
Food Practices Banned in Europe But Allowed in the US - casca
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/05/7-dodgy-foodag-practices-banned-europe-just-fine-here
======
tokenadult
The most sensible European regulations of those listed in the article kindly
submitted here are

"What Europe did: Banned all forms of animal protein, including chicken
litter, in cow feed in 2001."

and

"What Europe did: In the EU, all antibiotics used in human medicines are
banned on farms—and no antibiotics can be used on farms for 'non-medical
purposes,' i.e., growth promotion."

I'd like to see the United States follow that lead immediately, and I write
this as a man who has several uncles and cousins who are farmers, including
some who raise cattle. It makes sense to me to have lines of defense against
transmission of animal-infecting, and especially antibiotic-resistant-animal-
infecting, microbes to human beings, by controlling what animals raised as
lifestock eat and how they are treated with veterinary medicines.

For the other regulatory practices mentioned in the article, especially
washing chicken carcasses, I'd like to see more detailed evidence of the
safety trade-offs involved in the practices of the United States and of
Europe. I'm less sure on some of the other issues that science actually
supports the European practice.

~~~
R_Edward
>Banned all forms of animal protein, including chicken litter, in cow feed in
2001.

Saw a Dirty Jobs segment some time ago in which a Nevada pig farmer picks up
all the waste from several casinos' buffets, hauls it out to his farm, hand-
picks the plastic and other inedible crud out of it, liquefies it, steams it
to kill off some of the bacteria, then feeds it to his hogs.

My first thought was that it was pretty clever of him to find a near-zero-cost
source of food for his pigs. Then I thought a while longer and realized that
those buffets serve a whole lot of pork. Some of which goes uneaten and into
the trash... he's turning his pigs into cannibals! And then slaughtering them
and selling the meat to the buffets. "Better eat that bacon, boy; three
generations of pigs gave their lives for it!"

~~~
exDM69
Pigs are omnivorous and naturally eat carcasses of other pigs or in the case
of packs of wild boar, sometimes even kill other pigs to eat them. Feeding
pigs with food containing bits of pig meat (like human food leftovers) is not
ideal but it's not a very serious situation.

Cows, on the other hand, are herbivores. Their digestive system cannot
properly handle animal protein and this can have disastrous consequences. BSE,
aka. mad cow decease is a symptom that is caused by feeding cows with animal
protein, in particular from other cows. This decease is not caused by a
bacteria or a virus, but a wrong kind of protein that ends up in the brain.

~~~
mikeash
BSE has nothing to do with a digestive system that can't handle animal
protein. After all, the human digestive system handles animal protein just
great, but we can catch BSE by eating contaminated food even so.

~~~
exDM69
Humans can get BSE (or Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease) from eating contaminated
meat, but the meat gets contaminated in the first place because cows or other
animals eat protein that they can't handle and produce misfolded proteins
called a prions.

~~~
mikeash
Is there any evidence that the misfolding occurs due to the inappropriate
digestive system? I've never heard of this, and some quick searching around
shows nothing of the sort.

------
AlexMuir
HN kicks up an almighty fuss about any attempts to regulate our industry (see
online payments, sales taxes, etc.) but we are happy to pass judgement on
others.

In Europe we can barely stop people from selling horsemeat as beef. I'm not
sure how effectively we are implementing any of these rules, and I'm sure a
farmer who wishes to do so can flout them at will.

One positive thing to come from the rise of supermarkets and chains is that
their own brands suffer when their suppliers fuck up. They alone have the
power to police their producers. And we see this in this article with McD's et
al pushing for higher standards.

~~~
Joeri
In my view the horsemeat-as-beef scandal demonstrates that the system works
and that mislabeled meat gets detected. In this case the meat was perfectly
edible, it was just mislabeled.

~~~
harshpotatoes
Was it perfectly edible? My understanding of the fiasco is that it was not
simply calling horsemeat beef or some other meat. My understanding is that the
horsemeat found in packages originated from meat labeled as not for human
consumption, meaning that particular horsemeat had not gone through the same
safety inspection normally given to meat which is labeled as for human
consumption. To me, this seems that the horsemeat might not be perfectly
edible.

~~~
claudius
No it wasn’t – horsemeat if meant for human consumption is edible, but meat
from racing horses, for example, isn’t. Those having to dispose of such horses
even have to pay the renderer for their service, and this was the real problem
here, even though the media tended to get more concerned about ‘ _HORSE_
meat!!!!’.

But, as the GP said, this so far seems to be a singular incident of a single
producer trying to make an extra profit, which I don’t really think justifies
throwing the entire system overboard.

------
jkldotio
The flipside of this are things like the banana regulation, more commonly
known as Commission Regulation (EC) No 2257/94.[1] I believe it's now
rescinded under ridicule but there are people who try to deny it even existed.
It's well worth reading in full on eur-lex for riveting prose like "the
measurement, in millimetres, of the thickness of a transverse section of the
fruit between the lateral faces and the middle, perpendicularly to the
longitudinal axis".[2]

Regulations over the official ingredients of jam, battles over who has the
right to make certain types of sausages, the list goes on. It's harder for
legal systems other than the common law because of the way they work but I'm
of the opinion that we should at least trial putting a word count limit on the
total body of law and regulation.

A more depressing tale of regulatory woe, given the rocketing suicides and
unemployment in Greece, is that of the bookstore/café that can't sell coffee
and frequently can't sell books.[3]

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No_2...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_\(EC\)_No_2257/94)

[2][http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLE...](http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1994R2257:20060217:EN:PDF)

[3]last three paragraphs [http://economistmeg.com/2012/02/27/note-from-athens-
feeling-...](http://economistmeg.com/2012/02/27/note-from-athens-feeling-on-
the-ground-has-palpably-changed/)

~~~
arethuza
If your comment about "right to make certain types of sausages" refers to the
various protections around food actually coming from a particular area I
actually think that is a good thing.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_indications_and_t...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_indications_and_traditional_specialities_in_the_European_Union)

After all (to pick an example from the news today) - if something is described
as "Stornoway Black Pudding" I'd like to believe it actually came from
Stornoway:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-
islands-2244...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-
islands-22445935)

~~~
BCM43
If it is exactly the same besides the origin, why does it matter?

~~~
sp332
In the USA, you can't sell onions as "Vidalia onions" unless they're a
specific species grown in a certain part of Georgia where the soil has very
low sulfur content. It produces a sweet onion that you could only get with
specially prepared soil anywhere else.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidalia_onion> So, you can imagine with
something like sausage, where there are many ingredients that are subject to
local conditions, it would be impossible to regulate all the criteria for
being identical to sausage made in that region, and it's easier to just limit
by geography.

~~~
shabble
OT: Suddenly the name of the Tor control panel project[1] makes a lot more
sense.

[1] <https://www.torproject.org/projects/vidalia.html.en>

------
coob
See also "Why American Eggs Would Be Illegal In A British Supermarket, And
Vice Versa"

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2012/10/25/why-
ame...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2012/10/25/why-american-
eggs-would-be-illegal-in-a-british-supermarket-and-vice-versa/)

~~~
samolang
And the associated hacker news discussion
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5325540>

------
Zmetta
|"You know how arsenic goes inorganic—and thus poisonous—in chickens' guts?"

Correct chemistry but perhaps misleading to non-chemist readers. This is one
reason that I oppose product labels advertising "green, organic, natural"
products. I cannot help but think that some fickle readers will draw some
association between inorganic and poisonous.

~~~
mjn
I prefer the German and Scandinavian descriptor "ecological food", rather than
"organic food", partly for that reason.

------
tezza
A reasonably informative article.

It must pain HNers in US that if they perceive these items as problems then
they have little access to tasty unpasteurized cheeses which would help ease
the blows.

[http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/consumers/ucm079516....](http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/consumers/ucm079516.htm)

I'm from Oz originally, and they unfortunately ban unpasteurized cheese too.

~~~
simonsarris
I think you've been slightly misinformed.

You can get raw milk and cheese all over New Hampshire, including in
supermarkets, and apparently many other states for that matter[1]. I never
even knew there were restrictions in some states until your comment.

Apparently, even where raw milk/cheese is banned in the U.S., cheese produced
from raw milk is legal as long as its been aged for more than 60 days.

[1] <http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/raw_milk_map.htm>

~~~
tezza
I toned down my language to 'little access'... this was all just a tongue in
cheek reference to another EU - USA difference.

