23.12.2008: Controversity about probiotic drink Actimel from Danone [1]
The marketing of Actimel [2]
According to Spiegel Online Danone spent 50 Million Euro from January to October 2008 as marketing budget for Actimel in Germany counting for a volume of sales of about one Billion Euro worldwide per year. Actimel helps to strengthen the body’s defence mechanisms, exceeded €1 billion in sales.

Flourishing global market of probiotics [3]
Khan and Ansari in a monograph of 2007 stresses the growing interest in self-care and the recognition of the link between diet and health of the consumer, providing a flourishing market for functional foods and probiotic products which represent a wealth of marketing opportunities. The authors provide a summary of research on the health benefits of probiotics and information regarding the global market of probiotics.

Health benefits labelling in Canada, E.U., and U.S. Emphasise on scientific credibility [4]
Sanders and colleagues 2005 stress that successful and responsible global introduction of probiotic and prebiotic products requires labelling for health benefits that meets consumer needs, adheres to regulatory standards and does not overextend scientific evidence. They also note that existing regulations emphasis on scientific credibility of health claims.
The authors also analyse the value of different types of evidence of efficacy and examine the imitations of in vitro, animal and human studies used for efficacy substantiation for probiotics and prebiotics.

Health claims in the United States may be misleading to consumer [5] [6]
Hasler 2008 Health claims in the United States have been a topic of intense controversy since the mid-1980s. Health claims are based on a very high standard of scientific evidence and significant scientific agreement. Hasler says that US health claims regulations had limited success and may be misleading to consumers.

Premarket authorization and substantiation of health claims on foods [7]
L'abbé and colleagues 2008 analyse the regulatory framework of health claims on foods in Canada and compare it with international approaches, and how risk-reduction claims for serious diseases are managed in the United States, European Union and Australia, stressing the need for premarket authorization and the requirement for a high level of certainty in substantiating claims.

Health claims in Europe: new legislation and PASSCLAIM for substantiation [8]
The EU regulation on nutrition and health claims from 2007 will be fully implemented by January 2010. It includes reduction of disease risk claims. A community list of permitted and rejected claims will be defined. To achieve this, the European Commission supported the project, "Process for the Assessment of Scientific Support for Claims on Foods" (PASSCLAIM), with the main purpose to define a set of generally applicable criteria for the scientific substantiation of health claims on foods.

Foodwatch says there is no difference  of the effect of Actimel compared with normal yoghurt [9]
Foodwatch says that Danone makes a mountain out of a molehill suggesting that Actinimel protects from cold and boots health. Foodwatch believes that the company sells a common product using excessive advertising.
Alexa Meyer, M.Sc., from the Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Vienna, Austria, comparing probiotic drinks and normal yoghurt, found no significant difference in the effect of Actimel and normal yoghurt with living bacteria. The nutritional researcher recommends to get enough sleep, wash hands often and eat a daily bowl of yoghurt. She says this would activate more active germ-fighting white blood cells, enhancing the immune system, probably due to the presence of Lactobacillus bulgarius, from any normal yoghurt, which has half the price of Actimel. [1] [10]

This is being supported by Bethold Koletzko from the University of Munich, Metabolic Diseases and Nutrition, Munich, Germany in case of diarrhoea advices parents to give their children yoghurt with living bacteria. It does not necessarily be Actinimel, but may also be other yoghurts.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is an independent regulator for advertisements, sales promotion and direct marketing in the UK. According to Spiegel Online one TV spot from Actimel was blocked by the ASA in 2006 and one in 2008. [1]

However, a measurable health benefits linked to the presence of live Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus delbrueckii sp. Bulgaricus was reported by Koletzko and colleagues 2005 yoghurt. In this review Koletzko and colleagues say that it was clearly demonstrated that yoghurt containing viable bacteria improves lactose digestion and eliminates symptoms of lactose intolerance, and clearly fulfil the current concept of probiotics. [11]

Scientific evidences of probiotic healt effects
Despite controversies, there are many published research articles which say probiotics have positive health effects. Here some of them are presented:
Probiotics found to be beneficial for health [12]
Parvez and colleagues 2006 state, in a review of probiotics that the beneficial effect of lactic acid bacteria consumption include improved intestinal tract health; enhanced immune system, synthesis and enhanced bioavailability of nutrients; reduction of symptoms of lactose intolerance, reduced allergy in susceptible individuals; and reduction of risk of certain cancers. Modified gut pH, production of antimicrobial compounds, interfering with the binding and receptor sites of pathogens, stimulating immunomodulatory cells, and producing lactase are some of the mechanisms how it works.
The authors concluded that probiotics are important as a part of a healthy diet for human and may become a safe, cost effective, approach against microbial infection.

