HEALTH FOODS-ARE THEY REALLY HEALTHY?

Food industry is supposed to be providing to the consumer foods that can satisfy both their nutritional as well as culinary satisfaction. Whether the current day food manufacturing sector has been able to satisfy both the above criteria is a subject matter of incessant controversy. A substantial segment of the consumers feel that this industry is more obsessed with protecting its economic interests rather than the interests of the consumer with the result that responsibility for most of the modern day health disorders has been laid at the door steps of the industry. Whether it is CVD, Diabetes, Blood pressure, Kidney disorders or Obesity a substantial segment of the society blames the industry for making and marketing unhealthy foods to the unsuspecting consumer. Though food industry will have to take a large part of the blame for this sorry situation, the government as well as the consumer also have contributed to this mess in their own way. While the regulatory agencies under the government control can be found guilty of not exercising its power of disciplining the industry, consumers must be faulted for not choosing the right food and not following an active life style required to maintain good health.

Sugar including HFCS, fat including the trans fats and salt are the common enemies targeted as villains of the peace when role of food on good health is considered. Why these three constituents in the food should become villains though they were part of the foods consumed for ages is mired in controversies defying a consensus among the pundits of health. It is true that HCFS and trans fats are human creation and therefore their exact role needs to be elucidated through critical and reliable human studies but organizing such studies is fraught with lot of logistical difficulties at the ground level. The empirical calculation that as long as the calorie intake is balanced with expenditure and a diet of varied components is consumed regularly, one need not fear about health deterioration may require a revisit if the large scale use of food additives used by the processors, contaminants that creep into the food during handling and processing, faulty design of products with low fiber and depleted nutrients and unsafe processing practices are taken into consideration. Modern day foods are largely based on too much sugar, refined grains devoid of almost all nutrients, high salt levels, high fat content, all necessary to increase palatability which happens to be the driving force for successful marketing. 

It was not long ago that the industry came up with food supplements and nutraceuticals to overwhelm the consumer who started to worry about the ill effects of over processed foods and success was almost instant. To day this specialized segment of the industry offers a wide range of products,  most of which are considered neither a food nor a pharmaceutical product and the new industry is worth about $ 200 billion world wide, according to one estimate! Ideally for business, food processing makes an easy choice but progressive tightening of safety regulations and increasing criticism from the consumers make it difficult to meet consumer aspirations. Here is where the food supplements and nutraceuticals fit the bill. This is also true for pharmaceutical industry which is a cost intensive sector besides being tightly controlled universally. Almost all products being churned out by this new avatar of the industry such as probiotics, antioxidants, etc are able to make claims on one count or the other regarding their effectiveness on improving health or some medical benefits or preventing many diseases. Unfortunately these foods have not been subjected to any meaningful clinical research for proving the claims. Many of these products are targeted at young or old people with claims of keeping one younger, fitter and slimmer, often offering quick-fix solutions to protecting health. In India there are a few products that blatantly boast of growing taller, sharper, smarter, more healthy, quick energy restoration etc though very little clinical evidence is offered in support. Enrolling some obscure "scientists", obviously mercenaries in nature, in visual promotions gives the claims some respectability. It is a tragedy that government of the day remains a mute spectator to this day light fraud!        

According to some observers the nutraceutical and health food industry is a "placebo" driven business with little margins and therefore it cannot invest too much on clinical research in supportv of its varied claims.  Consumers eager to buy products which are fortified with one or more nutrients or well being ingredients, enhanced and enriched and their ready willingness to buy them, provides the platform for the health food industry to exploit this weakness for enriching itself! There is a famous saying that multi vitamins only improve the "health" of the industry! Probably this may be the real truth in the case of health food industry also. It is the eternal hope of the consumers who are hooked on to these products by high pressure promotional efforts of the industry, that ensures phenomenal growth by many major players in this sector. This situation cannot be allowed to continue knowing well that consumers are being taken for a ride by this industry with no regulatory agencies doing any thing to curb their activities. Probably it is time consumer activists take up cudgels on behalf of millions of unsuspecting consumers and force the governments in different countries as well as international agencies involved in health related developments to bring in some sanity in the form of evolving a regulatory environment to protect the interest of the consumer. The fact that these products do not harm the consumer though the claims made are unsustainable, cannot be an excuse to delay action in this area any more.     

