ANTIBIOTICS IN CHICKEN-THE RUDDERLESS INDIAN FOOD AUTHORITY!

The reported presence of antibiotic residues in Chicken meat being sold in Kerala has raised alarming bells regarding the danger it poses to the citizens. It is known that this practice of using antibiotics is in vogue in the US and the government there woke up to the dangers to the consumer only recently, taking action belatedly because of the realization about the widespread development of resistance among humans to such commonly used antibiotics when administered during infections. If dreaded MRSA and similar monster bugs have emerged posing imposing challenges to treat diseases caused by them, the sole reason is indiscriminate use of antibiotics. No one would have imagined that such a situation would emerge in India too as most poultry farms are small in size and the farmers are not well versed with such technological aids for boosting the yield and provide added protection to the product sold in the market. It seems this hope was belied by the latest cases reported from Trivandrum in Kerala. 

The meat industry in the US has been using several antibiotics in feeds and water which can raise the yield of meat very significantly, about 3%. Added to this presence of these antibiotics in the meat extracted from such animals can have better microbiological quality during storage, transit and retailing. It is scandalous that more than 80% of antibiotics marketed in the US, amounting to about 8 million kgs, is used by the meat industry involving Cows, Pigs and Chicken. While there are no two views regarding the efficacy of sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics in making the animals plumber and fatter, the mechanism as to how this happens is still a mystery. It is believed by many that the antibiotics, once ingested by the animal, works in the intestine to reduce the population of microflora, increasing the overall feed efficiency and nutrient absorption. Interestingly the problem regarding the adverse consequences of use of antibiotics was raised from time to time but industry resisted any government intervention with its political clout for more than 2 decades. Even now the action being initiated in the US to eliminate use of antibiotics in meat industry is more a half hearted measure and assuming the ban will be agreed upon it will not kick in before 3 years after approval of the measure! 

While antibiotic use in feeds are based on the assumption that meat yield is increased, what is forgotten is that Salmonella, bacteria one of the most ubiquitous pathogens found in more than 40% of meat produced in the US, can develop resistance to antibiotics like Pencillin, Azethromycin and Tetracycline when used in sub-therapeutic doses and most cases of food poisoning in that country are caused by this dreaded bacteria. If the ban on use of antibiotics is eventually enforced, farmers will need prescription by a veterinarian justifying their use for treating only animal diseases. What such a ban can do to the Pharma industry is a big question and they also have tremendous lobbying clout and it is to be seen whether they will sit idle watching their fortunes dipping on account of the shrinking market for their products.

In the Trivandrum case reported, the authorities concerned picked up the samples and got them tested by an accredited laboratory outside the state implying the unreliability of the local laboratories! It is not clear whether the presence of antibiotics was on the surface of the meat or in the meat itself raising further questions regarding this episode. Could it be that the meat dealers have dusted or used antibiotic spray on the surface only or whether antibiotic solution was injected into the meat? What is intriguing is that the Official responsible for food safety in the state washed off his hands saying no action could be taken because the sampling was not done properly! In any other country there would have been raids in the premises of the dealers and seizure of the entire stock. This episode comes close on the heels of a report in Kerala where large quantities raw meat products, more than one year old were found to be brought into the state by traders for sale there! For a highly perishable product like meat to stay stable without any sign of mold, fungus and other microbial vectors, they must have been treated with tons of antibiotics and chemicals and imagine the consequences of consuming such products on the health of the consumer! 

Is it not sad that even after detecting the presence in some of the samples analyzed, the representative of FSSAI expressed his helplessness to take any action hiding under technical and legal excuses? Can such a thing would happen any where else in the world where health of the citizen is paramount importance, over riding all other considerations? It is time FSSAI realizes that by touting its "Authority" without the teeth to bite can result in such a situation where thieves caught red handed are allowed to go free unharmed and unpunished! How can the citizens repose faith and trust in this organization to protect them from food criminals who rule the roost with no fear? 

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

SUGAR IS NOT THE REAL CULPRIT IN FOOD ADDICTION? NEW FINDINGS

Overweight and obesity are the most worrying health issues of 21st century and no one knows for sure the real reason(s) behind such startling changes in human anatomy during the last two decades. Though this phenomenon was first noticed among populations in wealthy countries with high per capita income, it is no more true to say that this is a rich man's problem only because in almost all countries the ratio of over weight people to healthy ones is consistently increasing. To imagine that 25-50% of the population in a country can have abnormal body weight and shape is itself scary but this is the bitter truth the world has to face. The adverse economic, health and social consequences of high body mass index (BMI) values are very real which can sap the energy and resources of a country to a great extent. 

Over weight and obese population invariably are characterized by lower productivity in works place, higher disease rates and higher medical expenses to treat or prevent fatal consequences. In a country like the US billions of dollars are spent every year for treating obese people which is considered a drain on the public exchequer. The incidence of heart diseases, diabetes, high blood pressure and other life threatening disorders is comparatively high among them reducing the life span and quality of life significantly. Another way of looking at this issue is that such undesirable human health problems have spawned a lot of economic activity with pharma companies and medical communities engaged in treating them! Thus it is hard to decide whether such transformation is part of the modern economic dispensation and one has to live with it! What a paradox indeed! 

As for food scientists, some blame has to be born by them because many products innovated by them ignore their health impact on the consumers while the industry, which mass produce them indiscriminately and promote them through high pressure advertisements, commercialism and often false claims, will have to take a major portion of the blame squarely on their shoulders. The so called junk foods loaded with empty calories are the staple among low income consumers because they are priced low to make them attractive. It is also a paradox that healthy foods like fresh foods, vegetables and similar ones are priced sky high making them beyond their reach. 

In the evolution of food industry, new technologies and high capacity equipment to manufacture newer products continuously have progressively enabled them to reduce the cost of processing and increase its capacity and capability to cater precisely to the palates of the consumers. High fat foods and those containing high sugar levels are invariably tasty and often addictive enough to capture more and more consumers almost on a permanent basis. This has made the industry less and less careful in marketing healthy foods. The profitability of the industry is also very high when it comes to making junk foods. Consumers have witnessed the endless charade among health experts regarding the real culprit for the damage to human health and among the health food makers making tall claims regarding their offerings like low calorie foods, low fat foods, low sodium foods etc. Health supplements containing many ingredients with doubtful and unproven benefits are flooding the market with no one certain about their credentials and credibility. 

There are hundreds of treatise regarding the addictive attributes of sugar whether it is sucrose, glucose or HFCS. This has spawned an entire industry offering low calorie foods and low sugar products playing upon the fears of the consumer. If people are developing tendency to over eat, sugar has been implicated while some believed it is a disease. Now comes the report that it is not sugar to which people are addicted as being propagated during the last three decades. The addiction is attributed to eating itself rather than to any particular ingredient. It is believed with some scientific certainty that only the psychological compulsion to eat due to the pleasure and satisfaction it generates when eating food is responsible for this phenomenon.  Over-eating is more a behavioral disorder and is similar to the compulsion with gamblers to back to the slotting machines and the card tables again and again in spite of losing heavily.

If the above findings are true, where lies the solution for tackling the obesity epidemic? Can industry be really blamed for making products with high palatability and acceptability since it is their mission to give consumers the very best and win the fierce competition in the market. If they are forced to compromise on the sensory aspects, can they survive in the market?:No matter how bland a food is, compulsive eaters with food addiction will invariably reach for the food when the urge to eat develops. Alcohol products and tobacco items are examples where no amount of policing, control, price escalation and government intervention has worked in the past in any part of the world. What is needed is education, persuasion, treatment of food addicts and industry initiative to improve the nutritional quality of their products with least compromise on sensory aspects. 

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

THE "GRAS" MESS!-WHO CARES FOR THE CONSUMER, ANY HOW!