German review of probiotic studies [13]
According de Vrese and Schrezenmeir 2008 the probiotics are defined in Gernay as viable microorganisms, sufficient amounts of which reach the intestine in an active state and thus exert positive health effects. Such bacteria are Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, L. reuteri, bifidobacteria and certain strains of L. casei or the L. acidophilus-group, Escherichia coli strain Nissle 1917, certain enterococci (Enterococcus faecium SF68) and the probiotic yeast Saccharomyces boulardii. Health benefits are the (transient) modulation of the intestinal microflora of the host and the capacity to interact with the immune system directly or mediated by the autochthonous microflora, are basic mechanisms.

The authors list well-established probiotic effects: Help to cure rotavirus infections or antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Reduce the cancer-promoting enzymes and putrefactive metabolites in the gut. Prevent unspecific intestinal complaints in healthy people. Produce beneficial effects on inflammatory diseases of the gastrointestinal tract, such as Helicobacter pylori infection. Normalize stool and stool consistency in subjects suffering from obstipation or an irritable colon. Prevent or alleviate allergies and atopic diseases in infants. Prevent respiratory tract infections (common cold, influenza) and other infectious diseases as well as treatment of urogenital infections.

Probiotics and dietetics practice [14]
Douglas and Sanders in a review of 2008 cite enhanced immune function, improved colonic integrity, decreased incidence and duration of intestinal infections, down-regulated allergic response, and improved digestion as benefits of regular consumption of probiotics.

The authors stress that Information on probiotic species, applications for specific strains, dosages and forms, safety, and shelf life is not sufficiently worked out to be used by most food and nutrition professionals. The authors present science and practice-based guidelines to enhance clinician and client understanding of probiotics and prebiotics.

[1] Amann, Susanne: Marketing-Erfolg. Mit Joghurt Millionen scheffeln. Spiegel Online 22.12.2008
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,druck-597184,00.html

[2] Danone: Healthy growth boosts flagship products.
http://www.danone.com/en/brands/business/fresh-dairy-products.html

[3] Khan SH, Ansari FA.: Probiotics-the friendly bacteria with market potential in global market.
Pak J Pharm Sci. 2007 Jan;20(1):76-82
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17337434

[4] Sanders ME, Tompkins T, Heimbach JT, Kolida S.: Weight of evidence needed to substantiate a health effect for probiotics and prebiotics: regulatory considerations in Canada, E.U., and U.S. Eur J Nutr. 2005 Aug;44(5):303-10. Epub 2004 Sep 2.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15338247

[5] FDA: Qualified Health Claims
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/lab-qhc.html

[6] Hasler CM.: Health claims in the United States: an aid to the public or a source of confusion?
J Nutr. 2008 Jun;138(6):1216S-20S.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18492860

[7] L'abbé MR , Dumais L, Chao E, Junkins B. : Health claims on foods in Canada. J Nutr. 2008 Jun;138(6):1221S-7S.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18492861

[8] Asp, Nils-Georg; Bryngelsson, Susanne: Health claims in Europe: new legislation and PASSCLAIM for substantiation. J Nutr. 2008 Jun;138(6):1210S-5S.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18492859

[9] Foodwatch: Abgespeist: Actimel von Danone. Activer Etikettenschwindel. 17.12.2008. danone_actimel_compactinfo_20081217
http://www.abgespeist.de/actimel/index_ger.html

[10] Meyer AL, Micksche M, Herbacek I, Elmadfa I.: Daily intake of probiotic as well as conventional yogurt has a stimulating effect on cellular immunity in young healthy women.
Ann Nutr Metab. 2006;50(3):282-9. Epub 2006 Feb 23.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16508257

[11] Guarner, F.; Perdigon, G.; Corthier, G.; Salminen, S.; Koletzko, B.; Morelli, L.: Should yoghurt cultures be considered probiotic? Br J Nutr. 2005 Jun;93(6):783-6. Review.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16022746

[12] Parvez. S.; Malik, K.A, Ah Kang, S.; Kim, H.Y.: Probiotics and their fermented food products are beneficial for health. J Appl Microbiol. 2006 Jun;100(6):1171-85.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16696665

[13] de Vrese, M.; Schrezenmeir, J.: Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2008;111:1-66.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18461293

[14] Douglas, L.C.; Sanders, M.E.: Probiotics and prebiotics in dietetics practice. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008 Mar;108(3):510-21.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18313433


19.12.2008: Rebiana (Stevia) sweetener in USA accepted by FDA [1]
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded in a notification in December 2008, that it has no objection to rebiana, (Reb A) at 95 percent purity or above, having GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status as a general purpose sweetener for food and drink, not just as a supplement. This decision followed the application of Coca-Cola partnered with Cargill under their brand called Truvia, and PepsiCo under the PureVia brand. Applications for dairy, bakery and confectionary products, including boiled sweets and chewing gum are expected to follow.