Your link is good information... there are many states where it looks quite
difficult to get unless you have a local farmers' market

------
cjensen
The US is now the control group to see if these practices make any difference.
There's no reason to implement any of them unless someone demonstrates that
Europe has a better outcome on the various claimed side-effects.

For example, if honeybees fare no better in Europe than the US, then we can
eliminate the theory that neonicotinoids are a problem.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
I'm not sure that's the only difference, though.

------
lifeisstillgood
1\. Being from UK where we have just had months of "how the hell did horsemeat
get into every burger and lasagne meal?", the idea Europeans have this food
business sorted is laughable.

2\. All western countries have high standards in food processing. The
differences are arbitrage not horrors that will kill us all, as this article
rather lazily implies.

3\. _processing_ food is mostly the problem. Processing _meat_ is almost the
whole problem.

~~~
radio4fan
I don't see where TFA aruges that the food business in the EU is sorted,
rather that many practices which are rightly illegal in the EU are legal in
the US.

Murder is illegal everywhere, but that's not to say it never happens.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Newspapers here drool over the high standards of food safety in the USA, and
literally faint when they find a drug on sale here that the FDA has banned.
These things are par for the course - the Germans and UK have very different
meat handling laws - but somehow mass food poisoning are rare and all that
seems to happen is we get fatter.

Most of what is wrong with our food chain is meat orientated extraction
processes pushing low quality cheap reclaims into foods that are overly
processed. We know this. It's not a secret nor is it illegal. Nor is it banned
in any country.

It's just dumb. The Mr Money Mustache of food would laugh at us.

------
zeteo
How can you take such decisions while considering only the purported benefits
and not the costs as well? Let's take antimicrobial sprays for example. They
presumably protect some consumers from food-borne illnesses. Shouldn't this be
balanced against the risk of rashes and such? If say we estimate antimicrobial
sprays save a hundred thousand salmonella etc. cases a year at the cost of ten
eye irritations, maybe they're not such a bad deal after all.

~~~
Xylakant
There are more costs attached to it: Using antimicrobial sprays or antibiotics
in abundance tends to create resistant strains and the products enrich in the
food chain. The same effect could be created by just using proper hygienic
conditions in the slaughterhouse - but that would cost more and require some
spoilt food to be trashed - such as the trimmings from beef. Instead it's
treated with ammonia and sold as ground beef.[1] Enjoy.

[1] <http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_19947.cfm>

~~~
zeteo
>The same effect could be created by just using proper hygienic conditions in
the slaughterhouse

That's a pretty strong assertion. How did you find out that equivalent
hygienic conditions could be created in slaughterhouses at a moderate cost?
Aren't antibiotic sprays just getting the germs that got through, despite
reasonable precautions being taken?

~~~
Xylakant
The article asserts that the increased usage is to compensate for speeding up
the kill lines - so less precaution.

Bacteria-related food poisonings due to spoiled meat are pretty rare in
germany and since the practice is forbidden here I assume it must be perfectly
viable, albeit properly more expensive to create proper conditions.

~~~
zeteo
>The article asserts that the increased usage is to compensate for speeding up
the kill lines

Yes, but we're not talking about restricting usage, this is about banning them
altogether. It would be interesting to know how German producers dealt with
the ban. Hopefully it didn't lead to an increased use of other chemical
products that aren't banned yet but soon will be etc.

~~~
Xylakant
I'm no expert on this, but given what I know about food safety the practice
would need to be explicitly allowed. I'd be very surprised if such a practice
has ever been allowed. Same holds for other chemical products.

------
dhughes
Meanwhile in Europe unpasteurized raw milk (good/bad?) is allowed to make
cheese and wooden force feed geese to produce foie gras, horse meat and
marmite yeah there I said it. I bet European countries have a lot of
"traditional" foods grandfathered in even though barely safe. I'm sure the
blame game can be used to make the US or European countries look bad.

Although it's great if rules can make us safer and animals lives better but
even though there are some good rules and common sense to get rid of
antibiotics, heavy metals and nasty pesticides. But this strikes me as noses
turned up especially quoting radical animal rights groups such as the
essentially ten year old Humane Society of the United States organization
(pretty much ex-PETA extreme extremists took it over) .

------
kunai
Another thing that is not practiced in Europe (to my knowledge) and allowed in
the US is fluoridation of water.

