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

THE BIG ORGANIC FOOD PLAYERS-MORE PROFIT THE DRIVING FORCE?

Organic foods ,which have provided big relief to millions of consumers world over who are concerned about the healthiness and safety of commercially grown and processed food products, seem to be heading for uncertain days if attempts by some of the biggest names in food industry succeed in hijacking the business through devious means as being reported. The movement which started in a small way two decades ago has become synonymous with providing safe foods to the children as well as population requiring reassurance that food they consume is safe. Every school child knows about the advantages of organic food and why it costs more than the market foods offered by the commercial players who seem to be getting more and more insensitive to the well being of consumers, obviously in pursuit of unlimited profits. Organic food industry owes its growth to mindless practices of the conventional industry such as massive use of pesticides, chemical fertilizers, synthetic chemical additives, many preservatives with doubtful safety credentials and above all the aggressive inroad of genetically modified food ingredients into main stream industry. What will be the impact of large food industry giants taking over smaller players through their unlimited financial resources?

The foundation for successful promotion and marketing of organic foods was the reliable certification system that guarantees the consumer that these products are grown and processed differently and can be depended upon for safeguarding health. There are many certification agencies which have the license to assess the food growing and processing facilities as per national or international standards and provide the certification. Generally the standards lay down a set of production parameters for growing, storage, processing, packaging and shipping. Most important features of these standards include non-use of human sewage sullage for irrigation, avoidance of synthetic chemical inputs at any stage, cultivating only in lands free from traces of chemical substances, elaborate and clear documentation of the practices followed and allowing periodic on-site inspection to ensure implementation of all guidelines prescribed. One of the reasons for limited growth of organic food industry is the increased cost incurred by the farmers and processors while conforming to the laid down standards. According to one estimate the organic food industry just accounts for less than 5% of the total food market globally. The stealthy entry of established large industry conglomerates into this sector may change the face of the organic food industry beyond recognition.

One of the flip sides of organic certification system is the exorbitant cost involved in getting the coveted recognition from the governments involving rigorous steps and considerable time which are not affordable to many small scale players. This is working in favor of large producers and global food giants who have deep pockets to "manage" the system. Realizing such limitations small growers have formed their own association which provides them with a different type of certification almost synonymous with that of organic foods. Such foods carry the declaration "Certified Naturally Grown", though consumers still seem to be preferring the organic food certification. Interestingly new variants of organic food certification are now being recognized in the US, probably to oblige the large industry which finds it difficult to adhere to strict standards imposed for pure organic foods. Here there are 100% organic, 95% organic and 70% organic versions permitting some relaxation in the standards in the latter two cases. It is difficult for any consumer to comprehend why there should be any organic food in the market at all if it is not 100% organically produced! Probably this is one of the consequences of the entry of big fish into this sector which was an exclusive preserve of small enterprises as government appears to be bending backwards to oblige the former by diluting the standards.

Recent developments in the US where organic food industry is worth about $ 30 billion, do not give any hope that organic foods as seen to day will survive for another decade because of large scale devouring of small producers by the large players through enormous money clout. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is the governing body which oversees development of standards and once approved by the US government become industry standards. According to one report approval of many non-organic chemicals for use in organic foods is a sure sign of the diminishing value of the certified organic food which suits the large players. While there were only 77 essential non-organic chemicals such as baking powder, allowed for use in organic products in 2002, to day that number has bloated up to more than 250! Most recent additions like the controversial carrageenan ( doubtful safety credentials) and synthetic Inositol are examples of mindless tampering of the standards and as the NOSB is overwhelmingly staffed with representatives and sympathizers of big industry, such approvals are easy to come by.

The million dollar question is what is the role of US government in ensuring the integrity of organic food certification system that is in vogue in the country and there is a lingering suspicion that the well organized processed food industry is having enormous influence on the government in modifying many standards. However in defense of the government it must be stated that the list of organic foods seeking certification have expanded exponentially and the list of permitted non-organic ingredients must reflect that development necessitating additions from time to time. Besides the NOSB never had more than 30% representation from organized big players while government is still calling the shots. Probably a better approach to prevent developing monopoly in organic foods market by a few players can be prevented through more realistic policy orchestration like preserving it for small and medium players thus automatically precluding any undue influence from the Goliaths of food business.    

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

THE ADDITIVES "CONTROVERSY"-INDUSTRY UNDULY BEING CASTIGATED

Food technologists confront the problem of oxidative rancidity in foods containing unsaturated fats and deploy a few chemicals that can retard the oxidative reaction. But use of these preservatives is always fraught with controversies with many consumer activists opposing their use under the impression that they can cause health damage to the consumers. That organized industry uses only those additives in food which are permitted legally is often forgotten in the debate about its safety. The food safety authorities world over and the WHO Codex Commission are fully aware about the implications of permitting such chemicals and the consumer has to have confidence on their objectivity in deciding about the desirability or other wise about the use of chemical additives in food.

When it comes to edible oils, the relative deterioration in quality is caused by either oxidation or hydrolysis which can affect the flavor and eating quality of the product very significantly besides causing temporary discomforts as well as some adverse health consequences. Food industry working on foods with sufficiently long life necessary for standing the rigors of modern marketing system have to resort to their stabilization which is achieved some time only with use of chemicals. But for the use of antioxidant chemicals many fat containing foods will not last even for a few hours let alone months. A distinction has to be made between freshly consumed fried foods and others intended for upcountry markets through the vast market network. Also desirable is protection of frying oils from oxidation during the thermal process for which stabilizers are needed.