PureCircle, a Malaysian company, which will supply rebiana, (Reb A) at 95 percent purity ingredient to PepsiC, Coca-Cola and Cargil. China is the world’s largest exporter of stevioside. [2]

Rebiana was had been banned until December 2008 [3]
In 1999, last revised in 2004, FDA stated: “Another product, stevia, is derived from a South American shrub. Though it can impart a sweet taste to foods, it cannot be sold as a sweetener because FDA considers it an unapproved food additive. "The safety of stevia has been questioned by published studies," says Martha Peiperl, a consumer safety officer in FDA's Office of Premarket Approval. "And no one has ever provided FDA with adequate evidence that the substance is safe." Under provisions of 1994 legislation, however, stevia can be sold as a "dietary supplement," though it cannot be promoted as a sweetener.”
Import Alert last revised 24/4/2008 considered stevia leaves, and food containing stevia as unsafe food additive. [4]

CSPI says it too soon to allow stevia in the diet sodas and juice drinks [5]
In a Statement of the CSPI, the Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson berates the FDA for declaring a sweetener extracted from the herb Stevia, is "generally recognized as safe," or GRAS. CSPI argues that rebaudioside A is inadequately tested in terms of cancer and caused mutations in some laboratory tests.

Rebiana still banned in the EU and other countries.
Rebiana is still banned in the European Union [6], in Singapore and Hong Kong [7]. Stevioside is isolated and purified from Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni leaves. The leaves naturally contain a complex mixture of eight sweet diterpene glycosides, including stevioside, steviolbioside, rebaudiosides (A,B,C,D,E) and dulcoside A. However, for the majority of toxicological studies, a precise composition of the extract that has been tested has not been adequately defined. In particular, studies on preparations of stevioside of higher than 95% purity are limited in number.

The data of the WHO 2006 [8]
Data compiled in the safety evaluation released by the World Health Organization in 2006 suggest that EU and Hong Kong policies may be obsolete.

[1] Wikipedia: Stevia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia

[2] Jones, Georgia: "Stevia" (HTML). NebGuide: University of Nebraska–Lincoln Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources. September 2006. Retrieved on 2007-05-04.
http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/pages/publicationD.jsp?publicationId=609

[3] FDA Sugar Substitutes: Sugar Substitutes: Americans Opt for Sweetness and Lite. FDA Consumer magazine. November - December 1999.
http://www.fda.gov/FDAC/features/1999/699_sugar.html

[4] FDA Import Alert: IA #45-06, Revised 2/2/96, Attachment revised 4/24/08.
http://www.fda.gov/ora/fiars/ora_import_ia4506.html

[5] CSPI: FDA Issues Midnight Go-ahead for Potentially Harmful Stevia Sweetener
Statement of CSPI Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson.
http://www.cspinet.org/new/200812181.html

[6] European Commission: Scientific Committee on Food CS/ADD/EDUL/167 final. 17 June 1999.
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/out34_en.pdf

[7] Simon, L.I.: Fact Sheet: Stevioside. Legislative Council Secretariat Research and Library Services Division 27 March 2002.
http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr01-02/english/sec/library/0102fs04e.pdf

[8] Benford, D.J.; DiNovi, M., Schlatter, J. (2006). "Safety Evaluation of Certain Food Additives: Steviol Glycosides" (PDF – 18 MB). WHO Food Additives Series (World Health Organization Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)) 54: 140.
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241660546_eng.pdf.


18.12.2008: Hydrocolloids and emulsifiers as alternative to eggs in backery [1]
Ashwini, Jyotsna and Indrani, 2008 studied the effect of hydrocolloids like Arabic, guar, xanthan, carrageenan and hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in combination with emulsifiers such as glycerol monostearate and sodium stearoyl-2-lactylate on the quality of eggless cake.
The authors found that the addition of hydrocolloids to wheat flour as well as in the presence of emulsifiers increased the quality of eggless cake.
Best results in eggless cake were found with hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in combination with sodium stearoyl-2-lactylate.

[1] Ashwini, A; Jyotsna, R.; Indrani, D.: Effect of hydrocolloids and emulsifiers on the rheological, microstructural and quality characteristics of eggless cake. Food Hydrocolloids. Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 700-707

18.12.2008: Marine gelatin
Gelatin from warm-water fish as alternative to mammalian gelatin [1]
Karim and Bhat 2009 assessed the use of by-products of the fishing industry to produce fish gelatin for food and pharmaceuticals. Gelatine from cattle and pork are being replaced by thickening agents like hydrocolloids and special starches following the BSE scandal or because of religious believes. Marine gelatin receives, therefore, much attention.

In this review the authors stress that especially gelatine from warm-water fish has similar characteristics to mammalian gelatin and may be used in food products.

Extraction method and characterisation of gelatine from cod and salmon [2]
Arnesen and Gildberg developed an extraction method for gelatine from Atlantic salmon and Atlantic cod skin by the acid extraction process, filtration and ion exchange treatment. No fishy odour was left after treatment. The obtained gelatine contained hydroxyproline and proline 16.6% from salmon and 15.4% from cod; and serine 4.6% from salmon and 6.3% from cod. Best extraction temperature was 56 °C.

