Consumers in Europe Resist Gene-Altered Foods

[fresco]

7-9 the new norm? You sure?

This piece says average age for girls 12.5, down from 14 in 1990:

http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2f...ormoncancer.cfm

Edited June 25, 2003 by fresco (log)

[nerissa]

Ok, perhaps not the new norm, but no longer an anamoly.

Thanks for the link. I read another article.

Edited June 25, 2003 by nerissa (log)

[fresco]

Not to quibble, but if 12.5 is the "new norm" 7-9 is indeed an anomoly. I take your point though--girls are reaching puberty earlier.

[nerissa]

I found this article on early onset puberty Scroll down a 1/2 page.

The authors suggest that environmental chemicals may be the primary cause. So, maybe it is not hormones in food,maybe it is. Sorry to get off-topic.

Edited June 25, 2003 by nerissa (log)

[fresco]

Nerissa,

I am as prone to food additive paranoia as the next person, but, and I am no medical or nutritional expert, is it possible that there are a number of factors here--better over-all nutrition, the eradication of many diseases, and rendering others far less harmful?

I think it is also the case that in North America, people have been, on average, becoming taller for the past couple of generations, but this is not usually considered cause for alarm.

It may also be worth noting that while puberty may be coming earlier, it is also the case that adolescence seems to last much longer. I often joke with my son than he and his friends run the risk of living in their parents' basements well into their 40s, while continuing to bitch about what a bitch it is to have to live in their parents' basements.

[Rail Paul]

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).

[fresco]

Dr. Norman Borlaug, the Nobel laureaute, says that interest groups are hindering research and other efforts to move from the "green revolution to the gene revolution" and thus provide for up to 10 billion of us.

It would have been nice if he had added that Monsanto and other food science companies have really screwed things up and made things much more difficult than they need by through greed, short-sightedness and failing to think through the consequences of rushing GM seeds to market:

http://www.cropdecisions.com/show_story.php?id=20101

[Human Bean]

A few random things:

I read somewhere quite recently that to date, there is no GM wheat available yet, but the first one(s) will be available soon.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in many (most?) crops, US agriculture is already way too productive, leading to huge surpluses, price supports, and other things to try to rebalance an unbalanced system. The US would like to sell the surplus crops to places like Europe and Africa.

But Europe and Africa don't want to buy them. This is fine with me; if they don't want to buy them (for whatever reason, valid or not) then the US shouldn't try to force them to buy it by browbeating, WTO actions, etc. Subsidising the surplus production does cost the government a lot of money, but if they REALLY believe in the power of the free market (which they say they do, but are lying), then they should let the market sort itself out by itself.

The way to do that is for the producers make things that people want to buy. If there's a huge agricultural surplus that nobody wants to buy, then the producers are producing the wrong things. It's in their own self-interest to buy what people want, rather than whinining at the government to try to coerce the (non-)buyers.

[sorry about the mostly political mini-rant. Obligatory food-related content: I like to eat.]

[fresco]

Human bean,

Think you are right about wheat. What I think I meant to say was canola (rapeseed) which is a huge crop in western Canada and an ingredient in just about everything.

[Rail Paul]

But Europe and Africa don't want to buy them. This is fine with me; if they don't want to buy them (for whatever reason, valid or not) then the US shouldn't try to force them to buy it by browbeating, WTO actions, etc. Subsidising the surplus production does cost the government a lot of money, but if they REALLY believe in the power of the free market (which they say they do, but are lying), then they should let the market sort itself out by itself.

Fine, then they shouldn't eat US grain. But, with much of Africa starving, they shouldn't complain the Americans aren't sending them food. Zimbabwe, for example, is in the midst of a huge famine (partly political, partly drought) but its leaders would prefer to let their people starve.

Lots of reasons (don't want to contaminate the local grain supply, such as it is) to turn away US grain. So, let them starve. If they don't like that, throw out the rascals and find new leaders.

[slkinsey]

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.

It is a common misunderstanding that meat products are full of extra hormones.

First of all, hormones are only allowed to be used on beef and lamb. This is why the USDA does not allow the use of the term “no hormones added” on labels of pork or poultry products.

Second, AFAIK, all farmed animals must be taken off any antibiotics or hormones prior to slaughter for a period sufficiently long to cause any residues to fall below federally-mandated levels.

As to milk... I really don't know much about that. I do know, however, that there are a lot of screwy things having to do with milk in this country (like the federal milk pricing system that sets federal price subsidies based on distance from Eau Claire, Wisconsin).

[nerissa]

I thought chickens also received growth hormones?

[Human Bean]

I thought chickens also received growth hormones?

Not that I'm aware of, not being an expert in chicken-farming.

They do (AFAIK) receive rather large doses of antibiotics though; makes them grow faster and larger, but doesn't prevent the common bacterial contamination of poultry at retail, so we hear.

The bacteria contaminating poultry are becoming largely drug-resistant, due to the use of antibiotics; eventually, the poultry industry will have to clean up their act once they've run out of effective antibiotics.

Unfortunately, by the time that happens, human antibiotics may also be mostly ineffective, since the industry generally uses the same (or nearly so) antibiotics that humans use.

There are token efforts to separate human antibiotics from veterinary ones, to avoid the resistance problem, but profits stand in the way of long-term common sense.

[jhlurie]

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."

Hee. I wonder if David Byrne is upset enough about the imagined US position to become a Psycho Killer?

I just had to lower this highbrow discussion a bit.

[KNorthrup]

Two quick additions.

There was actually an ad from a local natural foods chain in yesterday's paper saying that, contrary to popular belief, no chickens sold in the US contain hormones or .... shoot, something else. What they do contain is antibiotics.

In related news, the FDA has said that they will not necessarily require food containing meat/dairy from cloned animals to be labeled.

John Matheson, regulatory review scientist at FDA, told a biotech conference that, "If we find no problems with the products, we have no legal basis to require labels or have companies differentiate between them."