Vegetable oils toxic? Some new findings are spawning a debate

Frying, using edible oils, is one of the most practiced food preparation methods as it gives characteristic aroma, texture and taste that is unmatched compared to other processes. Baking, also requiring specialty fats, is another process that can give hundreds of products, universally liked, though it needs high temperature heating equipment and industrially, bakery industry many be one of the biggest in food processing sector creating a variety of products like bread, biscuits, pastries etc. While baking is based more or less on wheat and its unique protein Gluten, frying has the advantage of using any raw material including cereals, pulses, vegetables, fruits, meat, fish and their combinations. Frying needs an oil which requires to be heated to temperatures varying from 160 C to 200 C for a few minutes to attain the desirable color and texture depending on the input material. Organoleptically fried food can be quite appealing and often addictive and health and nutrition experts always caution against its regular consumption that too in larger quantities because of its contribution to the obesity epidemic that is becoming a scourge in most countries causing diseases like diabetes, cardiac malfunctioning, hypertension and a host of others. Experts agree that calories derived from fat, both direct and indirect, should not exceed 30% of the total calories consumed in a typically normal diet working out to about an upper limit of 50 gm daily per capita.

While in the organized fried food manufacturing sector big capacity continuous fryers are used containing high volume of the frying oil, small and unorganized players use batch fryers with or without any temperature control. But invariably the oil is subjected to continuous heating for getting large quantities of products for supplying to the market. In house holds however the fryers, mostly shallow stainless steel pans, are used once or twice a week though the oil is repeatedly reused after each frying operation with occasional topping up. Usually frying oils are rarely thrown away unless it becomes too dark or sticky. There is no unanimity among scientists whether continuous heating does more damage than intermittent heating but all tend to agree that there will be heat damage to the oil to varying extent, depending on the chemical nature of the one used. More the degree of unsaturation in the fatty acid molecules higher will be the extent of damage. Higher temperatures and longer duration of frying can cause extensive damage, decomposition and interaction among the artifacts generated.

What will be the implications of damage to the oil, besides developing flavor problems to the products fried repeatedly in such oils? A matter of much concern is the effects of such oil damage to the human health. Till recently, frying industry was more concerned about oil damage because of loss of quality in the product besides economic losses incurred due to discarding of precious oil once it fails to meet the mandatory standards after repeated and long duration heating. As edible oils are made of organic chemical substances, mainly fatty triglycerides, they have their typical smoke point and flash point in terms of characteristic temperatures beyond which they decompose rapidly into hundreds of artifacts some of which are considered injurious to health. Among them aldehydic lipid oxidation products are considered highly hazardous to humans whether they are inhaled or consumed orally through foods. If so, those using oils vulnerable to generate toxic aldehydes during frying can be dangerous to both consumers as well as to the workers involved in the factories as the latter is exposed to volatile aldehydes continuously during the manufacturing operations.  .          

Toxic aldehydes like 4-hydroxy-(E)2 nonenal, 4-oxo-(E)-2 decenal and 4-oxo-(E)-undecenal, derived from alpha, beta unsaturated fats have been linked to many types of cancer and neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson;s. These aldehydes, being highly reactive can combines with tissue proteins, enzymes and hormones affecting the functioning of many organs in the human body. It is because of this reason that fried foods made from oils with high amounts of alpha, beta poly unsaturated fatty acids are fraught with high risks for human consumption. According to available data which are rather limited in this area of concern, some of the frying oils found to be relatively safe are coconut oil, virgin olive oil, butter, lard and palm oil all of which contain predominantly saturated fatty acid triglycerides. It is interesting that oil derived from sunflower seeds happened to the worst performer, mostly attributed to the presence of more than 82% of unsaturated fatty acid triglycerides yielding toxic aldehydes at levels much higher than that recommended by the WHO to be safe.   

According to some findings by scientists, a typical meal of fish and chips fried in vegetable oils contained 100 to 200 times more toxic aldehydes than the safe limit set by the WHO and the consumption such products regularly can lead to serious consequences to the brain functions in the long term. Some even compare such disastrous changes in human brains to the adverse climate changes the world is facing to day. How far such comparisons are realistic is a matter of debate though it definitely raises alarm among health experts who feel that more intense studies are required to be undertaken to unravel the mysteries of toxic aldehydes. One is troubled by the report that Sunflower oil is the oil targeted in these studies and the rationale is that it contains high levels of unsaturated fatty acids (UFAs), to the extent of 91%. If so what about oils like olive oil which is found to be a safe cooking oil though it contains 84% unsaturated fatty acids. How about other oils like mustardc oil (81% UFA), or peanut oil (82% UFA) ? Here again does the nature of UFA make any difference in generating toxic aldehydes during heating? No one knows for sure whether extent of MUFA or PUFA  or their ratio in these oils determine the dynamics of toxic aldehyde formation. Also not clear is whether unprocessed vegetable oils containing many natural antioxidants and bioactive phytochemicals can generate toxic substances on being used as frying oils. A note worthy fact in the Olive oil experiment is that the scientists used virgin olive oil which is valued very much for its unique flavor profile to say it is a good frying oil which again raises the question regarding the role of natural antioxidants present in virgin oil compared to its processed counterpart.

While earlier studies used simulating experiments and model systems to find out the formation of toxic chemicals in frying oil at high temperatures for duration as long as 20-40 hours, some recent studies confirmed that even a few minutes exposure to frying temperatures would be sufficient to create sufficient levels of toxic chemicals when oils like Sunflower oil is used. A logical question that arises out of these studies is the influence of antioxidants and other oil protectants like scavengers of polar compounds added to frying oils by the processing industry on generation of toxic substances. Unfortunately no data seem to be existing to verify this crucial issue. On the face of it the recommendation that coconut oil is the best frying oil may be note worthy, especially when frying is done in households or restaurants using non stabilized frying oils. Also to be borne in mind is that unless more emphatic studies by divergent group of lipid scientists confirm these stray findings, all vegetable oils should not be condemned as unsafe for frying.

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

Banning sale of of Junk foods near schools-Is any one serious?

In India if no decision is to be taken on any issue, especially at government level, the most effectively used strategy is to "set up" a committee which guarantees that the issue is buried at least for some time! Most recent case is the "decision" by the Women and Child Development Ministry of Government of India (GOI) to "consider" banning junk foods near schools constitutes an excellent one to illustrate this point. It was about 5 years ago that Uday Foundation, an NGO approached Delhi High Court (D-HC) pleading to impose a ban on sale of junk foods near schools where kids, with pocketful of money liberally provided by parents, buy unhealthy foods affecting their health in the long run. It was indeed a noble effort by this Foundation to help the nation to protect its budding citizens from the harmful effects of so called junk foods and they deserve our gratitude for this visionary move.to focus attention on this much neglected area. Looking back the D-HC, progressive as it is, allowed the appeal in December 2010, asking the central government to respond suitably to address this issue.

What is a junk food? Unfortunately there is no consensus on this much debated subject though food industry considers all the products manufactured by it are foods providing at least calories and/or proteins and/or other nutrients required by human beings. They further aver that the products made by it are as per safety norms prescribed by the appropriate authorities vested with strong powers. May be the industry has a point in that all foods which conform to national quality and safety norms are edible and serve the purpose of satiating hunger. Besides the industry is selling products which are accepted by the consumers on their own volition with no compulsion or external pressure. Implications of fat, that too saturated fats, in many life style diseases like CVD, obesity, blood pressure etc and unveiling the role of dietary fiber in diseases related to gastrointestinal tract created a great awareness about the importance of balanced foods and physical exercise leading to the campaign by consumers and consumer organizations against the food industry to change the product portfolio to shun products which according to them are unhealthy. It is generally understood that consuming regularly foods with "empty" calories (nil or low nutrient density) is not good for health and this can severely affect growing children in terms of starving them of vitally needed nutrients at the most critical stage of their development. That is how the junki food concept arose originally in wealthy countries like the US where more than 35% of the population is considered obese as measured by the Body Mass Index (BMI) yardstick.

Whether it is the desire to ape the West or due to genuine concern, in India also the issue regarding junk foods was raised from time to time with neither the social organizations nor the government giving serious attention. Though a segment of the consumer community was worried about the long term impact of not restraining food industry to churn out unhealthy foods, targeted especially at the most vulnerable group of children. The topicality of the subject can be gauged by the fact that even to day many countries are finding it difficult to address this problem with total satisfaction to all the stakeholders. The problem became acute with the explosive growth of electronic media and kids became more vulnerable to commercial advertisements promoting these so called junk foods and to add to this the proportion of the commercials to the actual content of the programs is continuously increasing. Unfortunately many parents find it difficult to resist demands by their wards to buy these patently unhealthy food products which do provide fantastic eating pleasure making it addictive. Foods which are so appealing and irresistible are invariably rich in sugar, fat or salt while healthy foods with low levels of these ingredients, rich in fiber are unappealing to most of them. It is conceded that promoting eating of fruits or vegetables in place of fried or baked snacks is a near impossible task.   

Though scores of seminars and workshops have been organized from time to time to discuss this issue, nothing concrete emerged during the last 3 decades. It was left to a young voluntary organization, Uday Foundation devoted to helping promote the cause of distressed children to rake up this issue in the year 2010 approaching D-HC which resulted in the directive given by D-HC to the Central Government to ban junk foods near the vicinity of schools. After debating the issue for almost 2 years , the court issued another order in Jan 2012 asking the Health Ministry to take action to ban sale of junk foods within 6 months. Shamelessly the GOI after sitting on the issue for almost 8 months, "informed" the court that the task of laying down guidelines had been entrusted to its toothless agency pompously called Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). Nothing happened till April 2013 till D-HC gave another 3 months for GOI to complete the work by July 2013. In Sept 2013 the Court again asked GOI to put in place necessary guidelines for banning junk food sale near schools. Still nothing happened and to add to the delay the industry filed objection to any such ban in Oct 2013 which was over ruled by D-HC. It is against this background that GOI set up an expert group in March 2014 to consider the issue. Alas this group only"recommended" regulation of sale of junk foods. Subsequently another expert committee deliberated the issue and came up with some guidelines in August 2015.    

This high-level committee set up by the Women & Child Welfare Ministry suggested to impose a ban by street vendors within 200 meters of a school. It also wanted the civic authorities not to issue licences to shops and restaurants selling food to uniformed children within 200 meters of a school. Unfortunately the onus of determining what constitutes a junk food was put back to the GOI. It wanted GOI to decide about a comprehensive definition of junk food in the context of children. It is reported to have further suggested that a list should be drawn of "desirable" food items to be offered in school canteens as well as labelling of pre-packaged food, stating clearly as "unfit" for infant/children/pregnant and lactating mothers or persons with specific ailments".  It further claimed that it reviewed the prevalent practices of regulation of junk food in 23 countries and suggested establishment and management of school canteens besides bringing about comprehensive advertisement/promotion campaign to be undertaken jointly by different stakeholder Ministries. The Ministry had constituted the committee under the Chairmanship of Director, National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad, to look into matters relating to availability of junk food at various places accessible to children.The committee included representatives from Niti Aayog, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of AYUSH, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Bureau of Indian Standards, food regulator FSSAI, National Institute of Public Cooperation & Child Development, Indian Council of Medical Research and independent experts in the field of nutrition and clinical psychology/behavioural science.

Now there is some thing to go on regarding this issue, but it is not clear how long the GOI will take to legislate on this important issue. One must remember that India does not lack laws with teeth on the statute books but the country fails miserably in administering these laws to achieve the intended purpose. Whether it is lack of funds or lack of seriousness, it is difficult to understand. It is understandable that being a federal governing system, GOI has to depend on local authorities to implement national regulations and in this case also passing legislation to ban junk foods is not going to help unless adequate monitoring system is put in place to enforce its provisions. Probably putting in place a ban on sale of junk foods may be a beginning which will at least deter a few vendors from selling them near the schools. Ultimately an acute awareness about the dangers of junk foods among the kids as well as the school authorities can contribute much to eradicate this evil. 

