NEW PROTEIN TARGETS FOR EUROPEANS-HOW RELEVANT ARE THEY?

Protein is a food component that is essential for body growth and maintenance. After water protein is the most abundant molecules in the body. They are also the major structural component of all living cells. If adequate intake through every day food is not ensured many deficiency symptoms are manifested and therefore minimum daily intake has to be arrived at to prevent such contingencies. Usually terms like Dietary Reference Value (DRV) and Population Reference Intake (PRI) are used by nutritional experts to indicate the levels of protein that need to be consumed daily for different segments of population. Protein needs vary from people to people and they depend on variable factors like age, gender, level of physical activity, etc. Each country arrives at these values in consonance with international bench mark standards. While children and adolescents in general require more proteins, adults and grown ups need lesser proteins for keeping good health. As protein is an integral part of growth phase, its need for growing children is naturally higher as expressed in terms of unit body weight. 

Deficiency of proteins was a burning issue during nineteen fifties, sixties and seventies and most populations in countries in the African, Asian and South American continents were identified as targets requiring massive need for protein foods of good quality. Many government nutritional programs were launched to evolve low cost protein-rich foods for distribution in these protein-stressed countries and reduce or prevent malnutrition-precipitated disease like Kwashiorkar, Marasmus etc. It was later realized that protein deficiency alone could not be blamed for the poor health conditions of people here and energy deficiency also contributed its part in depriving the people of normal healthy life. Ultimately it is the economic conditions that prevail in these countries which are responsible for denying the economically weak population access to good foods, balanced in terms of calories and proteins, besides micro nutrients. In all nutrition interventional programs, it is important to set up bench mark standards for assessing the status of the target population vis-a-vis protein adequacy in the diet. It is here that DRV and PRI become highly relevant. If PRV figures are low, it is necessary to segregate that segment of the population who are not able to afford intake of proteins to the average figures. Efforts must therefore follow to ensure proteins as per DRV are supplied under nutritional programs.

There has never been unanimity among nutritional pundits regarding the minimum protein intake that is necessary for good health. As a thumb rule 25% of energy intake can be accounted for by the proteins present in the diet. But each country tries to come up with its own daily intake values for various nutrients though international agencies like WHO and FAO have well established nutritional guidelines. Why it is necessary to evolve separate standards for each country is still not clear and what is the problem in following these guidelines arrived through extensive inter-country consultations, is not very obvious. Americans and Canadians preach to consume 46 gm of proteins daily by the women in the age range 17-70 while the corresponding figure for men is 56 gm. Further an average figure of 0.85 gm per kg body weight is followed as a general rule. Protein intake can be as high as 125 gm per day for very active people like athletes and heavy duty workers. Health food industry promotes a diet rich in protein, low in fat and medium levels of carbohydrates (about 50%of calorie intake). 

Recent efforts by the European Food Safety Authority to set out minimum protein targets required for good health are some what puzzling.  According to its latest recommendations an average adult needs about 0.83 gm of proteins daily working out to about 58 gm for a person with 70 kg body weight. Except for a minor change these figures are practically same as that existed before and why this exercise was needed is intriguing. After all, in most countries in Europe where meat based diets predominate, even a small portion of chicken, about 75 gm in weight provides about 30 gm of proteins, more than 50% of the daily need and protein deficiency is a non-issue. Obviously these values have been revisited for guidance to the industry for arriving at figures for inclusion in the nutrition information in the front of the label packaging. Where the new guidelines are more illuminating is the attempt to put down DRV figures for infants, children, adolescents, pregnant women and breast feeding women separately which probably makes some sense. Additional intake of proteins to the extent of 1 to 28 gm per day during different stages of pregnancy as being suggested is indeed welcome.  Recommendation for increased protein intake to the extent of 19 gm a day for breast feeding women for the first 6 months and 13 gm there after is also very eminent. 

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

THE GM LABELING "CAMPAIGN"-FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

The controversy surrounding Genetically Modified foods and food ingredients refuses to die down though activists opposing these foods based on safety and environmental considerations are being smothered by the money power of the GM lobby. GM foods derived through transgenic process is mired in disputes between those who feel they are safe and others taking the stand that sufficient scientific evidence does not exist guaranteeing its safety. As far as environmentalists are concerned there is a potential danger in cultivating GM crops which may cause cross contamination of normal crops thus destroying the traditional normal crops. It is a pity that these two warring groups cannot sit across a table and thrash out their differences to evolve a consensus on the issue.

There are many countries in the world where cultivation of GM crops are totally banned or restricted by local regulations. The US is the only country which has allowed a free run to the GM crop industry to produce foods which are tampered with genetically changing their original character. Some of the countries which permit GM crops have put restrictions on their cultivation under a strict regulatory regime. In Europe GM crops are allowed to a limited extent but the products containing GM food raw materials or ingredients derived from them will have to declare their presence on the label. One is reminded of irradiated foods which also require the label to declare the same. Why a country like the US does not regulate GM foods as in Europe is a big mystery. 

