Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Consumers in Europe Resist Gene-Altered Foods


Rail Paul

Recommended Posts

The NY Times has a sympathetic article in Tuesday's editions about the European lack of acceptance for American-style genetically modified food materials (GEM). It focuses on the generally accepted (by Americans) idea that science is good, and the generally accepted (by Europeans) idea that your food and your culture are deeply linked.

Quoting the EU's health and consumer protection minister, the article says "The EU's position on genetically modified food is that it is as safe as conventional food." This position is not widely held in Europe, where successive waves of Mad Cow disease, and other contamination issues have raised significant levels of concern in the populace. The artisanal heritage of many food producers is also an issue for some.

In particular, the minister, David Byrne, resents the unfair implication, held by some in the US, that European position on GEM grain somehow responsible for famine in Africa. "It is unfair. It is wrong."

the next flashpoint may be a proposed EU directive which will require consistent labeling of some food materials. Although the result should be a standardized formula, some Americans believe it will exacerbate already sensitive concerns. The proposed rules would require identification of any altered substances in corn, tomatoes, feed and oils which contain at least 0.9% GEM.

Consumers in Europe Resist

Apparently it's easier still to dictate the conversation and in effect, kill the conversation.

rancho gordo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NY Times has a sympathetic article ...It focuses on the generally accepted (by Americans) idea that science is good, and the generally accepted (by Europeans) idea that your food and your culture are deeply linked.

I'm not convinced that the food/culture linkage is a valid reason for European resistance to GM food. Certainly not so in Britain, I suspect. I would guess that there's a degree of natural conservatism at work here. Most people I discuss this with simply say there's no convincing reason to buy GM food, while there are a lot of hypothetical risks.

On the latter point, it is of course true that the BSE scandal, where the British public were assured time after time by eminent scientists and politicians that British beef was safe, has not encopuraged us to believe that science knows what it is doing. That scepticism has been reinforced by the recent foot and mouth scandal.

On the former point, the public are probably waiting for the price of GM foods to fall significantly below comparable non-GM foods as some evidence that they can believe the hype of the GM lobby that GM is cheaper. We should not hold our breaths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the former point, the public are probably waiting for the price of GM foods to fall significantly below comparable non-GM foods as some evidence that they can believe the hype of the GM lobby that GM is cheaper. We should not hold our breaths.

Is GEM food offered at a higher price than non-GEM food in Europe?

In the US, organic /nonGEM food usually sells at a premium to GEM. In my local market non-hormonal beef is 15% to 20% higher in price than GEM. Same is true for eggs and chicken. That the SureBeam irradiated beef is offered at a premium to the usual stuff is an item of note in itself.

If I had a choice of whole wheat flour at $1.69 for 5# (organic, non-GEM) vs $1.99 (GEM), that would be an easy choice. It's more like $3.29 vs $1.99, unfortunately.

Apparently it's easier still to dictate the conversation and in effect, kill the conversation.

rancho gordo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Late last year, a group of prominent French chefs had been vocal against genetically modified products. The applicable chefs included A Senderens (Lucas-Carton), P Gagnaire, G Martin (Grand Vefour), G Savoy and B Pacaud (L'Amboisie). Andre Daugin (the father of the woman who runs D'Artagnan) is also active.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4523249,00.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is GEM food offered at a higher price than non-GEM food in Europe?

Don't know, Paul, since there is so little GM food being sold as such.

I would guess that the price differential in the US is driven more by volume considerations than normalisedd production costs. Non-GM food has become a rarity item over there, so it's more expensive because of that.

The real test is whether your GM whole wheat flour at $1.99 is cheaper than non-GM whole wheat flour was ten years ago before GM took hold. I'd be very interested to know the answer to that, if you can find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few definitions and delimitations would be helpful here. Let's start with the big one:

What is genetically modified food?

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the term generally refers to transgenic food (food containing one or more gene transferred in from a different species), which is the much more specific term that we should be using if that's what we mean. Every single thing we eat is "genetically modified," but only certain crops are transgenic.

Matthew Amster-Burton, aka "mamster"

Author, Hungry Monkey, coming in May

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. In my opinion, genetically modified foods have existed since the first farmers said, "Hey these are growing taller than the others, let's plant lots more of them and forget about the short ones," and "Hey breed the two fat pigs together so we'll have more meat." Yet many discussions of genetically modified foods conflate a number of issues ranging from hybridization to transgenic technology to food-technology issues that have nothing to do with genetics at all.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. In my opinion, genetically modified foods have existed since the first farmers said, "Hey these are growing taller than the others, let's plant lots more of them and forget about the short ones," and "Hey breed the two fat pigs together so we'll have more meat." Yet many discussions of genetically modified foods conflate a number of issues ranging from hybridization to transgenic technology to food-technology issues that have nothing to do with genetics at all.

We tugged on that issue in several previous threads. No conclusions, though. The issues are similar to the difficulty of defining "organic"

The "GEM" may include (FDA), or may not include (UofI), piglets produced by pigs which had received a cow gene, with no trace of the cow gene in the piglets. That was the University of Illinois situation. If there's no trace of the parent's changed gene in the piglet, is the piglet a GEM?

Corn which carries an engineered mutation which makes it resistant to the corn borer would definitely qualify.

Is cow's milk with vitamins added a GEM? I'd say it is. Ditto for beef from cows which were fed hormones for growth.

Apparently it's easier still to dictate the conversation and in effect, kill the conversation.

rancho gordo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, genetically modified foods have existed since the first farmers said, "Hey these are growing taller than the others, let's plant lots more of them and forget about the short ones," and "Hey breed the two fat pigs together so we'll have more meat."

You’re being disingenuous. Mating a pig with a pig still gives you a pig. Moreover, change is slow and reversible. But the ability to introduce new genes into an organism will give us the ability to create entirely new species very rapidly. The concern is not, I think, that we’ll be poisoned, but that we don’t know what the effect of these new organisms will be on the ecosystem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not clear from the postings on this thread if many are aware of how much GM product is on the supermarket shelves. I'll defer to someone with more knowledge, but it is my understanding that most of the corn oil and corn syrup (present in so much processed foodstuff) is from GM crops. Ditto on soy. My mindset when shopping is that if it doesn't say organic and contains something made from corn or soy, it is probably GM.

"Half of cooking is thinking about cooking." ---Michael Roberts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not clear from the postings on this thread if many are aware of how much GM product is on the supermarket shelves. I'll defer to someone with more knowledge, but it is my understanding  that most of the corn oil and corn syrup (present in so much processed foodstuff) is from GM crops. Ditto on soy.  My mindset when shopping is that if it doesn't say organic and contains something made from corn or soy, it is probably GM.

If you are speaking as a US customer, that's probably a true statement. You can also add most meat and poultry to your list, with antibiotics and grain as food components.

For a UK or EU customer, it would definitely NOT be true

Apparently it's easier still to dictate the conversation and in effect, kill the conversation.

rancho gordo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We tugged on that issue in several previous threads. No conclusions, though. The issues are similar to the difficulty of defining "organic"

Not mineral or metallic?

Is cow's milk with vitamins added a GEM? I'd say it is.  Ditto for beef from cows which were fed hormones for growth.

Definately not in either case. Genetically Engineered is a very specific definition, and giving animals vitamins or hormones in no way would be considered GEM. This is not to say that the practice of giving animals destined for human consumption vitamins, hormones or antibiotics is a questionable practice, especially in light of growing resistance of pathogenic microbes to antibiotics.

=Mark

Give a man a fish, he eats for a Day.

Teach a man to fish, he eats for Life.

Teach a man to sell fish, he eats Steak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sunday's NYT letters to the editor section has three views on the article. All have ben mentioned here.

One, notes that most Americans have no idea of the amount of adulterated content (genetic, chemical, etc) in their food. Food labeling isn't relatvely ineffective, this writer asserts.

Two, having food that exhibits a 30 day shelf life isn't necessarily a virtue. Italians, for example, prefer fresh and local foods.

Three, biotech isn't new. For at least the past 6,000 years organisms have been added to other organisms to create foods. The writer goes on to say that not a single injury to an individual has been traced to biotech food.

Apparently it's easier still to dictate the conversation and in effect, kill the conversation.

rancho gordo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

This is a really interesting topic. I wish it didn't fizzle so quickly. Can anyone else in the know weigh in here.

I'm particularly interested in the corn issue as well as the milk issue.

I had heard recently (perhaps it should go into the category of urban myth) that Monsanto recently won a court case in which they sued a neighboring organic farmer becase the pollen (not sure if that's the right word...not much of a farmer) from the GM corn found its way to the organic corn. Monsanto sued for infringement of copyright and won. Now the organic farmer went out of business and GUESS WHO bought up his property...Monsanto. I'll see if I can dig up a link to that story.