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

Calcium carbide "ripening"-A spineless nation tolerates this unsafe practice for ages!

Mango is considered the "King of Fruits" across the world but countries like new Zealand may differ in their perception because of their own unique fruits grown in their countries. Still the variety of aroma, taste, color, sweetness and tanginess offered by Mango are unparalleled. Being highly seasonal and cyclical in terms of production, the availability of Mango varies widely from year to year. Demand for varieties like Badami, Alphonso, Kesar, Mallika, Pairi etc is generally not met fully with the result that market prices vary enormously year to year. India enjoys the unique position in mango production being the major producer growing more than 3 dozen varieties with widely assorted flavor profiles. The 16.33 million tons of Mango produced in India last year accounted for almost 42% of global output, a sizable portion exported to more than 2 dozen countries. Mexico and Brazil with a combined production of about 3 million tons provide strong competition to India in the American continent though they are no match to the Indian mango when it comes to flavor, taste and other eating qualities.

Recent mango season in India saw a spurt in production and for a few months between May and July most markets in the country were flooded with mangoes of different varieties attracting millions of consumers though prices were ruling high most of the time. Why Indian mangoes cost so high is an issue most consumers are concerned with and besides production uncertainties due to weather fluctuations and cultivation practices (mostly in the unorganized sector), the flourishing middle men who control the mango trade can be the biggest culprit. Most growers do not follow sound cultivation practices, selling their trees annually at the flowering stage itself to pre-harvest contractors ( probably money lenders) for arbitrarily fixed lump sum payments, with the contractor taking the risk of crop loss or reduced yield. Most growers do not have sound ripening facilities and it becomes the responsibility of the traders to ripen the fruits and bring them to the market.  

It reflects on the rulers of this country, who in spite of 7 decades of planning since independence could not do much to change the mango production dynamics, leaving the field open for traders and middlemen to exploit the growers by offering low prices and controlling the market prices through collusion and conspiracy to defraud the growers as well as the consumers. Scientific harvesting and post-harvest practices are never followed with the result that much wastage takes place at all stages of handling. Of course these losses are factored when market prices are "fixed" to ensure inflated and unjustified profits. Mangoes are rarely cold stored or stored under controlled atmosphere environments and there fore consumer has to depend on the mango season only to enjoy these delicious fruits. It is all the more reprehensible when one realizes that agencies like APEDA and Ministry of Food Processing Industry of GOI offer substatial financial assistance for modernizing the industry which go begging!    

Like all fruits Mango also becomes sweeter, less greener, and softer as it ripens. Unlike temperate fruits like berries,grapes, pomegranate, tomato etc, coming under the non-climacteric group of fruits which need to be tree ripened, Mango, being a climacteric type can ripen after harvesting taking about 8-10 days after harvesting of the mature fruits under favorable temperature and humidity conditions. The bright reddish/yellowish colors so characteristic of most varieties of mangoes is due to "unmasking" of carotene present in the fruit in significant concentrations after the green chlorophyll is degraded during ripening. Sweetness is developed due to starch degradation during ripening while acidity is reduced to some extent. Ultimate taste is decided by the ratio of sugar to acids in the ripe fruit. Artificial ripening is practiced to cut down the period of ripening using Ethephon and similar ethylene generating chemicals which accelerates the natural process without adversely affecting the flavor to any significant extent. Organized packing industry does use this technique to achieve uniformity in the quality, though the ripening chemical is considered expensive.

