Dietary Supplements-The Damocles Sword hanging over users!

Man's eternal search for "pink health" can take him to any where at any risks but this is precisely the prime motivating factor for many unscrupulous industry players to market a variety of products with tall but unsubstantiated health claims on bringing about dramatic improvements, general or specific, in the health of the unsuspecting buyers. The government has the onerous responsibility to check this menace through regulatory controls which need to be science based. In many countries these peddlers of so called "well being" products have a free run because either there is no law to regulate them or the existing laws are ambivalent giving sufficient leeway to the lawyer community to argue their cases out in the court if at all they are caught! Why should any normal person take any supplements at all? What do the citizens understand when products with tall health claims are dangled before them? 

According to classical definition "dietary supplements are intended to provide nutrients that may other wise not be consumed". It is very clear that these supplements are not for those whose diet is balanced in terms of all nutrients required by human body and there fore they need to be taken only after consulting a physician regarding any deficiency symptoms detected by him. Unfortunately physicians are never brought into focus when consumers unilaterally decide to take them because of high pressure promotions and tall claims made by the industry. Look at  some of the most patronized supplements in the market to realize the dimension of the problem. Supplements are offered in the form of pills, capsules, powders, drinks, energy bars, food adjuncts etc containing a variety of health "supporting" materials like vitamins, minerals, fatty acids, essential amino acids, herbals and botanicals, enzymes, antioxidants, fish oils, probiotics etc. The multibillion dollar industry spanning the entire world market a staggering 55,000 and odd products under the supplement category and in a country like the US more than half the population consume one or more supplements almost every day! 

A million dollar question is what the hell the governments in many countries are doing except closing their eyes to the existence of this roaring industry making money left, right and the center with practically no conscience for selling products, most people do not need at all!.  According some respectable experts 90% of the health claims made by peddlers of such products are incorrect and unsubstantiated and to add insult to injury more than 30% of such products do contain unlisted steroids. USA is an astonishing country where people have unlimited liberty to do any thing with least control over them under the pretext that it is one of the oldest democracies in the world. In this "great" country any one can sell a supplement without permission from the safety enforcement authorities who will have to look at these products only when some injury is caused and reported! In contrast in Europe food supplements must be demonstrated to be safe in dosage and purity as being suggested by the manufacturer before marketing them. 

It is mind boggling that the Americans spend an estimated $32 billion on dietary supplements every year, attracted by unproven claims that various pills and powders will help them lose weight, build muscle and fight off everything from colds to chronic illnesses. Alarm bells are now being sounded about the magnitude of liver damage cases being reported across that country which are linked to supplements though many believe that a majority of supplements are generally safe. In recent years, critics of the industry have called for measures that would force companies to prove that their products are safe, genuine and made in accordance with strict manufacturing standards before they reach the market. An antiquated federal law enacted in 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, "prevents" the Food and Drug Administration from approving or evaluating most supplements before they are sold. Usually the agency must wait until consumers are harmed before officials can remove products from stores. Because the supplement industry operates on the honor system, studies show, the market has been flooded with products that are adulterated, mislabeled or packaged in dosages that have not been studied for safety.

One encouraging feature of the supplement landscape in the US is that most of the products implicated in liver injuries were bodybuilding supplements spiked with unlisted steroids, and herbal pills and powders promising to increase energy and help consumers lose weight. Probably those peddling them are criminals who see a business opportunity to spike some products and sell them as dietary supplements. Probably it may be the fringe of the industry deflecting any wholesale blame of the entire industry. Many of the popular supplements like vitamins, minerals, probiotics and fish oil had not been linked to any definite patterns of adverse effects and there fore they have a case for continuing their business with out any restriction by government. the flip side of this enigma is that the FDA is alarmed by the fact that 70 percent of dietary supplement companies are not following basic quality control standards that would help prevent adulteration of their products and the likely consequences there of. Of the 55,000 supplements that are sold in the United States, only 170 or about 0.3 percent, have been studied closely enough to determine their common side effects. 

