Know What you are eating. (Science and Tech, Business Line)
MSG, stabilisers, emulsifiers, preservatives ... how they help processed food, and may or may not help you
Have you ever looked at the list of ingredients on a packet of processed food? It seems like an interminable list – yeast extract, emulsifiers, stabilisers, class II preservatives, high fructose corn syrup, acidity regulator, anti-caking agents, so on and so forth. What are these and what do they mean? The recent controversy over Maggi noodles must have piqued your curiosity. Here’s what some of them are, and what they are meant to do to the food we consume. MSG (monsodium glutamate): This is a flavour enhancer, whose popularity has been on the wane for quite a while now. The US FDA says it is “generally recognised as safe” but it gets a bad rap for causing headaches, stomach upsets and allergies and symptoms known as the Chinese Restaurant Syndrome. Depending on the laws in various countries, processed food companies can declare that their food contains no added MSG, but it is present in other additives such as hydrolysed groundnut protein, maltodextrin and autolysed yeast. Yeast extract: This is considered a condiment rather than a flavour enhancer but it contains glutamate as well. It is used to give a savoury taste to soups, sauces and savoury snacks. It can sometimes be included in the label ‘natural flavour’. Marmite and Vegemite are well-know spreads made from yeast extract. Emulsifiers: These food additives help contrary elements like oil and water mix together, and are crucial to the consistency and texture of processed food including ice-cream, chocolate, bread, creamy sauces, confectionery and bakery products. Some of the well known emulsifiers are egg yolk, soy lecithin, monoglycerides and diglycerides, polysorbates, and sorbitan monostearate. They too are generally regarded as safe but research published by Nature in February 2015 stated that in a study done on mice, they were found to have affected their metabolism and made them prone to inflammatory bowel disease. Stabilisers: These are additives used to maintain the consistency and prevent the separation of ingredients bound by emulsifiers. They are used in ice-cream, margarine, low-fat spreads and dairy products. Popular stabilisers are alginic acid, guar gum, xanthan gum, gelatine, carrageenan, pectin or calcium chloride. Acidity regulator: This is an element that controls the pH level of a food, which determines the extent of its acidity or alkalinity, which affect taste and food safety. Not regulating these elements might lead to bacterial growth, which is a health hazard. Citric, lactic, fumaric, tartaric and malic acids are some well known acidity regulators. Class II preservatives: Chemical food preservatives are added to processed food to extend its shelf life. (Natural preservatives such as salt and vinegar are Class I.) They retard the activity of germs and insects or kill them, keeping foods from going rancid or getting contaminated. The use of benzoates, butylates and butylated hydroxyanisole above the prescribed limits is reputed to cause a host of ailments including allergies, asthma, brain, kidney and liver damage, high blood pressure and cholesterol. Says Dharini Krishnan, Chennai-based dietitian and chairperson of the Registered Dietitian Board, “Additives can be had in permissible quantities, but if you eat only out of packets, sodium and potassium levels go up. A 200 ml bowl of fresh soup will contain 2 mg of sodium but soup reconstituted from a packet will contain 20 mg.” She explains that in Japan, where commercial MSG was developed in 1908, it is recommended as a flavouring agent in place of salt but that elsewhere, as in India, users tend to use them together, which raises sodium in consumers to unhealthy levels. (Sources: www.fda.gov, eufic.org, faia.org, foodadditivesworld.com and yeastextract.info) Vitamin C is a weekly dose of consumer empowerment     |
|
Posted: 05 Jun 2015 06:52 AM PDT
Read Original Article here
(THE HINDU EDITORIAL simplified keeping in mind the demands for UPSC GS paper 2. Enjoy reading and donot forget to leave your comments. ) Context -Appointment of Ex CJI P.Sathasivam as Chairperson Of NHRC(now Governor of Kerela ) National Human Rights Commission;
1.Human rights violence often preperted by high level political leaders or state authority.In such case
independence of investigating agency from the state must for delivery of justice
2 For the Public to have unquestionable faith on The Commission,it's face that is Chairperson must have
untinted public record.That is why Ex CJI is chosen.
3.CJI is considered as the icon of independence, has received no favour from the government and is fearless about tackling the powers.
4.But exCJI accepted the post of Governor of Kerela setting a dangerous precedent.Now the Judges at the verge of retirement might treat sensitive cases against government with a view seeking post retirement positions.
5.Critcised because, CJI is considered as the part of as part of a constitutional triumvirate of power along with the President and the Prime Minister and therfore accepting the post of Governor is going below the rung.It also means accepting adantages from executive brings it under the influence of the executive raising the question on its Independence.
6.Sathasivam defended his decision saying that this doesnot aply to retired CJIs.
7.To avoid any scrutiny after retirement,Judges have stayed away from accepting appointments that are decided purely by politicians. Even the eminent Justice M.C. Chagla received strong condemnation from leaders of the Bar for accepting the posts of Union Minister and Ambassador.
WHY APPOINTMENT OF P.SATHASIVAM AS NHRC CHAIRMAN WILL BE INAPPROPRIATE
1.Primary quality required is independence fromthe government -but once being benifitted by th government after retirement it is doubtful that he would be completely free from government influence.
2.Statuory qualification does not does not specify that the candidate should not have held previous office at the hands of the government but it is the first instance that CJI has taken up role of Governor .Framersof the Costitution would not have visualised this situation.
3,Since he is now Governor of Kerela he ought not to be treated as a former CJI, but as a Governor of a State, and hence not qualified to be Chairperson of the NHRC.
