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

"FLAVORING" towards self destruction?-The hidden ingredients in industrial foods with uncertain safety credentials

If processed foods have become popular with every segment of the consumer population, the industry must thank two important causes which have driven consumers into their open arms. First the cocktail of flavors churned out by the omnipotent flavor industry which are used liberally by the food manufacturers ever increasingly to attract more and more adherents into their fold. Second the element of convenience built into these products that relieve the house wives from the kitchen drudgery, making available more time for them to go for income generating employment as well as to spend more time with their families. Unfortunately parallel to the rise of food processing industry, two important social and nutritional situations have shifted significantly to a direction considered highly undesirable. The manufactured foods do not transfer the emotions of a mother, where as foods made within the confines of a home have this invisible and immeasurable "wave' reflecting her concerns and love for her siblings as well to the husband. Nutritionally the food industry has focused more on taste and flavor ignoring the health implications their foods will have on the family. Who is the culprit for this undesirable changes in our food environment?

Of course the first culprit could be the consumer himself who unwittingly get trapped by the mouth watering or eye appealing foods offered by the industry because of tireless promotional activity of the market forces as well as his own gullibility to fall for best tasting foods instead of moderating that desire to factor the health effect of such foods. From time to time pundits, be it psychologists, food scientists, sociologists, medical community or government agencies, have been discussing regarding why the consumer, ignoring his own health, flock to junk foods with empty calories and court diseases like obesity, CVD, Diabetes, Blood Pressure, Cancer etc through wrong eating practices. Probably there may not be a single cause that must be driving the consumers to such health damaging foods. Governments world over try to persuade the consumers to shun fast foods and junk foods through education and consumer guidance which do not seem to be working at all if obesity statistics in some countries like the US are to be believed.

Biologists consider the weakness of most people to junk foods and over eating due to factors like genetic make up, brain functions, hormonal dynamics, etc though there are no compelling evidence generated through human clinical trials of any substantial size and spread to support any of them. Sociologist feel that man's eating surge cannot be controlled through government policies though such interventions are not feasible in a democratic country with a constitution giving primacy to personal freedom and inalienable rights. The  recent attempt in New York to limit sale of jumbo sized foods and drinks ended up in a fiasco because of judicial road blocks. Taxing "bad" foods on a punitive scale tried in many countries also had practically no impact on the situation. Proximity to fast food outlets to residential areas was once cited as reasons for over eating by a section of the population and strict zoning regulations were considered for making the "fans" of junk foods to travel an extra mile to get to an eating frenzy mood. Well being industry puts out from time to time products claimed to be helpful in overcoming obesity and over weight problems but they can be at best a fire fighting operation, not striking at the root of the problem. 

Flavor industry is the least controlled one with practically no transparency in their working. No one knows what chemicals are used by them to concoct various flavor potions for use by the  food industry in different products. Flavor consists of four distinct components, viz color, aroma, taste and texture. Talking about taste we have four recognized ones that include sweetish, salty, sourness and bitterness. Pungency and Umami are also taste variants commonly patronized from specific cultural groups. Food processing industry over the years has realized that uniformity in quality is difficult to achieve when widely varying quality natural raw materials are used and in its pursuit to provide uniform quality finished products they use a variety of artificial, synthetic and flavor concentrates recovered from natural sources to standardize the products from batch to batch. Unfortunately the number of chemicals being used for this purpose is burgeoning during the last three decades and no one, including the safety authorities is sure about their safety in the long run. 

Imagine the situation now obtaining in the food production system where more than 12000 chemicals are reported to be deployed for a variety of purpose. Out of these, safety data are available only on about 5% with the remaining ones posing potential health hazards to the consumers. Food processing industry uses about 3000 additives, mostly synthetic chemicals for improving their end products to make them more attractive to the consumers. These include, acids, acidity regulators, anticaking agents, antifoaming agents, antioxidants, bulking agents, colorings, color stabilizers, emulsifiers, fillers, flavor ingredients, flour treating agents, glazing aids, humectants, raising agents, preservatives, stabilizers, sweeteners, thickeners, viscosity modifiers, nutrients, health boosters, texture modifiers etc. Whether all of them are really needed is a million dollar question for which there is no ready answer as of now.  However emergence of organic food industry has shown the way that good quality food products can still be made without using artificial additives during processing.

Consumer activist organizations are now coming together to deal with the "menace" of indiscriminate use of so called flavors by the main stream food industry and in a country like the US the movement is assuming critical proportions compelling the safety authorities to wake up to the ground reality. At present the onus of deciding about the safety of flavor chemicals rests with the flavor industry and the safety agency is a silent side player, waking up only if there is any serious incidence of harm caused by any such chemical to the consumer as reported through a complaint. It is most unfortunate that the only remedial action is generally banning that particular flavor after perfunctory examination of the case, Is this the right way to protect the consumer? Is it not most unfortunate that the globally renowned USFDA, a role model for safety agencies world over, is shirking its responsibility to its constituency, viz the citizens of that country? Common sense tells that no chemical, especially the ones synthesized in the laboratory, can be safe unless proved by human clinical trials to be safe for use in foods and this basic principle seems to be ignored possibly because of the political and financial clout of the flavor industry. One can only hope that this situation will get rectified through the renewed initiatives now being launched by various consumer groups.