A common but undesirable practice in vogue in India to accelerate ripening is to use the cheap chemical Calcium Carbide (CC)which brings about dramatic changes in appearance in a matter of couple of days. Acetylene generated by CC on contact with moisture does this transformation, at least in appearance though consumers will never know how these fruits are ripened. Compared to naturally ripened fruits, CC treated fruits are less sweet, have non-uniform yellow color with patches of green seen on the surface, some what dry in appearance, less juicy and less flavorful. What is of concern is the safety of CC if used though there is no conclusive evidence about the likely consequences of using it. It is classified as carcinogenic with a potential to cause cancer while there are reports that it causes other problems like mouth ulcers, gastric irritation, diarrhea, skin rashes etc in many consumers. CC, being an industrial chemical used for producing Calcium Cyanide, contains arsenic which is one of the most toxic metals. According to some reports more than 50% of mangoes sold in the Indian market are CC treated though this is not permissible as per law.        

It is not that GOI is not aware of this situation because, under Section 44 AA introduced in 1979 in the PFA Act prohibits the sale of fruits ripened with calcium carbide. It is a sad reflection on the seriousness of GOI that not much has been done to enforce this ban. When the PFA Act was replaced with the FSS Act and the food safety regulator (FSSAI) came into being, one expected the new regulator to look at the issue in depth, get a comprehensive country-wide survey done to gauge the extent of the problem, come up with alternate, safe and feasible method of artificial ripening and plug the retail sale of calcium carbide, so that it is not available to fruit wholesalers. Being a cheap chemical that costs hardly a few rupees CC is available freely in the market and just 10 gm would be adequate to ripen about 100 fruits. The country is aghast that the new regulator is as inefficient as the old one and CC ripened mangoes are flooding the market unchecked and unhindered!  .

Though In March last year, the government informed the Parliament that a Joint Committee for Research on Food Safety had been set up in August 2010 and the committee had recommended further research studies to generate information and data regarding the extent of use and effect of artificial ripening agents and other chemicals in fruits and vegetables. Unfortunately nothing seems to have happened and CC treated mangoes still continue to harm the consumers with no fear or deterrent even to day. Interestingly the very same regulator proclaims in its web site that
consumption of CC treated fruits may affect the neurological system by inducing prolonged hypoxia (low oxygen reaching the blood and tissues), which causes headache, dizziness, mood disturbances, sleepiness, mental confusion, memory loss, cerebral oedema (swelling in brain caused by excessive fluids) and seizures!. While mangoes, bananas and papaya are generally ripened with calcium carbide, this practice is spreading like a wild fire with even fruits like sapota, dates and tomatoes being subjected to the chemical treatment. Yet no coordinated action seems to be taking place except for sporadic raids of mango sheds where the fruits are ripened which appears to be an eye wash, throwing dust over the eyes of the citizens! Imagine a whole session of parliament was washed off recently due to irresponsible behavior of the law makers who have no time to discuss problems like this for the welfare of the citizens!  
V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

The rabid"Fatophobia"-Consequences of past practices now being felt!

There has been a frenetic pace in the criticism of fats present in the diet during the last 3 decades, attributing practically every ailments at the doors of this food component present in all foods in varying quantities. The food industry world over has been castigated for manufacturing high fat containing and tasty foods that attract the consumers and dietary guidelines have been telling the consumers to shun foods rich in fat. It is true that fats, especially saturated versions, that too present in animal derived foods do cause obesity, diabetes, heart disease etc when consumed in excessive quantities though precise data were never generated as to how much is too much! American consumers and their counterparts in many affluent countries were told that fat consumption through the daily foods should not be more than 30% of the total calorie needs of the body. This did create a perception all around that fat is a "dirty" component in a healthy food to be shunned as much as possible. Even a school going child "knows" fat rich foods are not good for health! What are the consequences of such a great fat phobia? They are there to see in a country like the US where industry started pandering to this trend developing thousands of products with the so called "low fat" claims! 

