A new interpretation on GM foods-Will such window dressing impress the consumers?

The debate about the safety of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) foods never seems to end and in fact it is becoming more and more bitter and acrimonious day by day. The vacillating attitudes of government policy makers regarding making labeling mandatory for foods derived from raw materials raised by genetic modification are making the consumers more and more disturbing leading to world wide campaigns to ban such foods until their safety is established beyond a shadow of doubt. Massive consumer movements and multi pronged initiatives by consumer groups across the world demanding at least forcing the industry to declare on the label presence of GMO ingredients are gaining momentum and it is a question of time before the industry has to bow before such cascading consumer pressure. A simple question as to why the GMO industry is fighting tooth and nail to sabotage plans for making label declaration mandatory is- why are they doing it if GMO foods are absolutely safe? May be industry has a feeling that consumers will boycott such foods if they become aware of presence of GMO ingredients in such products. Added to this many products carrying declaration that they do not contain GMO ingredients provide a ready platform for consumers to go selectively for such "neat" foods as perceived by them, in preference to the GMO containing ones. Ultimately it boils down to the impact this will have on the bottom line of many GMO food peddlers! 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of USA whose dictats are followed by many countries across the world has been very circumspect in its interpretation and policy orchestration vis-a-vis GMO foods. For ages FDA has been maintaining that GMO foods are "almost" like natural foods and are safe to consume by human beings. Probably such a policy support to the GMO industry has created a situation in that country where more than 80% of the processed food products made and marketed contain one or more GMO ingredients without the innocent consumer ever knowing about it! Does this not amount to deception by a government supposed to be the most democratic in the world? Is this ethical? Of course in an over democratized country like the US every individual has the right to do what he or she wants and true to this "ideal" the elected representatives also practice their fundamental right to say and do what they feel is right. It is another matter that a majority of these law makers are obliged to the GMO lobby because their elections have been bank rolled by them and they feel it is not correct to let their clients down by siding with the citizens though they forget that they owe their power to the very same electorate! 

Here is a contradiction which is very difficult to explain away. In some of the states the proposal to make declaration of GMO ingredients mandatory failed ballot initiatives giving an impression that people are not too concerned about this issue. On the other hand surveys after surveys have shown that more than 80% of the citizens want to make such labeling compulsory! This has been attributed to the massive propaganda unleashed by the GMO lobby to "brainwash" the consumers through half "truths" and "no truths" about the safety of GMO foods. To an ordinary citizen it does not make any sense to adopt GMO foods because nature provides foods which have been found safe over centuries and why there should be attempts to tinker with nature. Hybridization technology practiced since long takes time to give desired results but the resultant hybrids generated due to natural gene mutations are stable and safe, consumed since time immemorial. Also not easily understood by the common man is the advantage of GMO foods for them or for the humanity as the claims of increased yield through GMO technology has never been proven any where so far. Of course traits like pest resistance and others are incorporated through GMO technology but here again net advantage is not undisputed. 

Why is that the issue of GMO foods became a debating point again? Recent attempts by FDA to stop use of the phrase " does not contain GMO ingredients" by those not using them has created another unwarranted controversy and many feel that such an attempt is tantamount to punishing the citizen through denial of information about the nature of food being purchased by them. FDA feels that no one should use such declaration because many foods created through biotechnological process do not use genetically modified organisms all the times and most products are at best genetically "engineered" or "bioengineered"and therefore industry must shun using GMO word unnecessarily to avoid confusing the consumer. It is similar to saying that "no protein is present in an edible oil pack". May be there is a point and FDA may be right in issuing such an advisory which industry can adopt as long as no one uses the word GMO in any context. As far as consumer is concerned all he is interested is to know whether the food he is buying is made from natural ingredients with proven credentials. Whether the new FDA advisory is acceptable to the industry remains to be seen.

Many major food companies using genetic engineered food ingredients are happy that FDA has stuck to its position that it is not required for the processors to disclose presence of genetically engineered ingredients, sticking to its position that such products are not materially different from non-engineered versions. After all industry's efforts to resist mandatory labeling, fearing that customers will be scared off by foods known to contain genetically engineered ingredients seem to be succeeding. However the specious plea by them that mandatory labeling will drive the cost of the food cannot be accepted. It is a good sign that many major food companies have already moved to voluntarily label products that do not contain genetically engineered ingredients, either simply stating that on their packaging or using a small butterfly seal to show that the Non-GMO Project, a nonprofit that provides certification for food producers, has certified the absence of genetic engineered substances. Interestingly there is a genuine attempt by many manufacturers in the US to source non-GMO. ingredients which is a good sign as far as consumers are concerned. According to a recent report there are more than 30000 products in the US market carrying the label that they are free from GMO food ingredients and probably this sector may be worth about $ 13.5 billion which may be a fraction of the total retailed foods estimated at $ 638 billion last year.

The desire of the citizens for accessing clean and safe foods is reflected by efforts in the US in different states to mandate labeling of foods that do contain genetically engineered ingredients but they have largely failed by narrow margins, after heavy lobbying and campaign spending by the food and biotech industries. it is in this context that the law makers at the federal level passed a bill that would require food companies to reveal presence of genetically engineered ingredient in food products via a QR code, a pixelated square that can be scanned with a smartphone, on packaging that will reduce the chorus for hard printing the same on every label. Though it may be acceptable to many people who have adequate computing literacy to read the code before making a buying decision, a vast majority might not be able to decode to understand the nature of the product. In such a situation FDA also wants to differentiate between genetically engineered and genetically modified to convey different things to the consumers. According to them genetically engineered product comes from the efforts of biotechnologists originating in a laboratory while genetic modification happens by natural process as in hybridization process. Thus we have three technical terms which include Genetically Modified Organism (GMO), Genetically Engineered (GE) and Genetically Modified (GM). Of the three GMO is the most dreaded because genes from another species find their way into a particular food, though in small quantities. This means GM foods are analogous to natural foods while GE foods are similar but created in the lab with some distinct advantages. 

Consumer is still left confused to make out what each of this term means if industry starts using all three terms for declaring their products are free from them. Probably more positive approach could be to make those using food ingredients created through GE or GMO technology to declare the same unequivocally as a part of the transparency protocol which consumers are bound to appreciate. Whether industry will agree for such a transparent practice is some what uncertain at this point of time because of monetary implications. Efforts of many manufacturers to source raw materials not tainted by GE or GMO will get rewarded only if declaration of presence or absence of lab created food ingredients on the label of each pack..