The other thing that I'm concerned with is the whole issue of hormones in milk. I'm not sure I understand why hormones are added to milk (again, city boy). Maybe they just find themselves in milk after having been fed to dairy cows in order to increase milk production. This is what I want to know: how can one tell if there is milk made from cows that have been fed hormones in the gallon they're about to buy? And is Organic a 100% guarantee? There has to be some mass-marketed, available-to-everyone milk that doesn't have hormones. right?

what're both of these issues gonna mean to my little girl in the long run? especially the hormones in the milk. She doesn't exactly pound the milk like she used to, but she does have two to three 8- to 10-ounce servings a day.

"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." -Ernest Hemingway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the real problems with the whole GM food issue is that it is very difficult to provide honest consumer choice on a broad scale. For instance, in Canada, wheat exports are all handled by the Canadian Wheat Board, and all wheat, GM or not, is pooled. Add to that the problem that the stuff has been grown for years side by side with non-GM wheat, and it is hopelessly muddled, much like original sin.

For Canada and many other countries to try to certify wheat as non-GM would be about as meaningful as providing a non-pissing area in a swimming pool.

Arthur Johnson, aka "fresco"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is so terrible about asking food producers to explain what is in their product and how it is produced? Let the consumer read the label and the price tag and then make their own decision about what to put in their shopping cart based on whatever criteria they want to use. Smart producers will adapt to a variety of consumer preferences and figure out how to profitably provide products that various groups of consumers are willing to buy.

Chief Scientist / Amateur Cook

MadVal, Seattle, WA

Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consumer choice is a great idea. Unfortunately, for reasons that I enumerated above, it is impossible to offer in many cases. The GM genie is out of the bottle.

Arthur Johnson, aka "fresco"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had heard recently (perhaps it should go into the category of urban myth) that Monsanto recently won a court case in which they sued a neighboring organic farmer becase the pollen (not sure if that's the right word...not much of a farmer) from the GM corn found its way to the organic corn. Monsanto sued for infringement of copyright and won. Now the organic farmer went out of business and GUESS WHO bought up his property...Monsanto. I'll see if I can dig up a link to that story.

Is this the Guy Watson story? Watson is an organic farmer from the UK. In 1998 a test field of LibertyLink corn was planted right across the river from his farm that contained organic corn. Backed by the Soil Association, he brought suit against the company (I believe Monsanto), with the claim that the GE pollen from the neighboring LibertyLink test field would fertilize his organic corn crops, via the wind (corn is fertilized by pollen carried by the wind). This could jeopardize his status as an organic farm - the SA could revoke his certification if "genetic contamination" was found in his corn. However, Watson didn't replant seeds (no "seed saving") the following year, so his next year's crops wouldn't have been infiltrated. The presence of errant GE genes wouldn't have altered his organic methods of farming. But the simple idea of contamination was the concern, in some people's eyes.

A good book to read is "Lords of the Harvest" by Daniel Charles, technology correspondent for NPR, and son of a farmer himself. In it, he goes through the history and culture surrounding the science of GMOs. I've learned a lot from it.

Personally, I try to avoid GMO foods if possible, especially when it comes to produce (no FlavrSavr tomatoes, please) and tofu. It is difficult to avoid it across the board, as it's in most things we eat (can you say soy lecithin?).

Farming in this country has been greatly changed by the use of GMOs and the pressure to use such products as Roundup Ready soybeans. Their use has affected the ability for smaller, family farms to stay afloat, for economic reasons. For example, the "technology fee" instituted by Monsanto. Instead of one cost for a bag of corn seed, there are two: the cost of the seed itself and the cost of the genes inserted by Monsanto (in this case, the Bt gene). This makes for a more expensive product. Monsanto would in effect license its patented genes to the farmer. No seed saving would be allowed as a result, a tradition among farmers. And Monsanto could regulate the price on the gene element of the corn seed. And that's just the beginning.

It's not just food products that are affected. Cotton as well has been modified to reject the cotton bollworm. If you are wearing clothes made from cotton in this country, good chance it's GM cotton.

Another thing to remember, is the presence of mutation. There is always a portion of the pests that will grow immune to the effects of crops inserted with, say, the Bt gene.

Hopleaf, BGH (bovine growth hormone) is a version of the cows' natural growth hormone, produced artificially (in fermentation vats filled with GE bacteria). It was injected into cows to increase their milk output.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks megc. that's quite a post. I'm not sure if it's the Guy Watson story, but I'm checking my sources. will get back to you. Sounds like it might be.

and I'll check Charles' book out of the library, as well as one that someone here at my work suggested: John Robbins' (one-time heir to the Baskin-Robbins company fortune who turned it all down after seeing firsthand the sad state of the dairy industry) Diet for a New America.

megc, you mention BHG. Is that something that's labeled on milk cartons? I had heard of it and don't recall seeing it on labels, but maybe they're getting away with writing it backwards and upside down so you have to hold it up to a mirror and stand on your head to see it.

"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." -Ernest Hemingway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had heard recently (perhaps it should go into the category of urban myth) that Monsanto recently won a court case in which they sued a neighboring organic farmer becase the pollen (not sure if that's the right word...not much of a farmer) from the GM corn found its way to the organic corn. Monsanto sued for infringement of copyright and won. Now the organic farmer went out of business and GUESS WHO bought up his property...Monsanto. I'll see if I can dig up a link to that story.

I would guess that you're talking about the Percy Schmeiser case. His canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready canola and he was forced to pay a licensing fee to Monsanto when he reused seed the next year and began growing what was pretty close to 100% Round-Up Ready canola. Schmeiser's claim is that he is being forced to pay for something that he didn't do on purpose, because he didn't try to get his crops contaminated. This does indeed seem a reasonable assertion on its face, but it gets more complicated once you do some digging. It is worthy of note, for instance, that the Canadian court found that Schmeiser had deliberately selected for and multiplied Monsanto's GM seed (see paragraphs 39, 40, 102, 103, 104, 119, and 125 of the decision). This is a different story. As far as I can tell, he did indeed try to rip off Monsanto and is now trying to make it political.

The other thing that I'm concerned with is the whole issue of hormones in milk. I'm not sure I understand why hormones are added to milk (again, city boy). Maybe they just find themselves in milk after having been fed to dairy cows in order to increase milk production.

rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) is given to milk cows to make them produce more milk. According to the FDA, neither BGH nor rBGH has any biological effect in humans. It is not clear to me whether any rBGH finds its way into the milk, although there have been some findings that milk from rBGH-treated cows is higher in certain hormones that are created as a result of the rBGH. Cows that are given rBGH develp udder infections and other such things at a higher rate and that this means that these cows must be given more antibiotics and the like. Again, whether or not these antibiotics are present in the milk is not clear to me, but the negative effect of (over) using antibiotics in food animals seems very clear (i.e., drug-resistant bacteria, etc.).

This is what I want to know: how can one tell if there is milk made from cows that have been fed hormones in the gallon they're about to buy? And is Organic a 100% guarantee?  There has to be some mass-marketed, available-to-everyone milk that doesn't have hormones. right?

Yes, I'd say you are OK with organic milk. The companies that sell organic products would lose their markets if they used rBGH. As for a "mass-marketed, available-to-everyone milk" -- that's harder to say. Can one even get organic milk in the middle of North Dakota? Anyway, forgetting the health issues and looking just at the taste, it is quite clear to me that there is a huge difference between rBGH industrial milk and the real thing. Ronnybrook Farms' milk and supermarket milk are so different from one another that one can hardly call them the same kind of food.

--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consumer choice is a great idea. Unfortunately, for reasons that I enumerated above, it is impossible to offer in many cases. The GM genie is out of the bottle.

So, all they have to do is write on the label, "we're not sure what the hell is in here. It might contain GM, and it might not, since they all get mixed up once they leave the field." As long as they explain it, and let consumers decide if they like the explanation, that's fine with me.

Chief Scientist / Amateur Cook

MadVal, Seattle, WA

Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, forgetting the health issues and looking just at the taste, it is quite clear to me that there is a huge difference between rBGH industrial milk and the real thing.  Ronnybrook Farms' milk and supermarket milk are so different from one another that one can hardly call them the same kind of food.

That's how I feel about the milk from Straus Creamery in Marin (SF Bay Area). It's the best tasting milk I've ever had. The mass-produced stuff can't come close.

Regarding labeling of rBGH, I've seen it often on milk cartons, for both organic and non organic milk. But not everyone does it (most of my experince is in Berkeley CA and Stony Brook LI).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I am not a Smug Scientific Bastard, I appreciate all the posts people had made. There are few observations/theories I have read/noticed which makes me queasy about GMO.

Corn fed Salmon. They easily escape and breed with the wild salmon, thus altering them. My great grandmother "invented" silver queen corn-- a cross between white and yellow corn. But, I think it is futile to design a seed/plant that is resistant to pests.

Hormones in beef and milk. I have read a couple of articles about the earlier puberty among girls. Some people theorize that the new norm of puberty at 7-9 years of age for girls is a result of consuming large amounts of hormones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...