Lactic acid and the extraction of gelatin of fish skin [3]
Gómez-Guillén and colleagues 2005, studying the gelatin extraction of Dover sole (Solea vulgaris) skin, found that 25 mM lactic acid was to be preferred to 50 mM acetic acid for the skin swelling process, because the gelatin prepared with lactic acid did not present the negative organoleptic properties of the acetic acid solution. However, using 50 mM lactic acid the quality of the gelatine was not satisfying.

Fish gelatins are improved with coenhancers [4]
According to Fernández-Díaz, Montero and Gómez-Guillén 2008 the gel strength of gelatins prepared from cod and hake skin were substantially improved with coenhancers such as glycerol, microbial transglutaminase, and magnesium sulphate, the later was very efficient in gelatin from cod. The authors say that gelling and melting points improved, depending on the species.

Structural analysis of gelatin won with different extraction methods. [5]
Yifen Wang and colleagues 2008 studied the correlation between the physical properties and nanostructure of gelatins made of channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) skins pretreated with sodium hydroxide, acetic acid, or water, and then extracted with hot water. The acid pretreatment group showed the highest gel strength and protein yield, and viscosity, compared to the water pretreatment group which had the lowest quality.

Analysing of the nanostructures of the gels, using atomic force microscopy (AFM), the authors found that the acid-pretreated gelatin was composed of sponge-like aggregates, while the others showed separated individual aggregates. The alkaline pretreatment group presented annular pores but no correlation with the physical properties was found. The authors, however, state that analysing the different atomic force microscopy (AFM) patterns may relate to the gelatin's physical properties.

Gelatin structural differences between different fish [6]
Gómez-Guillén and colleagues 2001 compared the gelatin from skins of marine species. Gelatins presenting the best gelling ability, together with the best thermostability were obtained from flat-fish species (sole and megrim) , compared to cold-adapted fish (cod and hake).

The authors describe amino acid composition of gelatin from fish and squid, stressing that squid present the most significant changes. The squid gelatin showed viscoelastic properties intermediate between those from flat-fish and cold-adapted fish species.
The authors highlight the importance of slow cold maturation of gelatine of all species.

Gelatin from frozen flounder skins [7]
Gómez-Guillén and colleagues 2003 examined the quality of gelatin from flounder skins frozen at −12 or −20 °C. The authors found that gelatin from frozen skins at −12 °C had lower gel strength, less alpha and beta-chains but more bands corresponding to lower molecular weight fragments and the gama-components were less evident compared to the fresh skins, only the melting point value of gelatin from frozen skins were higher than those of fresh skins.

Gelatin from dried fish skin [8]
According to Giménez and colleagues 2005 compared the effect of air-drying of Dover sole (Solea vulgaris) skins for preservation using ethanol, ethanol–glycerol mixture and marine salt, and stored for 160 days at room temperature. The authors found no difference between the quality of the gelatine obtained with the different drying methods. Only slight decrease in viscoelastic properties as well as gelling and melting points were noted but proteins remained stable. The authors concluded that drying did not affect negatively the gelatine properties.

Effect of salt washing on yield and quality of gelatin from fish skin [9]
Giménez, Gómez-Guillén and Montero 2005 studied the effect of a pre-washing with salt solutions such as NaCl, KCl, MgCl2, MgSO4 followed by a mild acid pre-treatment of Dover sole (Solea vulgaris) skins. Skin washed with NaCl and KCl resulted in changes of molecular weight distribution, improving gel strength and rheological properties, compared with unsalted gelatin preparations. However, MGSO4 was detrimental to the gelatin quality, reported the authors.

Biodegradable films from fish gelatin [10]
According to Gómez-Guillén and colleagues 2008 there is a tendency to use biodegradable films for foodstuffs instead of synthetic plastic materials. They protect food against drying, light, and oxygen and may be used as a carrier of bioactive components. Fish gelatins films have good properties to preserve foodstuffs, depending on the species specific amino acid composition, and the molecular weight distribution, as an outcome of the processing conditions. The authors also asses combining fish gelatins with soy protein isolate, oils and fatty acids, certain polysaccharides, plasticizers and cross-linking agents. The use of chitosan, lysozyme, essential oils, plant extracts, or vitamin C may add antimicrobial and antioxidant properties to the gelatine films.

Films from gelatin of giant squid [11]
Giméne and colleagues 2009 assessed the extraction of gelatin from the giant squid (Dosidicus gigas) using hydrolysis with pepsin prior extraction followed by a mild-acid procedure. The collagenous residues of the first extraction were submitted to a pepsin digestion to increase the yield of alfa-chains. The first extraction presented better gelling characteristics compared with the second extraction. Both, however, presented similar properties of the film produced from them, exept the puncture force of films made from the first extraction, which was higher than those of the second extraction.