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

Another debate about safety vs advantages of GMO foods-Where lies the truth?

Reproduced below is a recently published treatise on genetically modified foods, their safety aspects and advantages. This is quoted below without any bias or prejudices and readers are free to come to any conclusion regarding the issues covered here:

In 2008, Duane Grant, who runs farms in Idaho and northern Oregon, began growing sugar beets from seeds that were genetically modified. As a result, he says he now uses fewer chemicals, tills the soil less often and gets larger yields from the same acreage — increasing profits and reducing his environmental footprint along the way.  "I am proud of that fact," he said. But that pride does not translate into support for a burgeoning consumer movement that would have mandatory labels placed on products containing sugars like his, such as juices, soft drinks and breakfast cereals, and on any other product containing a genetically modified organism, or GMO. Grant considers such labels irrational — a sentiment that aligns with the broader food industry, which has been spending tens of millions of dollars in recent years to avoid them, fearing they would drive customers away. Despite two decades of assurances from biotechnology firms, food processors, federal regulators and even a substantial share of scientists that GMO foods are safe, ballot initiatives and citizen petitions seeking labels on GMO foods are springing up as quickly as the industry can pay — or sue — to defeat them. Meanwhile, sales of foods labeled GMO-free have been steadily gaining ground on consumer shopping lists, and polls suggest that more Americans than ever favor labels that identify GMO foods.

This has even some supporters of genetic engineering wondering if it's time to rethink the labeling question. "If you give people a choice and value, that wins," said David Ropeik, a risk-communication consultant. He has begun calling on the industry to let go of its "fear of fear" and embrace GMO labeling, which is required in at least 64 other nations, including Japan, Australia, Russia, Brazil and more than a dozen European countries. But Grant, like many industry stakeholders, remains skeptical. "To allow popular perception of harm — or benefit — to be the basis for mandatory labeling would not result in food being safer," he argued. "It would result in the scientific community being pushed to the sidelines in favor of food-fad-of-the-day mob regulation."

Whether or not that's true, food makers are spending lavishly to avoid mandatory GMO labels. In 2012, for example, opponents of a California labeling proposition — including Monsanto, ConAgra and other genetically modified seed makers alongside food companies like Sara Lee, Coca-Cola and Kellogg's — spent a staggering $46 million, primarily on lobbying and advertising, to defeat the measure. Similar efforts in Washington the following year prompted the state's attorney general to sue the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA), alleging that the leading food industry lobby was hiding the identity of the contributors to its anti-labeling campaign in violation of state election laws. The GMA eventually came clean, revealing that dozens of contributors — including Nestle, Del Monte, Coca-Cola and Hershey — had chipped in $7 million to kill the measure. In almost all such battles, the companies easily outspend label supporters. Monsanto and Dupont Pioneer, for example, were among a long list of food industry interests that contributed over $15 million to defeat a labeling measure in Colorado during November's elections, according to state records. Supporters of the bill managed to raise a tiny fraction of that amount. The initiative failed. Dupont, Monsanto, Kraft Foods, PepsiCo and other food industry players pumped more than $30 million into efforts to quash a similar ballot initiative in Oregon — twice the amount supporters were able to muster. The industry is now locked in a fierce legal battle with Vermont, which passed a GMO labeling law last year, and companies have lobbied hard for federal legislation that would bar other states from following suit. A bill that would do that was introduced last spring by Rep. Mike Pompeo, a Republican from Kansas who, as it happens, received the largest single contribution — $10,000 — from the GMA for the 2014 election cycle, according to federal data. The bill did not make it out of committee, but Heather Denker, a spokeswoman for Pompeo's office, said he plans to reintroduce the bill in coming weeks.

The industry justifies all these expenditures on a variety of grounds. For starters, companies say, a hodgepodge of differing state labeling laws would be unworkable, and even a federal labeling rule would make food more expensive. They also argue that genetic modification, which involves the insertion of foreign genes into an organism — so far mostly crops like corn and soy — so that it expresses a new and ostensibly desirable trait, is really just one among a variety of plant breeding techniques that have been used for decades without complaint.

More substantively, GMO supporters argue that there is no evidence to suggest genetically modified foods present any more risk than conventionally bred fare, a view generally held by a long list of scientific organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the World Health Organization. Taking a similar position, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which regulates food from GMO crops in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency, has seen fit to leave GMO labeling a strictly voluntary affair. "As a public health agency, we base our policy decisions on the best science available," said Theresa Eisenman, an FDA spokeswoman, in an emailed statement. "The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived from genetically engineered plants, as a class, differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way or that, as a class, such foods present different or greater safety concerns than their non-GE [genetically engineered] counterparts."
Although the FDA's review process is voluntary, virtually all producers of new GE products submit them to the agency for approval. Since the mid-1990s, the FDA has signed off on over 150 varieties of genetically engineered crops, though not all proved commercially viable. Most GMO-derived ingredients found on shelves today are from crops that were tweaked to improve resistance to pests and certain herbicides, but newer products with consumer-facing traits are in the pipeline. This includes the Arctic apple, which has been engineered to resist browning.
On Feb. 13 the USDA determined the apple was safe to grow, and the FDA is currently reviewing it. Eisenman also said that the agency is reviewing two citizen petitions urging the FDA to create a mandatory GMO label but that no decisions has been made — much to the chagrin of many consumers who remain unconvinced that GMOs are safe.  A survey published last month by the Pew Research Center, for example, found that while nearly 90 percent of scientists surveyed said they considered genetically modified foods safe to eat, only 37 percent of the general population agreed. An ABC News poll from last summer found similar results, with more than half of respondents saying they believed GMO foods were unsafe. In a 2013 New York Times survey, 93 percent of respondents said they wanted GMO ingredients identified on food labels.