Many consumers are lulled into believing that if a food product contains an ingredient that is declared as Generally Recognized As Safe ("GRAS") is really safe to consume. But few realize the real meaning of GRAS and who decides about the GRAS status of a substance. According to recent reports there is a conflict of interest on the part of the manufacturer because such determination about GRAS is made by the manufacturer himself with no independent verification by any statutory authority. Probably the underlying philosophy seems to be that industry will never compromise on the safety of the consumer. Unfortunately this is a travesty of truth and history is replete with instances about many GRAS ingredients causing serious health problems, long term as well as short term.

Those who propound the theory that industry should have such a liberty hide under the provision of safety act that the regulatory authority concerned can always haul the culprits if their claim is found to be untrue. world over regulatory agencies find themselves unable to monitor and implement statutory rules let alone take up responsibility like checking the safety of the so called GRAS substances used by hundreds of manufacturers without safety clearance. Of course there is a provision that if challenged the user industry must provide data to back up their claim to classify the ingredients under GRAS list. Here is the latest instance of the US food industry using a sweetener enhancer, presumably synthetic in nature, under the garb of GRAS and the reaction by experts on this ill defined provision allowing use of ingredients self declared as GRAS 

"What does it mean when a food ingredient is labeled "safe"? The question seems straightforward, but the answer proves to be disorienting. Recently, the biotechnology company Senomyx, Inc. was in the news following confusion over a safety determination for one of its products. The San Diego-based company develops, manufactures, and sells a variety of flavor ingredients for use in food and drinks. Their latest product – a flavor modifier called Sweetmyx – is a "sweetener enhancer," which allows food and beverage manufacturers to reduce sweetener use while maintaining taste intensity. Under a 2010 agreement, Pepsi holds exclusive rights to use Sweetmyx in non-alcoholic beverages.

On March 11, Senomyx issued a statement announcing, "Sweetmyx flavor ingredient, previously referred to as S617, has been determined to be Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, administered by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)." Shortly after the announcement, news outlets reported that Sweetmyx had been determined safe by the FDA. A Reuters headline read, "FDA says Senomyx sweetener enhancer safe" while a subhead by the financial news outlet Barron's declared, "The biotech received a nod from the FDA for the sweetener Sweetmyx." Subsequently, the value of Senomyx stock shares jumped as high as 26 percent on the day before closing up 17 percent. So what's the problem? The FDA Does Not Determine "Generally Recognized As Safe" Status. 

The FDA issued a statement the day after Senomyx's announcement, underlining the fact that the agency had not made the GRAS determination and even going so far as to chide Senomyx. "When making a GRAS self-determination, companies should not state or imply that the FDA has made a GRAS determination on their food ingredients," the agency said. Whether or not the wording of Senomyx's announcement was purposefully misleading, the situation did highlight serious confusion over how GRAS determinations are made and what it means for food ingredients to be labeled "safe." The GRAS Process For new ingredients (or by legal terms, "substances") to be added to food, companies must comply with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. Food Safety News points out that under the law, "Substances are added to food either as food additives or as GRAS. The difference between the two paths is significant: FDA must sign off on food additives, but companies can use GRAS substances without FDA approval. Notably, companies make their own GRAS determinations, which they may or may not voluntarily submit to FDA for review."

Is it not a tragedy that the manufacturer of the above product, scientific community, user industry and the regulatory agencies indulge in an ostrich like policy without bothering to think about the far reaching consequences of using substances with very little understanding of its nature in day to day products. The secretive way in which such things happen with sickening regularity must be frowned upon and there must be international protocols that stipulate the methodology for assessing safety of food ingredients.  