Common sense says that only when a product is  regulated by a government agency with appropriate technical competence, its benefits and side effects can be fully known based on which an informed decision can be taken by the consumer whether to take it or not. After all every day life is a balance of "risks and benefits" and it is the duty of any responsible government to make available such information to the citizen in a transparent manner. It is some thing like the "injurious" warning mandated to be printed on cigarette packs to warn the consumer about the dangers of smoking. Similarly once consumers of dietary supplements know about the consequences of consuming it, probably that may serve as a deterrent against buying the same which after all does not restrict his freedom of buying such products, if he still wants to go ahead.  

In India the situation is more complicated because the safety monitoring as being claimed by the entrusted agency is all but a sham with the food products themselves not being assessed for their safety let alone the dietary supplements! There are innumerable instances of many food products, some of them made by multinational companies claiming that they boost intelligence, make the children tall and strong, restores energy in few seconds after consuming, etc. Complicating the issue further there are an array of products being offered by the organized industry based on traditional Ayurveda system which can be considered as supplements and there are no regulations which control these products. It is time that the government of India wakes up to streamline the food products and food supplements industry through effective standardization and safety parameters that can prevent food related damage to the health of the citizens. .

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

FOOD ADVERTISEMENTS-FSSAI TO BE LAUDED FOR ACTION AGAINST VIOLATORS

World over a significant segment of food industry indulge in unethical practices including mislabeling and misleading advertisements making tall claims about the virtue of their products with no supporting evidence. A vigilant overseeing mechanism can haul up the delinquents for their wrong practices. But it is the advertisements, especially in the electronic media, that become dangerous to vulnerable consumers who believe in them. There is no official technical vetting of the contents of TV commercials before telecasting and this "free for all" arrangement is a win-win situation for both the product promoters and the telecasting companies. Such promoters are so unscrupulous that they indulge in saturation advertisements targeting children and unassuming house wives and unfortunately there are no guidelines for the telecasters in accepting sponsored ads with misleading contents. The Chairman of the Press Council is more interested in politicking than disciplining the reckless media! The latest initiative by FSSAI in clamping down on such culprits is indeed laudatory and must be appreciated.

Why should there be any restriction on such advertisements when most of these are based on some information gleaned out from the literature? Answer is very simple. The claims are often exaggerated and some times misinterpreted and the way the commercial ads are designed, it carries some conviction with the viewers, most of them being children and house wives. Many parents tend to be swayed by  ceaseless ads which are cleverly juxtaposed with popular serials and other programs creating a lasting image of the products promoted. Such impressions, carried as a baggage when going for shopping, translate into buying some of them involuntarily! Imagine who will not be swayed by claims that promise to make their children taller and healthier or make children more intelligent and brainy! 

It is right on the part of FSSAI to find these ads "misleading and deceptive". Take for instance the claims of a brand of Multi-grain Noodles', which unabashedly proclaim day in and day out that the product has nutritional benefits s or for that matter , a brand of cooking oil which promises "healthy heart"!  In still another case FSSAI filed against the advertisements of two brands of beverages for claiming that they provide three times more stamina than an ordinary chocolate drink though the manufacturers concerned do not have any scientific evidence to support such a claim! Citizens in this country must have been fed up by advertisements by a multi national company that its product, containing more than three dozen nutrients, is a "complete food" though there is no such thing in the world as a complete food. Health pundits all over the world want consumers to adopt a diverse diet containing whole grains, fruits and vegetables and unsaturated oil containing foods. If a product containing no grains, no dietary fiber, is claimed as a complete good, it is both unethical and borders on criminal misrepresentation. 

One of the most difficult tasks of a consumer when going for shopping, is to decipher what is presented on the label. Assuming that the consumer has the necessary time and patience to read the label completely the message coming from such labels is often confusing. Many times the information is printed in very small prints which are next to impossible to read, let alone understand. There is no uniformity with regard to the declaration of MRP, pack weight, ingredients, nutritional data, manufacturing date and "best before" date. This is where iconic representation of the quality of a product can be of great help to millions of consumers, especially those who does not understand English or other languages. 