Critics of such surveys argue that they only demonstrate ignorance of GM technology. Ropeik, for example, pointed to a 2013 study conducted at Rutgers University, in which participants were asked, in an open-ended question, what sort of information they would like on their food labels that isn't already there. Only 7 percent mentioned genetic modification. A more recent survey from Oklahoma State University found that 80 percent of respondents said they supported mandatory GMO labels. The same large percentage, however, also wanted labels on foods containing DNA. Such cognitive dissonance suggests to industry stakeholders that environmental advocates are simply exploiting consumer ignorance to force a label on technology they don't like. "It's clear to us that it's really meant as a skull and crossbones," said Cathleen Enright, the executive vice president for food and agriculture for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group representing Monsanto, DuPont and other GE seed makers. "We shouldn't be using labels as a scare." Scott Faber, the vice president of government affairs with the Environmental Working Group, a public health advocacy based in Washington, D.C., disagreed. "If you're framing this as a debate about technology, you're really missing the bigger picture," he said. "It's about what consumers are entitled to know, broadly, about their food." He argued that the jury remains out on questions of GMO safety, not just at the dinner table but also in the fields, where cross-pollination with conventional crops is difficult to control and where heavy reliance on GM seeds is contributing to the emergence of new herbicide-resistant weeds, which in turn drives farmers to ramp up use of toxic chemicals. "These things have only been in the market for 15 years," Faber said, "and they've not been submitted to long-term studies, so it's still way too early to render a judgment one way or another on their safety." In the absence of consensus, the marketplace may be providing the differentiation many advocates seek. Labels certifying GMO-free foods are booming, with the lead certifier, the Non-GMO Project, placing its imprimatur on over 20,000 food, beverage and body care items. Nielsen, the market research firm, said sales of such products increased 15 percent last year, to nearly $10 billion, and it ranks the GMO-free sector among the fastest-growing food trends in the market today.

The USDA's organic certification already acts as a vouchsafe against GMO ingredients, and Whole Foods has taken the lead among major retailers in catering to consumer demand, requiring that by 2018, all products in its U.S. and Canadian stores either avoid GMOs or carry labels to indicate that they contain them. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has floated an even broader long-term solution: placing special bar codes on food packages that consumers can scan with their smartphones, obtaining all the information they could ever want about the food involved — where it was made, how it was processed, whether it was grown using hormones or antibiotics, what sort of allergens it might contain and, of course, whether it involved genetic modification. Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for the GMA, suggested that the bar code solution has merit. "Our members are always looking for ways to use technology to provide consumers with more information about their product choices," he said. Until that happens, though, the GMA and its like-minded industry partners plan to keep battling the mandatory label movement — and to let voluntary non-GMO labeling provide consumers with the choice they're looking for.

In Idaho, Duane Grant suggested that identifying and labeling products that don't contain GMOs would be a lot easier to do these days anyway. "The fact is, about 80 percent of the food in the U.S. now contains ingredients produced using GM technology," he said, "and it has been that way for years."

After reading the above, what type of conclusion a lay man can come to? More confusion and more questions! One thing which strikes one is that both sides have their own strong views and may have some merits in their contentions and unless there is a unanimity consumers may not accept GMO foods unreservedly!

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

"NATURAL" FOOD INGREDIENTS-WHERE ARE THEY?

Explosive growth of organic food industry owes largely to the rising concerns of consumers regarding the safety of products main stream food industry. In spite of the fact that organic foods cost 50-100% more than commercial alternatives, people seem to be willing to patronize them with the firm belief that their kith and kin are protected. Why should the consumers be worried so much about food products from the organized processing industry? The reasons are not far to seek. Most importantly the agriculture is dependent largely on heavy use of chemical crop protectants, most of them considered toxic to human beings even in small concentrations found as residues on the harvested crops. More recently another dimension has been added to the safety concerns of the people by the large scale production of genetically modified foods and their wide spread marketing without the consumer ever knowing about this transgression of their right to know what they are eating. Unfortunately in countries like the US more than 80% of the foods on the shelves of most markets contain GMO ingredients with no indication about their presence on the front of the pack label!

How serious is the issue of safety of GMO foods now omnipotent in the US market and in a few other countries? It will be an understatement of one says that GMO foods do pose serious problems of safety as adequate data are still not generated to conclusively prove that they are absolutely safe. If so why is that the safety authorities in countries like the US are not clamping down on the industry, giving them a free rein in the market? The guess is that they are in collusion with the GMO lobby for considerations other than the welfare of their citizens! Imagine the clout of this lobby which pumped so much money for defeating a ballot initiative in California that would have mandated compulsory labeling of foods containing GMO ingredients, that too after 80% of the population there wanted compulsory labeling! Note that people are not asking for banning the GMO foods but just make the industry to declare that they are present in the products offered!

Now that increasing evidence is accumulating regarding the uncertain safety credentials of GMO foods, more and more people are demanding from the industry to give them GMO free products. It is a sad situation in the US where the current President promised to make the industry declare on the label presence of GMO ingredients but promptly reneged on his solemn assurances after the election. If to day the anti GMO lobby has some clout it is due to the relentless campaign by a few voluntary organizations around the world. It is comical to see that the governments do not insist on declaration of GMO ingredients while not allowing those making products without GMO to declare the same on the labels of their products! The relentless pressure by people's organizations is making more and more people aware of the unnatural nature of genetically fiddled foods. 

It is shocking that about 90 percent or more of four major crops — corn, soybeans, canola and sugar beets  in the US are grown from genetically engineered seeds. This poses another challenge to the user industry to source non-GMO counterparts to replace the GMO version in their product mix. Of course there is a limited production base for conventional varieties but a significant portion of the conventional varieties of those crops is exported while the organic food industry has cornered the rest. Besides, the livestock industry is reported to be increasing its demand for non-GMO crops to meet growing demand among consumers for eggs and meats sourced from animals that have never eaten genetically modified feeds. The magnitude of revulsion to GMO foods can be gauged by the recent massive protests in 436 cities in 52 countries rallying against the monopolist company that supplies GMO seeds all over the world! 

Another worrying factor is the impact of large scale shift of consumers from GMO foods to conventional ones on the price front. According to knowledgeable sources, the prices of non GMO version of Corn is commanding a premium price of almost 75-100% in the market and if the supply restraints become more acute the prices can further increase in the near future. Same applies to other crops also and the US is facing a massive dilemma in tackling this issue as it is difficult to grow conventional natural crops in fields which have been cultivating GMO crops. Recent finding of GMO wheat in a field in Midwest America was traced to a GMO wheat trial taken almost a decade ago by the GMO industry and is it not shocking that even after 10 years traces pf GMO crop remained raising enormous worries about the consequences of increased consumer resistance against GMO crops. Will the Americans be forced to eat GMO foods under such a situation even if labeling becomes mandatory as otherwise it will be starvation for them? 

Another dimension to this problem after the protests have gained a critical mass is who will vouchsafe the authenticity of non GMO crops. The policy makers and administrators do not seem to be capable of stemming this tide in favor of compulsory labeling. If so what logistical problem is going to arise once labeling is made mandatory? Most critical requirement will be to test foods for the presence of GMO ingredients and provide credible certification to those willing to avoid their use. Testing requires sophisticated facilities and experienced bio analysts both being in short supply. Probably the GMO lobby may be laughing all the way to their banks after putting the country in such a fix. It is time the US government addresses this concern and establish the much needed testing and certification facilities sooner than later.   

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

THE GM LABELING "CAMPAIGN"-FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

The controversy surrounding Genetically Modified foods and food ingredients refuses to die down though activists opposing these foods based on safety and environmental considerations are being smothered by the money power of the GM lobby. GM foods derived through transgenic process is mired in disputes between those who feel they are safe and others taking the stand that sufficient scientific evidence does not exist guaranteeing its safety. As far as environmentalists are concerned there is a potential danger in cultivating GM crops which may cause cross contamination of normal crops thus destroying the traditional normal crops. It is a pity that these two warring groups cannot sit across a table and thrash out their differences to evolve a consensus on the issue.

There are many countries in the world where cultivation of GM crops are totally banned or restricted by local regulations. The US is the only country which has allowed a free run to the GM crop industry to produce foods which are tampered with genetically changing their original character. Some of the countries which permit GM crops have put restrictions on their cultivation under a strict regulatory regime. In Europe GM crops are allowed to a limited extent but the products containing GM food raw materials or ingredients derived from them will have to declare their presence on the label. One is reminded of irradiated foods which also require the label to declare the same. Why a country like the US does not regulate GM foods as in Europe is a big mystery. 

An incisive analysis of the US Food System brings about.the stranglehold the giant monopoly food companies have over the food and farming system in that country. In a scathing revelation recently, it was revealed that the GM lobby has financed the election of many senators and law makers of the country to retain policies which are subservient to the financial interest of the former, ignoring the welfare. of the citizens, considered a serious distortion of the essence of democracy. Unfortunately precious little has been done during the last two decades to set right this distortion and more than 80% of American foods offered by industry has one or more GM food ingredients forcing the consumer to eat the same without even knowing about it! It is true that during the last two decades the antagonists of GM foods have not been able to pinpoint any specific damage to the health of the population solely due to consumption of GM foods. But the million dollar question is whether GM foods have played any role at all in the transformation of American society into a predominantly obese population.

It is interesting to hear about the great march of thousands of people feeling strongly about the safety of GM foods from New York to Washington DC to impress upon their President the urgent need to introduce mandatory legislation to label GM foods to distinguish from normal, natural foods. No doubt such a move is most welcome which may resonate throughout that country, motivating more people to express their concerns in a peaceful manner. The US President must see the writing on the wall and bring out legislation in tune with the aspirations of common man. What is more interesting is the move now being initiated in California in the US to fight against GM foods and to force compulsory labeling. What will be the fate of the papers filed with the California Attorney General's office to place a citizen's initiative on the 2012 November ballot that would require labeling of genetically engineered food and ingredients derived from them, remains to be seen. One thing however is sure that if California voters pass the ballot initiative, it could likely be the beginning of the end for many companies engaged in genetically engineered food in the U.S. After 20 years of bullying by biotech companies and being fed unlabeled and "potentially" hazardous genetically modified foods, a critical mass of food and health activists have come forward start the the offensive against GM food perpetrators. Probably this fight over labeling genetically engineered food will have to be taken at the national level at Washington DC, where these powerful companies exercise vice-like grip on the government.  

Recent polls in the US show that 80 to 85 percent of the people want mandatory labeling. They point out that there are no genetically engineered foods or crops anywhere in Europe, while almost all foods in the U.S. supermarket contain GMOs. In Europe, genetically engineered foods and ingredients have to be labeled which is a distinct disincentive for the manufacturers considering the strong undercurrent of universal hostility towards GM foods. The GM food manufacturers are sure that such labeling provision could be a threat for their bottom line. If and when GM food labeling is made mandatory in the U.S., there is the potential for millions of consumers who will read these labels to react and shun them, switching over to foods that are organic or at least GMO-free. Once enough consumers start complaining about genetically engineered foods and ingredients, stores will stop selling them while farmers will have no more incentive to plant them.
 Also to be noted is that once the California voters pass the GMO labeling law in 2012, the biotech and food industry will face an intractable dilemma as to whether they could put labels on their branded food products in just one state, admitting those products contain genetically engineered ingredients and then withhold ingredient label information in other states. It worth watching the unfolding drama in this fight between GM food lobby and the consumer alliance that is spearheading the anti-GM movement.

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

CONSENSUS ON LABELING OF GM FOODS-THE GROUND REALITIES

In a democratically governed country the people have a right to know what they are eating and it is wrong on the part of the government to give leeway to the industry to hide the true nature of food products sold by them. The whole philosophy of labeling is based on this concept. It was almost twenty years since there has been a controversy regarding the need to be transparent on the part of the industry regarding their use of genetically modified foods or ingredients in product formulation. Why some countries like Canada, the US and Australia, to mention a few, resisted the universal view that consumer has a right to know whether the products contain GM ingredients is some what intriguing and the only charitable explanation is that they want their food industry to grow providing large employment and deliver food at lower costs.

It is true that foods developed using genetic engineering has divided the world into two distinct groups, one fiercely against and the other willing to accept them. While antagonists see GM foods as unsafe to consume and injurious to the environment, protagonists are satisfied with the safety data generated on many of the GM foods, finding no reason to shun them. It is variously estimated that 70-80% of processed food products in the US and Canada contain one or more of GM ingredients and most consumers are not aware of such a situation, consuming these products under the impression they are "natural". There are suggestions that the current obesity epidemic in the country is growing parallel to the growth of GM foods and one cannot blame anybody if this association is taken as proof that GM foods are unhealthy.

While the debate about the safety or otherwise of GM foods may not end in the foreseeable future, the issue of declaring the presence of GM ingredients is mired in controversy with the industry fiercely opposing such a move due to their apprehension that such a move may impact on the growth of the sector because of possible consumer backlash. The weak argument that printing the label to contain the information about presence of GM ingredients would be expensive is nothing but hogwash! This is a war between the "right to know" segment of consumers and "right to do business" proponents in the industry. One is reminded of a similar instance in the past when irradiation technology was being used by the industry and it was agreed that irradiated foods must carry the information on the label. If irradiation process was found to be absolutely safe where is the need for special labeling? One cannot have dichotomy when it comes to consumer safety. Even to day irradiation technology is in a limbo because of this inconsistency in labeling policies.