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

THE PROBIOTIC FOODS-UNSUBSTANTIATED HEALTH CLAIMS

Low consumer awareness about food, nutrition and health provides an opportunity for food processing industry, especially those who are socially irresponsible, to seduce the consumer through many unsubstantiated health claims for the products from their stable. It is true that there are food laws and regulations in some countries purportedly to prevent such frauds, but the defaulters still get away through ineffective implementation or exploitation of the loopholes in the statute books. If such things happen in countries like the US, the UK, Australia and other well regulated markets, one can imagine the situation in some of the developing countries with vast illiterate population with very inefficient safety vigilance regime.

Probiotics are supposed to offer many health advantages if one goes through the published literature, most of them being of academic nature with very little hard and reliable evidence. According to FAO/WHO definition, the probiotics constitute a group of "microorganisms when administered live in adequate quantities can confer a health benefit to the host". Unfortunately the industry takes advantage of the vagueness inherent in the above definition, especially regarding the nature of health benefits, and makes unsustainable claims to attract unsuspecting consumers. Lactobacillus bacteria(LAB) and Bifidus bacteria are commonly used in probiotic food products and in order to qualify to be called probiotic, the concerned products should have not less than 4 billion live cells of the organism used. Besides the above two, a few other bacteria and yeast strains are also said to have beneficial health effects though to the same extent as LAB and Bifidus.

According to claims made by some manufacturers, probiotic microbes provide protection to the beneficial intestinal bugs while inhibiting pathogens that cause many diseases related to Gastrointestinal tract in human beings. Other claims include alleviation of chronic intestinal inflammation and prevention of pathogen induced diarrhea, urogenital infection and atopic diseases. Claims are also made that probiotics can give relief to lactose intolerance, fight colon cancer, reduce cholesterol and blood pressure, improve immuno functions, fight against infections, bring relief to Intestinal Bowel Syndrome (IBS) and colitis etc. While thousands of papers have been published in international scientific journals about some or the other beneficial uses of probiotic microorganisms based on laboratory studies, there is still many unanswered questions regarding their effect under actual field conditions on live human subjects.

It is against this context that one has to see the recent action taken by the The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in forcing the industry in its member countries to obtain permission for making such claims for which scientific proof was demanded. About 8000 health claims made by various manufacturers regarding the beneficial impact of their products on human health were assessed deploying competent independent scientists and the agency brought out the shocking fact that most of these claims were unproven though industry has been making these claims to attract unsuspecting consumers for years. EFSA concluded that the evidence the industry had submitted to support its claims that various food additives could strengthen the body's defenses, improve immune function, effective against common cold and reduce gut problems were either so general that they were not acceptable or the claimed effect could not be demonstrated. In some countries like the UK more than half the population regularly buy probiotic products believing the claims made and there are over 44000 such products that are marketed world over with all types of claims.

If the above assessment is confirmed there is no justification to use the term probiotics on labels unless there is proper understanding about the meaning it carries, conveyed to the consumers unequivocally. Here is where bodies like the FAO and WHO have lot to do in cooperation with the scientific institutions of the member countries. Sooner it is done better it would be for the consumer community which has been using these products, paying a premium price but unsuspecting about the actual impact of these products on their health. .

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

FOOD OR DRUG?-HEALTH "CLAIMS" BY FOOD INDUSTRY

Imagine the FSSAI at Delhi issuing a notice to a manufacturer of food products for printing unsubstantiated health claims on the front panel of a food package to entice unsuspecting consumers to splurge on that product! Even if such a "rarest of rare" incidence happens what could be the consequences? Nothing! Most likely the notice would find its rightful place in the garbage bin of the corporate office of the company because every "culprit" in this country knows that FSSAI is a toothless tiger!. Look at the commotion created by serving notices to food giants like Nestle and 16 other major food processors in the US by the FDA questioning the validity of health claims made by them on the labels of their products. The response from these "violators" has been in double quick time promising full cooperation in complying with the regulations in the statute books fully

Nestle and Diamond Foods, two major companies in the US have been under the scanner of the authorities for making claims made on their packaging labels. After detailed scrutiny the FDA zeroed in on 22 food products that violated its claim guidelines. Others on the radar for labeling violations included Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream for for its Nestle drumsticks, Nestle Nutrition for its Juicy Juice products, and Diamond Foods for some of its nut products. The FDA is targeting health and nutrition claims that it says would cause the food products to be regulated as drugs. The offending companies are being booked for making claims over trans fat content, antioxidant advantages, and omega-3 benefits contrary to the existing guidelines. The violations include unauthorized health claims, unauthorized nutrient content claims, and unauthorized use of vague terms such as "healthy," including others that have strict, regulatory definitions.

