The "Bromate in bread" controversy-Where lies the truth?

The recent controversy regarding the presence of potassium bromate residues in bread and other wheat based bakery preparations does not help either the consumer or the industry. While it showed bakery industry as a villain, consumers became weary about the industry giving an impression that the products churned out by this sector are not safe. According to the organization which splashed this news based on a study of a few samples picked up from the Delhi market, since bromates are carcinogenic, bread made with this chemical is not safe for human consumption. Probably it may have a point and safety authorities need to look into this issue more carefully and dispassionately. Decision to ban must be taken based on facts and ground reality, not as a knee-jerk reaction. What is not understandable is the haste with which the authors of this study had gone to the press which can only serve to create panic among the consuming public. FSSAI, the "Authority" sitting in Delhi seems to have been woken up from its slumber mode and since it has authority to ban any products as it did with maggi noodles last year, one can only expect a similar reaction from this babu organization. But it is time the consumers realize the reality, give the report a cursory glance and go on with their lives till more definitive data emerge on this issue.

According to the Center for Science and Environment, a Delhi based consumer watch dog, Indian bread may cause cancer because of the existing practice of the baking industry using potassium bromate for improving the raising quality of the bread. Not only that it also includes besides bread other products like pizza, burger etc as potential cancer causing products about which consumers must be aware. It further declares that potassium iodate, an approved additive in bakery products, has the potential to adversely affect thyroid functions in human beings and therefore needs to be banned. Lo, there goes the declaration by the FSSAI banning bromate for use in food products in India and further assures the public that it would examine iodate regarding its ill effects on humans! Steps in our over concerned Mantriji, the custodian of health of the population in India, cautioning the public against panic as he is "fully seized" of the matter. He further assures the public that a thorough investigation will be undertaken to find out whether these chemicals already approved by FSSAI are really dangerous and take "appropriate action" if so. Of course every body knows that he and his ministry will promptly forget about this issue and move on to the mundane things they are doing to protect the health of Indian people!  

For those not knowing what is potassium bromate and why it is used in bakery products, it is appropriate to peep into into its history. Potassium bromate, or commonly referred to as bromate, is an oxidiser deployed to strengthen wheat dough so that its elasticity is increased, besides helping to get a uniform bake and white color for the final product viz bread. Usual practice is to use 15-30 parts per million (ppm) of potassium bromate in the flour before making the dough. For a number of years this chemical was being used extensively by the baking industry across the world with no adverse report coming from any where. One of the reasons why it is considered a safe practice is that bromate gets destroyed at the high baking temperatures which is required to make a good bread. It is well known that at the baking temperatures normally no residue is supposed to be left behind to cause any ill effect. Of course if good manufacturing practices are not followed, especially use of high concentrations of bromate or under baking, possibility of some residue remaining cannot be ruled out. 

Is use of bromate confined only to India? Of course not. There are a few countries like the US which permit use of bromates but under the condition that there is zero residue left in the product after baking. Many countries, to be on the safer side out rightly banned use of bromates. Though earlier a limit of 75 ppm was allowed which was reduced to 60 ppm later, subsequent international studies did find bromate to be of carcinogenic potential and advised all countries to avoid using it as far as possible since alternative safer additives are available to achieve the same objective as a flour improver. It was in 2012 that the Codex Alimentarius Commission of FAO/WHO withdrew specifications for bromate from its official list implying that its use should be discontinued. However, India, though a member of the Codex did not bother to implement the recommendations of this body and continued permitting bromate in the country for reasons known best to FSSAI. Is it not ironical that FSSAI has to be woken up by the limited studies of the Delhi organization to remove bromate from the list of permitted food additives? 