There is scientific proof that fluoride is a potent neurotoxin[1], and yet the
government continues to _insist_ and _require_ fluoridation of water.

\------------

1\. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity>

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Well, of course it's a toxin. There's a reason it's added to water: In small
amounts, it is not harmful to human health but is harmful to bacteria that
cause cavities.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Safety>

~~~
kunai
However, brushing after meals with fluoridated toothpaste solves the problem.

Again, the (local) government(s) choose(s) to legislate rather than educate.

Shouldn't one be allowed the freedom to choose whether he/she wants
fluoridated water or not? Why not install a fluoridation pump per household
rather than at the mains?

Offer people a choice.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
>However, brushing after meals with fluoridated toothpaste solves the problem.

It doesn't. We have it in water because, really, people need to fluoridate
their mouths more often than is practical through teeth-brushing alone.

------
scotch_drinker
This is the problem any time an industry gets big enough to control
legislature in Congress. It's happened in finance and it's happening in
agriculture. Practices that are most likely detrimental to the long term
health of the population continue apace because it makes someone a lot of
money. Changing that at the governmental level is almost impossible, not to be
all cynical and jaded. The American consumer has long decided they were only
going to choose on price and it's a lot cheaper to have agriculture in the
state it is than to fix it.

What you can do is shop locally, start a garden, support local farmers, start
hunting and fishing, etc. Is it harder and more expensive? Yup but that seems
to be the state of affairs we find ourselves in. On the upside, growing food
in a garden is extremely fulfilling.

------
coldcode
Realize the USDA is primarily tasked with promoting agricultural business,
only secondarily protecting the public. Guess what takes precedence. The FDA
is also limited in anything affecting another agency's primary area. Thus FDA
cannot affect usage of antibiotics in animal feed.

------
kevinpet
It's a big turn off to me to see these kinds of purely political articles on
HN. I like my life somewhat compartmentalized -- I'd like to be able to
discuss technology, science, and startups with people without getting dragged
into "OMG the US government is bought by industry!"

~~~
_fs
Agreed. It's been described as the redditification of HN, and will only get
worse as the site gains popularity

------
drucken
This is one of the reasons why any possibility of a significant "free trade"
agreement between the US and EU is virtually non-existent.

Their principles, economies, and output across a large range of sectors are
much more different than many care to admit.

------
jmsduran
I wonder if livestock producers still feed Arsenic to livestock meant for
organic products? It would be a shame if they do this by exploiting the
technicality that Arsenic is entered through the feed in "organic form".

~~~
aschreyer
Here "organic form" means organic as in organic chemistry, not organic food.

~~~
jff
And yet if your arsenic comes from a "natural source", you can feed it to
animals and still call them organic.

------
haliax
Is there a good way to buy only products that avoid use of these chemicals?

~~~
larsberg
Whole Foods. Whatever else you say about them (or their prices), they've made
these issues easy to deal with as a consumer.

[http://wholefoods.com/about-our-products/quality-
standards/a...](http://wholefoods.com/about-our-products/quality-
standards/animal-welfare-standards)

~~~
brown9-2
Frustratingly (as a frequent Whole Foods shopper), the top of the page raises
the question of " _What about added hormones and antibiotics?_ " and then
never provides an answer.

Found the answer on another section of the site though:
[http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blog/whole-story/our-meat-
no...](http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blog/whole-story/our-meat-no-
antibiotics-ever-0)

------
jokoon
We live in a world where economic growth is more important than health issues.
Having a strong economy means having bad health, and somehow the strong
economy can repair the health problems it caused.

Problem: recession.

------
heyzzz
Like a lot of other political decisions in the US - they still choose to go
with the unlogical choices which in this case would be to not implement some
of these bans. I guess there are commercial interests behind these decisions
like the gun politics, alcohol laws, etc. What else can you expect in this
semi-corrupt country?

------
tayllargardner
The fact that the US doesn't care wether or not we eat these harmful things is
outrageous. Quite honestly, I don't see why they wouldn't ban it because those
who let this slide and know about it are probably eating it too.

------
edemay
By the way, same for Canada except #3 and #4 which have been banned.

------
gadders
7\. Gestation crates

These were banned in the UK in 1999. The EU has just brought in a law banning
them, but a lot of countries are still not fully compliant.