It is tragic that some of these companies operating in India have double standards offering to the hapless citizens of this country same products marketed in the US but with much inferior standards of quality and safety. The breakfast cereals, chocolate products, snack foods, soft drinks, bottled water, oat flakes and many others marketed in India are distinctly inferior to their counterparts in the US. For this situation consumer will have to "thank" the FSSAI which does not seem to have any clue regarding what is happening in the market place.

A larger question that arises regarding the health claims is whether food processing industry is adequately equipped to design and manufacture food products which are healthier than normal foods as it requires tremendous resources and infrastructure facilities to launch specialty foods with proven health claims. Taking isolated published information and using it as support for any health claim cannot be accepted because such data apply only to specific conditions of experiment carried out by the authors of the studies quoted.

Some pundits in India are pedaling the concept of nutraceuticals or nutrifoods or pharma foods which does not have any scientific validity. Adding nutrients like vitamins, minerals and some others to foods during food processing must be restricted to the extent of "restoring" such nutrients lost due to severity of processing. This cannot be the basis for indiscriminate use of various synthetic or extracted substances with some hypothetical health promoting benefits in processed foods and claim they are superior to normal foods. GOI must clamp down such profit motivated efforts by a segment of the food industry in this country.

As a policy measure GOI must lay down guidelines regarding addition of any nutrients to a food and should not allow any one to print any health claims on the label even indirectly. Such foods which are made using external nutrients, not natural to them, must not be given permission for manufacture or marketing by the food industry. This responsibility may be assigned to the pharma industry which can do a better job in designing such products and exercising the quality and safety responsibilities with its established infrastructure. Even when it comes to nationally mandated nutrification programs like iodine in salt, Vitamin A and D in milk, iron in salt or tea etc food industry can be given specific permission for manufacture of such foods under direct monitoring by the Health Ministry of GOI. The "free for all" situation that exists to day for any "tom, dick and harry" to sell health foods must be stopped in the interest of consumers in the country.

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

MISLEADING HEALTH CLAIMS-SIGNS OF SOME FIRE WORKS AT LAST!

Success of a consumer product depends on the ability of its manufacturer to convey to the consumer the features of his product and convince him about its USP. Intense competition in the market puts pressure on the manufacturers to make inflated claims regarding the superiority of his product. As long as these claims do not cross the line of verifiable facts, they can be acceptable. The label on the food packet has sufficient provision to print the facts about the product and information such as the identity of the manufacturer, quantity of contents, ingredients, manufacturing date, best before date, nutritional profile, MRP, method of preparation and any other relevant but truthful facts. This can give a fairly good idea to the consumer based on which first time purchase is made. Repeat purchase will happen only if consumer is convinced about the overall quality of the product and the reasonableness of its price.

While Food Standards and Safety Authority of India (FSSAI) is vested with the authority to enforce food laws prevailing in the country, its implementation arm is the concerned state which is supposed to be equipped to inspect, collect samples, analyze them and prosecute if they do not conform to the standards. How ever neither the FSSAI nor the state administration has adequate infrastructure and needed personnel in quality and number for doing a decent job. Recent reports from Ahmedabad and Ludhiana regarding large scale adulteration of food by traders expose the underbelly of FSSAI!

While monitoring of food safety and quality as it exists to day is a sham, what goes on in the advertisement area is a hoax perpetrated by some industry on the unsuspecting consumers. Circumventing regulations that bar printing unsustainable claims on food labels, small screen has become the playing field for some of the unscrupulous industry players to influence the mind of the consumer through saturated advertisements, some time involving icon personalities from sports, film world and even wayward members from the scientific field. Promoting a food claiming faster brain growth, growing stronger, sharper and taller, increasing body stamina, etc will naturally influence any mother or house wife in her purchasing decision.