Before we take the side of the consumer, it is only fair to listen to the compulsions of the bakery industry in India as to why it is persisting with the use of bromate, in spite of the adverse views of the Codex. Most logical explanation would be that it is legally permitted in the country and no one can find fault with it. Interestingly in a country like the US where 60-75 ppm of bromate is legally allowed many major bakery players have shunned its use voluntarily, finding alternate flour improvers like  ascorbic acid, ammonium persulfate, ammonium chloride, amylase, glucose oxidase  etc. The attraction for the industry to use bromate is that it is the cheapest flour improver in the market, all others costing considerably more. It is the contention of the bakery industry that if it is forced to stop use of bromate, the bread prices may go up due to increased cost of manufacture. Probably this is an argument no body is going to buy that easily! The industry feels that since FSSAI does not want to shoulder the responsibility of monitoring the bromate residues in bread regularly, it is exercising its power to ban this chemical. May be there is a point but responsible industry leaders must understand that monitoring thousands of small and micro scale bakeries across this vast country is not that easy and therefore it must accept gracefully the decision to discontinue use of bromate in the country. As for potassium iodate it is not used widely in India in food preparations though it is a recommended source of iodine for fortification of salt to prevent on set of the goiter disease among the population. Probably banning this chemical may affect the salt fortification project promoted by the government. 

If the industry is to be believed the report by the Delhi organization regarding the safety of bread in India based on a limited study confined only to Delhi has caused a severe backlash against bakery products in the country as it has touched a raw nerve among the consumers, causing significant damage to its business. May be it has a point as voluntary organizations publishing such reports needs to be controlled and there should be an alliance between such groups and the government for exchanging such information before making them public. After all GOI has big institutions like CFTRI, CDRI, NIFTEM, etc and veracity of such panic causing reports must be vetted by peer scientists from these institutes before being put on the public domain. However well equipped voluntary organizations are, their facilities and experience cannot come any where to that of GOI food research institutions and hence this caution.

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

Organic foods with pesticide residue? An unenviable Indian situation!

Organic foods are supposed to be free from pesticides as the they are produced using no chemicals at all. Though some countries like the US permit limited use of chemicals and still call the product organic, this is not an acceptable option in many other countries. Fear of adverse effect of "artificial" or unnatural substances in raising crops or meat animals or during processing drive consumers in droves to the open arms of the organic food industry, willingly paying almost 50-100% more prices for them. But is the consumer guaranteed about the genuineness of organic foods, branded by the industry or is there an overseeing agency mandated to monitor the market and ensure the consumer is not defrauded? Obviously such controls by regulatory authorities in countries like India are at best nebulous. With such an unfettered access to the market, fraudsters and deceitful producers are having a field day! 

It is not that Indian government has not done any thing to encourage organic farming and processing but the progress in bringing the organic food industry to international level is less than encouraging. Organic food market world wide is estimated at $ 50 billion (bn) and current cultivation covers an area of 35 million (mn) hectares, spread of 141 countries involving more than 1.2 mn producers. Australia is the pioneering country that sets the agenda for organic food production and innovations related to it. USA is the major producing and consuming country accounting for more than 40% of global production. Compared to this India produces about 0.12 mn tons valued at $ 20 mn,  the cultivation area being mentioned as 2.5 mn hectares but these figures are some what skewed because a more reliable estimate puts it at 40, 000 hectares. India produces and exports about 30 products under the organic product banner which include Basmati rice, mango pulp, pineapple pulp, cashew nut, sesame, honey, walnut, spices, coffee, tea and tea and Indian products are imported into more than 70 countries through out the world.. 

Standards for organic foods are not uniform in all countries and even definition of what constitutes an organic food varies some what among the producers. In the US one can see 100% organic, 95% organic, 70%  organic etc throwing lot of consumers into confusion. World standards, about 61 in number, accepted among most nations include IFoam, Codex, EU, Demeter, JAS etc. In 2000 India government came out with the National Program for Organic Products (NPOP) to organize the production on a scientific footing and National Standards for Organic Products were set up to monitor the industry. Presently Agricultural Product Export Development Authority (APEDA) has been vested with the task of ensuring quality standards for organic products produced in the country. There are 11 accredited certification agency approved by the National Accreditation Board for checking the veracity of claims made by the industry vis-a-vis organic foods.