For further reading refer http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/12979http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/12979

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

HELPING THE POOR WITH FOOD-WHAT IS THE BEST DELIVERY SYSTEM

The much touted Food Security Act (FSA) has been rolled out by the "vote eager" government expecting rich dividends during the forth coming general elections in the country. Now that 67% of the population have a "right to food" (whatever that means!), the million dollar question is how to manage the delivery of food grains promised to the right beneficiaries? Going by the experience so far no one in the country is happy with the post-FSA experience and even the government has no clue as to how to achieve even a fraction of what is promised under the Act! Many helpless citizens wonder why the existing Public Distribution System has been side lined, though it has many defects and deficiencies. According to international experts the most efficient way of delivery is through a voucher system that can ensure not only grain security but also nutritional security. Comparison of different delivery systems makes interesting reading and the following extracts of a report by International Food Policy Research Institute provide compelling reasons as to why the voucher system is the most efficient one. 

"WHEN times are tough, how should governments in poor countries ensure their citizens remain fed? In the past most of them used subsidies to keep food prices low for all their citizens. But these policies have become unsustainable: the cost of maintaining Egypt's food subsidies, for instance, nearly doubled between 2009 and 2012. And much of the money goes to the wrong people. In Burkina Faso, Egypt and the Philippines less than 20% of spending on food subsidies goes to poor households. In the Middle East and North Africa only 35% of subsidies reach the poorest 40%, the IMF reckons.

Motivated, in part, by a desire to curb growing budget deficits, many countries are replacing broad subsidies with policies aimed more directly at the needy. But what form should the targeted aid take? Earlier this month Iran introduced free handouts of food to replace its subsidy schemes. Other countries, such as Indonesia and Malaysia, have chosen instead to provide extra cash benefits to the poor. So far, vouchers have been the least popular option. Proposals to introduce food-stamp schemes in such countries as Malaysia have been rejected on the basis they were too American and un-Asian.In this section
   
A new paper* by researchers at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), a think-tank, suggests that might have been a mistake. The authors analysed the results of an experiment conducted by the World Food Programme in Ecuador in 2011, which compared handouts of food, cash and vouchers—all conditional on attending nutrition classes. The study found that direct handouts—Iran's new policy—were the least effective option. They cost three times as much as vouchers to boost calorie intake by 15%, and were four times as costly as a way of increasing dietary diversity and quality (see chart). Distribution costs were high, and wastage was also a problem. Only 63% of the food given away was actually eaten, whereas 83% of the cash was spent on food and 99% of the vouchers were exchanged as intended. Food transfers have also been the costliest option in similar projects in Yemen, Uganda and Niger, according to John Hoddinott at IFPRI.

In Ecuador there was little difference in cost between handing out cash and food vouchers, the other two options. But vouchers were better at encouraging people to buy healthier foods because of restrictions on what items could be exchanged for them. It was 25% cheaper to boost the quality of household nutrition using food vouchers than it was by handing out cash.A switch from universal subsidies to vouchers could be the most efficient way of boosting health as well as relieving poverty. This is overdue in many countries, according to Lynn Brown, a consultant for the World Bank. In Egypt subsidising starchy grains and bread has resulted in 70% of adults being overweight and 29% of under-fives being stunted. Either vouchers or cash handouts might reduce the bias against healthier foods (unsubsidised dairy products and vegetables) inherent in the system. But as Iran's populist giveaways show, the politics of cheap food can easily crowd out the economics."

One of the most disturbing features of the FSA is that it arbitrarily decides that 67% of the Indian population needs subsidized foods without any valid basis. It is also condemnable because of its over emphasis on cereals ignoring other protective foods like milk, egg and pulses. Its impact on agriculture could be disastrous with farmers taking up more and more cultivation of cereals like rice and wheat ignoring pulses and oil seeds. With the suspension of the Aadhar based delivery system where one gets the subsidy through the Banks, how the Scheme is going to be managed is any body's guess. It is most unfortunate that the modern India, even after 67 years of independence has not been able to evolve a documentation system to identify low income families who deserve government support for survival. In absence of reliable and dependable data, one suspects that most of the workers in the unorganized sector of the labor market are much above the poverty line requiring no prop from the State! In other words public money is squandered on them for the sake of considerations other than merit. How long this will go on, bleeding the Nation perpetually? The next government must take courage in its hand to drastically retool this project eliminating millions of undeserved beneficiaries from this doling bonanza!  

For further reading refer: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21596987-why-food-vouchers-are-policy-worth-considering-developing-countries-feeding

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

PROCESSED FOODS WITH LONG LIFE-KUDOS TO TECHNOLOGY!

Human beings, most of them, have a mindset regarding the freshness of foods they consume. This is especially true with many communities in India which consider preserved food as some thing not of desirable eating quality. Probably this is due to the fact that food is a material that can change its taste and other eating characteristics fast with progress of time at ambient conditions of temperature and humidity. Naturally those working in armed forces doing duty on far way and difficult terrains represent a microcosm of the Society and they also prefer to have "fresh" foods for their day to day dietary needs. Food technology as it exists to day had evolved over the last one century from simple traditional processes like sun drying and pickling and sugar steeping into a multitude of processes that can retain most of the sensory quality with minimum distortions. Still given a preference consumers will opt for fresh foods as obtained from nature directly without the intervention of process technologies!

Food technologists world over face stiff challenges in extending the life of foods but dramatic expansion of knowledge in food science and engineering have enabled them to meet these challenges successfully. But there is one area of technology where the challenge is much more formidable with very little success recorded. This is in developing a satisfactory technology that can keep the food in trim condition without affecting the typical eating characteristics of each one of them. Of course mechanically preservation of any food can be done assuring reasonable life of 12 months or less. Similarly technologies such as vacuum packing, ionizing radiation, freeze drying etc can even give shelf lives up to 2-3 years, However in all these cases the consumer will have to compromise on their expectations vis-a-vis optimum eating quality as some changes do take place either during processing or during storage. Pizza is such a product which is so non-homogeneous in nature that it is next to impossible to keep it for more than 3-4 days without affecting its aromas, texture and taste. Imagine the trials and tribulations of a group of scientists in developing an awesome technology for increasing the life of this much liked and typically American staple to more than three years. Extracts of a report from a US laboratory is recounted below for a better understanding and appreciation of this feat    

Pizza with a three-year shelf life will soon be joining the US Army's field rations menu. These infamous MREs (Meal, Ready to Eat) have a long and checkered history, acquiring such sobriquets over the years as "Meals Rejected by Everyone" and "Materials Resembling Edibles." Pizza has long topped the list of requested meals, but the task of providing a palatable slice of this complex food that will survive the required three-year shelf life has foiled all attempts. Now, the folks at Natick's Combat Feeding Directorate have achieved a minor miracle in food technology: stopping time for a slice of Pizza
 
MREs are the basis for feeding assault troops engaged in battlefield combat action. Each MRE provides 1300 calories of high-fat, high-sodium nutrition suited for active combat duty. Individual MREs come sealed in a four-layer plastic pouch measuring about 10 x 6 inches (25 x 15 cm) and weighing about a pound and a half (0.68 kg). The nominal shelf life of an MRE is three years at a storage temperature of 80 ºF (27 ºC), but they must also be able to survive short exposure to temperature extremes from -60 ºF (-51 ºC) to 120 ºF (49 ºC.) MRE packaging must be able to survive parachute deployment from an altitude of 1250 ft (380 m), and a free fall drop from 100 ft (30 m). Much more difficult than satisfying these physical and chemical requirements, however, is satisfying people's instinctive response to a food. The problem is well known in humanoid robotics, where it is called the uncanny valley. If the characteristics and behavior of a humanoid robot are very close to those of a natural human, people will accept the robot as an entity that might be a friend. If the approximation of human characteristics is poor, the robot will still be acceptable as a separate, non-humanoid entity. However, if the robot appears close to human norms, but not close enough, the robot will be rejected as strange and dangerous.