V.H.POTTY

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

Buy one, get one free! Another marketing ploy to tempt consumers to buy more than what they need!

What is the big difference between the consumer and the retailer? Very simple, one wants to buy best quality goods at lowest price possible and the other wants to sell as much as possible at greatest profit! Thus every day we can see this war of wits taking place in the market place all over the world. Government is a side player working to ensure that citizens are not cheated through its policy interventions and make the selling as transparent as possible. There are established regulatory frame work for the food industry to abide by and violation will attract punitive measurements including closing the shop for defaulters and fraudulent players. The labeling regulations can be an effective insurance against misrepresentation and facilitate consumers' right to know what he is buying. But in spite of all the safeguards marketeers constantly device ways and means to mislead the unwary consumers through doubtful but legal tactics.

A classical example is the manipulation of the packaging size and shape in such a way that most consumers are not able to perceive that they are being taken for a ride at the super market isles! It is perfectly legitimate to use any size or shape for designing packaging units as per the convenience of the industry. Theoretically it is the responsibility of the consumer who has to be watchful while buying his needs from the market for which sufficient guidelines are available. Transgression by the industry can come in many ways against which no legal recourse may be available. For example there is no law which says that industry must use only particular shape or size or unit prices should be stamped on each packet. "Maximum Retail Price" or MRP can indicate the recommended sale price of a particular pack size and it cannot be compared easily with another brand with different pack size. Of course smart consumers can always calculate the price per kilogram and compare the same among competing brands but most consumers have neither the time nor the inclination to spend too much time in the market for doing such elaborate arithmetic jugglery.

MRP declaration can be very deceptive as it can be easily manipulated by the industry for its gains. By introducing packs of sizes not used by others, MRP can be stamped with a higher figure and retailers can be given higher margins to push their products aggressively. Many manufacturers use bigger looking pouches and bottles while keeping the content size same to give an impression to the consumer that their packs contain more materials than that of their competitors. Of course a diligent consumer can call this bluff by carefully reading the label. Another area of misleading packs is in the declaration of ingredients which are not as transparent as many think. For example if wheat is a component of a particular formulation, the manufacturer has the liberty to use the terminology "whole wheat atta"  or "maida" and in these days of great awareness about health most consumers will prefer a product with whole wheat flour rather than maida. Similarly in multigrain products one particular ingredient may be more than 90% while others may be present in "trace" amounts. Even the list of ingredients supposed to be in descending order can be inaccurate as there is no way to determine, especially by a lethargic enforcement regime, the presence or absence of a particular ingredient and its concentration. 

Expiry date stamped in many packs can be misleading because no one is certain as to what it means! In India "best before" date is being insisted by the food safety authorities but the question remains whether what happens if one buys products beyond this date? Technical problems do exit in this area as adequate data regarding the real shelf life of food products are not readily available. Besides various formulations, presence of different ingredients, varying processing parameters followed by different manufacturers and the variations in the environmental conditions in different geographical areas make it difficult for any one to predict when a product can become unsafe to consume. Unnecessary wastage of foods, especially in wealthy countries which can support a significant number of poor people in the poverty ridden countries in Asia, Africa and South America, is receiving the attention world over these days and many politicians and social activists are suggesting that consumer should not throw away date expired foods. Though there is a demand for printing a date beyond which the food is not safe, there does not appear to be any takers from the industry for this demand due to logistical and practical reasons.   

One of the most elegant strategies now being adopted by the industry is to tap on the gullibility of human beings to temptations of buying at bargain prices more than their actual requirement which possibly drives them in hordes whenever a price slashing sale is announced. The native instinct of pursuing activities that is economically advantageous makes man fall into the trap of marketing pundits who constantly devise and design promotional programs to satisfy this instinct. The memory of the public is too short to remember and recall bad experiences associated with a particular product and economic consideration outweighs all other emotions in going for another product by the same manufacturer. Probably this is at the core of the spate of cases in the market where a few manufacturers are positioning their products promising free supply of a food packet for every purchase of the same product. Whether this is a straight forward situation or there is a hidden agenda in such schemes will have to be carefully examined.

"Buying one and getting another one free" is a practical way of liquidating stocks of products which are slow moving or for products nearing the "best before date". What the consumer feels about it is not very well understood and the experience of the industry in undertaking such schemes is also not in the public domain. But unquestionably every consumer must be wondering why these products are being sold literally at half the price and their suspicion about unjustifiable price tags of many of the products in the market gets strengthened. A common sense consumer always debates the rationality of a product like Corn flakes commanding prices as high as Rs 400 per Kg while the basic material used in the process viz, Corn is available at a relatively low price of about Rs 20 per Kg! Another dimension to this tangle is the eternal distrust of the industry by the consumer vis-a-vis quality and a dramatically reduced price can raise doubts regarding the real quality of the product offered for sale.  