CONCLUSION
The position of the head of the NHRC is a crucial one for protecting human and democratic rights. These rights and the Commission are primordial for all citizens, especially for those who fall foul of the powerful in government. The appointment to this office must not be tainted in any way. Justice Sathasivam committed one mistake in accepting governorship and lowering the office of the CJI. One hopes that another such mistake will not be committed.
 |
|
Posted: 05 Jun 2015 06:08 AM PDT
Justice Sathasivam is in the running for the office of chairperson of NHRC. However, his earlier acceptance of a governor’s post makes him eminently unsuitable for the sensitive job
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is the premier body that investigates abuses and violations of human rights in India. Set up in 1993, the NHRC has wide-ranging powers to investigate, recommend prosecutions, and award compensations for human rights violations. High-profile cases investigated by the Commission include encounter killings by the police and other acts of violence by the state. In 2002, the Commission under former Chief Justice J.S. Verma, was the first official body to visit Gujarat after the riots; it moved the Supreme Court to transfer cases outside the State to secure a fair trial.
The NHRC, set up under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, consists of nine members. Four are ex-office appointments — serving Chairpersons of the National Commissions for Minorities, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Women. Two are persons who have done work in the area of human rights. And three are from the judiciary: a sitting or retired judge of the Supreme Court; a Chief Justice of a High Court; and, the most important of all, a former Chief Justice of India (CJI) who heads the Commission.
Needing an icon of independence
That the head has to be a former CJI is for good reason. Commonly, human rights violations are committed by, or with the connivance of, or allowed to be perpetrated by high-level political leaders, the police or other officers. The public needs to have unquestionable confidence that these cases will be investigated without a tinge of favour, by the most independent persons available. The Commission’s public face and guiding force is the Chairperson. Hence, the insistence on a former CJI as the Chairperson of the Commission. Even a puisne judge of the Supreme Court is not to be considered for the post; nothing less than a person who has occupied the highest rank in the judiciary will do. If there is an icon of independence in the country who has received no favour from the government and is fearless about tackling the powers that be, surely it is the CJI. So proceeds the Act.
Justice P. Sathasivam held the office of the CJI from July 2013 to April 2014. Shortly thereafter, the government offered him the position of Governor of Kerala. He accepted, setting off a chorus of criticism. One former CJI, when asked for his reaction, enigmatically and crisply commented that “standards differ”. Lawyers and retired judges pointed out that the office of the CJI was being devalued. Its holder was part of a constitutional triumvirate of power along with the President and the Prime Minister, they argued, and therefore accepting Governorship meant going to an office not only several rungs lower, but more crucially one which was given entirely as patronage and largesse by the executive. It was also feared that once a precedent was set, and by no less than a CJI, it would not be long before judges on the verge of retirement would have the vision of a comfortable gubernatorial position hazing their eyes while deciding sensitive cases against the government.
Very few voices defended the appointment. One of those was that of Justice Sathasivam himself. He argued that he was accepting just another constitutional post, an untenable argument when the Constitution enumerates many posts barely comparable to the eminence of the CJI. He is also reported to have said that these standards would not apply to a retired CJI, a defence which poses some difficulty.
Indeed, it needs to be remembered that judges, especially of the Supreme Court, will inevitably handle cases of controversy involving the government and political personages. Justice Sathasivam himself has handled cases involving prominent politicians such as Amit Shah, where the accused received relief. Accepting appointment from governments of which such petitioners are a part will invite scrutiny of these cases and give rise to questions. This post facto scrutiny and linkage is one of the main reasons why judges have stayed away from accepting appointments that are decided purely by politicians. Even the eminent Justice M.C. Chagla received strong condemnation from leaders of the Bar for accepting the posts of Union Minister and Ambassador. Over the years, Raj Bhavans have, with distinguished exceptions, become havens for politicians being eased out, or rewarding civil servants for services rendered. Justice Sathasivam was appointed during the season when Governors of several States were being given marching orders telephonically by the Home Secretary. That a just-retired CJI broke precedence and judicial ranks to join this less than august group was an action that was widely seen as diminishing the image of the head of the judiciary, with no countervailing public interest.
An inappropriate appointment
The concern that arises now is that Governor Sathasivam is in the running for appointment as Chairperson of the NHRC. His name is mentioned as one of the likely appointees, and it is said that he has given his consent. This would be an inappropriate appointment, going against the grain of the primary qualification for heading the body, namely, independence from the government and the perceived ability to take hard actions against those in power.
This is an institutional qualification; it is no defence to say that a person who enjoys a sinecure from the government will revert to absolute independence when appointed to head the NHRC. It is true that the statutory qualification for Chairperson does not specify that the candidate should not have held previous office at the hands of the government, but the framers of the Act would not have envisaged, even in their wildest dreams, that there would be a case of a Chief Justice becoming a Governor and then looking to become Chairperson of the NHRC.
Viewed from another angle, it is the proximal position that matters — he ought not to be treated as a former CJI, but as a Governor of a State, and hence not qualified to be Chairperson of the NHRC. It appears that a petition was filed in the Supreme Court raising these grounds, but it was withdrawn on the ground that the objection was being placed before the government. Perhaps judicial determination will have to follow if executive consideration is inadequate.
The position of the head of the NHRC is a crucial one for protecting human and democratic rights. These rights and the Commission are primordial for all citizens, especially for those who fall foul of the powerful in government. The appointment to this office must not be tainted in any way. Justice Sathasivam committed one mistake in accepting governorship and lowering the office of the CJI. One hopes that another such mistake will not be committed.
|
Key To Success
Saturday 6 June 2015
Know What you are eating .(Science and Tech,Business Line)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment