|
Europeans
more proactive in food regulation
August 7, 03
Suzanne Havala Hobbs
Where
food policy is concerned, they do it
differently across the pond.
Europeans are more proactive in their
regulation of the food industry than we
are.
Case in point: Only weeks after the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration announced it
was relaxing standards for health claims
on food labels, the European Union
announced proposed regulations to do just
the opposite.
As I've written before, our new rules for
food-packaging health claims will be a
marketing boon for food companies. But
the new claims are likely to create more
confusion among consumers about what
foods are good for them.
The Europeans not only are proposing that
food advertising tout only health claims
that are backed up by solid science,
they're also planning to bar health
claims on foods that are otherwise
nutritionally compromised, such as
products high in sodium, sugar or fat.
Then there's the example of genetically
modified foods.
European consumers are concerned about
potential long-term effects of GM foods
on health and the environment. Many
European supermarkets won’t even
stock GM foods.
The European Parliament last month passed legislation that
will require labeling of food and animal feeds that contain
GM ingredients.
In the U.S., where use of GM foods is
widespread, the food industry is
vehemently opposed to such labeling
— both at home and abroad. The
rationale: Scientific studies indicate
that GM foods are safe, and any mention
of their presence in foods might be
construed as a warning by consumers, who
may then choose not to buy them.
The Bush administration has filed a
formal complaint with the World Trade
Organization concerning the GM
legislation.
It’s clear Europeans take a
fundamentally different approach to food
policy.
"Europeans have adopted, as part of their approach to
health and the environment, the precautionary principle,"
says Nancy Milio, an emeritus professor of nursing and health
policy and administration at The University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill who has studied European food policy.
"It’s the antithesis of our
free-market, free-for-all approach. We
take the American way of waiting until we
have a problem and then focusing on
repairing it."
The obesity epidemic is a good example of
that. Says Milio, "We’ve known
it’s been coming for decades, but
only now is it getting some
attention."
According to Milio, corporate influence
on food policy is an issue in Europe just
as it is in the U.S., but industry
pressures are not as effective there due
to the greater relative strength of
consumer groups, among other factors.
Meanwhile, the European Union has just
proposed new safety controls for foods of
animal origin. When bacterial
contamination is identified, the
proposals call for corrective action
beginning at the level of the farm. The
rules make food producers responsible for
shipping meats and dairy products free of
bacteria that could pose a health hazard.
The U.S. is taking a different approach.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture
reported earlier this year that 60
percent of the nation's largest
meat-packing plants did not meet safety
standards for E. coli contamination.
Our answer to the problem? Irradiation.
Meat-packers have been given the OK to
use irradiation to kill bacteria on meats
and poultry. This year, the U.S.
government is making irradiated ground
beef available for the National School
Lunch Program, despite calls from
consumer advocates for research on the
possible long-term health effects. While
the U.S. and world health officials have
declared irradiated meats safe, the
European Parliament has called for
additional studies.
Complicated issues, sure. But
increasingly, it seems, the American
choice is a pound of cure over an ounce
of prevention.
|