Offering newly launched products at reduced price is a genuine marketing strategy by a new player or by an established manufacturer but the natural price or "viable" price is subsequently recovered once the product or the brand attains critical sales volume. Similarly giving "free" another product from the same company or from another known company is very common as both get almost free publicity. After all during these days of high sound bite electronic media, promotion does not come cheap and diverting a part of the advertisement spend on schemes involving "giveaways" is quite normal benefiting mutually. Though consumer stands to benefit from such periodic schemes, it is imperative to be on guard to ensure that the product has still significant shelf life as per declared expiry date. When ever a consumer buys these products, it is better to keep in mind that food products tend to lose their quality progressively with time and too much of stocks may eventually end up in the trash can due to signs of spoilage!    

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

FOOD LABELING -DOES THE CONSUMER UNDERSTAND IT?

Consumers world over are befuddled by the label declarations that appears on the front of a food pack, especially with reference to the dates printed by the manufacturer before releasing to the market. The labeling laws vary from country to country, though the intentions of the law makers are to help and guide the consumers to pick and choose products that are safe and good. The million dollar question is whether these laws are really helping the consumer or not while wading through the isles of a super market where thousands of products are displayed trying to attract the attention of the consumers and persuade them to buy their wares in preference to others. If reports from different parts of the world are to be believed, labeling creates more confusion and uncertainty among the consumers, most of them being ignorant of the implications of the date figures displayed on the label.

Why do the law makers insist on the industry to make label declarations on each and every pack of processed/packed foods that go out of the manufacturer's premises? There was a time during the evolution of food industry when consumers used to buy their foods based on appearance and touch as packing was not in vogue then. The world being a small place such a situation was normal with small communities with access to local markets where fresh foods were sold loose without tamper proof seals as that exists to day. Naturally number of food items to choose also was a minuscule of what is being offered in modern markets. It is only when centralized processing and distribution of the products over a wide geographical area started about 5 decades ago, the necessity was felt for uniform declaration mode that can communicate with the consumer regarding the nature of the content present inside the sealed packs. Over a period of time labeling regulations became more and more stringent and demanding because of the perceived helplessness of the consumer in choosing the right product of their expectation.

Food industry development in any country traditionally follows a route where processing forms a small part of the food landscape and with economic development the extent of processed foods in the every day diet starts climbing progressively. In many wealthy countries processed foods form as much as 80% of the daily diet of the population while in poorer ones it could be as low as 10%. The necessity for transparency between the industry and the consumer is some thing no nation will be prepared to compromise and therefore in keeping with the aspirations of the consumer, regulatory authorities tend to be more and more demanding from the industry to inform truth about their products. Thus labeling is a tool that is vital for creating confidence among the consumers regarding the quality and safety of manufactured food products. It is unfortunate that industry players in many parts of the world tend to focus too much on profitability ignoring the consumer concerns.

Most recent example of the industry trying to roughshod the interests of the consumer is the big fight now in view in the US for the consumer right to know whether industry products in the market contain genetically manipulated ingredients or not. While every one agrees that Genetically Modified (GM) foods are not natural measured by any standards, what is being disputed is the safety of foods in which GM food components are used, especially on long term use or their multigenerational consequences on the consumer.It is strange that the federal as well state governments in that country lack the courage to take a scientifically and ethically sound decision regarding the right of the consumer to know the presence of GM food ingredients in the foods they consume. In stead the so called ballot initiatives are organized where people are asked to decide whether they want GM food label declaration to be made mandatory! No wonder the GM food giants bankroll this referendum by pumping millions of dollars to brain wash the citizens that GM foods are absolutely safe and natural and need not be declared on the label. Safety activists are no match to these industry giants and most of the referendums end up in favor of the industry.    

Coming back to date marking in food labels. a recent survey by the public safety organization NSF International found that most people are confused by the label declarations made in thousands of products marketed even in an enlightened country like the US where literacy rates are considered high. More damaging is the assertion by this agency that food labeling causes more foods being thrown away by the consumers because of their perception that the food is unfit for consumption after the dates indicated on the label. The survey found one in four Americans do not throw away food past the expiration date while more than half throw out food based off the "best used by" date and another third discard food based on the "sell by" date. What is not realized is that the "sell by" and "best used by" dates are more for the sellers than the consumers and the products can often remain in good condition for a week or two after the marked date. 78 percent of people throw away most dairy products after the label date has passed without realizing the marked date is almost always a "sell by" date, a guideline for the stores. Similarly eggs are often still good after the date expiry and people can always crack one open to see if the yolk is flat, which would indicate it has gone bad. 

It is often not realized that the industry is invariably playing it safe when it comes to date marking in order to avoid any possible health hazards with a diverse consumer population base with different vulnerabilities and also to protect them selves from future litigation in the event of unexpected mishaps. An ideal solution to this Catch 24 situation is for the industry to declare on the label a definitive date beyond which the contents are not safe to consume. But it is it feasible? Probably not because of the massive data to be generated on each and every product through time consuming and costly scientific studies. Ultimately the buck stops at the consumer door and an educated consumer has to shoulder the responsibility to decide whether a date expired food is good, bad or dangerous to eat. Economic considerations are to be weighed against the safety or otherwise of date expired foods if to be consumed.

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

              

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

"MILKING" THE CONSUMER BY THE MILKER! A UNIQUE INDIAN TRAIT!

Are you a regular milk consumer? Of course who does not consume milk in one form or the other as a part of the daily diet, especially in a country like India where more than 75% of the population is vegetarian by birth or economic compulsions. It was not long ago that milk distribution was in the hands of the so called dairy farmers who supply liquid milk to each and every house-hold. As these milk suppliers are small, owning 1-12 cattle, their reach is also limited to a few house-holds near their area of dwelling. Many senior citizens of to day might not have forgotten the olden days when they were young, the very familiar sight of a cow or buffalo coming to their houses early morning, milking being done in front of them so that no water is added by the supplier and enjoying the taste of fresh milk. The Varghese Kurien-led white revolution ended this era with almost all urban families depending on factory processed pasteurized and packed milk delivered by milk agents with contract for distribution service from a central dairy.

It may be far from truth if one believes that the old milk supply mode has completely disappeared to day. In fact in many small towns and suburban areas small dairy farmers are still thriving either because consumers have logistical problems in accessing to processed milk or there is inadequate supply of the product in their area. These consumers have to depend on "fresh" milk supply from the local dairy owners and the delivery mode is through cans and other vessels and bottles. One of the advantages here is that the milk from the unorganized sector is always cheaper to the extent of 20% compared to that of packed milk. Though India is considered the top notch nation among the milk producers world over, the extent of milk production that goes through the organized sector is still not very substantial, bulk of it consumed locally without routing through the collection net work of organized dairy units.

Is it the economic reason the major consideration for the consumer to patronize local milk vendors or is there any other factor that weighs heavily in the minds of people to opt for local milk in preference to packed milk? It appears there is another important factor that drives people into the open arms of local milk vendors even in areas where packed milk is available. Many consumers walk to distant milk sources in order to buy "fresh" milk at any cost! This phenomenon is attributed to the "mindset" or the "obsession" of many consumers for freshly milked product which they think is much superior to pasteurized milk. It is a common India psyche that any food which is old is invariably inferior in taste and nutrition! There are many consumers to day who refuse to consume frozen foods because of the same belief. How far they are justified in nurturing such beliefs?

Pasteurization of milk is an innocuous science based process which neither destroys the freshness nor reduces the nutrition. Modern processes treat the fluid milk at high temperatures for a few seconds only and the heat input under a closed system is insufficient to affect the flavor or nutrients in any way. In fact this process improves the safety of milk dramatically by killing all disease causing microorganisms. It is conveniently forgotten by those proponents of fresh milk that when fresh milk is brought home it is subjected to "cooking" in a milk cooker for long time and they do not seem to be much bothered about its effect on flavor or nutrients by this extremely rigorous heating regime.

What about the quality of fresh milk supplied by the local vendors? If the food safety authority in India is to be believed more than 65% of milk vended loose are adulterated, mostly with water. But a significant proportion is also mixed with many injurious substances like urea, detergents, used oils etc putting the health of the consumer in jeopardy. It is a common knowledge that India is the pioneering country that perfected the "art" of counterfeiting animal milk using man made chemicals entirely, eliminating the need for a cow or a buffalo! What is perplexing is that unless such milk concoctions are analyzed in sophisticated laboratories, many consumers will never be able to find out truth. Those who separate cream every day for making butter and ghee can only find out whether the milk is pure or not. During the ghee making process, such milk samples yield voluminous residues which are more fluffy devoid of any flavor typically associated with pure milk.

If consumers are afraid of adulteration, it is advisable that milk is always purchased from organized dairy units, if accessible. To day pasteurized milk can be preserved for 48 hours if unopened under cooler conditions and sterilized milk with 6 months life can be very safe. With milk surplus being reported all over the country, it is imperative that the distribution net work of dairy processors is expanded with much more vigor so that it is accessible to every nook and corner of this country. The impetus for criminals to adulterate milk is provided by the less than dynamic management of hundreds of dairies in the country and uniformity of quality and conformation to national standards are invariably the casualty when it comes to products from some of the public dairies. But, in spite of all their inefficiencies, they still provide a bulwark against unsafe and dangerous milk duplicates being churned out by unscrupulous criminals masquerading as milk vendors!

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

THE FOOD BUSINESS, NO BODY'S BUSINESS!!!

Food business is getting more and more murkier as the "war of attrition" now going on between a hostile consumer activism on one side and the not too transparent food industry under attack. It is difficult to take sides because both the warring parties have their jobs cut out and it is for others who are less biased and more receptive to reasoning to decide about what they want to believe. The stakeholders in food business include the manufacturer, consumer, government, social activists, environmentalist and scientific community. While government has its massive vigilance and safety enforcement responsibilities as mandated by the governing system in vogue, consumer needs to be well informed about the quality and safety of food available in the market. The manufacturer who is in business will invariably focus on his bottom line and no one can blame the industry if it offers products most acceptable to the consumer. Scientific community and social activists work for improving the quality and safety of food by focusing on inappropriate practices and unhealthy trends while the environmentalist has a role to ensure that food production does not vitiate the healthy environment of the human habitat.

What should be the criteria one should use in selecting the right product from the market shelves? Most consumers "eat" the products through their eyes and are attracted by the presentation of the product with all the glory of a slick appearance. The eyes also play a role taking stock of the situation and helps in selection of desired product. The front of the pack labeling regulations in vogue in almost all countries generally provide very valuable information about the nature of the product, its weight, ingredients used, expiry date, nutritional content and some times the retail price also. Branding of food products by reputed manufacturers is meant to create a lasting experience in the minds of the consumer about their good quality. If the product appeals to the consumer, repeat purchases become a reality. Many accusations and insinuations hurled at the organized industry will have to be viewed critically and objectively because mislabeling, misinformation, false claims, lower quality of products, uncertain safety credentials will all ruin the reputation of a normal company and therefore every opportunity must be given to seek clarification through discussion and transparency in order to really crucify them.

How funny it is for any one to blame the industry for all the "sins" in the world with no rhyme or reason! A plethora of diseases like CVD, blood pressure, diabetes, kidney ailments, liver problems, obesity, cancer etc are supposed to be caused by processed foods! If so what has been the role of government agencies with enormous power in preventing these "merchants of death", as the food industry is being called to day? Are not the food scientists, nutritionists, health professionals etc equally responsible for the modern day "sickness" that ails the society? Has the citizen, on whose name the fight is going on to apportion the blame. no role to play or no responsibility to be careful in food selection? These are inconvenient questions no body wants to answer because every body is guilty of not doing what he or she is supposed to be doing, trying to pass on the buck to others!

Recently there has been serious accusation regarding the role played by the flavor companies in promoting unhealthy foods, making them too attractive to be shunned! With a fair degree of transparency already in place under the labeling provision, a literate consumer has all the tools available to discriminate between bad and good foods and if this power is not exercised judiciously who is responsible for the consequences of this folly? It is true that there are a sizable number of manufacturers who indulge in unethical practices in labeling correctly but the existing mechanism of taking them to task is well designed, at least on paper. This is an area where industry must introspect and sooner they practice transparency in labeling and marketing, better it will be for improving their image among the consumers. Unless confidence on the industry to play a fair game is generated this slanging war will go on and on perpetually. The role of scientific community is not above board in this murky blame game because there is practically no unanimity on any scientific aspect relating to food quality, safety, nutrition, healthfulness and acceptability. There are millions of publications emerging every year on different aspects of food but there are controversies galore with practically no unanimity on any issue! How can a consumer understand these matters steeped in technical terms and what the industry can do in using the information correctly? Though WHO and FAO are in the forefront in unifying and synchronizing standards of food safety, each country has the liberty to use or ignore them depending on its economic interests, ignoring the impact on the consumer.     

In an interesting debate recently some one asked why the industry has to make food taste so good, tempting the consumer to over eat! The insinuation is probably directed at some of the major flavor manufacturing companies who are being blamed for seducing the food processing industry to make the food products more and more flavorful and tasty. How can any critic blame that there is an unholy nexus between the flavor industry and the food manufacturers for a high degree of secrecy shrouding their activities? After all secrecy is a part of industrial culture in a fiercely competitive market place and there is no place for any charitable considerations. Added to this, provocative statements like "flavors are so stimulating, they hijack our brain." do not help to douse the passion evident in the arguments of critics blaming the flavor industry. Food manufacturers are blamed for manipulating the product recipes by "dumping" ingredients like sugar, fat and salt which are supposed to stimulate appetite setting in motion a cycle of desire and consumption" among the consumers leading to a society of over eaters! Advocating transparency will have to be tempered with the fact the it should not try to destroy the industry and this is where moderation is called for. While industry can do better by being more transparent without affecting their economic interests too much, consumers cannot be over aggressive in seeking information that cannot be placed in the public domain and only way this can be done is through better and more effective communication between them. 

As obesity, food safety and chemicals in foods constitute some of the most pressing issues of concern to the consumers as well as the policy makers in the government, industry cannot sweep them under the carpet and if business environment is to improve, these issues must be adopted as those of the industry also. Future depends on the success of food industry in integrating these issues into their business philosophy. 

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

"SHRINKING" FOOD PACKS AND RISING PRICES-THE NEW INDUSTRY STRATEGY

How to beat the need to raise the prices of food products without antagonizing the consumer? This is a crucial issue that is confronting the industry world over and if the the product is not price sensitive the manufacturers may not be averse to increase the retail price to keep up with the rising inflation. But what about those products which are more or less staple foods for most of the consumers who will definitely feel the pinch when the family expenditure shoots up significantly? In western countries and many affluent communities the share of processed foods in the daily diet can be as high as 80%, any upward movement of prices is easily discerned.

In the retail market there are broadly two types of packed foods which consist of branded ones and the generic ones usually marketed by the retailing store under its own label. Invariably there is significant price difference with the branded products costing much more compared to generic or local store brands. One of the choices for the consumers is to switch over to local products in preference to established brands and stay within the family food budget. This is where the big processors find it difficult to compete and maintain the business volume. Naturally the main stream industry has to evolve effective strategies to survive and grow in such an environment. Playing around with the human weakness vis-a-vis appearance is exploited to "deceive" the consumer, giving the impression that products prices are not increased in spite of inflation.

It is true that commodity and energy costs have been climbing continuously with no respite and the organized food industry cannot escape from increasing the prices of their products to keep in step with the rising input costs. Whether one calls it ingenuity or plain deception, industry has hit upon the idea of downsizing their pack size without the consumer knowing about it unless the product labels are closely scrutinized. Probably the credit for this strategy must go to the wily package designers who are able to evolve suitable packs containing lesser quantity of products inside which cannot be discerned so easily. The result is a hidden price increase that has gone largely undetected by the average shopper. Recent studies in some of the markets in the Western world have brought out the fact that most popular products were able to to shrink their effective delivery by as much as 20 percent. In a few cases, even after reducing the quantity in the package the products actually appeared larger after downsizing!

One of the reasons why the consumer is not able to find out this deception must be due to the non-standard sizes of packs with each manufacturer using odd sizes which are difficult to remember. There was a time when standard weights and measures were specified and made mandatory by the authorities which helped the consumer to more or less pick up products based on comparative price analysis. But industry has been handed over a convenient route to deceive the consumer by using any pack size provided a declaration is made on the pack that it is not a standard size! With computer aided design capabilities, manufacturers can make a pack look bigger while actually reducing the content size and what is being witnessed to day is the result of such "intelligent" manipulation by the industry to protect their bottom line.

Probably it may be a pretty smart way of "having your cake as well as eat it"! It is a pity that most consumers buying any product do not have the faintest idea as to how much product is contained in a pack and a few pieces missing when the pack is opened at home are unlikely to be noticed. At least this is what the industry thinks. In contrast even a marginal increase in price is immediately noticed which can invite adverse reaction. This is the cardinal basis as to why food manufacturers feel that they can retain customers if they reduce volume instead of passing along price increases. Since this trend has more or less succeeded in almost all parts of the world, it is not unreasonable to expect the same to continue in light of a recent surge in prices of basic food commodities like wheat, corn, coffee etc.

International market prices for foods rose for eight straight months before peaking at a record high in February as per the monthly index figures put out by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization, which tracks data for sugar, cereals, dairy, oils and meat products. This has been attributed to rising oil prices and extreme weather conditions in countries like Russia, which banned grain exports after experiencing its worst drought in a century. Naturally this puts food manufacturers in a fix as they know that most consumers are hyper-sensitive when it comes to price hikes at the supermarket. While in a country like the US consumers may be spending about 10% of their income on food purchase, this figure can be as high as 50% in countries like India. Further erosion of the purchasing capacity through all round, uncontrolled price escalation, at a rate faster than their income levels, is unlikely to be tolerated by the citizens. The new down sizing strategy by the industry, though understandable and considered perfectly legal, cannot be condoned from the ethical angle. Indirectly reducing serving size through shrinking pack size may be a blessing in disguise in countries faced with obesity problem as food intake gets automatically reduced.

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

RETAIL COMMODITY PACKING-LABELING COMPULSIONS

Labeling provides a means for the consumers to have a better understanding about the nature of contents in a sealed food pack and is an enabling way for the processor or the packer to establish a transparent relationship with his clientele. Though the modern labeling system has come about, not because of any voluntary intention on the part of the industry, abiding by the mandatory stipulations that spell out the responsibility of the processor in letter and spirit is a prerequisite for realizing the objectives of food labeling. Most of the players in the processing sector do comply with the regulations in the statute book but there are many who circumvent the legal provisions by being ambivalent and misleading in the label declaration creating confusion in the minds of the consumers.

Branded products from the established and organized food industry are the most compliant ones when it comes to truthful declaration as the manufacturers of these products have a high stake in protecting their image and reputation. There are many small scale and cottage scale players who are neither aware of the implications of food labeling nor serious about the provisions of labeling because of an "impotent" vigilance system with no "teeth" to punish the violators. The entire blame for such a lax system cannot be placed at the doors of those unable to meet the rigid requirements vis-à-vis labeling as they do not have the wherewithal and the means to understand and appreciate the significance of labeling. How one can expect a small bit player to know about the type of packaging material to be used to give the "best before" date for his product or the type of quality deterioration that can be encountered in his products. Governments at the center and the state levels have failed in their responsibility to educate this category of processors about their role in protecting the consumer from quality and safety related defaults.

Another category of packers in the food sector who fail to understand the importance of labeling is the commodity dealers who sell food grains like cereals, millets, pulses, oil seeds etc in gunny bags for bulk supply and in small retail packs in improvised packing modes to consumers. There is practically no information on theses packs regarding the variety of grains packed or the chemical, physical and nutritional characteristics of the contents, though legally they are supposed to provide such information under the prevalent regulations. How else a consumer will know about the type of rice he is buying, its age and cooking characteristics and nutritional details? Thanks to the dramatic growth of Basmati rice exports during the last one decade, branding is slowly being tried where the particular variety is prominently mentioned for recognition by the consumer. There are at least a dozen varieties of rice in the market and the names continuously change from time to time depending what arrives at the market from the growing regions.

The rice marketing is further complicated by the varying characteristics of processed rice grains like boiled, parboiled, steamed, cured and aged, pasty or grainy during cooking. How far any attempt to bring an order into this trade can succeed is uncertain as there are neither bench mark scientific standards nor dependable quality testing infrastructure, available for the purpose. In some of the predominant rice eating countries like Taiwanese China, rice dealers are required to declare the varieties packed by law and violations are not condoned reflecting the importance attached to this legal provision to safeguard the consumer interest. Recent introduction of some rice varieties claiming low glycaemic index or high fiber in the Indian market does not make any sense as such claims are unilateral not supported by evidence. GOI's erstwhile Paddy Processing Research Center at Thiruvayur, TN was dedicated to rice research till it was rechristened as Agricultural Crop Processing Technology Institute, diluting its focus. This Center should have been entrusted with the task of evolving chemical and physical standards for different varieties of rice marketed in the country. Unfortunately the various Agri Varsities dolling out degrees in hundreds, do not seem to be too much concerned about the chaos that prevails in rice industry. Food Standards and Safety Authority of India has no time for such "mundane" aspects of food quality as it is busy with its own "agenda" of "grand standing" and "self glorification"!

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

"RAITHA SANTHE"(FARMERS' MARKET)-THE NEW SYMBOL OF GROWER-CONSUMER BHAI BHAI!

The woes of growers in India are well known and no wonder more and more of this breed are finding life miserable due to poor returns from their avocation. Small land holdings, difficulty to access easy source of short term finance, uncertainties of weather, poor infrastructure, wide spread operation of middlemen who deny reasonable prices for the crops all contribute to the miseries of the farmer. While durable foods like cereals have Minimum Support Price (MSP) scheme of the government, guaranteeing reasonable returns for their crops, the perishables suffer from seasonal price fluctuations and demand-supply uncertainties which cannot be surmounted unless low temperature storage and transport facilities are available at affordable cost. The fear of perishability and glut in production invariably have a price depressing effect making cultivation of these foods a "professional hazard". To add to these difficulties, there is no insurance scheme that will compensate for crop loss due to circumstances beyond the control of the farming community.

The Fruit and Vegetable project taken up by National Dairy Development Board, Anand in the mid-1980's addressed the problems of the growers by establishing cooperative societies in growing areas and processing facilities combined with selling net works in urban areas like New Delhi. Unfortunately the project has not been able to achieve any spectacular success similar to the milk project which made India the top producer of this vital food in the world. In Karnataka itself, Horticultural Producers' Cooperative (HOPCOMS) did commendable job by linking producers directly with the consumer but has not been able to make any significant impact in the market. Organized retailing players owning huge sales outlets in major metropolitan areas did raise hope that their economic and organizational clout would benefit both growers and the consumers by eliminating middle men. But the results so far have belied that hope.

Weekly shandies organized in different rural areas are serving the purpose of providing an opportunity to village folks around the area to expose their products including fresh foods to buyers hailing from nearby settlements at very reasonable prices. These shandies serve a very useful purpose in that both consumers and farmers are mutually benefited. What puts off the buyers, how ever, is the unorganized, dusty, unclean and poor facilities and many potential customers do not opt for such an adventure fearing about diseases and allergies. With no facilities for drinking water or toileting or even for resting for some time without being exposed to the Sun, senior citizens and elderly customers do not consider such places worth visiting, denying them the benefits of buying fresh fruits and vegetables at bargain prices. Added to this the transportation facility to such shandies is very limited.

In Mysore growers of fruits, vegetables and similar fresh food materials gather every day on the side of a half kilometer stretch of a road offering their wares in bargain prices and more than hundred such farmer-vendors participate in this "unofficial' market to cater to the needs of thousands of buyers who regularly congregate at this point to get their daily needs of fresh foods. Same logistical problems that face the rural weekly shandies are experienced here also, with no civic authority officials bothered about such gross neglect. Thanks to some sudden awakening amongst the babus who control the destiny of people in a city like Mysore with two plus million population, a grandiose plan has just been announced for establishing a permanent Farmers' Market (Raitha Santhe) in a nearby vacant place with modern facilities.

According to the plan made public recently, there will be 400 sheltered "stalls" for allotting to genuine farmers for a season so that he can bring his produce directly to the market without the help of any "commission agent" and get maximum price. The proposed Market is expected to have decent civic amenities including parking area for modern day consumers to enjoy the experience of buying "straight" from the farmer at reasonable prices. Major difference between this type of market and the traditional markets is that the latter is controlled by middle men, harvest contractors, "muscle" people etc with high speculative and money power. Even if the produce is perishable the sellers in to day's market system do not reduce prices, not bothered about the wastage at the end of the day. The cold storage facilities are also used by these middlemen to hoard some less perishable produce to manipulate the market prices. Hopefully such things will not happen in the new facility to be built exclusively for farmers. Long live the newly evolving "farmer-consumer" bhai bhai relationship!

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

CONSUMER-INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIP: A CBM WORTH TRYING

The consumer-industry-government triangle based on which healthy industrial development takes place, must be equitable to all the three stake holders. While consumer is indisputably the King, industry must have qualities of courting while governments should play the part of a facilitator. In India such a relationship is still in its infancy and mutual mistrust rules the roost constraining the realization of the full potential of the food processing sector to reach commanding heights through significant value addition to the enormous agri-livestock resources this country enjoys.

While industry depends too much on the government to get freebies, governments, both Central and States, often treat the industry as the proverbial 'cash milking cow' to extract revenues through fiscal impositions. Consumer has a grouse against the government that his constitutional right to access to safe foods is invariably violated by lack of adequate policy initiatives and effective control on rogue elements in the food processing and trading sectors. An area of least concern seems to be consumer education regarding various complex issues concerning food, nutrition, health and diseases. While the governments have their extension and promotion programs for consumer education, their spread, out reach and effect are limited. The most appropriate player is the industry which has direct linkages to the consumer through the products manufactured by them. But the potential for this strategy is not yet recognized in India.

The excellent model that highlights the capability of industry in building up consumer awareness is the one provided by The Grocery Manufacturers Association in USA which is aggressive in promoting sound public policies, championing productivity and growth initiatives and helping to protect the safety and security of food supply through scientific excellence. The $ 2.1 trillion industry in that country, employing 14 million workers, contributes annually more than $ 1 trillion in value addition to its economy. Where it scores over others is its initiative to compile and publish highly informative science policy papers containing unbiased current and scientifically accurate information and resources on critical subjects. The latest offering from this trade body on " Sodium & Salt-A Guide for Consumers, Policy Makers and the Media" is highly informative and revealing with right perspectives.

Is there a lesson to be learned from this model before us? Probably yes. The Confederation of Indian Food Trade and Industry (CIFTI), All India Food Processors Association (AIFPA), Protein Foods and Nutrition Development Association of India (PFNDAI) and Association of Food Scientists and Technologists(India)[AFST(I)] are eminent organizations with commitments to the welfare of the industry as well as the consumers. It is time they get their acts to gether to emulate the model being seen else where. Indian food industry must focus its attention to address various technical issues that confront the country, besides providing workable road maps to governments for achieving the supreme goal of consumer prosperity and well being which in turn will lead to a real partnership amongst the stake holders. It is not that nothing is being done by these organizations but what they are doing through seminars, conventions and workshops have no impact at all. AFST(I) has two journals with contributed articles, PFNDAI has a news letter with limited circulation, AIFPA has a journal and maintains a Technical Advisory Committee for namesake and CIFTI, as a minor associate of the Confederation of Indian Industry does not do enough to influence neither GOI nor the consumer.

What is needed is a professionally competent and coherent scientific group with independent views to address burning problems in different areas of food and project unbiased and uncompromising view for the benefit of one and all. These scientifically sound reports must be of highest technical value, well understood, appreciated and respected by fellow industries, consumers and policy makers and should have permanent reference value. If the organizations mentioned above can put their heads together and raise sufficient resources to maintain such a technical body, there are enough retired scientists in the country, with extra ordinary knowledge, experience, wisdom, intelligence, plenty of time on their hands, inclination and commitment to work for them. In stead of blaming GOI for every ills that face the industry, let us show what citizens can do to push the agenda for development on their own without any crutches from the government. A venture of this dimension is bound to be a good "Confidence Building Measure" between the industry and the consumer.

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