It is one thing to issue notice and another thing to follow it up through deterrent action and whether FSSAI has the necessary determination to punish these culprits remains to be seen. The list of brands against whom notices have been issued includes some of the giants in food product manufacturing and their political clout cannot be under estimated. With most of the legal luminaries, commanding astronomical fees, rushing to take up cases of all hues and colors, no matter how morally or ethically they are not factual, FSSAI can be expected to have a full fight on their hand if these cases are really pursued to their logical end. Here are best wishes for this "Authority" to succeed.

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

HOW FRESH IS THE "FRESH" PRODUCE?-A QUESTIONABLE INDUSTRY PRACTICE

There is an increasing tendency for people to go for "fresh", "local", "natural" or organic foods and the reason is not far to seek. It is simply the fear factor that is driving millions of consumers away from preserved or processed foods and the food industry is to blame itself for this sorry situation. Historically food technology evolved over centuries to extend the supply chain so that adequate foods are available all year round. Use of salt or sugar which increases the osmotic pressure in food system to discourage proliferation of pathogens and many spoilage organisms continues even to day though from healthy angle they are shunned by a substantial strata of the society. While uncontrolled salt consumption is known to be linked to hypertension and cardiovascular disease, high sugar can be responsible for dental decay, diabetes, obesity and other disorders. Organoleptically too much sugar or salt can create quick satiety. Salt and sugar preserved food products can be farthest from the concept of fresh foods.

Sun drying or the more scientific mechanical drying of perishables which contain high levels of moisture gives products with altered textural features but it still served the purpose of extending the life of the food significantly due to low water activity in such foods after removing bulk of the water content. Besides, the reconstituted final product has drastically different eating quality, not often liked by consumers. Vast improvements in dehydration technology have contributed to better finished products and freeze drying can give a product that can be quite satisfactory though cost wise such products can be very expensive. However dehydrated foods can also never qualify to be called fresh.

It is true that while advances in technology and transportation can extend the shelf life of food, consumer always will have to pay a price for availability and convenience in terms of nutrition and taste. Relentless progress of food science and technology has made it possible to have a wide choice of processing methods for the industry and techniques like atmospheric packs, storage of apples in 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP), vacuum packing with carbon dioxide and nitrogen, and refrigeration have provided reliable tools to extend the shelf life very significantly. While most technologies are able to ensure safety of most foods for a long time, what happens to the quality of these preserved foods is an issue often ignored. For example most frozen foods when stored at a constant temperature of -18C can stay safe beyond an year but whether the consumer will accept the eating quality of these long term preserved foods is a genuine concern. Same is true with all preserved foods what ever be the technique used.

It is disputable whether the industry can call any of these foods "fresh"because they can never be equal in sensory quality and nutritive value to freshly harvested produce. According to common sense 'fresh' can only be those foods put on sale as early as possible after the time of picking, catching or producing. True, developments in food technology and storage ensure that the consumer has a wide range of fruit and vegetables available all year round, but it is not correct to call apples that are nine months old truly fresh. Similarly spinach refrigerated for just eight days is known to loose more than 50% of its key nutrients and consumer is never aware of this fact while buying a "fresh looking" spinach from the supermarket. Same is true with most fruits and vegetables seen in these markets. Probably some awareness has been generated amongst the minds of consumers about the relatively lower quality of retailed fresh produce which has spawned the "farmers markets" and "locavore" phenomena in some countries in Europe and the US.

Compared to many technologies freezing process provides the best product approximating to quality as close to its field fresh counterpart and this may be the reason why frozen food industry has made rapid strides world over during the last 3 decades. They are definitely superior to the so called fresh produce offered by supermarkets procured from far away places and transported over long distances. Here again if the consumer is quality conscious long time stored frozen foods must be avoided since even under frozen conditions quality loss does occur, albeit slowly. In the interest of the consumer no processed food industry players must be allowed to use the terminology "fresh" to describe their products, no matter what technology is used..

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