Comparing bovine-hide gelatin and tuna-skin gelatin [12]
Gómez-Guillén and colleagues 2008 compared the amino acid composition and molecular weight distribution of bovine-hide gelatin and a tuna-skin gelatin, and prepared edible films using glycerol and sorbitol as plasticizers. The molecular weight distribution of the Tuna-skin gelatin differed from bovine-hide gelatin while presenting higher quantities of beta-components (covalently linked alpha-chain dimers), whereas the later had certain degradation of alfa1-chains being, resulting from greater proteolysis.
The authors found that a higher water vapour permeability film prepared from bovine-hide gelatin. However, the film from the skin of tuna presented a ten-fold higher deformability. There were no differences the bovine-hide and the tuna skin gelatin films concerning breaking force and water solubility.

High pressure extraction from gelatine of fish skins [13]
Gómez-Guillén, Giménez and Montero 2004 studied the effect of high pressure, at 250 and 400 MPa, for 10 or 20 min, using pre-treatment in acid at 10 °C, compared with extraction in water at 45 °C. Pressure level and time of treatment induced noticeable changes in molecular weight viscoelastic properties.

The authors concluded that gelatin extraction of gelatin fish skins using high pressure presents advantages compared with the conventional procedure using water extraction. High pressure extraction offers gelatin of high gelling quality and reduces extraction time to few minutes.

Effect on quality of gelatin from fish skin extracted by high pressure [14]
Montero, Fernández-Díaz and Gómez-Guillén 2002 studied extraction of gelatin from cod and megrim skins at high pressure using 20 and 7°C and 200, 300 and 400 Mpa. Gelatin gels from megrim were less turbid, independent of the treatment, while the turbidity of cod gelatins decreased as pressure increased, and increased with higher temperature. The gels of megrim presented better characteristics as noted by those of cod.
The authors stress that gelation mechanism is different between pressure- and heat-induced gels and the initial collagen and amino acids.

[1] Karim, A.A.; Bhat, Rajeev: Fish gelatin: properties, challenges, and prospects as an alternative to mammalian gelatins.Food Hydrocolloids. Volume 23, Issue 3, May 2009, Pages 700-707. Doi:10.1016/j.foodhyd.2008.07.002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2008.07.002

[2] Arnesen, Jan Arne; Gildberg, Asbjorn: Extraction and characterisation of gelatine from Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) skin. Bioresource Technology, Volume 98, Issue 1, January 2007, Pages 53-57. Doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2005.11.021
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2005.11.021

[3] Giménez, B.; Turnay, J.; Lizarbe, M.A.; Montero, P.; Gómez-Guillén, M.C.: Use of lactic acid for extraction of fish skin gelatin. Food Hydrocolloids, Volume 19, Issue 6, November 2005, Pages 941-950. Doi:10.1016/j.foodhyd.2004.09.011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2004.09.011


[4] Fernández-Díaz, M.D.; Montero, P.; Gómez-Guillén, M.C.: Gel properties of collagens from skins of cod (Gadus morhua) and hake (Merluccius merluccius) and their modification by the coenhancers magnesium sulphate, glycerol and transglutaminase. Food Chemistry, Volume 74, Issue 2, August 2001, Pages 161-167. Doi:10.1016/S0308-8146(01)00110-8
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0308-8146(01)00110-8


[5] Yang, Hongshun; Wang, Yifen; Zhou, Peng; Regenstein, Joe M.: Effects of alkaline and acid pretreatment on the physical properties and nanostructures of the gelatin from channel catfish skins
Food Hydrocolloids, Volume 22, Issue 8, December 2008, Pages 1541-1550.
Doi:10.1016/j.foodhyd.2007.10.007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2007.10.007

[6] Gómez-Guillén, M. C.; Turnay, J.; Fernández-Díaz, M. D.; Ulmo, N.; Lizarbe, M.A.; Montero P.: Structural and physical properties of gelatin extracted from different marine species: a comparative study. Food Hydrocolloids, Volume 16, Issue 1, January 2002, Pages 25-34.
Doi:10.1016/S0268-005X(01)00035-2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0268-005X(01)00035-2

[7] Fernández-Díaz, M.D.; Montero, P.; Gómez-Guillén, M.C.: Effect of freezing fish skins on molecular and rheological properties of extracted gelatin. Food Hydrocolloids, Volume 17, Issue 3, May 2003, Pages 281-286. Doi:10.1016/S0268-005X(02)00078-4
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0268-005X(02)00078-4

[8] Giménez, B.; Gómez-Guillén, M.C.; Montero, P.: Storage of dried fish skins on quality characteristics of extracted gelatin. Food Hydrocolloids, Volume 19, Issue 6, November 2005, Pages 958-963. Doi:10.1016/j.foodhyd.2004.12.012
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2004.12.012

[9] Giménez, B.; Gómez-Guillén, M.C.; The role of salt washing of fish skins in chemical and rheological properties of gelatin extracted. Food Hydrocolloids, Volume 19, Issue 6, November 2005, Pages 951-957. Doi:10.1016/j.foodhyd.2004.09.012
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2004.09.012