How far we have been right in taking the fat phobia to such great heights? It now emerges that such commonly perceived beliefs were highly misplaced as reflected by the failure of such low fat foods to prevent the increase of obesity and other related diseases in these countries during the last 3 decades. It now emerges that the recommendation to cap fat calories at 30% of total calories was wrong and in stead of reducing the incidence of obesity, such a policy created the opposite effect! Why? Because the place of fat in the diet was taken over by carbohydrates which seem to have contributed to health afflictions. Of course the emphasis on unsaturated fats and plant derived fats was correct as they are relatively less harmful compared to saturated fats. Even blaming carbohydrates may not be wholly justified becauser the quality of carbohydrates consumed makes a big difference in deciding the healthiness of a diet. Food technology may have some thing to do with decreasing the carbohydrate quality progressively during the last 5 decades by developing newer technologies to "refine" food which effectively means removing healthy components during the processing.  

Fortunately a spate of recent research studies have been able to establish the futility of focusing too much on low-fat foods. Many recent scientific observations do confirm the above reality. Studies using large randomized trials involving thousands of subjects between 2006 and 2013 brought out the stark reality that a low-fat diet had no significant benefits in ameliorating incidences of heart disease, cerebral stroke, diabetes or cancer risks. In contrast a high-fat, Mediterranean-style diet rich in nuts or extra-virgin olive oil providing more than 40 percent of calories in total fat was able to significantly reduced cardiovascular disease, diabetes and long-term weight gain. There are also other similar studies which have shown that high-fat diets can have same effect or better than, low-fat diets for short-term weight loss. The types of foods, rather than fat content, relate to long-term weight gain. It is not proper to rule out completely the perception that high-fat diets are not healthy  or low-fat diets are less harmful. A universal principle that should be borne in mind is that too much focus on a particular food component in the diets can be misleading and food has to be viewed in a holistic way. Focus on total fat or other abstract numbers printed on the labels of packed foods will have to be replaced with right emphasis on eating more minimally processed fruits, nuts, vegetables, beans, fish, yogurt, vegetable oils and whole grains in stead of highly refined white grain flours, white potatoes, added sugars in what ever form and processed meats. 

Quantity of food eaten must be related to what we eat: As commonly believed cutting calories in the diet without improving food quality cannot be expected to cause long-term weight loss. It is this belated realization that has prompted health and food experts to modify the dietary guidelines, after singing the "song of 30% calories cap" for decades for consideration by the government without any upper limit on total fat. In addition, reduced-fat foods were specifically not recommended for obesity prevention. Instead, they want to encourage consumption according to healthful food-based diet patterns. The limit on total fat is an outdated concept, an obstacle to sensible change that promotes harmful low-fat foods, undermines efforts to limit refined grains and added sugars, and discourages the food industry from developing products higher in healthy fats. Fortunately, the people behind the Dietary Guidelines understand that but whether policy makers and the food industry take notice of this sane advice remains to be seen.

This discussion cannot be complete unless a mention is made about the life styles followed by the people to day,  especially with respect to their sedentary way of living with practically no exercise or any physical activity. The right way to lead a healthy life is to eat a balanced diet with adequate nutrition derived from whole grains, fruits, vegetables etc as mentioned above and do enough physical activity in any format that will burn the calories and achieve a dynamic metabolic activity in the body that can ensure sound health and mind.

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

American consumer, the law makers and the Science-A big cauldron waiting to boil over!

Though genetically modified foods are predominantly produced and marketed in the United States, most consumers are either unaware of it or are helpless to do any thing to stem this trend of overwhelming GMO containing foods. The safety or otherwise of GMO foods is still a matter that divides humanity into opposing camps, one section finding no fault with them while the others vehemently loathing them. The gravity of the problem can be realized from the fact that even among scientists there is no consensus on this issue and how can one blame the consumer to take a stand on this burning issue. Whatever it is, in the US of to day consumers have no choice but to accept foods made from GMO raw materials and ingredients unless one has the wherewithal to spend a fortune to switch over to 100% organic foods. The fight that is going on to day in that country centers around the so called constitutional right of the citizen to know what he is eating and for that what they are asking is to just declare on the label of products whether GMO ingredients are there or not in the food packet. A well reasoned demand though the industry, politicians and bureaucrats do not think so, obviously because of pecuniary considerations.