It is interesting as to how debates on such an important issue can be vitiated by illogical arguments as put forward by the main stream food industry. According to the GM food lobby, labeling is not necessary because consumers have a choice in Organic Foods if they do not want to eat GM foods! Though many countries wanted clear labeling of GM foods to respect the consumer rights, there has been stiff resistance to this move from the US, Canada and Australia and it is a tribute to the persuasive ability of rest of the world that enabled the Codex Alimentarius Commission which is an association of 100 food safety agencies in different UN members to evolve a consensus agreement on voluntary labeling without any possible conflict with WTO charter. Of course this is unlikely to make the pro-GM food countries introduce the transparent labeling in their countries. At best this only means that they would not challenge if other countries start compulsory labeling of such unnatural foods. What effect this move will have on world trade is not certain now. .

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

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

WATER FOOT PRINT INFORMATION ON LABELS-IS IT FEASIBLE?

Water is a critical substance that is essential for sustaining life on this planet. The herculean efforts by the space exploring countries to find evidence of water in other planets are mainly to see whether they are habitable places for human beings. As most of the living systems have water content at levels between 55% and 78% depending on the body size, there are minimum requirements below which survival is not possible. A daily consumption of 1 ml of water for every calorie of food consumed is a bench mark standard agreed by many experts, which works out to about 2 liters a day for an average healthy adult. Intake of too much water can cause water intoxication leading eventually to death, while too little can contribute to dehydration and other lethal consequences.

Water bodies in the earth constitute more than 70% of the surface area and though there is abundance of this material, the only problem in utilizing them is the salt content in most of these water sources. Oceans contain more than 97% of the water on earth and the salinity of this water can be as high as 4%. Remaining 3% only has to bear the burden of meeting the fresh water needs of about 7 billion people in this world. While 0.9% of fresh water sources are locked up under the ground (30%) and in polar ice caps and glaciers (70%), remaining portion is spread over lakes (87%) and swamps (11%) in different continents. Over decades fresh water availability has been shrinking alarmingly because of increasing population and higher usage as demanded by the modern industrial society. In 1850 water availability was 43000 Cubic Meter (CM) per person per year which dramatically declined to 9000 CM in 1990. There is wide disparity in water availability in different countries. While countries like Canada, Norway etc have more than 1,00,000 CM some countries in North Africa and Middle East gets only 100 CM.

Water usage also shows wide disparity amongst nations with average American splurging on 1600 CM, European using 725 CM while the African has to be content with 250 CM. It is estimated that the minimum water need of a person is about 40 to 60 liters a day for domestic use though more than half the population in this planet does not have access to even a fraction of this quantity. Food and agriculture may be the single largest user of water and according to some estimates more than 70% of fresh water goes for irrigation. Here again there is some disparity in efficiency of water use as most developing countries draw more than 90% of their water resources for irrigation while in technologically advanced countries irrigation demand is less than 30%.

Profligacy of water use can be shocking to the conscience of every denizen on this planet living already with lot of uncertainties about future, especially dangers from man-made environmental degradation. If one wants to dramatize the relation between water consumption and some of our day to day activities, following illustrations will suffice. The cup that cheers viz Coffee requires about 140 liters of water to produce while its cousin viz tea requires 30 liters of water in its production cycle! It may be shocking to know that a quantity of 3400 is required for getting 1kg of rice, 1300 liters for 1kg of wheat or barley and 15,500 liters for 1kg of beef. This poses a serious challenge to water conservationists as to how to sensitize the world regarding the criticality of water for survival. The two major players involved in this scenario are the industrial sector including agriculture and the consumer community. While mandatory regulations can be put in place regarding scientific norms of water usage, who will generate future technologies for reduced water consumption for various industrial processes? Obviously the governments will have to do this through financial incentives and direct economic subsidies.

There is another area which needs consideration for driving the forces that will work continuously to achieve reduction of water used by the industry and that calls for mandatory information on water use per kg of any product to be declared on the label by all industries without exception. This will enable the consumers to shun those which are water guzzlers while favoring those with credible water saving credentials. if water conservationists have their say world should have a "water foot print" concept similar to the "carbon foot print" system which is being followed voluntarily by some food manufacturers in some countries. The much acclaimed "Energy Star" rating system that grades home appliances and electronic equipment based on electricity use efficiency. evolved by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1992, has almost become a global standard adopted in many countries. Of course in the case of energy utilization grading, consumer has an economic interest in the form of reduced energy bill which may automatically make the system universally acceptable.

The critical question that will have to be addressed is whether a standard methodology capable of producing results that will be consistent is available to day for assessing water utilization. In absence of such a universal system to estimate water input in various operations involved in manufacturing a particular product by different people in different countries, only chaos will rule giving room for unscrupulous players to misuse this concept claiming low water utilization by their products in front of the label. Global cooperation in evolving a dependable assessment technology, preferably under the aegis of UNIDO, WHO and FAO, will go a long way to introduce compulsory "water foot print" labeling over a period of time, say in about a decade.

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

MEAT "GLUE"- A PROCESSING AID OR AN ADDITIVE?

The age-old conflict between the food processing industry and the consumer revolves around the excessive zeal for profit by the corporate manufacturers often compromising on quality, value and safety. Basically a consumer, when in a super market, look for a product with following considerations. First it must be safe to consume. Second it must have quality that reflects purity, originality and sensory pleasure. Third the product must reveal the real ingredients, special process if used and the nutritional dimension. Last but not the least the product should not be an imitation one made from inferior components, being positioned as original. Though responsible food quality and monitoring agencies world over try their best to strike a balance between the conflicting interests of these two stake holders, it is rarely that they cover themselves with glory because of many factors, some beyond their control and others influenced by the environment within which they have to work. The widespread criticism against the FDA of the US for allowing unrestricted use of GM foods in that country is a classical example. Bowing to pressure from industry as well as the political class, many GM products with doubtful safety credentials are flooding the market with no label differentiation from normally produced foods.

Recent call by a minister in Germany exhorting the industry to be more transparent in their labeling of processed foods is some what intriguing because government has the authority to make the industry truthful through enormous executive power vested with them but do not exercise this for the benefit of their citizens. In fact the same minister went so far as to call upon the consumer community to set up an "Internet pillory" to name and shame food processors who do not live up to their claims and promises! If this is not shirking responsibility by the elected representatives for protecting citizens' interests, what else it can be? The provocation for such an outburst came when many industrial players were indulging in secrecy by not properly declaring what their products contain and what processes they are using so that consumer is in the know of what he is eating. The issue got attention when meat processors were found to use enzyme systems like transglutaminase, thrombin and fibrogen and similar preparations to upgrade low quality meat into products that resembled genuine original products.

Transglutaminase belongs to the family of clotting enzymes which are eight in number, all playing definite roles in human body functions. They are actively associated with blood coagulation, skin development and functions of prostate gland, testis and lungs. These enzymes catalyze the formation of co-valent bonds between a free amino group in a protein or peptide containing Lysine and the gamma carboxylic group of another protein containing glutamine. Bonds so formed are relatively strong and resist normal proteolytic enzyme degradation. Such bonded larger protein polymers are insoluble n nature giving it a property of resisting disintegration. They are ideally suited for production of larger meat pieces from pieces. improving texture of sausages and hot dogs, imitation crab products, improved quality products from low quality meats and in a variety of application including making of milk and yogurt creamers, noodles from ground meat and fish balls. The enzyme preparation can be obtained from Bovine and porcine sources besides through fermentation using some strains of bacteria.

Invariably industry justifies use of these so called meat glues because they are used only during processing and resist declaring it in the label obviously maintaining that it is not a part of the formulation of the product. While technically they are correct, the fact still remains that the so called processing aid stays right there in the final product.which certainly requires declaration for the information of the consumer. The EU parliament deserves kudos for its stand on the subject when it recently banned use of Thrombin+Fibrogen based meat glue preparation in meat products, finding insufficient justification for the proposal from the industry. Probably use of such so called glues could e permitted if proper label declarations are made..

V.H.POTTY

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

MARKET FOODS-CHOOSING THE BEST AND AVOIDING THE WORST!

Grocery stores world over have a variety of foods, good and bad. How does one make a selection of the right food with highest nutritional value when there may be half a dozen brands of same category of products on the shelves? As the right to information is inviolable, the mandatory labeling system is generally designed to provide the consumer with an insight about the nature and quality of food purchased. It is another matter that the logistics of loading all information on a small sized label are cumbersome and often impractical. The consumers in general have very vague ideas about nutritional quality of foods though many know the importance of proteins, vitamins and minerals. Lately more awareness seems to be developing regarding the positive importance of dietary fibers, omega-3 fatty acids, Calcium and antioxidants, Equally true is the knowledge about the negative importance of Sodium, Cholesterol, Saturated fats and Trans fats. Still it is difficult to make an informed choice about relative strength or deficiency of each brand on the market shelf.

From time to time many grading techniques have been considered for providing the consumers with a guideline for selecting or rejecting a particular food based on positive and negative nutritional impact but none seems to have gained universal acceptance so far. One of the better food assessment methods being offered to the industry is the NuVal system pioneered by by a group of nutritional and medical professionals which appears to be gaining popularity amongst smaller manufacturers. The Overall Nutritional Quality Index Algorithm is based on more than 30 nutrients and food constituents, some desirable and others less desirable, the NuVal system assigns a particular number to each product based on detailed chemical analysis which needs to be displayed prominently on the front of the label for easy comprehension by the consumers.

According to this method of nutritional scoring importance is given to positive food constituents like proteins and their quality, Omega-3 fatty acids, dietary fiber, bioflavanoids, Calcium content, Vitamins, some critical minerals while negative ones like Sugar, Salt, Trans fats, saturated fats, Cholesterol will bring down the overall score. The reference values used are based on Dietary Guidelines for Americans and as such may not be applicable in other countries. Fresh vegetables score more than 80, while most of their canned counterparts have scores less than 20. Frozen vegetables score around 60 while fresh fruits have scores more than 80. Processed foods like cereals, breads and rolls, cookies, crackers, salty snacks will not be able to score more than 20 to 30 unless whole grains or multi grains or oats or brans are used in the recipes. Milk products can have high values more than 60 depending on the ingredients added during processing.

A dispassionate observer will find such a system very reasonable but the main stream industry seems to be opposing this approach because most of the products they make are able to muster only low scores, because of too much sugar or carbohydrates with high glycaemic load or high saturated fat levels or high salt content or low content of vitamins or high glycaemic values. Their main contention is that the existing labeling system gives sufficient information to the buyers and NuVal scores may unfairly downgrade their products. This has to be expected because of likely backlash they may face from the consumers with serious financial consequences on their business. But for start up ventures and small scale business NuVal may provide a prop for promoting their products and establish brand recognition.

A country like India should probably buy this patented scoring system for implementing country-wide as a mandatory measure to prevent fake, spurious and adulterated food products flooding the market. A major constraint would be the cost factor for individual manufacturer to generate data on products necessary for arriving at the nutritional score for his product portfolio. To be insisted upon should be the necessity for the conformation of the basic quality of foods so graded to the safety norms stipulated in statute books. If such an approach is not found to be feasible or practical for adoption nation wide, at least it should be made compulsory for foods supplied to the applied nutrition program of the country which involves investment of billions of rupees every year with doubtful impact on child malnutrition. Already some school feeding programs in the US are using NuVal scoring for food supplies entering the program.

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

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

THE LABELLING "JARGONS"-WHO IS BEING BENEFITTED, ANY WAY?

Consumers world over have an inalienable right to know what is present in side a food packet and right type of information discernible readily will enable them to pick and choose the ones most suited to their needs. Different countries have different rules and regulations that govern industry's responsibility in providing information on the label of the packet. In India the manufacturers are mandated to provide many information on the label based on the perception of the authorities who are vested with the power. If a cursory look at the range of products in the market and varying type of shapes, sizes and materials used for packing, any consumer is bound to be confused on many counts and ultimately the choice is made not because of the labels but by the past experience of buying similar products.

Almost 90% of the food packets print the label in English and how far this is effective in a country where even local language literacy is barely 50%, is a matter of speculation. One can understand the dilemma in choosing the language for printing the label as there are more than a dozen regional languages practiced in the country and providing the information in all these languages for a product with pan-India foot print is not feasible, though desirable. Logistical problems posed can be a nightmare for any industry wanting to establish their brands through out the country. Imagine what will happen if the linguistic chauvinists in Mumbai resort to violence demanding that printing of the labels of all packed foods to be made or marketed in the state of Maharashtra must be printed only in Marathi language! Probably a solution could be to allow the industry to use stickers on one side of the pack, reserved exclusively for this purpose, that will explain the product in the pack in local languages with some bare details.

Coming to the needs of consumers vis-à-vis the product labeling, the present system is highly confusing and even literate and educated consumers find it difficult to assess the product correctly. In any new format to be considered, information to be provided for every pack consumed, must include identity of the product, quantity, total calories, sugar, salt, saturated and trans fats contained in the pack, product guaranty including safe consumption date ( not best before date which has no meaning), unit price (boldly in letter size of font not less than 10) and list of ingredients (percentage). Nutrition labeling as it exists to day is totally irrelevant to the Indian public as it conveys practically nothing. Later as the consumer literacy grows, more information like growth quality of the product in terms of protein efficiency ratio, glycemic index and health risks like allergens must be included. Guaranty statements must clearly spell out the accountability feature like what damages consumer can claim if the guaranty clause is violated.

The present provision for including the phone number or e-mail ID of a contact person has no meaning since many industry players do not take this seriously and no consumer has ever been known to have received a satisfactory reply for the complaints registered. The freedom given to the industry under the weights and measures act is grossly being abused and it is time that this is restricted to allow only pack sizes of 25 gm and multiples. Thus the two most important provisions of price per unit in bolder letters and guarantee clauses may boost the consumer confidence in the food industry and it is on its own interest that these provisions are accepted by the industry. If a central complaint center is established under the consumer affairs ministry with on-line complaining facility in Delhi with 4 or 5 regional hubs, it will be of great "solace" to the consumers in this country, weighed down by the present insensitive food safety overseeing system.

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

FOOD MISCELLANY-WHAT IS "COOKING"?

Health campaigners in Australia are proposing to change the current labeling regulations to make more explicit the message about the quality of food in packed food products. The basic premise is that consumers must understand whether a food is balanced in terms of various nutrients and whether they contain too much "negative" nutrients like salt, sugar and fat, the three most dreaded food constituents thought to be responsible for almost all health afflictions noticed amongst the population in many countries. According to these experts food processing industry must be forced to categorize their products into low, medium and high levels of fat, saturated fat, sugar and sodium per 100 gm of the product. Each category must be given red, amber or green color depending on the composition just like the traffic light signal and these color codes must be printed on the front of the pack so that consumers can choose invariably the ones having a green color code for healthy living and pick up others only occasionally. Probably such a move may persuade processors to strive for getting green code for their products. While the idea may sound good, how far such a move will help alleviating the present food driven health crisis remains to be seen.

After red wine it is the turn of Cranberry juice to claim that regular consumption of this highly colored juice can control blood pressure (BP) in people afflicted by this disorder. According to some scientists from the UK, presence of oligomeric procyanidins in Cranberry juice helps to strengthen the blood vessels and resist their constriction due to which high blood pressure develops. Probably Cranberry juice is recommended for those people who are teetotalers reluctant to consume alcohol containing beverages. Reports like this make the consumers confused, especially if they are on prescription drugs for controlling their BP. The unanswered question is whether modifying the diet to include cranberry juice can obviate the need for taking these medicines regularly. No one knows!

Bisphenol A (BPA) contamination of food from polycarbonate packing material used in food contact applications is assuming serious dimension vis-à-vis safety of foods from the processed food industry. First detected in polycarbonate infant feeding bottles, the contamination was noticed in many packed foods subsequently. The estrogenic property of BPA allows it to interfere with some metabolic functions with undesirable consequence. Now comes the news that BPA exposure for pregnant women can result in permanent reproduction problem for their off springs. Though this has been shown only in experimental animals by a US study, the implications for humans are grave. Of course there will be further studies to confirm whether what was observed in mice can happen in humans also.

Green tea is universally acclaimed as a healthy beverage because of its rich content of antioxidants that can neutralize the effect of oxyradicals generated in the body, known to accelerate cellular death which can curtail the life span in humans. There are many other antioxidants like Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Lutein, Zeaxanthin, many poly phenolic substances that can do the job to varying extent depending on the efficacy of bodily absorption. Catechins which are present in green tea in abundance have been found to reach the eye tissues after absorption from GI and transportation to retina and the aqueous humour area. Both gallo catechin and epigallo catechin, the two important catechins in green tea reduced the undesirable oxidative stress in the eye up to 20 hours after ingestion. These findings with rats need confirmation in humans where absorption mechanics are some what different and the efficacy of transportation of the active ingredients in green tea to the eye tissues can be vary considerably.

Baby foods have become a taboo, especially with health experts who find them a temptation for many mothers to discontinue breast feeding which is considered important for the optimal development of new born babies. The recent finding that introduction of solid foods can be delayed as much as possible to ensure a more healthy child is going to be another factor in persuading young mothers to persist with breast feeding for maximum periods. According to Danish researchers, late introduction of solid and supplementary foods might cut down the risk of developing obesity significantly amongst such children when they reach middle age. For each month's delay in introducing solid foods the obesity risk is reduced by 10%. How ever medical community, especially pediatric doctors, must be convinced before implementing such changes in child feeding practices.

Is it possible that a child brought up by grand parents could become possible candidates for developing over weight when they grow up? If some researchers are to be believed such a contingency is possible and these findings come after surveying 12000 kids of 3 years old in the UK. Possible reasons attributed to this phenomenon is the indulgence shown by grand parents in feeding the children and lack of physical activity amongst them due too much fondling. Whether this is true amongst the children and grand parents out side the UK may need further study.

The fact that scientific research does not leave any thing to imagination is borne out by the following "gem"! According to a Swedish study drinking just 3 cups of coffee daily can reduce the bust size of women. It was further brought out that breast cancer has links with the size of the bust and larger the breasts higher is the risk of developing cancer. One can only guess how this finding is going to upset the "beauty industry" in future.

There are thousands of such research findings coming out every day from laboratories all over the world, most of which use mice for carrying out their studies and splash their findings in popular media without any peer review. As long as these findings get published in peer reviewed scientific periodicals, they may remain there as scientific curiosities which may attract researchers to take the studies further. Probably more constraint is called for on the part of the media in giving undeserved publicity and create confusion and fear amongst common man.

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

"KRILL"-THE FUTURE OMEGA-3 ACID SOURCE

Omega-3 fatty acids, vital for many body and brain functions are present in abundance in marine creatures like fish, crustaceans and algae. Plant sources are relatively poor sources of these essential fatty acids, though Linoleic and Linolenic acids are present in liquid oils of plant origin. The conversion of short chain unsaturated fatty acids into the biologically active long chain version like Docosahexanoic acid (DHA) and Eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) is very inefficient in human body necessitating their supply through fish in people predominantly non-vegetarian by habit. Of course by adopting a diet with diverse food materials can still preclude any major deficiency manifestation but modern life styles invariably depend on diets which are based on sugar, carbohydrates, fats, proteins based on refined/processed raw materials which have practically no nutrients left behind due to processing.

With the advent of modern technology for extraction and purification of DHA and EPA from sources like fish and algae, a new era has arrived when enrichment of foods during processing is technically and commercially viable. The resistance from the vegans against accepting fish derived ingredients, mostly due to the unacceptable "fishy" smell can be overcome by using bland DHA and EPA ingredients now being offered by reputed suppliers. There was a time when cod liver oil consumption was encouraged for boosting health and the encapsulation technology made it possible to make it tolerable to non-fish eaters. How ever emanation of fish odor some time after swallowing the fish oil from the body and through exhalation was still a problem. The new technology has been able to overcome these disadvantages. Milk, juices and other products in some countries are to day fortified with DHA and EPA and consumer can know about it only from the label declaration without being able to detect organoleptically.

Omega-3 business is predicted to cross $1.6 billion by the year 2014 world wide but it is unlikely that there will be any major diversion of edible fish species for their production. If so what could be the sustaining source for production of DHA and EPA? While algae can be a good source, production cost is unlikely to be favorable compared to minor fish species having no commercial value being used now. Krill, a crustacean living 100 meters below the ice caps of Antarctica seems to be a logical choice because of its abundance. There are 85 species of Krill known to man and many of them are suitable for processing into food. The estimated potential can be as high as 6 billion tons and since they live for 5-10 years the supply is unlikely to be exhausted in the foreseeable future. According to one report the weight of Krill that exists to day is more than the combined weight of humans in this planet. Krill also plays an important role in removing CO2 from the atmosphere through the Phytoplankton which happen to be their staple food. It is the favorite food for fish, birds, marine animals like Whales and a fully grown Whale consumes as much as 3.5 to 4 tons of Krill each day.

With hardly 5 cm in length, Krill contains on a dry weight basis, 70% high quality protein, 10.7% fat which is made up of 40% highly unsaturated fats (HUFA), 18.4% EPA and 11.1% DHA and 12,6% ash reflecting the high mineral content. It also contains antioxidants like Astaxanthine carotenoids. The residue after extraction of Omega-3 acids will still be rich in proteins and minerals, suitable as a raw material for food and feed industry. Realizing the potential of Krill many countries are trying to establish sustainable operational base in the Antarctica and an amicable international agreement can only prevent future conflicts in the name Krill.

If Omega-3 preparations with no odor obtained from Krill are used in India what will be the legal stance vis-à-vis labeling. Any packed food containing ingredients derived from animal source is required to print a red dot prominently on the label. As Omega-3 acids, whether from fish or algae, are hardly distinguishable because of the high end technology used, how the monitoring agency can decide about the nature of the food containing these added nutrients, whether they are vegetarian or non-vegetarian, is some thing to be seen if and when these ingredients enter the food chain in the country.

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

RDA, RDI, DRI OR DRV-DOES IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE?

Under the right to know what is in a packet of food, industry is forced to list some of the nutrients as percentage of DV (Daily Value), based on RDI or RDA recognized internationally in order to keep consumers informed about the nutrition status of the product. RDA is supposed to give information regarding the recommended dietary allowance and RDI, recommended dietary intake. DV per serving is derived based on RDA or RDI. RDI values reflect the adequacy of nutrient intake sufficient to meet the needs of 97-98% of healthy individuals. RDI is calculated based on certain assumptions which include (a) fat based calories constitute 30% of total calorie needs of 2000 kC (b) calories from saturated fat is 10% of total calories (c) carbohydrates contribute 60% of the energy (d) protein calories make up of 10% of total energy in the daily diet and (e) dietary fiber is 11.5 gm per 1000 calories consumed. RDA system started in 1941 in the US and the standards were being revised every 5-10 years. In fifties of the last millennium, the concept of nutrients per serving was implemented for better consumer understanding of the packed foods.

It was in 1997 that new standards were evolved and Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) became the accepted norm. Four types of DRI values were evolved which included EAR ( Estimated Average Requirement), RDA (Recommended Dietary Allowance), AI (Adequate Intake) and UL ( Tolerable Upper Limit). As far as consumers are concerned, DRI may not be of much relevance as it is meant for nutritionists and dietitians for menu planning programs. RDI values now being commonly used for calculating DV are more or less same as the RDA values which were the norms till 1968. Besides these confusing terminologies, there is also SONA values (Suggested Optimum Nutritional Allowance), which happened to be the most comprehensive data on nutrients evolved over many years of studies with thousands of healthy people. SONA values are some time 20 times that of RDI because it takes into consideration the positive benefits of nutrient intake while RDI values are for minimum nutrition below which there can be deficiency symptoms.

One of the critical factors that can cause enormous variations in the requirements of nutrients for individuals is the efficiency of digestion and absorption which can vary considerably amongst people. On an average most people can only absorb 10% of the nutrients ingested and it is estimated that only 1-3 % of the total population with high absorption efficiency must be getting sufficient nutrition if one goes by only RDI in stead of SONA. The ideal diet concept emerged only because empirically eating certain foods in certain quantities can keep humans healthy but this information cannot be translated into nutrients consumed directly because of the bio-efficiency of natural foods in terms of better utilization of different nutrients. Human body is very vulnerable because of its inability to make on its own some of the nutrients vital for life which include 23 vitamins and minerals, 8 essential amino acids and 2 essential oils. They must be supplied from the diet.

In the above context, what purpose the nutritional labeling serves is a debatable point. If a manufacturer declares that his product contains 20% of DV of a particular nutrient, it does not guarantee that body can get the declared quantity by consuming the product as per the serving size. There are other imponderable factors like gycemic index, protein efficiency ration, type of fat in the diet, type of fiber etc which determine the ultimate quality of the product. Unless these factors are integrated into nutritional value of processed products, the present labeling system can, at best be, an approximation. In spite of the existence of RDI since 1941 and introduction of mandatory labeling for better consumer discretion in choosing healthy foods by the US, that country is facing the biggest health crisis world has known in the form of Obesity, CVD, Diabetes, Hypertension, Cancer of various types and Alzheimer's disease.

In India can we think in a different way? In stead of the US style of nutritional labeling, is it not better if only the proximate composition of the product is declared for the consumers to have an idea of the food he is buying? Probably any negative aspect associated with that type of product could also be highlighted including allergy, cholesterol, transfats, etc for which there are no upper limits prescribed. It is also a good idea to put on each label the composition of an ideal food as a part of nutritional education of the consumers.

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