[10] Gómez-Guillén, M.C.; Pérez-Mateos, M.; Gómez-Estaca, J.; López-Caballero, E.; Giménez, B.; Montero, P.: Fish gelatin: A renewable material for developing active biodegradable films
Trends in Food Science & Technology, Available online 31 October 2008. Doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2008.10.002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2008.10.002

[11] Giménez, B.; Gómez-Estaca, J.; Alemán, A.; Gómez-Guillén, M.C.; Montero, M.P.: Physico-chemical and film forming properties of giant squid (Dosidicus gigas) gelatin. Food Hydrocolloids, Volume 23, Issue 3, May 2009, Pages 585-592. Doi:10.1016/j.foodhyd.2008.07.003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2008.07.003

[12] Gómez-Estaca, J.; Montero, P.; Fernández-Martín, F.; Gómez-Guillén, M.C.: Physico-chemical and film-forming properties of bovine-hide and tuna-skin gelatin: A comparative study. Journal of Food Engineering, Volume 90, Issue 4, February 2009, Pages 480-486. Doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.07.022
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.07.022

[13] Gómez-Guillén, M.C.; Giménez, B.; Montero, P: Extraction of gelatin from fish skins by high pressure treatment. Food Hydrocolloids, Volume 19, Issue 5, September 2005, Pages 923-928. Doi:10.1016/j.foodhyd.2004.12.011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2004.12.011

[14] Montero, P.; Fernández-Díaz, M.D.: Gómez-Guillén, M.C.: Characterization of gelatin gels induced by high pressure. Food Hydrocolloids, Volume 16, Issue 3, May 2002, Pages 197-205.
Doi:10.1016/S0268-005X(01)00083-2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0268-005X(01)00083-2

10.12.2008: The truth about Dioxin in Irish pork and Irish beef [1]
The EFSA responding to Commission’s urgent request on dioxins in Irish pork considers the increase of contamination to be of no concern for a single event, and a high exposure scenario would reduce protection, but not necessarily lead to adverse health effects.

Contamination Levels [2]
During routine monitoring of Irish pork, elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were found in pork. Further investigations revealed the presence of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs at levels up to 200 pg WHO-TEQ / g fat, which is very high, compared with the maximum levels set by the regulation.
The toxic responses to dioxins include dermal toxicity, immunotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity. The toxicity of dioxins is related to the amount accumulated in the body during a lifetime, the so-called body burden. A tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of 14 pg WHO-TEQ/kg body weight (b.w.) has been established by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 2001.

Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 [3]
The Council Regulation (EC) No 2375/2001 sets maximum levels for various foods and stresses the importance to reduce the overall dioxin contamination in foodstuffs. It is therefore necessary to prohibit
the mixing of foodstuffs complying with the maximum
levels with foodstuffs exceeding these maximum levels.

Maximum levels of dioxin Sum of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs (WHO-PCDD/F-PCB-TEQ)
Meat and meat products originating from
— Ruminants (bovine animals, sheep)       4,5 pg/g fat
— Poultry and farmed game                       4,0 pg/g fat
— Pigs                                                        1,5 pg/g fat
Liver and derived products                                                            12,0 pg /g fat
Muscle meat of fish and fishery products and products thereof       8,0 pg/g fresh weight
Milk and milk products, including butter fat                                    6,0 pg/g fat
Hen eggs and egg products                                                              6,0 pg/g fat

Oils and fats
— Animal fat
     — from ruminants        4,5 pg/g fat
     — from poultry            4,0 pg/g fat
     — from pigs                 1,5 pg/g fat
     — mixed animal fat      3,0 pg/g fat
     — Vegetable oil           1,5 pg/g fat
— fish oil intended for human consumption 10,0 pg /g fat

Contamination origin and the implications [4]
The contamination of Irish meat was traced back to the feed, similar to the dioxin scandals of Belgian eggs, meat of hen, pigs and beef contaminated by feed tainted with discarded old engine oil in 1999; Bavarian milk was found heavily contaminated with dioxin due to calcium oxide used to wash industrial smoke stack combustion gases which was added to citric pellets from Brazil and fed to German cows. The Brazilian Association for Citrus Exporters specifies for citrus pulp pellets dioxin/furan (maximum) expressed in minimum detection grade     -      Upperbound 500 pg/kg I – TEQ [5].
Industrial waste water sludge is often being declared as process water evading the European directive.

Call for strong regulations on feedstuffs ingredients [6]
Biochemistry Professor James Heffron of the University College Cork, member of the Expert Group set up to examine health implications of the dioxin contamination stresses the damage which has been done to the reputation of the Irish pig farmers and processors through no fault of their own. He calls on the relevant regulatory bodies to prioritise regulation of one of the most critical stages in meat production, the feedstuffs ingredient processing.

The conclusion of the EFSA stating that there is no risk coming from dioxin in Irish pork may lead to a careless handling of food poisoning. Dioxins accumulate in fat tissue. Even low contamination adds up to critical amounts.