Look at the stand taken by the safety watch dogs in that country viz Food and Drug Administration and US Dept of Agriculture both of which considers genetically altered foods "practically" same as their natural counterparts and therefore felt there is no need to specifically mention about their presence in any food on the label. One is left with the impression that the US wants to be a unique country in swimming against international views on almost all issues, probably because of the arrogance of power, being the only super power left in the global landscape after the demise of erstwhile Soviet Union. Other wise it is difficult to explain why it is cocking a snook at 64 other countries which have made label declaration about GMO foods mandatory! Why is this happening in a country which is supposed to be the beacon for all democracies in the world? Obvious answer is the nexus among politicians, bureaucrats and industry lobbyists to deny the consumer his right and make unholy money for their own welfare!

A peep into the American situation will reveal this paradox. According to recent reports a fierce food fight is going on in the Congress over the labeling of genetically engineered foods.with a substantial section of the law makers trying to block any move to enforce mandatory labeling of GMO foods in any part of the country. Is it not a paradox that in a federal system of governance, where states enjoy high degree of freedom to legislate, their right is being usurped by the federal government through an insidious bill that will block the power of states to enact any law that will mandate compulsory labeling of GMO foods! Who are these law makers trying to help? Of course the GMO industry giants who have a stranglehold on the American economy through their close nexus with politicians. This attempt comes in the wake of three states already putting on the statute book law that requires labeling of foods marketed in their area. Attempts in the past by some big states like California to legislate on similar lines were frustrated by saturated misleading campaign by the GMO lobby pumping millions of dollars to brain wash the voters. 

.

The attempt to pass a law called "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act" if passed asks for setting up a voluntary nationwide labeling system overseen by the federal government. This bill, popularly renamed by the consumer activist groups as "DARK Act", acronym for Deny All the Right to Know" Act! Protagonists of GMO foods invariably argue that about 90 percent of the corn, soybeans and cotton grown in the U.S. are genetically engineered, meaning that the crops have been artificially altered to use less water or resist pests and no calamity has befallen in the country. Also other supporters cite the clearance given by The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association and the World Health Organization all of them who have deemed all GMOs on the market as safe. 

However a major chunk of the consumer community is not convinced fully about the safety of such foods because of the common perception that industry does not have the well being of the citizens in their mind, relentlessly pursuing efforts to increase their profits and the scandals surrounding presence of unsafe chemicals hormones, steroids, transfats,etc further reinforce their distrust about the products churned out by the manufacturers. 

At present there are no government-approved labels to let consumers in the U.S. know which foods are derived from GMOs.It is funny that the US Government wants to leave to individual manufacturers to make any label declaration to indicate that their products are free from GMO ingredients without taking any responsibility to verify such claims! That has prompted many companies to advertise their food as "Non-GMO" by taking the services of existing Non-GMO Project which is a private nonprofit outfit floated by retailers. The group is claimed to be testing food products and do product segregation practices to verify that products with its butterfly seal contain less than 1 percent GMO ingredients. Can it be a long term solution when millions of consumers expect their government to come to their rescue by overseeing such label claims to infuse confidence in such products? If mandatory labeling is anathema to the political class which runs the country, least they can do is to set up a dedicated authority to verify claims of manufacturers that their products are free from GMO substances.Will this happen?  Depends on the intensity of struggle by the consumers on the government to sensitize them on this critical issue.

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

"Make in India"- Slogan Vs reality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dilution of grain quality standards -Its impact on food scenario in India

The Minimum Support Price ( MSP) scheme offered by the Government for many commodities is to counteract the depressing market prices often manipulated by middlemen working in rural regions fleecing the farmers, especially when there is a production glut. Quality standards are in vogue based on which procurement operations are done. Many pundits feel that if India has achieved self sufficiency in food grains with enough quantities in the granaries for ensuring long term food security, these MSP programs are to be applauded. It is another matter that Food Corporation of India has been finding it difficult to manage the logistics of storage with a part of the procured grains becoming unfit for human consumption. Here again there is a raging debate whether silo storage or gunny bag storage is more suited to Indian conditions with both sides having their own points for justification. What stands out in this debate is that government, who ever has been ruling the country, could not do much to save grains going rotten inviting condemnation even from the Supreme Court of the country!

