AUSTRALIAN CATTLE IN INDONESIA-DOUBLE STANDARDS ON SAFETY

How hygienic and safe are the meat produced in many developing countries like India, Indonesia etc? Going by the relatively low food poisoning episodes from meat consumption reported in these countries one will be tempted to come to the conclusion that nothing is amiss as far as meat products made in these countries are concerned. But can it be true? The answer can be a resounding yes as well as no! Most of the slaughter houses that process the animals are invariably dirty, personnel working there are shabby and unclean, no refrigeration facility exists, crude slaughter practices are in vogue and so many other faults can be found with the industry. On the other hand most meat products are overcooked at home killing all the dangerous vectors that contaminate them and naturally such over processed foods must be safe. What is amazing is that the very same meat is even exported to many wealthy countries and the importers do not find any fault with them as reflected by low rate of rejection of these consignments at the receiving ports.

Meat industry in developing countries are undergoing significant changes and modernization is the "mantra" with the help of some of the advanced countries like Denmark. Hygienically sound and mechanized abattoirs, are being established in many developing countries, primarily to meet the stringent quality standards of the importers and safety assurance is ensured through rigorous inspections by qualified personnel deputed by the buyers. It was not long ago there were ramblings in Australia about the safety of fish imported from Asian countries as fish is alleged to be raised using animal excreta! However, the concern appears to be more about the low cost at which the fish is being imported which makes the local fish supplies expensive. Probably economic concerns seem to be far out weighing any genuine quality considerations!

There is no condoning of unsafe practices of raising and processing food whereever they occur but such concerns should not have an "apartheid flavor" as reflected by the shrill noises made about unsafe foods from Asian countries. With ISO quality protocols, HACCP regimes for safety assurance and many other global systems of safety certification being available for overseeing food quality, the origin of food should not make any difference when governed by these systems. Look at the clamor in some developed countries for printing the "country of origin" on any foods retailed in their markets which can only serve to generate a sense of ill-feeling towards any thing that is coming from the so called "dirty" countries, most of them in Asia. If this is not discrimination what else it is? What is the meaning and relevance of WTO if such practices are allowed to harm free global trade?

A recent report from Australia exemplifies the blatant practice of double standards by that wealthy country towards a relatively poor country like Indonesia. It appears 80% of the cattle exports from Australia, numbering about three quarter of a million, end up in Indonesia for slaughtering and processing into meat for local consumption. However beyond exporting the animals, Australia does not seem to be too much concerned about how these animals are slaughtered and whether the meat processed in such crude facilities are fit for human consumption. The export earnings in millions of dollars are derived from the poor people of a poor country and it is scandalous that the primitive practices of slaughtering and processing still continue in spite of the fact that Australia, technologically a super nation could have contributed to modernization of these abattoirs with little re-investment of their export earnings.

With the documentary exposure of unscientific and cruel slaughtering practices in vogue at more than 700 abattoirs in Indonesia, Government of Australia was forced to suspend active trade with Indonesia in live stock animals which immediately pinched the interests of cattle farms in export business. The philosophy seems to be that as long as the undesirable processing practices are not exposed, every thing is alright for the cattle farmers as well as the government but once the expose became public government had to take action by suspending trade with Indonesia which is indeed a hypocritical move. If there were genuine concerns, the Meat Board of Australia could have transformed the meat industry in Indonesia into a modern one long ago, capable of turning out high quality meat of international standard.

An indirect beneficiary of this episode is the Australian consumer community as the meat price in the domestic market started falling consequent to fall in prices of the live stock after the export ban. Whether it is good for them to increase more beef in their diet is another matter. In the light of implications of increased animal food consumption in many health complications, if the trade ban continues indefinitely it is likely that Australia may compete with the US for achieving the unenviable position as the most sickly nation!

V.H.POTTY

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

CLONE FARMING-ETHICAL, SAFETY AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES

It is a Catch 22 situation for policy makers world over whether foods derived from cloned animals such as milk and meat should be cleared from safety angle and if so what should be the control measures to be put in place to prevent run-away flooding of market with such foods without knowing the long term repercussions to the Society at large. The issue gained some importance after recommendations, albeit limited, made by experts in the UK to allow foods from cloned animals for human consumption. Their view is based on some limited analyses of normal and products from cloned animals and finding no difference in terms of chemical, physical and nutritional angles. But safety in the short term may not qualify for clearance and a much wider study needs to be carried out to come to a meaningful conclusion. What is intriguing is the language used by the expert committee indicating that products derived from cloned animals are "unlikely to present any food safety risk", making the whole issue ambiguous!

Is it the greed for higher profitability for the farming community that drives the demand for clearing cloning technology in Europe and other western countries, though there appears to be many unanswered questions about the safety and ethical aspects of commercializing this infant technology? Probably many farmers expect that cloning would create new superlative animals which can yield very high quantities of meat and milk at relatively lower costs. It is not realized that the technology can inflict misery and cruelty to the animals and is questionable from ethical point of view. What is known to day indicates that the technique causes high levels of miscarriage, organ failure and gigantism among new-born clones and creates concern that such a system can push the farming operations into mega factory mode where animals are merely cogs in the machine.