[1] EFSA: EFSA responds to Commission’s urgent request on dioxins in Irish pork. Press release 10.12.2008.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902210953.htm

[2] EFSA: Statement of EFSA on the risks for public health due to the presence of dioxins in pork from Ireland. Question number: EFSA-Q-2008-777. Adopted date 10.12.2008.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902210863.htm

[3] Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:364:0005:0024:EN:PDF

[4] OurFood: Dioxin, the endless story.
http://www.ourfood.com/Dioxin.html

[5] ABECitrus, The Brazilian Association for Citrus Exporters: Orange By-products, Citrus Pulp Pellets CPP.
http://www.abecitrus.com.br/english/subprodutos_us.html

[6] Indipendent.ie: Animal feed regulation is the key issue in pork crisis. 10.12.2008.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/animal-feed-regulation-is-the-key-issue-in-pork-crisis-1568846.html



09.12.2008: Dioxin-like PCBs in pork from Ireland [1]
Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs) are chemicals that get into our food from the environment.
Foods high in animal fat, such as milk, meat, fish and eggs (and foods produced with them) are the main source of dioxins and PCBs although all foods contains at least low levels of these chemical.
Dioxins may be formed as unwanted by-products in a variety of industrial and combustion processes, including household fires.

PCBs have been used since the early 1930s, mainly in electrical equipment, however, their production was stopped in the 1970s.

According to the latest information from the European Rapid Alert System, levels of up to 292 µg/kg polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have been detected in pork products from Ireland. As this constitutes a major exceeding of the maximum admissible levels in the samples examined, the Irish government has recalled these foods.
The food industry is therefore required to recall from the market all Irish (Republic) pork products produced from pigs slaughtered in Ireland. This includes all raw and cooked pork products e.g. pork, ham, sausages, bacon, gamon steaks etc.

Irish beef is also affected by dioxin scandal [2]
Ireland’s Food Safety Authority (FSAI) has confirmed that feed contaminated with dioxins has been fed to some cattle in Ireland.
Dr Andrew Wadge, FSA Chief Scientist, said that the risk from dioxin in beef is significantly lower than in pork. Cattle consume a wider variety of feeds and the way their bodies process the feed is different which makes the risk of contamination much lower.

Republic of Ireland Agriculture Minister Brendan Smith said the levels of dioxins found in the beef were two to three times above safe limits, compared with 200 times for the pig meat. The risk consuming Irish beef is low and therefore beef products are not removed from shelves.
Losses with beef are expected to be less serious because there is better traceability in the beef sector than the pork sector. Isolating the affected meat will be easier.

[1] German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment: Dioxin-like PCBs in pork from Ireland
http://www.bfr.bund.de/cd/template/index_en

[2] UK Food Standards Agency: Update on Irish beef. 9.12.2008.
http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2008/dec/irishupdate


07.12.2008: Intensive sweet taste is linked to the neurophysiology of obesity [1]
According to Kovacs and Hajnal 2007 the increased palatability of modern diet contributes to eating beyond caloric need, adding to obesity. The authors studied the way how palatability is coded in taste-evoked neural activity comparing the response of brain neurons of obese and lean rat strains triggered by different concentrations of sugar and other ingredients. Neurons of the pontine parabrachial nucleus which relays information from the surface of the tongue were the subject of this study. They found that the neurons of lean rats responded to sucrose very early, while the reaction in obese rats demanded high concentrations of sugar. Increased consumption of sweet food could numb the reward centre of the brain reducing the intensity of the signals which results in a weaker perception of taste through the pontine parabrachial nucleus (PbN). The effect of other food ingredients such as salt, water, citric acid, quinine-HCI, monosodium glutamate did not differ between obese and lean rats.

The authors stress that fat and sugar and other sweeteners such as fructose syrups and high intensity sweeteners, which are increasingly used in processed foods, over-stimulate taste receptors and food reward neurons making them less sensitive.

The authors concluded that central gustatory processing for sucrose is altered in strains of obese rat and further support the notion that palatability is encoded in the across neuron pattern. These findings suggests that there may be a link between taste preference and body weight affecting food intake.

Roussin and Di Lorenzo in an editorial in 2008 [2] point out that the results of the study of Kovacs and Hajnal 2007 are consistent with observations that obese humans tend to be less responsive to mildly sweet stimuli and prefer sweeter stimuli when compared with the nonobese, such as noted by Bartoshuk et al. 2006. Bartoshuk added that genetic variation as well as taste pathology contribute to these results. [3]

Roussin and Lorenzo [2], in its editorial, reviews studies related to the perception of sweet taste stressing that obesity may alter the taste processing of sweet stimuli at the parabrachial nucleus of the pons (PbN) which is the home to third-order gustatory neurons and influences the motivational and hedonic aspects of taste via dopaminergic mesolimbic pathways (Norgren et al. 2006. Kovacs and Hajnal (2008)

[1] Peter Kovacs and Andras Hajnal: Altered Pontine Taste Processing in a Rat Model of Obesity
J Neurophysiol 100: 2145-2157, 2008. First published June 11, 2008; doi:10.1152/jn.01359.2007
http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/4/2145

[2] A. T. Roussin and P. M. Di Lorenzo
Oh, How Sweet It Is. Focus on "Altered Pontine Processing in a Rat Model of Obesity"
J Neurophysiol, October 1. 2008; 100(4): 1697 - 1698.