An incisive analysis of the US Food System brings about.the stranglehold the giant monopoly food companies have over the food and farming system in that country. In a scathing revelation recently, it was revealed that the GM lobby has financed the election of many senators and law makers of the country to retain policies which are subservient to the financial interest of the former, ignoring the welfare. of the citizens, considered a serious distortion of the essence of democracy. Unfortunately precious little has been done during the last two decades to set right this distortion and more than 80% of American foods offered by industry has one or more GM food ingredients forcing the consumer to eat the same without even knowing about it! It is true that during the last two decades the antagonists of GM foods have not been able to pinpoint any specific damage to the health of the population solely due to consumption of GM foods. But the million dollar question is whether GM foods have played any role at all in the transformation of American society into a predominantly obese population.

It is interesting to hear about the great march of thousands of people feeling strongly about the safety of GM foods from New York to Washington DC to impress upon their President the urgent need to introduce mandatory legislation to label GM foods to distinguish from normal, natural foods. No doubt such a move is most welcome which may resonate throughout that country, motivating more people to express their concerns in a peaceful manner. The US President must see the writing on the wall and bring out legislation in tune with the aspirations of common man. What is more interesting is the move now being initiated in California in the US to fight against GM foods and to force compulsory labeling. What will be the fate of the papers filed with the California Attorney General's office to place a citizen's initiative on the 2012 November ballot that would require labeling of genetically engineered food and ingredients derived from them, remains to be seen. One thing however is sure that if California voters pass the ballot initiative, it could likely be the beginning of the end for many companies engaged in genetically engineered food in the U.S. After 20 years of bullying by biotech companies and being fed unlabeled and "potentially" hazardous genetically modified foods, a critical mass of food and health activists have come forward start the the offensive against GM food perpetrators. Probably this fight over labeling genetically engineered food will have to be taken at the national level at Washington DC, where these powerful companies exercise vice-like grip on the government.  

Recent polls in the US show that 80 to 85 percent of the people want mandatory labeling. They point out that there are no genetically engineered foods or crops anywhere in Europe, while almost all foods in the U.S. supermarket contain GMOs. In Europe, genetically engineered foods and ingredients have to be labeled which is a distinct disincentive for the manufacturers considering the strong undercurrent of universal hostility towards GM foods. The GM food manufacturers are sure that such labeling provision could be a threat for their bottom line. If and when GM food labeling is made mandatory in the U.S., there is the potential for millions of consumers who will read these labels to react and shun them, switching over to foods that are organic or at least GMO-free. Once enough consumers start complaining about genetically engineered foods and ingredients, stores will stop selling them while farmers will have no more incentive to plant them.
 Also to be noted is that once the California voters pass the GMO labeling law in 2012, the biotech and food industry will face an intractable dilemma as to whether they could put labels on their branded food products in just one state, admitting those products contain genetically engineered ingredients and then withhold ingredient label information in other states. It worth watching the unfolding drama in this fight between GM food lobby and the consumer alliance that is spearheading the anti-GM movement.

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

"THEY VS US"-THE ETERNAL DEBATE ON FOOD SAFETY!

Whether one likes it or not there is a wide chasm dividing the developing and developed countries and no camouflage can mask this bitter truth. It is not for charity that wealthy countries are buying foods from poor nations and the former does it as an unavoidable necessity for their own survival. In to day's world no country can be 100% self-reliant, depending on others for supply of many products needed by their citizens. Take the instance of Japan, a country with limited land availability, which is heavily dependent on buying most of their food needs from countries all around the world or for that matter the US and Canada which import more than 80% of its needs for meat and fish products from Asia.

When developing countries are repeatedly being hauled up for unsatisfactory quality or suspect safety credentials of the foods exported by them, the industrialized nations do not think for a moment the historic reasons for such a situation. During colonial days those countries who had the ownership right on many of those countries under their subjugation could loot their resources shamelessly and ruthlessly and there were no reservations in consuming the foods made there vis-a-vis quality or safety! Though under WTO regime there should not be any technical barrier to trade between member countries, developed world invariably use the technical "route" probably to get favorable terms for buying the same products indicted once! If this is the attitude what will happen to the so called "free trade" regime? How can it work to the mutual benefit for all? There has to be a fundamental change in the mindset of these rich countries and they should consider poor countries as equal partners in protecting the free trade philosophy to which everybody is committed.

In a recent tirade against imported foods in Canada, it was claimed that most foods imported into the West are inferior and unsafe for consumption and locally made foods are discriminated against by the authorities there by insisting on stiffer standards while imported foods are not subjected to any severe scrutiny! What an insinuation! It is a common knowledge that most food poisoning cases in the West had their origin within the country and the broken safety vigilance systems there are unable to cope up with violations indulged by the domestic industry. Look at the recent German episode involving E.coli contamination resulting in at least 51 deaths so far and remember it was not caused by imported foods from Asia. The very feces blamed for contaminated foods from Asia was responsible for the food poisoning but the source was from German feces! They may blame Egyptian Fenugreek for the tragedy but such buck passing does not cut ice any more.