Recent controversy regarding the use of Tertiary Butylated Hydro Quinone (TBHQ) in Chicken Nuggets offered by McDonald's to Chinese customers through its 1135 outlets through out that country touches the core of the problem. Interestingly the Chinese Health Authorities did not raise any objection to the use of TBHQ as it is permitted in that country at 0.02% on the basis of fat content but a stray report that same nuggets served in the UK did not contain TBHQ raised the ire amongst the Chinese customers, blown out of proportion by some activists and the vocal media. It was pointed out that TBHQ can cause cancer in animals though available scientific evidence does not support such a stand. A stray report even mentioned that 1 gm of TBHQ can create severe problems if consumed without bothering to check the fact as to how much chicken nuggets will have to be consumed to ingest such a large amount. A huge and unimaginable quantity of about 5 kg of nuggets at one go! While Chines authorities did assure the public that TBHQ is safe, a rider was issued along with, advising the citizens to avoid eating such products for long time as the chemical has the property to accumulate in the body with consequent adverse effect. China itself is in the global market selling TBHQ at relatively low price for use by food industry as well as other industries.

According to food experts, nuggets made in the UK uses a precooking procedure while in the US, China and other places the chemical concoction is pre-coated before frying. What difference it makes is not clear though the UK version is said to be absorbing less oil during frying. Why the company has a different process in the UK is a mystery though it might have some thing to do with the taste preference of British consumers. A serious allegation raised against TBHQ was that it is some form of Butane, a hydrocarbon considered harmful to humans but these critics forget that it is totally different from Butane and even the every day consuming butter also contains Butyrates, "related" to Butane reflecting the hollowness of such a criticism. It is sad that the relative innocence of the consumer is sought to be exploited through some of the "inspired" criticisms without valid scientific basis.

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

"HATING" THE FOOD INDUSTRY-AN INTROSPECTION

Food industry is facing a crisis to day because there is a feeling all around that it cares more for its profits than the safety and well being of the consumers who nourish this sector. Historically food processing has evolved to serve a definite purpose and that is to preserve the food from spoilage and deterioration from many harmful vectors. Food production has been a seasonal occupation and different foods were being produced during different seasons. Surpluses created serve the needs during the off season. The classical preservation technologies like salt, sugar and vinegar based techniques and dehydration are still prevalent to day though to a considerably lesser extent.

The industrial revolution saw a see change in the development of food technology and newer processes emerged to make food more attractive, palatable, diversified in taste, convenient to use and store for longer time. Here is where the health aspect was pushed to the background in quest of other life style satisfaction. To day more than 90% of processed food products serve to satisfy the sensory demand of the body, ignoring the necessity of meeting the nutritional and health needs. The four aspects of organoleptic quality, viz color, aroma, texture and taste overwhelmingly influence the minds of the product developers in the food industry and very little attention is paid to the long term harm that can visit upon the consumers by consumption of millions of unbalanced foods coming out of the industry stable.

Health conscious consumers of to day feel strongly that, in spite of so many advantages to food processing as conceived originally, there exist sufficient grounds to blame the industry for many of the ills facing mankind. There are a few realistic reasons which sound reasonable to a dispassionate observer. According to critics, the further a food product is from its natural form, the less it retains its healthful nutritional properties. Vitamins are destroyed, minerals are leached out and fiber is ignored to be cast away during processing. Though it is grudgingly conceded that the decrease in nutrients is compensated by high tech enrichment and fortification technologies, these add only a small number of nutrients back to a product, whereas hundreds of others are lost in the conversion process from the natural raw material into a ready food to be packed in plastic bags and bottles of questionable safety.

Increasing the shelf life of a food requires the use of preservatives and these may be natural ones such as salt, or artificial chemicals. Since chemicals are specific in their functions, hundreds of them need to be deployed with specific functions like mold inhibition, bacterial destruction, antioxidant functions, etc. Some of them obviously have adverse side affects on some or all human populations. Similarly, to make food more palatable and attractive, many additives are used, though approved at prescribed levels, but with uncertain long term health consequences. Food colorings are a huge category of additives. Though color of a food is an important psychological consideration all artificial colors are not safe for use in human foods. Despite studies that have shown correlation between food colorings and cognitive problems in children, the food industry uses them because they are cheaper than natural sources.

The recent uproar regarding the indiscriminate use of antibiotics by the meat and dairy industry is justified because of the long term repercussions it can have on the effectiveness of many currently used antibiotics to fight against serious infectious epidemics. The inhuman conditions that prevail in many cattle farms, pig farms and poultry farms, the cruel slaughtering practices, wide scale Salmonella contamination of fresh and frozen foods, emergence of GM crops as major input raw materials for the processing industry and many other developments do not help to boost the consumer confidence on the sincerity of this industry. If food processing has to regain its preeminent role as a friend of mankind , it has to collectively restrain its appetite for gaining economic gains at the expense of the health of its patrons, the consumers.

V.H.POTTY

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