advertisement

GUEST COMMENTARY: Dining in Europe can be safer than in the U.S.

Monday, June 16, 2014 | 6:00 a.m. CDT

My neighbor just left to spend the entire summer in Europe.

He’s the guy with a highly restrictive diet I recently wrote about, with countless food intolerances that his “nutritionist” detected using dubious testing methods.

I haven’t had the heart to tell him she’s a total quack. I think on some level, he wanted to hear that he couldn’t eat half the foods on the planet.

But I also feel for him. He’s going on the trip of a lifetime to a place with incredible food. What if he won’t eat it?

The day before he left, I asked him what he’ll do on the trip. He told me he plans to eat everything. He and his “nutritionist” agreed that food is better over there. Safer. More pure.

And you know what? In general, he’s right. Europe is much stricter than our country about what kinds of chemicals get into the food chain.

Europeans don’t find many — if any — artificial dyes in their food. They can also rest assured that their cows aren’t shot up with artificial growth hormones.

The EU also banned the use of an arsenic-laden drug in chickens long before the United States finally followed suit. More recently, the EU enacted a moratorium on the pesticides responsible for massive bee die-offs.

Europe’s not perfect, but it’s several steps ahead of us when it comes to food standards.

The next day I drove my friend to the airport. I generally avoid talking politics with him because he’s got the views of your average tea partier and I, to say the least, don’t. We get along so long as we keep our conversations to sharing the bounty of our fruit trees or the hilarious antics of my three cats.

As we drove, I started thinking about my experiences in Europe, and suddenly I felt concern for him.

“Have you been to Europe before?” I asked.

“No, this is my first time!” he replied, with the excitement of a new traveler.

“You might not want to mention your political views over there. They are pretty liberal,” I suggested. With that, he launched into a long diatribe that included statements like “The EU is a nightmare.”

By the time we reached the airport, I was glad to see him go. As I drove home, I could not help thinking: You hate regulation, but how do you think it happened that the EU wound up with safer food than ours?

That wasn’t a coincidence of the free market, with each individual farmer and corporation opting to eschew hormones, pesticides, and additives on their own. Regulation did that.

To be sure, not all regulations are constructive. The world is chock full of clumsily written rules, outdated laws and pointless red tape.

Regulations only help if they’re well-written and enforced. It’s one thing for the government to keep arsenic out of our food. It would be something else entirely if they banned all cookies because somebody might get diabetes from them someday.

Europe seems to walk that line in a more sensible way than we do, at least where food and safety are concerned. Maybe it’s time for us to learn a thing or two from our friends across the pond.

OtherWords columnist Jill Richardson is the author of "Recipe for America: Why Our Food System Is Broken and What We Can Do to Fix It."


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Mark Foecking June 16, 2014 | 9:44 a.m.

What has never been shown to any rigor is that "chemicals" are harmful in the concentrations consumers encounter them.

"More recently, the EU enacted a moratorium on the pesticides responsible for massive bee die-offs."

Again, that hasn't been shown to any rigor. Bee kills caused by neonics have been due to concentrated dust, not pollen in fields. It is still controversial whether bees are affected by trace levels of neonics in pollen. If anything, the EU ban on the pesticides will offer useful information, but it's far from settled currently.

DK

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith June 16, 2014 | 10:23 a.m.

Another missle from one of the "Other Words" commentators. As I've noted before, it's fun to read a few paragraphs of these selections, and without scrolling down to see where the article originated correctly guess the source. So far I'm batting at least .700. I's less any specific topic than the uniform style and TONE. :)

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams June 16, 2014 | 7:01 p.m.

MarkF: This may interest you:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1...

Lots of experts on this panel, and I know several of them....bee experts and environmental toxicologists.

One excerpt: "Neonicotinoid pesticides were judged to be “unlikely” as the sole cause of this reduced survival, although they could possibly be a contributing factor.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements