WHERE DID INDIA FALTER IN ACHIEVING REAL FOOD SECURITY?

Comparing India with China is a favorite past time to many national and international analysts and this is understandable considering that these countries together account for almost one third of the global population besides becoming self governing entities around 1947-48. With a level playing field the routes chosen by them have taken since becoming responsible nations invariably provides an opportunity for drawing conclusions regarding their success and failure. Of course India has been a democratic Republic since 1950, China went under the influence of Marxism with relatively close society and very little personal freedom. Looking at to day's situation, from the macro economic angle, China has overtaken India long ago to become a super economic power rubbing shoulders with the US and Europe. Where did India go wrong in not realizing its full potential to achieve much more than what it has done so far?

Take the food production front where China has done exceedingly well and its annual food production is estimated at around 380 million tones as compared to less than 200 mt by India. China's grain production is double that of India though the former has lesser arable land and same area of irrigated land. Probably one of the reasons for this laggard record may be because of the highly restrictive import policy India had till the advent of WTO where as China has a liberal agriculture import policy. Another critical factor is the the fragmented nature of the land holding, with average size being less than 2 acres. This in turn has come in the way of large scale mechanization of agricultural operations during the last 6 decades. Of course China has its own limitations because of the collective land-ownership system of land which is a severe constraint on farm borrowing and consequent poor economies of scale. Though China's ratio of investment in agriculture to agri-GDP is similar to India where it has outscored India is in investing significantly in agri-parks and dairy towns, which are fully integrated models right from cultivation to processing (financed by the agri-banks). 

It is interesting that though both countries have faced severe drought-like conditions or floods frequently, Chinese have been able to cope with these natural disasters much better with minimum hardship to citizens. Look at the fresh-water storage capacity where China scores very high marks as its 1,000 cu. m per capita figure is almost five times that of India. Similarly in water conservation measures also Chinese are much better placed as depletion of ground water table is significantly lower as compared to many parts of India where gross tube-well abuse is prevalent. It is scary for Indian agriculture when future is considered as it requires much more water by 2050 to sustain the agriculture because the water footprint is being depleted faster, especially in the Ganges and other major river basins. India also continues to grapple with the river-linking project in terms of environmental impact issues. On the other hand, China is already implementing many large-scale water projects (Three Gorges Dam, north-south aqueducts using Yangtze's water). Indian policy makers approach to the fresh-water storage and sustainability issue has been mired with slow decision-making and legal opposition by environmentalists. However, India scores better on micro-irrigation with its Government subsidy schemes.

India and China build significant grain reserves each year. India's grain reserve is around 50-60 million tonnes (20-22 per cent of annual production) whereas in China it is about 150-180 million tonnes (35 per cent of annual production). Due to this huge reserve, the food system is less dependent on flows from the global market and helps China contain food inflation in tough years. In terms of grain-storage infrastructure, China has the capacity to store up to 200 million tonnes of wheat and paddy, while India's capacity is 87 million tonnes. In India, there is an erosion of value of approximately 7-8 per cent (about 18 million tonnes) of total food production worth about $6 billion annually, due to unscientific and insufficient storage and supply-chain inefficiencies. Given China's large trade surplus and foreign currency reserves, any grain imports would not have material impact on their fiscal position. India may face a sharp currency depreciation and ballooning balance of payments if it were to resort to large-scale grain imports. Hence, India needs to enhance storage capacity and increase buffer stock to meet food needs of the population for at least five to six months. 

The stated objective of both countries' agricultural policy is to achieve self-sufficiency and food security. China has surged ahead on productivity through the use of high-yielding seed varieties, extensive use of fertilizers and pesticides (twice of India by per-hectare use). China has also focused significantly on cash crops, helped by stagnation of grain consumption and increasing consumption of fruits, vegetables, milk, milk products and meat. The Chinese Government has, since the 1970s, invested significantly into agricultural research and development (R&D), especially to create high-yield varieties of rice, wheat and maize. After the first green revolution , India's agriculture R&D has been academic and localized instead of supporting productivity at national levels.. China accounts for over 70 per cent of world's fresh-water aquaculture production and its livestock production has grown over 8 per cent annually for the last decade.

During the 1990s, China encouraged import of large amounts of new genetic material for hog, beef, poultry and dairy industries from the US, Japan, Canada and New Zealand, which has improved the quality of the genetic stock in China's livestock. While India and China have some congruency on policy front including a State-enforced minimum support price, there are notable differences in respect of wholesale agri-markets, agriculture subsidies and cooperative financing system for agriculture. Land ownership is individual in India but collective in China. While the Chinese Government provides direct subsidies to its farmers, subsidies in India are indirect. Compared to India, China has well-developed commodity exchanges and futures markets and tighter rules for converting or selling crop land for non-agricultural use. Unlike India, China has a price ceiling to minimize the effects of food inflation.

In India, less than 3 per cent of fruits and vegetables produced is processed while total processing in the agriculture sector is less than 8 per cent. By contrast, 40 per cent of food consumed in China is now processed (80 per cent in Western nations). Lack of economies of scale due to size restrictions on industry (under Small Scale Industries rules), supply-side constraints for agri-inputs because of rules governing large-scale corporate farming, and paucity of dry and cold storage infrastructure are the key shortcomings of the Indian food-processing industry.Since many sections of food processing were reserved for the small sector, there are hardly any large food-processing companies in India, except for a few transnational ones. On the other hand, over 70 of China's 500 largest companies are in the food-processing sector (in India this would be at the most 15), and this industry is growing rapidly.

India's agri-trade with the rest of the world is limited with agri-exports of $25 billion (10 per cent of total exports) in financial year 2011 and agri-imports of $8 billion (less than 3 per cent of total imports). Restrictive agri-import policies in India partly fueled by insecurity of domestic cultivators (political motivations) and some genuine and misguided concerns of disease import have led to inflationary pressure on key food articles. Bulk of India's agri-exports are rice, oil meal, cotton and spices (commodities with limited value addition) and bulk of the imports are pulses, edible oils and sugar. China, on the other hand, has a liberal agricultural import policy and is among the world's largest importers of commodities, including edible-oil seeds and even cattle. According to China's Custom statistics, agri-imports for 2010 were $65 billion and exports were over $30 billion, taking the agri-trade value to over three times that of India. China's agri-trade deficit has been growing but is balanced by exports of manufacturing and electronic goods. This has enabled it to maintain food inflation under 6 per cent as compared to the consistent 10-plus per cent for India till recently.

India and China are similar in terms of issues and policy challenges in agriculture. Both countries, due to their strong economic growth, are also experiencing inflationary pressures on food. However, India's total fertility rate of 2.6 (China's is 1.6) poses greater challenges as India's population will continue to grow faster and remain young longer, demanding high-nutrition food. Like China, India needs to focus on livestock, poultry and aquaculture (all key sources of protein), focus on R&D in agriculture by increasing budgetary allocations, promote farm mechanization through producer cooperatives, focus on replenishing aquifers through scientific water-harvesting in villages, avoid pitfalls of excess use of fertilizers and pesticides liberalize agri-trade policies to manage food prices and focus on economies of scale and integration in food processing.

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

BRINGING IN CHANGES FOR BETTER-HOW FORMIDABLE IS THE TASK!

Indians are familiar with the way the elected governments chosen once in five years become totally insensitive to the aspirations and expectations of the people who elected them. Most recent example was the massive outbursts from the masses against the phony efforts to set up an Omdusman for bringing corrupt people to books and the fact that in spite of 43 years of promise and evasive action, no such corruption fighting mechanism has been put in place tells its own story! Same is true in almost all areas of citizen welfare programs promised but never delivered. In stead the politicians are more enamored by legislation like the Food Security Bill, Farmer Subsidies, PDS Subsidies etc that they expect will bring them dividends in the form of votes. Compared to the situation in India, American democracy seems to be more vulnerable to "alms" from big league business players with massive resources to influence policies favoring them!

Look at the corruption fight in India. Being a parliamentary democracy people expect their representatives to engage themselves in making laws that can be considered to be beneficial to them. Unfortunately the elected representative has a free reign to do whatever he or she feels which need not be in the best interest of the citizen. This is what happened during the recent show down between masses and the parliament which politicians of all hues proclaim to be supreme with people having no power to even register their views in a peaceful manner. It was due to sheer desperation that masses had to converge on the streets compelling the government to introduce some sort of a Bill for creating an Omdusman and subsequently aborting it at midnight under one pretext or the other. This fight with politicians and bureaucrats will have to continue in the coming months to put further pressure on the parliament to give the country a law that will reduce if not eliminate corruption altogether.

According to dispassionate observers no democratic government is immune to succumbing to the powers of a few people with money power and in effect it is more akin to an oligarchy-"government of the lobbyists, for the lobbyists and by the lobbyists" The million dollar question is how to fight with such a fatal combination? Probably there can be one way to fight this oligarchy through mass movements that protest against the entrenched power. Of course it may be logical to argue that the voting power of the people must be channelized to punish the political class that refuses to see the needs of the citizen. Looking at history there are many instances where mass pressure had forced the governments to change the unpopular policies. The infamous Vietnam War was ended by my massive unrest and demonstrations by the people on the streets and for that matter the abandonment of segregation policy also driven by people's movement. There is no alternative to collective action by large numbers of citizens who can muster the power to reverse unfair policies and force governments to come nearer to people in whose name they rule the country.

Coming to the food system which has a profound influence on health of the citizen, governments must be freed from the clutches of corporate industry players who have nothing but the welfare of their companies in mind rather than that of the people. Why is that Genetically Modified (GM) foods, despite having doubtful safety credentials, have been forced through the throat giving no clue to the consumer that these foods contain GM ingredients. It is time that American citizens stand up and force the government at least to make the food industry declare the truth on the label. Recent march of thousands of people from New York to Washington DC to protest against GM foods containing packages not declaring about the same may be a beginning and once it assumes critical mass no government can escape from bring in compulsory labeling regulations eventually. An excellent example is the mass movement against the Keystone XL pipe line in the US when thousands of people sat in front of the White House to protest its approval which was considered a  "fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet."! It appears that the pipeline proposal had several supporters among the law makers who shamelessly pocketed $42 million from the fossil fuel industry. Though these protests led to a delay in the approval process for the time being it is unlikely that the government will pursue with it in the near future.

In India Government after prevarication for two decades enacted the food safety act with an Authority consisting of crass bureaucrats to oversee the implementation of the law and see what is happening now. The country has become a "free for all" society with food adulterators and fraudsters holding the hapless consumers to ransom. If some of the reports are to be believed, though India is a top milk producing country on paper, more than 70% of the milk bought by the consumers is made from pond water, detergents, urea and other inedible ingredients and what is that this Authority has been able to do to combat this crime? Similarly China is reported to be flooding markets in India and in many other countries with low quality fake "Made in India" brands at reduced prices! Where is the "Authority" when it comes to stopping this heinous practice by the neighboring country.

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

"HUMAN" GELATIN-SOUNDS WEIRD?

Gelatin is a relatively minor substance that is used by food, pharmaceutical, photography and cosmetic industries which find this by-product of meat industry a very attractive material with some unique physical properties. As the world use of gelatin is less than 0.3 million tons and many effective substitutes have been developed from plant sources during the last few years, its significance is progressively diminishing though its recovery during slaughter house operations improves the economy of meat industry significantly. Use of gelatin by food industry is not very high because of its association with meat industry, many manufacturers preferring to use plant derived viscosity modifiers which include agar agar, carrageenan, pectin, konjak, guar gum etc..

While 27% of gelatin manufactured comes from animal bones, Bovine hide and Pig skin contribute 28% and 44% respectively. Production is largely concentrated in Western Europe (39%), Northern America (20%) and Latin America (17%). Gelatin is a protein by nature derived by partial hydrolysis of Collagen found in bones, connective tissues, organs, intestines of cattle, chicken and pig but its nutritional value as a protein source is very low. It is predominantly made of two amino acids-glycine and proline, has no tryptophan and is deficient in threonine, isoleucine and methionine. Therefore its value to the industry lies in its functional properties. It melts into a liquid at high temperatures and solidifies on cooling. It forms a high viscous fluid with hot water and can form a gel on cooling. This is the property which makes gelatin an attractive ingredient in many food products.

Gelatin is found in many food products that include Marshmallows, gelatin desserts, low fat yogurts, jams, cream cheese, a number of low fat foods, margarine, jelly base etc. Its properties as a stabilizer, thickener, texturizer, viscosity modifier, fat sparing ingredient are unique and given a choice any processor will opt for gelatin. Recent news that using biotechnology scientists have been able to make gelatin from human cells, if true, may provide a cleaner route for getting a cleaner and more consistent product for industrial use. The quality of gelatin from slaughter house waste is not uniform though there are broad quality ranges and lot of standardization is required before a uniform quality product with assured performance can be offered. Human gelatin, so called because of the use of human stem cells for producing the product, can be of a high quality with assured performance. Biotechnology has been even able to create artificial meat from human stem cells.    

The new technique for making gelatin from human DNA is receiving world wide attention after the reported success of Chinese scientists who were able to insert human genes into a strain of yeast to "grow" large amounts of recombinant.human gelatin. Though the experiments are still at an early stage, some doubts are being raised whether such products derived from stem cells will be acceptable to the industry and the consumer. The reported fiasco of marketing human "breast milk" as a health product in the UK is still fresh in the memory of many people and whether same sentiments may rule when it comes to accepting meat derived from human gene remains to be seen. More important consideration would be whether such products are safe and whether clinical trials are required to be done to confirm their safety.

It is claimed that there is a very high degree of similarity between gelatin that comes from a cow, a pig, and a human and hence the pioneers do not see any health risk to it. The fact that people have been ingesting gelatin for many years does not guarantee that human derived counterpart would behave the same way. It is being pointed out that human-derived gelatin is already in use by the pharmaceutical industry in the manufacture of certain pills and vaccines. Probably the highly controlled production techniques under laboratory conditions may offer a more consistent product than "traditional" gelatin. Also cited is the current practice of using human genes by pharmaceutical firms in the production of human  insulin for diabetics, human growth hormone, and erythropoietin, which is used to treat anemia. Using stem cells for experiments however beneficial it may turn out to be, is a divisive issue with religious connotations and probably such products may never find universal acceptance in all parts of the world.

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

A PM "WAKES" UP!-DISCOVERS HUNGER A NATIONAL SHAME!

According to Global Hunger Index (GHI) India ranks 67 on its scale, with many sub-saharan African countries doing much better than it on the hunger scale.  GHI is a calculated indicator based on statistics provided by national governments and combines three critical factors that include proportion of undernourished people as percentage of total population, prevalence of underweight children lesser than 5 years of age and mortality rate of children. Between 1990 and 2011, world, as a whole has been able bring down GHI from 19.7 to 14.6 reflecting the success of projects initiated to tackle this human problem. However the progress has not been even with some countries achieving creditable performance while many others struggle to make any dramatic break through.

Take the case of India which is reported to have a score of 23.7 in 2011, considered reasonable compared to its GHI score of 30.4 in 1990. The concept of GHI is based on the scores calculated from published data and lower the score better would be performance of a country. A score of less than 5 is considered to be synonymous with low prevalence of hunger, between 5 and 9.9 moderate, 10-19.9 serious, 20-29.9 alarming and beyond 30 extremely alarming. It cannot be a consolation for India that it has reduced the GHI score significantly during the last 20 years, a decline of almost 20% but further scrutiny of the data reveals the despicable truth that since 2001 the GHI figure is almost static hovering around 23-24 reflecting nil progress in its fight against hunger. The ruling political dispensation at Delhi will always have excuses for this moribund state of affairs vis-a-vis hunger and poverty.

While government data cannot be believed totally, there are a few Non-Government Organizations (NGO) which have high credibility and reliability among the people concerned with the health of the nation. According to a recent survey by Naandi Foundation, an NGO with considerable reputation, 42% of Indian children under the age of 5 years are malnourished while 59% suffer from various degree of stunting and underweight. What are the chances of these children ever growing to be a normal citizen when they are able grow to become adults? Probably very low because the critical phase of development in humans take place in the first two years after birth and after the age of 5 years the odds of reversing the consequences of childhood nutrition insufficiency are very great. Mr Prime Minister of this country is right in at least asserting that such a situation is serious and admitting it as a national shame! Why his team which has been ruling the country since 2004 has not been able to make any dent in the hunger front, in spite of squandering billions of rupees on different programs touted to be designed to tackle this very same problem? Added to this, country's farmers are committing suicide at the rate of 48 per day with no end in sight for stopping this trend.       

If impartial observers are to be believed more shocking fact emerging out of the survey by Naandi Foundation covering 70000 house holds is that almost 60% of the children under the age of 5 years are under weight with stunted growth. In contrast children from rich families "suffer" from eating too much foods, rich in fat, but poor in proteins and micronutrients, leading to overweight and even obesity. Lack of education for the rural mothers, inadequate sanitary awareness, unsatisfactory personal hygiene, delivery of children in make shift facilities in stead of decently equipped hospitals, inappropriate diet, wrong feeding habits all contribute to sub-par health of the children born in rural areas. Can the Rs 32 per day per person poverty line as propounded by the National Planning Commission  eradicate hunger? Will the proposed Food Security Bill offering cereals at throw way prices to vulnerable families in rural and urban areas make any dramatic impact on the hunger front? Unlikely because the much discredited PDS system, on which the distribution logistics are to be entrusted, has proved beyond doubt its "impotence" to deliver the food to the beneficiary in quality and quantity due to miserable management and massive pilferage. 

V.H.POTTY

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

THE ARMY FOOD SUPPLIES-IS SAFETY COMPROMISED?

It is a well known adage that an "army marches on its stomachs", implying that the fighting spirit of a defense force can be maintained only if the foods served are of good quality and organoleptically acceptable. As far as Government of India is concerned it does not seem to be subscribing to the above age old wisdom if the ongoing criticism against food supply system prevalent in the armed forces now has any basis. There may not be any doubt about the veracity of the criticism considering that they are made by two of the most respected arms of the government-Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the Parliament and the constitutional watch dog Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), that too repeatedly during the last few years. It is just sad that government does not give any seriousness to these reports and continue to close its eyes towards corruption and mismanagement of food supply system in vogue.

Taking first the PAC report, it has been alleged that army personnel even in the border posts are being supplied with date expired products which are normally not consumed by the general public. While the Defense Forces may have its own compulsions to continue with this system which, any how, has not been made public so far, no date expired food is accepted by any consumer any where in the world. Food industry generally withdraws such products from the market and either destroy them or test and reprocess with a new date of expiry. It is true that some agencies like Food Banks do accept date expired foods from retail markets but make sure they are safe before distributing to their beneficiaries. There is also a section of safety experts group which feels expiry of date need not necessarily mean they are unsafe but their quality might be less than optimum due to storage on the shelves for long time. It is difficult to say whether the army supplies which are date expired come under this category. 

The other agency, CAG made a more scathing attack on army's food supply system by citing the obnoxious practice on the part of the testing laboratories to unilaterally revise the expiry period with no scientific basis. Such a practice of extending the shelf life given by the manufacturer by the testing laboratories may not pass muster because this means only that the food might be safe from microbiological spoilage angle. What about the impact of myriad chemical reactions and physical changes taking place under ambient conditions inside the sealed pack and their possible role in making the food not so safe after all?. Recent uproar about the findings that toxic Bis-Phenol A is leached out into the food contents of cans cannot be ignored so easily. Similarly all plastic containers and films do contribute to migration of unsafe chemical entities into the contents and longer the storage time more dangerous can be the levels of these undesirable and unsafe leachates.

One may recall an earlier episode when looking back at army food supply and its logistics, an expensive high technology plant was established at enormous cost near Agra to process meat into dehydrated products using Freeze Drying process several decades ago. Though quality wise and from safety considerations, this technology was indeed one of the best available in the world, the plant had to be junked because the product was totally unacceptable to army personnel because of textural deficiencies. The Defense Food Research Laboratory (DFRL) at Mysore has been doing yeoman service for quite some time though its out put value is progressively coming down with practically nothing of significant user value coming out of this once reputed food R & D wing in the Defense Sector. There was a time in the history that the yearning for fresh foods which every one likes cannot be accessed easily due to the perishable nature of all foods. But emergence of new technologies to day like High Pressure Processing, Modified Atmosphere Storage/packing, aseptic packing, fast freezing process, vacuum packing etc makes it possible to deliver foods as fresh as possible with far better acceptability. Why not serve the armed forces of the country only the very best foods which are nutritious, healthy and safe?  At least this is one way of repaying country's debts for the sacrifices they are making day in and day out for safeguarding the integrity of the country under harsh conditions.

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

HAIR "RAISING" FOODS-ARE THESE CLAIMS SCIENCE BASED?

According to a recent report people should change their diet to prevent falling hair and promote its growth, instead of depending on hundreds of lotions, creams, treatments and other therapies. Baldness and thin tress are generally associated with genetic inheritance but falling of hair is considered to be due to deficiencies in diet which is possible to be treated with appropriate foods containing the nutrients that strengthen hair and stimulate its growth. But is there sufficient clarity regarding the type of foods that can really ensure healthy hair? Unfortunately this is an area of cosmetology which is being exploited by the industry for its own gains rather than helping the desperate consumers longing for improving their appearance.

Looking at the science of hair development in humans, it is well known that each strand of hair is based on an individual follicle on the scalp of the head and there are about 100,000 such follicles for each human being. When the number is low one tends to have a less dense hair and more the number thicker will be the tress. Similarly each hair strand has the potential to grow as long as 2 meters and here again the growth rate depends on the metabolic proclivity of individuals. Generally a hair strand grows at the rate of 0.4 mm per day or on average it can grow 1.2 cm per month. A person may have curly hair if the follicles are not straight and the health of the hair is intricately linked to that of the follicles. Each hair has a life cycle made of anagen or growth phase, catagen or regression phase and telogen or resting phase. It is at the end of the telogen phase that one loses about 100 hair strands a day. The length of the hair is determined by its life cycle. A typical hair follicle spends about 2-7 years under the anagen phase when the length of the hair grows to its maximum potential. In contrast the follicles above eye brows spend only 7 months under anagen phase limiting the length of the hair there.

Hair is a structural protein going under the name Keratin and same protein occurs in nails and the outer skin also. Only mammals have the necessary mechanism for producing hair and the health of the hair in general is influenced by the diet one consumes for a normal being. Most crucial requirement in the diet is proteins while there are many auxiliary biochemicals associated with the quality of hair one may have. Zinc and Vitamin A have been reported to be important to maintain the health of the hair. Other nutrients mentioned include antioxidants, Biotin, Pantothenate etc though their exact role has not yet been elucidated clearly, though their involvement in protein synthesis could be the reason. Biotin deficiency has been shown to result in heavy loss of hair while connection between pantothenate and hair health is still not established. Biotin is a Coenzyme in the biosynthesis of fatty acids and amino acids Isoleucine and Valine. Its deficiency in normal humans is very rare since foods like peanut, egg yolk, liver, some vegetables contain adequate amounts needed daily. Besides gut microorganisms make plenty of Biotin, more than sufficient for day to day requirement. Naturally added Biotin cannot be expected to be of any benefit for improving quality of hair, unless there is a deficiency. 

The practice by the cosmetic industry to add pantothenates in shampoo, touted to be good for hair color is still an issue not proven beyond any doubt. Pantothenate is a part of Coenzyme A, a key biochemical involved in synthesis and metabolism of proteins, carbohydrates and fats and as such it is natural to expect this vitamin to play a role in Keratin synthesis also with the possibility of improved hair quality. But deficiency of Pantothenate has not been prevalent in any part of the world as practically every food humans eat has this vitamin in varying concentrations. Most conspicuous sources include whole cereal grains, legumes, egg, meat, yogurt etc. Shampoo manufacturers, at least some, still make products containing Pantothenate derivatives, claiming improvement in hair quality but it has been proved beyond doubt that such shampoo preparations do not have any impact at all. . 

Including Keratin in food does not help any way because this protein is not digested in the gut, simply passing through without any nutrient being made available for absorption across the intestine. Composition wise Keratin, like other proteins, contains at least 16 amino acids, with Cysteine , Serine and Glutamic acid constituting almost 41%. The strong sulfide bonds between the peptide strands make it resistant to breakdown chemically or enzymatically under normal conditions. Therefore in stead of thinking of consumption of Keratin for improvement of hair, it is more appropriate if the constituent amino acids are ingested through easily digestible foods. The foolishness in using shampoo containing Keratin can be evident from the fact that this protein is not absorbed into hair follicles and is washed away without any real benefit. 

It is but natural to wonder whether there is any single food ingredient that can help grow hair healthy and rich and the inevitable conclusion is that one can have normal hair with no fear of shedding or graying if a balanced diet containing a variety of components like vegetables, whole grains, legumes, egg, yogurt, meat etc. Symptoms of hair loss may occur if there is imbalance in the action of Testosterone which has an influence on hair growth. Of course serious cases of hair loss may have to be treated from a medical angle and there are approved drugs like Minoxidil and Propecia which are extensively used to treat baldness in many countries.     

     

V.H.POTTY

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