Read the arrogant statement by a western spokesman who proclaimed with a flamboyance that food producers in China regularly use untreated human and animal waste for feeding farmed fish meant for eating and for fertilizing land to grow produce and most of the cases of contamination involving imported food in the U.S. are related to fecal matter! Further it is claimed that chicken coops with as many as 20,000 birds are often suspended in rows above ponds used for farming shrimp and fish in countries like Thailand. The chicken waste that falls in the water is a nourishment for the aquatic life and provides food for the shrimp. Similarly Chinese are supposed to be using feces for raising Tilopia which is exported to the US. One wonders what is the role of FDA officials posted in China if such practices are really in vogue.

As per common sense it is incumbent for those having arrangements to obtain food products and ingredients from any third parties out side to ensure they have appropriate oversight of the food that's being produced or processed for imports into their country. It is fair to argue that those importing food from overseas, and those with production operations there, should be held responsible for the quality of food making it to any country including western markets. Listen to what the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has to say about such insinuations. A spokesperson of the agency asserted that the country's rigorous food safety requirements apply equally to imported and domestic foods. Further safety and quality of imported food is ensured through "equivalency agreements" with other countries and random inspections at various points in the supply cycle ranging from when the product first gets to Canada to the testing of food already on store shelves. If there is any genuine concern about the safety of imported foods in countries like Canada, which imports 70% of its food needs worth $ 22 billion annually from other countries, it is in the interest of that country to help the exporting countries in upgrading their safety vigilance infrastructure through technical and economic assistance on a long term basis.

V.H.POTTY

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

THE BUG THAT SHOOK EUROPE-ARE OTHERS SAFE?

In the wake of the deadly deadly Escherichia coli ( E.Coli) outbreak that's swept Europe in recent days, a logical question that worries food safety experts is whether such episodes can happen elsewhere in the world. The issue is too complex to get a ready answer since E.coli, considered for long as an innocuous bug has metamorphosed into a monster group of microorganisms capable of causing death amongst humans. It was known for quite some time that a virulent strain of E.coli can cause food poisoning and it was identified as E.coli 0157:H7 which can damage the kidney if infected, though early treatment can abate the symptoms. Almost a decade of tireless work by microbiologists resulted in evolving reliable techniques to identify and assay them, giving considerable confidence to safety monitoring agencies to nip such poisoning with reasonable degree of accuracy. In some countries mandatory testing of foods for 0157:H7 is in place to prevent large scale food poisoning. In spite of all these efforts, more than 60000 people per year are affected by food poisoning episodes in the US alone due to infection from this bacteria.

There are also several other virulent strains isolated from soil but very little is known about most of these dangerous versions and practically no reliable assay method has been evolved that can be applied in the field. Thus there are gaps in the food safety systems of most of the countries as it is not feasible to test for new illnesses emerging caused by various strains of pathogenic E.coli. It is true that most safety agencies are focusing on a single strain, 0157:H7 considered most dangerous, ignoring other strains which also caused occasional food poisoning episodes to a limited extent. Now that the culprit in the EU food contamination case has been tentatively identified as E.coli 0104:H4, world has to sit and take note of the potential for damage by this strain. Probably the EU incidence may be a wake-up call for agencies like WHO to channel more resources to tackle this menace.

Why should this bacteria infect such products like tomato, cucumber, aubergine or lettuce which after all are not energy dense products giving sustenance to them? Could it be that they are just carriers becoming active only when suitable environment is available? How do they survive the rigorous processing steps which include washing and disinfection practiced by the industry most of them following the HACCP practices? Do they possess extra-ordinary capacity to with stand the scientifically sound disinfection processes followed by the industry? How come they possess the ability to resist antibiotics used for treatment of affected consumers? What precaution consumers can take to avoid ingesting such deadly foods? These are all disturbing questions that need to be probed without any delay.

Some of the clues available are helpful in understanding the problem and these must be kept in mind while evolving preventive action to avoid such contamination taking place at the grower's end and at industry level. E.coli is a bacteria associated with feces and they live in the guts of most mammals including human beings. Unless the affected product was exposed to an environment containing these bacteria in adequate numbers, it is unlikely that they would be contaminated. It would be advisable for fresh produce industry to ensure that at least a distance of 5 ft is kept between areas containing E.coli sources and the produce materials. The reported fact that those affected by the food poisoning are not responding to antibiotics Penicillin and Streptomycin points out to the possibility of raw meat as a source of contamination because the meat industry uses antibiotics in heavy doses in the feed tending to cause resistance of many pathogens to these antibiotics.

Now that the large outbreak in EU has been more or less traced to the emerging super-strain O104:H4 which is reported to have sickened at least 1,600 people and killed 18, intensive efforts are on to trace the source of contamination so that such future incidences can be avoided. The sacrifices by those unfortunate people felled by this pathogenic bacteria should not go in vain and the mankind owes to them for preventing such tragedy in future.

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