The malpractices in Indian organic food industry came to light recently when Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi, came out with its findings that many organic food samples tested in Delhi by it contained pesticide residue. According to this institute its laboratory analysis showed 33% of the samples it checked  during the last two years containing pesticide residues which are not supposed to be there at all as per mandatory regulations. Probably it may be a shock for the consumers but the practice of using pesticides must have been there since long without any hindrance from any quarters. The vegetables that tested positive for pesticides included brinjal, ladyfinger, tomato, capsicum, chillies, cabbage, cauliflower, coriander and green peas. Many were found to contain residues from multiple pesticides. Dearth of reliable brands and sources is posing a major challenge to genuine buyers of organic foods in the country. Consumers have to be convinced about the authenticity of the organic food certification as only such a situation will  ensure that organic food product conforms to the respective national standards established by the certification procedures set out in 2000. 

What is disturbing is that this fact was known since last two years from the on-going testing program in IARI in Delhi, located just a few kilometers from the offices of APEDA, the government agency earmarked for certifying organic foods and supposedly to be looking after the welfare of Indians domestically and other citizens in importing countries where Indian products are exported! Can such callousness be condoned? World over organic food industry is growing at a fast pace and to day the value of these "safe"products churned out by the industry is about 1% of that by the mainstream industry which generates a business volume worth $ 5 trillion. If India continues to neglect the organic food industry by not putting in place an effective surveillance mechanism soon, the faith and trust of dedicated consumers wedded to organic foods will be badly shaken, if not lost once for all. Millions of denizens across the world want their children at least to grow in an environment not vitiated by the main stream food industry which uses thousands of chemicals and other unnatural additives to make their products look "sexy" and taste "glamorous" so that consumers get hooked on to them without realizing the terrible consequences of eating them regularly! Probably government of India could set up a dedicated organic foods certification and monitoring agency with adequate powers to enforce the national standards for organic foods, in stead of the present ad hoc arrangement involving APEDA.

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

IS FOOD IRRADIATION TECHNOLOGY COMING OF AGE?

Wastage of food due to spoilage on account of physiological changes, chemical reactions, physical factors, microorganisms, pests and insects has been a concern of mankind ever since the dawn of modern civilization. The problem assumed more and more sinister dimension when it became clear that the fast growing population may face food shortage one day if availability falls short of requirement. Extent of food wastage has been variously estimated between 25 and 50%, mainly due to post harvest losses. In spite of the availability of a plethora of technologies developed during the last 5 decades and discovery of many chemicals that can counteract food spoilage, wastage is still considered significant. A strategy combining drastic reduction of losses with increased land productivity only can ensure adequate food security to future generation.

Food irradiation technology has been a controversial method of preserving food though 60 years of incessant research and thousands of publications arising out of the past studies have cleared every doubt regarding the safety of irradiated foods. If any technology can be put on a high pedestal for its "cleanliness" and dependability, none can beat the irradiation technology for that unique position. Yet it is sad to see that only a small volume of 500000 tons of food is irradiated in the entire world, the reason for such low performance being human "psychology". Ever since the horrible incidence of dropping atomic bombs in Hiroshima in 1945, man is horrified by the term radiation and this has put a mental block on accepting a food processing technology associated with radiation.

Thanks to Codex Alimentarius Commission of FAO/WHO (CAC), food irradiation has been cleared for use in any foods using any dose of radiation. Also known as electronic pasteurization or cold pasteurization, over 40 countries have adopted food irradiation to varying extent in different foods though Brazil and Pakistan are the only two countries adopting the CAC guidelines in toto. The irradiation technology is very versatile in that it can be used in low doses of 1 kilo Gray for sprout inhibition, delayed ripening and for increased juice yield from fruits while higher doses beyond 1 kGy are useful in extending life of meat products, disinfection of aromatic herbs and spices and sterilization of hospital diets for recuperating patients. To day a wide range of food products that include apples, bananas, mangoes, onions, potatoes, strawberries, an array of spices and seasonings, fish, poultry, frog legs, fresh and frozen meat products, food grains, etc undergo irradiation, especially for making them fit for export involving extended periods of ocean transport. The ionizing radiation causes irreparable damage to the DNA strands in contaminating organisms making them incapable of proliferation.