People also have an uncanny valley when it comes to food acceptance. It is often easier to come up with a new dish than to try to reproduce one that is enjoyed and valued. A new dish will be evaluated on its own merits, while a reproduction will be compared to an existing standard. For example, a slice of pizza which has a soggy crust and an oversweet taste will be evaluated differently than a sweet tomato bread pudding with cheese and meat topping. It all comes down to expectations, but our expectations can present extremely powerful barriers to surmount. So how do you make a slice of pizza that will survive three years unrefrigerated that still appears, smells, tastes, and has the mouth feel of a fresh slice of pizza? Natick senior food technnologist Michelle Richardson took on the task after non-soggy sandwiches entered the MRE choices in the 1990s.

"Pizza is a complex food consisting of four major components: bread, sauce, cheese, and sausage (pepperoni in this case). Each of these components has different characteristic levels of moisture, acid, and texture, which must combine harmoniously to produce a slice that will generally be viewed as a "good pizza." In contrast, another combination of bread, sauce, cheese, and sausage made from a hardtack biscuit covered with ketchup, Roquefort cheese, and finely chopped hot dogs won't remind anyone of a good pizza. Richardson had to reach deep into her bag of tricks to pull off the new pizza. The pizza dough had to be enhanced with humectants, substances like propylene glycol or sorbitol, that bind moisture within the bread. This both reduces the possibility of bacterial growth and the tendency of the sauce to make the crust soggy.

Another problem encountered with bread products is that they go stale with time. Contrary to popular opinion, staling is not caused by the bread drying out (which would be counteracted by humectants). Instead, the moisture in the bread migrates within the bread, causing the starch granules to recrystallize. In the end, Richardson and her assistants used gums and enzymes to hold the water within the starch granules, making the pizza crust shelf-stable. The challenge with pizza sauce is to keep the moisture held within the sauce, thereby preventing separation of the components and maintaining the sauce's freshness and mouthfeel. A mix of glycerin, rice syrup, and other sugars were used to make the shelf-stable pizza sauce. For enhanced shelf life, a low-moisture cheese is usually called for. However, one usually expects a pizza to have a reasonably soft, stringy cheese, properties usually not found in low-moisture cheeses. While Natick had used a low-moisture (probably Mozzarella) cheese in other dishes, this cheese became too browned in cooking, making the pizza look burned. This problem was addressed by altering the cooking schedule (time and temperature) and through making blends of various cheeses.

Pepperoni is both fermented and dried, resulting in an acidic, low-moisture sausage that is resistant to most bacterial growth. However, the low pH of pepperoni can encourage mold growth. The result of natural bacterial processes, this is a component which is difficult to control within narrow limits. Beyond the process of making pepperoni, the most important factors in rendering the sausage shelf-stable are osmotic drying and surrounding the pepperoni (and the entire pizza) in a nitrogen atmosphere.A native of Rhode Island, which has a sizable Italian population, Richardson says she set the bar high: "When I first started developing this, me and my daughter would go and taste pizza because I wanted to use that as my benchmark." The Natick pizza MRE is being prepared for final testing. In particular, several types of pepperonis and pizzas are being tested, both for spoilage and for soldier acceptance, to decide what version will make the final cut. We trust it will not disappoint".

Of course proof of the pudding is in the eating and whether the Armed Force personnel will heartily welcome this Pizza version remains to be seen. Looking at the results so far there does not appear to be any strong reason to suspect that this new innovation may be damp squib! What is notable in the above effort is the use of knowledge in microbiology, food chemistry, food engineering, packaging science, physical chemistry, sensory science and analytical chemistry in an integrated way to evolve the technology. India needs such high caliber scientific endeavor to technologize hundreds of ethnic foods for which many people including army personnel are craving for! Most of them have very limited shelf lives and use mostly manual processes to make making them unavailable in many parts of the country. Indian food scientists must wake up now and do some thing in this area.

For further reading refer to: http://www.gizmag.com/three-year-pizza-army-mre-field-ration/30941/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=50a6aa78e1-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-50a6aa78e1-90820233

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

FARMERS AS STAKEHOLDERS IN FOOD INDUSTRY?-A PIPE DREAM!

The reported remark by a minister in Tamil Nadu that his government "will" make farmers stake holders in food processing industry makes one laugh or cry depending on how knowledgeable one is regarding the pitiable condition of agriculture and the farmers in India. Concept wise the above statement is fantastic and will be a boon to the farmer if the government can make it work. Unfortunately the minister did not elaborate how this can be done! In a country where farmer suicides are rampant and agricultural productivity one of the lowest in the world, what is required is to strengthen the farming infrastructure in the country before talking about processing the crops into value added products.

Talking about the viability of farming in India, it is nothing but hypocrisy to imagine that all is well in the country because of government's huge subsidy doling and loan waiver schemes during election times. There are many agri varsities in the country which boast of a host technologies for boosting land productivity but only a few farmers get the benefits due to limited funds for extension activities. Added to this water availability is a big constraint and in allocating water resources, industry is invariably preferred over agriculture. The recent revelation that many irrigation projects built in Maharashtra for the benefit of farmers are diverting water to giant distilleries owned by local politicians, bears this out. Major crops depending on rains show variation in production year after year if rain fall is below normal. Under these circumstances how can any one think of integrated food production and processing systems?

If Amul dairy is a success in the case of live stock farming, it is largely due to linking of inputs like feeds, veterinary services and marketing under the aegis of that doyen late Dr FV Kurien. Why the country has not been able to replicate what Dr Kurien achieved during sixties, seventies and eighties of last millenium, is a point worth pondering over. Agriculture Market Produce Marketing Centers (APMC) are supposed to be providing decent prices to the crops brought by the farmers in a transparent manner but these centers are monopolized by mafia groups which manage to cheat the farmers by "ganging up" and through cartelization. Honest business in agri produce in the country is unthinkable under these conditions.

It was with grate fanfare that foreign investment policy was changed to accommodate international retailers in the Indian market. The "hope" was that these retailers will invest billions of rupees to establish the much needed infrastructure to procure, transport, preserve and market the perishable produce through out the country. Why would these players be doing what the government is supposed to do unless they have an agenda to recover their investments through under pricing of the agri corps procured from the farmers to sell the same to consumers at low prices? It does not make any sense to the ordinary intelligence of a citizen in this country!  

There is no evidence to show so far in any part of the world in support of the contention that entry of international retail chains has benefited the farmers. It is true that consumers get products at relatively cheaper rates and this has been attributed to the economy of large scale handling. In countries like USA the land holdings are of huge size and hardly a few thousand farmers have to be dealt with by the retail chains to source their materials. Added to this most farms in the USA receive government subsidies to compensate for low price realization in the market which enable them to sell their produce at lower prices. In contrast India has millions of farmers with average land holding less than an hectare in size and where the agri operations are costly. If these farmers are forced to sell their produce at low prices, they have no other alternative except committing suicide!

Ideally farmers' cooperatives similar to Amul are the answer to make them richer and prosperous like milk producers. But the political class in the country does not allow this to happen because of the fertile ground provided by such societies for grooming politicians! In stead of pumping billions of rupees in the form of subsidies, Government must organize agri cooperatives with each panchayat playing an active role and building up the supply chain with appropriate infrastructure for storage, transportation and terminal markets. The practice of minimum support price must be given up once cooperative organizations start operation in a big way. These cooperatives can always decide what prices are reasonable and plow back the profits to its members. This is the only way to make the farmers stake holders in food industry.

If there are many cooperative dairies working successfully in the county, why such farmers cooperative also cannot work economically making the farmers partners in creating wealth across millions of villages across the country?Just like these dairies, agri cooperatives can build their own cold storage and low temperature transport infrastructure for safeguarding the quality of their produce before delivering the same to the market or set up their own processing facilities to create branded products that can be sold through the existing retail market system or their own retail outlets.

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