One often wonders what would have happened if there was no MSP program in India? Will the production base shrink? Will there be unbearable price escalation in the grain market? What would be its impact on the Public Distribution System (PDS)? Would there be more farmers' suicides? Will there be large scale starvation? Will the farmers abandon agriculture and increase the already high rate of urban migration?  Very difficult questions to answer! During the current year government diluted the food grain quality marks to accommodate offerings from farmers in some states where there were unexpected weather contingencies in the form of nonseasonal rains which are supposed to have damaged the harvest. It is a moot point whether such standards are to to be meddled with for the sake of convenience from time to time. Where is the sanctity for National Food Standards? Can government relax the provisions of food safety regulations allowing private traders to indulge in adulteration because of this situation? Again difficult to get a clear answer. 

Another dichotomy in the system is that government has quality standards for buying from the farmers but is least concerned with what happens to these grains after procurement and storage for years together before distribution at the PDS out lets? It is common knowledge that most consumers who depend on PDS supply for their survival find it hard to use these sub-quality grains unfit even for feeding animals!

Tragically food safety inspectors seem to have been "instructed" not to "touch" the so called ration shops for quality checking in the national interest! Accountability is a non-existent word in the dictionary of those handling food grains in this country, with all of them going scotfree for negligence, callousness and dishonesty in depriving the citizen of wholesome foods! The political gimmick now being enacted in the name of Food Security Act probably will worsen the problem further because of increased burden in procuring adequate grains for supply to the "entitled" citizens. Giving cash in lieu of entitled grains through jan dhan banks is another gimmickry because government is going to give to the deprived consumer cash, equivalent to the MSP price of these grains. In to day's market where rice and wheat are sold at prices varying from Rs 35 to 60 per kg, how much grain can be bought? Will it extinguish the fire in the tummies of poor and famished due to hunger?    

How is the government going to use the food grains procured during the current year? Is it legal to supply them under the Food Safety Act? Food Corporation of India (FCI) generally follows a practice of 'First In First Out' (FIFO) using the freshly procured to replace old stocks which are channeled into PDS. However the wheat currently being procured is not in a condition to be stored for long. According to experts most of the grain procured suffer from lustre loss, which is supposed to make it vulnerable to pest attacks, and thus long term storage of the crop is highly risky. FCI is supposed to supply food grain mostly consisting of rice and wheat to PDS from the previous stocks, while the new crop being procured is stored for about 2-3 years before routing through the distribution channel. .FCI supplies around 22 million tonne of wheat annually to the PDS. but this time the procurement is targeted to be 30 million tons for operationalizing the food security act. This has made the Government to relax the quality standards and pressure from Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh,has further compounded the problem resulting in compromising with grain quality. Of course some minor value cut equivalent of around Rs 3.63 per quintal from Rs 1450 per quintal minimum support price was imposed on the grains not adhering to the food ministry's revised quality norms. The purpose of relaxing norms was to ensure that farmers in key wheat growing states could get almost the entire MSP for the wheat sold to FCI and state-owned agencies, irrespective of quality.

A relevant question that begs for an answer is the dynamics of management FCI has in mind to segregate the procured wheat this year so that they do not get mixed up with the existing stocks in warehouses from where PDS outlets get their supplies. How far the new policy of sending the freshly procured directly to the PDS outlets will affect the quality of the existing stocks some of them nearing their expiration period is an important question. Of course one has to sympathize with the current government which inherited such a chaotic system with no long term vision in mind and "managing" during the last few decades almost on a fire fighting mode! Probably it may be time to rethink these issues more deeply and evolve a long term policy for managing the food grain market in the country.

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