Of course major concern is restricted to the fate of the cloned calves up to the first 6 months where as older ones do not present any major health problems. Many studies have brought out the fact that there are abnormalities in foetal development and in the new-born from the cloned mothers. It is possible that breeders may overcome these problems eventually as the cloning technology is barely 10 year old. If at all the cloning technology is to be cleared answers must be found for the ethical problems cited by the antagonists of this modern technique of breeding. The usefulness of the above technology in animal breeding must outweigh its impact on animal well-being and only a multi dimensional assessment can provide adequate basis to decide on the issue.

The labeling controversy regarding marketing of products from cloned animals refuses to die down and some surreptitious attempts recently in the UK to sell meat from cloned animals without letting the consumers know about it must be condemned in no uncertain terms. Consumers must have the ultimate right to accept or reject a food based on their perception and therefore products derived from clones must be distinguished, if and when they are approved, declaring the same on the label. It is unethical and devious to push them to the unassuming consumers and then make it a fait accompli. Probably when consumers accept them unreservedly, the label provision can be done away with.

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

AMMONIA-TREATED MEAT-SAFETY AND RELIABILITY QUESTIONS

Compared to plant foods, animal based foods are more difficult to preserve due to contamination by lethal pathogens like Salmonella, E.coli, Listeria, etc. Established processes like thermal treatment, irradiation, canning, dehydration etc have severe limitations when it comes to meat products. Modern preservation method for meat is freezing as most microorganisms do not grow under sub-zero temperatures. Though technologically freezing can preserve the original quality of the food processed, there is no way it can improve on the quality, if the raw material is already contaminated or cross contamination takes place from other contaminated products during storage and handling at various stages after the factory process. In other words freezing cannot destroy the microbes which are already present in the product or that which many contaminate it during storage. Food related food poisoning arise when the frozen products are brought to ambient conditions and consumed without any adequate cooking at the consumer's end. There are strict guidelines that need to be followed by the abattoirs where animals are slaughtered and at manufacturing plants where the meat is further processed into finished products. In many countries surveillance authorities undertake plant inspection frequently to ensure strict compliance of safety guidelines. Still food poisoning due to E.coli and Salmonella occurs regularly though such episodes are not wide spread and causalities are minimal. Irradiation is a technically sound process which can achieve 100% kill but its industry-wide use is constrained by the labeling regulations calling for declaration regarding irradiation. As consumers do not accept irradiation process due to many reasons, industry is reluctant to use this technology. It is under such circumstances that Ammonia treatment of meat became an accepted process duly approved by FDA of the US and the USDA since 2007. Recent reports that even some of the Ammonia-treated meat products showed the presence of these pathogens are ringing alarm bells causing some concern. Ammonia is a natural chemical found in human body and also in many foods at significant concentrations and it has not been declared as a toxic substance for use in foods. Products like peanut butter, cheese and a few other foods contain Ammonia at levels 400-800 ppm. Use of Ammonium Bicarbonate, Ammonium Carbonate, Gaseous Ammonia and Ammonium Hydroxide are permitted to be used 0.04 to 3.2%, at least in the US. Ammonium Hydroxide, a solution of Ammonia in water is allowed 0.6-0.8% in baked goods, cheese, relishes and puddings. Effectiveness of use of Ammonia for control of fungus in citrus fruits, storage of corn, in meat is known since 1976 and in 1988 scientists from Punjab University reported about the ability of Ammonia to kill aerobic bacteria and many anaerobic ones also. Use of Ammonia for preserving fish, dehydrated potato chips and broken eggs has also been reported without any apparent ill effect on human health. Ammonia is used in gaseous form for killing pathogens in lean meat trimmings from the slaughter house after removing melted fat in centrifuges and the ground products were flash frozen and compressed for use in Hamburgers. The pH of the product is supposed to go up from 6 to more than 10 to get a 100% kill of pathogens. Ammonia brings about changes in extract release volume, water holding capacity, soluble protein nitrogen and cook out losses. It is somewhat intriguing why such specially treated products are not made to declare the same on the label since not much scientific information exists regarding the long term effect of consuming Ammonia treated meat. Besides many consumers are able to experience the pungent smell of Ammonia in the product, mistaking it for chemical contamination. At 50 ppm Ammonia can be detected by the nose while at 35 ppm it can impart undesirable tastes. As Ammonia treated meat is exempt from mandatory inspection and quality check, some of the samples were found to have pH of only 7.75, not considered safe, raising inconvenient questions regarding the reliability of the process under manufacturing conditions. Any process if to be approved has to undergo strict evaluation for safety and ascertain the risk-benefit aspects based on which only valid conclusions can be drawn. It appears as if such an exercise has not been done in the case of "Ammoniacation" of meat, probably because of the anxiety to counter act increasing episodes of meat contamination and decreasing public confidence on the ability of the surveillance agencies to preempt such incidences. . V.H.POTTY http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/ http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com