[3] Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB, Hayes JE, Moskowitz HR, Snyder DJ. Psychophysics of sweet and fat perception in obesity: problems, solutions and new perspectives. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 361: 1137–1148, 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16815797

06.12.2008: Mycotoxins and food chain [1]
According to a review by Bryden 2007 mycotoxins are secondary fungal metabolites that can be produced in crops and other food commodities both pre- and post-harvest. Around 25 per cent of the world's crops are affected by moulds. Low levels of mycotoxins may produce chronic conditions with reduced growth and development, immunosuppression and cancer are chronic effects in many developing countries.

Bryden calls for a mycotoxin reduction which includes efforts of farmers, government agencies, food processors and scientists. However, a significant impact on the cost of food production is being expected.

Ochratoxin A on surface of dry sausages [2]
Iacumin and colleagues assessed the moulds as a seasoning for sausage and aflatoxines such as ochratoxin A on the surface of sausages from northern Italy. The most frequently isolated mould strains from sausage casings were Penicillium nalgiovense, Penicillium oxalicum, Eurotium amstelodami, Penicillium olsonii, Penicillium chrysogenum, Penicillium verrucosum, Penicillium viridicatum, and Eupenicillium crustaceum. Aspergillus ochraceus. Ochratoxin A was found in 45 per cent of the samples, ranging from 3 and 18 microg/kg.
The authors report that ochratoxin A concentration was reduced to below the limit of detection by brushing and washing the sausages prior to sale. They concluded that there is no health risk for the consumer, since ochratoxin A was found only on the casings and not inside the dry meat.

Post-harvest control strategies to reduce risk of mycotoxins in grain storage [3]
Magan and Aldred in a review of 2007 stress that contamination of cereal by moulds and mycotoxins results in dry matter, quality, and nutritional losses and represents a hazard to the food chain.

According to the authors very small amounts of dry matter loss due to mould activity can be tolerated. A dry matter loss <0.5% is a signal of visible moulding, mycotoxin contamination and downgrading of lots.

Important moulds contaminating dried grain are Penicillium verrucosum (ochratoxin) in damp cool climates of Northern Europe, and Aspergillus flavus (aflatoxins), A. ochraceus (ochratoxin) and some Fusarium species (fumonisins, trichothecenes) on temperate and tropical cereals.
To control the growth of moulds during grain storage modified atmospheres, fumigation with sulphur dioxide and ammonia and CO2 of >75% were tried. Also preservatives based on aliphatic acids, essential oils and anti-oxidants have been used storing dried grains for feed.

The authors concluded that an effective post-harvest management requires clear monitoring criteria, hygiene and the implementation of key critical control points during harvesting, drying and storage stages in the cereal production chain to minimise mycotoxin contamination during storage.

Micotoxins in African grains [4]
According to Wagacha and Muthomi 2008 the factors that contribute to mycotoxin contamination of food and feed in Africa include environmental, such as high humidity and temperatures favour fungal proliferation, and a low socio-economic status of the majority of inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa predisposes them to consumption of mycotoxin contaminated products. This exposes the polpulation to increased risk of immuno-suppression, impaired growth, various cancers and death depending on the type, period and amount of exposure.
The authors accentuate the synergistic effect between mycotoxin and some diseases such as malaria, kwashiorkor and HIV/AIDS. In 2004 Africa registered the greatest fatal mycotoxin-poisoning outbrek caused by contaminated maize.
The authors call for intervention strategies such as early harvesting, proper drying, sanitation, proper storage and insect management, biological control, chemical control, decontamination, breeding for resistance as well as surveillance and awareness creation. Efficient, cost-effective sampling and analytical methods suitable in developing countries are needed.

[1] Bryden, W.L.: Mycotoxins in the food chain: human health implications. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2007;16 Suppl 1:95-101.
Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2007;16 Suppl 1:95-101
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17392084

[2] Iacumin, L.; Chiesa. L; Boscolo. D; Manzano. M; Cantoni. C; Orlic. S; Comi, G: Moulds and ochratoxin A on surfaces of artisanal and industrial dry sausages. Food Microbiol. 2009 Feb;26(1):65-70. Epub 2008 Aug 22.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19028307

[3] Magan N, Aldred D.: Post-harvest control strategies: minimizing mycotoxins in the food chain. Int J Food Microbiol. 2007 Oct 20;119(1-2):131-9. Epub 2007 Jul 31.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17764773

[4] Wagacha JM, Muthomi JW.: Mycotoxin problem in Africa: current status, implications to food safety and health and possible management strategies. Int J Food Microbiol. 2008 May 10;124(1):1-12. Epub 2008 Jan 24.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18258326