warning Hi, we've moved to USCANNENBERGMEDIA.COM. Visit us there!

Neon Tommy - Annenberg digital news

The Food Cold War

Emily Henry |
February 15, 2009 | 7:49 p.m. PST

Columnist

Europeans won't eat American chicken. They won't eat American beef. And they won't drink American milk.

After finding this rather rude, the U.S. government has decided to
punish Europe. On March 23, in a move initiated by the outgoing Bush
administration, retaliatory tariffs totaling $116 million annually will
be added to European Union
imports. Dozens of delicacies, including continental cheeses like
French Brie and English Stilton, will carry a much heftier price tag.

But none of this is new. A food cold war has been going on between the
EU and the U.S. since the '90s. Every time the global economy takes a
turn for the worse, one of the transatlantic allies surreptitiously
slaps a restriction or a levy on some major market item, sparking a
food trade tug-of-war that makes everyone bitter.

I didn't know about any of this until October 2008 when I took a trip
to the European Commission in Brussels. The reasons for the ongoing
argument, an expert in EU-U.S. relations told me, are "cultural
differences" about food safety regulations. The Americans think EU
regulations are too strict, while the Europeans think the U.S. is too
lenient. According to the Delegation of the European Commission to the
USA, the EU works under a "proof of no harm" rule, while the U.S.
requires "proof of harm" for food items to be banned. According to the
EU, American chicken, beef and milk aren't good enough for Europe. In
fact, they're downright harmful.

After doing some research into the topic, I was surprised to find some of my own experiences mirrored by EU findings:

Whenever you decide to trade one country for another as a place to call
home, as I did in July 2007, there are always things that you have to
leave behind. But a significant portion of those losses don't usually
come to light until you get into a routine. As the weeks passed, a few
objects I had grown accustomed to during my life in Europe started
disappearing: the facial wash that I have used every day for more than
six years, my favorite chewing gum, the presence of an electric kettle
in every household, and the convenience of instant gravy from a tub.
Gradually, I found a way to replace these items. Now, every guest who
arrives at my door from England must be carrying three "gifts" in their
luggage: Garnier Pure exfoliating face wash, Wrigley's Winter Mint
chewing gum and Bisto gravy granules.

But there are some things that will never be the same. Embracing the
cliché, I vowed to continue my habitual tea-drinking. But I could never
get it to taste like it did in England. I had Tetley's tea bags sent
from the U.K. I bought a traditional British electric kettle. I
couldn't figure out what was wrong until I went back to England on
vacation, and only then spotted the cause. It was the milk. It tastes
different stateside, in an almost indescribable, discreet way. It's
more watery, bland. Everyone who visits me from the U.K. notices the
difference. And then there's the chicken, before I even knew about the
EU ban. When I started cooking at home, I immediately noticed that the
chicken was a lighter color and had a different texture. There was more
fat, gloopy, yellow fat, and thick gristle on the breast pieces. Having
cooked for my family since I was 11 years old, I was pretty sure these
slight deviations weren't imagined.

It took three Web searches to make me nervous and confirm that my
suspicions might be true. Almonds, genetically modified rice, milk,
beef and chicken--all restricted by Europe for not meeting EU
regulations. I don't eat almonds or beef, and I hadn't noticed anything
strange about American rice, but the fact that both milk and chicken -
the two items that had attracted my attention - were on this list made
me feel quite uncomfortable. I don't pretend to be an expert in food
trade regulations, but I trust my senses.

After more research, I discovered the controversial "hormone dispute,"
as described in an EU report released in 2008 titled "United States
Barriers to Trade and Investment," which stated:

"In 1989 the EU banned imports of hormone-treated meat. The U.S. and
Canada responded with retaliatory measures, suspending their
obligations and imposing import duties in excess of bound rates on
imports from the EU, and by initiating a WTO dispute settlement
proceeding."

According to the report, the EU lost the WTO dispute because
"legislation was not based on a full scientific risk assessment in
relation to the risk arising from the ingestion of meat from animals
treated with hormonal growth promoters." Following the ruling, the EU
conducted a "scientific risk assessment" and reinstated the ban based
on it's findings. A report released in 1999 summarized the potential
human health risks of hormone ingestion and exposure based on a number
of scientific studies conducted in Europe beginning when the ban was
first initiated. In the case of one specific hormone, Oestradiol 17ß,
the report concluded that "there was overwhelming evidence that it
causes and promotes cancer and that it harms genes." Based on
inconclusive evidence about five other hormones - testosterone,
progesterone, trenbolone acetate, zeranol and melengestrol acetate -
the EU invoked a "precautionary principle" that restricts the sale of
hormone-treated meat in Europe until conclusive evidence could dispel
potential risks.

So far, despite regular scientific risk assessments (the most recent in
July 2008), the EU has found no evidence to justify the revision of
it's ban. Yet Europe continues to be punished for not eating American
meat.

Meanwhile, American farmers are swelling their animals with hormones
and citizens are consuming meat, milk, eggs and cheese bred with
substances an entire continent has deemed unsafe. Call me paranoid, but
is it a coincidence that IGF 1, the hormone used to increase milk
production in cows, has been linked to breast cancer and America has
the highest rate of breast cancer in the world?

This is more than a prideful trade war. When it comes to food safety
and cancer, erring on the side of caution is essential. After all, if
it's not good enough for Europe, why should it be good enough for us?

For more information on the EU ban, visit the following sites:

The European Union: Delagation to the Commission of the USA
Foreign Agricultural Service U.S. Mission to the European Union
U.S. Barriers to Trade and Investment Report, April 2008
European Commission: Bilateral Trade Relations, USA
Foodstuffs with Current EU Restrictions



 

Buzz

Craig Gillespie directed this true story about "the most daring rescue mission in the history of the U.S. Coast Guard.”

Watch USC Annenberg Media's live State of the Union recap and analysis here.

 
ntrandomness