It has taken the government so long to take notice of this obnoxious behavior on the part of the food industry is some thing alarming about its commitment to protect the citizens from unfair exploitation. In a recent announcement by GOI, a resounding declaration was made that it was going to come down heavily on food industry making `tall' claims about the benefits of their products through advertisements. Further GOI wants to evolve a specific code to be followed by the industry which will restrict misleading and deceptive claims made on the effect of products on nutrition, health, exceptional intelligence or physical ability. In case of a violation of the code, the FSSAI wants to take action by publicizing the fact through the media which is considered a strong deterrent for potential violators and there is also a provision to impose a penalty of Rs 10 lakh. Lack of a legal framework in the country for regulating advertising standards on food and beverage companies, probably tempts manufacturers to indulge in such devious practices. The Advertising Standards Council has in place a voluntary code for advertisers in general, with no specific guidelines for advertising by food and beverage companies and it is rare that any one is pulled up for such unethical activities.

Consumer will patiently wait to see the words from FSSAI being translated to action in the coming days and if these utterances do not provide the needed deterrence, consumers may eventually rise against the industry as well as the government agencies for defaulting on their responsibilities to protect them from exploitation and dangers of unsafe foods..

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

MALTED MILK-AN OVERHYPED PRODUCT?

The promotional thrust in India of a particular product which is globally marketed, reads some thing like this: "consumption of this product makes children taller, stronger, sharper than other kids". Interestingly the promoters roped in some professionals in the ads to make the claim all the more convincing. What is this product? A distinct category of beverages popular in India under the category ' Malted Milk' containing malt extract and milk solids. It also claims A-Z nutrition to pre-school children guaranteeing 100% of daily needs of 'key' nutrients, promoting sleep if consumed at bed time and increased growth and alertness amongst children. While in India such claims go unchallenged, UK Authorities have termed these claims as 'unsubstantiated'!

No doubt the combination of malt and milk can be a good base for an attractive product with high sensory quality. Malted milk was originally developed in 1873 by a UK entrepreneur, after shifting to America, by name James Horlick and the product was patented in 1883. Originally marketed under the name 'Diastoid', it was later branded as 'Malted Milk'. There are many variants of malted milk and generally they contain about 7% fat, 70% carbohydrates ( starch and sugars), 12% proteins and other ingredients. The process of manufacture involves blending of milk, malt extract and sugar, drying the blend under vacuum and milling to desired particle size. Some use spray drying also. The malt extract used is not an active malt preparation with diastatic activity but made from roasted malted cereals by extraction and vacuum concentration into 78%-80% solids thick syrup. It contains about 1-3% fructose, 30-42% maltose, 15% maltotriose, 7-10% glucose and rest higher saccharides, all of them reducing sugars. The typical flavor associated with malt extract is due to aldehydes and pyrazines generated during roasting of the malt before extraction.

Coming to the nutrition part, any food scientist worth his salt knows that malt extract owes its color to Maillard reaction, first discovered by the French Biochemist Louis-Camille Maillard, that is triggered by presence of reducing sugars and amino acids present in proteins at temperatures of 235C-255C that exists in the kilns used for roasting. But even at lower temperatures like ambient conditions the reaction takes place, albeit slowly. For every 10C rise in temperature, the reaction rate increases 2-3 times. When such a material like malt extract and milk are mixed and heated even at lower temperatures, the Maillard reaction is bound to be accelerated. What are the consequences of Maillard reaction on the nutrition of a product like Malted Milk?

Protein-reducing sugar reaction generally contributes to deterioration and loss of nutritional value of proteins during processing and storage, a fact well known to food scientists. More disturbing is the reported involvement of Maillard reaction products causing chemical aging of long-lived proteins in human tissues. Products of sequential glycation and oxidation of proteins, known as glycoxidation products accumulate in these long-lived proteins with advancing age and at an accelerated rate in diabetes. The precise implication of these artifacts on the health of consumers is still not well understood, raising uncertainties regarding their real nutritive impact. Reduced availability of Lysine and some of the essential amino acids and formation of inhibitory chemicals or anti-nutritional compounds during processing and storage may be of real concern when any judgment is made regarding the relevance of malted milk products as a regular item of consumption in the diet. Probably milk consumed alone may be more nutritious than the so called malted milk. Viewed in this context the health claims by the malted milk industry are not vindicated by science and hence will remain unsubstantiated unless such claims are validated by studies as per international protocols.

The purpose of this blog is not to indict any brand of products in the market but to focus on the inadequacies of data based on which special nutritional claims can be made. Probably stoichiometrically the Maillard reaction may not be affecting very significantly the absolute quantum of protein available and the artifacts produced may not be as harmful as they are thought to be. But the scientific arguments based on existing data as articulated above, do support the theory that Maillard reaction is not desirable if nutritional value is the main concern in products like malted milk.

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