North America and Europe account for most of irradiated food business as the population there are more sensitive and vulnerable to food related safety mishaps. In non-food sector radiation sterilization is widely practiced and this includes medical hardware, plastics, holes for gas pipe lines, hoses for floor heating, shrink foils for food packaging, automobile parts, wires and cables, tires, gemstones etc. Food industry will have no choice but to use irradiation technology in the coming years because of its superior performance compared to other technologies. Recent indications bring out the fact that many consumers are willing to accept irradiation technology if adequate safety assurances are forthcoming from the industry and already many food ingredients treated with irradiation are in use with full knowledge of consumers. The possibility of using more explicit terminologies like electronic pasteurization or cold pasteurization on the label as is being contemplated in some countries may help the cause of this technology. Though initial investment may be some what high for irradiation plants, being in the range of $ 1-5 million, the low processing cost between 3-20 cents per kg of treated foods makes the process one of the cheapest possible to day.

V.H.POTTY

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

LABELING "WAR"-CODEX TO FACE THE HEAT!

How commercial interests can influence global food policies is illustrated by the manipulations and maneuvering going on at the Codex level to prevent mandatory labeling of GM foods. The stakes are high since Codex standards are bench mark parameters used to day to settle trade disputes amongst WTO member countries. Many countries have already put in place such mandatory label declaration so that the consumer can make an informed choice while scouting for purchase of foods in the market. Since GM foods are still under a cloud regarding their absolute safety, consumer has fundamental right to be informed whether a product being purchased has GM food ingredients or not. It is immoral for a country like the US to brow beat international community to toe its line viz labeling should be only voluntary, not mandatory.

A number of consumer groups, concerned scientists, progressive farming organizations and food processors are opposing the U.S. proposal that could forbid mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods in other countries. An influential coalition of organizations that includes the Consumers Union, The Organic Trade Association, Food and Water Watch and the Union of Concerned Scientists had earlier appealed to the US authorities to reconsider their decision to oppose compulsory labeling at the Codex Committee on Food Labeling meeting in Canada. The Codex Committee is a crucial technical body of the United Nations Organization that evolves food safety and labeling standards which are used to settle international differences in export-import business.

The paradox of the situation is that the current US position could potentially create significant problems for food producers within the US itself who want to indicate on the labels that their products contain no GE ingredients, including in organic food, where genetic engineering is a prohibited method. The FDA and USDA oppose allowing individual countries to adopt policies on mandatory labeling probably because it could be misleading, implying that GM/GE foods are not different from other foods. This is contrary to the belief of a vast majority of consumers that GE foods are definitely different from normal ones. The US position seems to be dictated by the apprehension that consumers in other countries may reject GM/GE foods from the US and it is reprehensible to force bodies like Codex to adopt the view of one country, how ever mighty it may be, that there are no differences between GM/GE foods and other foods. It is conveniently ignored that such a stand is contrary to scientific fact, USDA organic rules and existing FDA policy allowing for voluntary labeling.

The efforts of the US government are orchestrated by the GM food lobby in that country which, probably is concerned about the fate of GM foods from the country when exported to other countries where they are not considered safe. As most of the foods manufactured in the US contain one or the other ingredient originating from a GM food source, there could be real danger of the food industry losing its preeminent position in the country. If the US is able to get its way at the Codex level, other countries must join together to advice their food industry to insert a declaration in the label of all foods manufactured by them stating that they do not contain GM food ingredients. Sure no one should have any objection to this practice which will serve the same purpose.

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