------
gadders
For this one:

4\. Chlorine washes for poultry carcasses

the EU is currently looking at implementing something similar using substances
such as ozone in solution or steam.

~~~
claudius
With the difference that steam is not exactly as toxic as chlorine, and even
ozone is likely to be less of a problem.

~~~
gadders
Yes, but that _something_ needs to wash the chickens due to bacteria.

~~~
claudius
I am not saying that the problem (dirty chickens) doesn’t exist, I am saying
that there are likely superior solutions to that problem which don’t risk
leaving an extremely toxic and reactive substance on my food.

------
yekko
Profit is more important than public health. This will end badly for the
people.

------
sonabinu
Wonder if things are any different if you are on a vegetarian diet?

------
saosebastiao
Don't worry...we'll throw you in prison if you don't pasteurize your milk.

------
SeanDav
In Europe many of the laws tend to try to follow good moral principles. In the
USA it would likely be the same if Big Business didn't have such a massive
influence on law making.

~~~
kintamanimatt
Business has its hand in the legislative process in Europe too. Europe's not
some corruption-free idealistic utopia.

~~~
SeanDav
_> Europe's not some corruption-free idealistic utopia_

I never said it was. Just in general Europe is driven more by what is good for
the people, not what is good necessarily for big business.

How else do you explain the gun laws of USA despite the numerous atrocities
committed by people with easy access to huge quantities of ammunition and
semi-automatic weapons? Can you say that the NRA has nothing to do with the
gun laws in the USA?

How do you explain the inclusion of so many European banned substances in
common food production in the USA? The alternatives are generally more
expensive and less convenient, yet they are banned in Europe, not USA.

~~~
epmatsw
It's written into our Constitution, which is very difficult to change? A
significant portion of our population doesn't desire a change to gun laws?

And the point of the banned substances is that they're less expensive and more
convenient. That's why they're used. Whether they're harmful or not is up for
debate, but I don't think businesses use them because they don't work...

~~~
SeanDav
> _It's written into our Constitution_

Of course it is. Other things like free speech etc that are also in the
constitution are being run over because it suits the government and Hollywood,
yet the right to bear arms has barely been touched, in fact probably expanded.
I notice that no-one addressed my point about the NRA influencing gun laws.
Also, where is it written in the constitution that ammunition should be
available in Supermarkets?

As to your point about being harmful is up for debate: Antibiotics in the food
chain is a major cause of current immunity issues with disease causing agents.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance>

Yet the practice has not stopped in the USA despite the evidence. There are so
many other examples, I really don't understand why some people here don't get
it - the USA legal and political system is probably more influenced by big
business than any other Western democracy. If not the worst, then close to it.

------
X4
We need more advanced Gardens and 100% recycling of everything we use, the
system must have a working circular flow. No Genetic engineering, or
processing of our food.

It took billions of years for the nature to create the foods that are perfect
for us, we cannot create something better (in a few hundred years).

I wish that someday the entire Human race on Earth will be as enlightened as
the people in Star Trek.

~~~
ceejayoz
> It took billions of years for the nature to create the foods that are
> perfect for us, we cannot create something better (in a few hundred years).

Bullshit. _We_ created those foods. Our staple crops and domestic animals have
all been genetically engineered via selective breeding and trial and error for
millennia.

Food processing - making bread, cheese, salted meats, canned foods etc. from
raw materials - allowed us to move out of the hunter gatherer existence into a
society that sends robots to other planets.

~~~
X4
I honestly don't understand why you are so aggressively against my opinion?
Genetic-engineering isn't bad per se, I see huge value of it in Reversing the
genetical damage (esp. RNAi and siRNA therapies).

I said: "..we cannot create something better (in a few hundred years)."

You said: "We created those foods". [..] all been genetically engineered [..]

Where is the proof that these processed or genetically engineered foods are
better? To clarify things, we DID NOT create those foods, we modified them.
Creating is food is clearly something entirely different. We've not advanced
that far in Bio-sciences.

~~~
ceejayoz
> I honestly don't understand why you are so aggressively against my opinion?

Because statements like "took billions of years for the nature to create the
foods that are perfect for us" are false and absurd. Nature didn't create
foods to be perfect for us. The goal of natural selection was for those
organisms to survive, not necessarily to be tasty to humans, and most of the
foods we eat were modified _by us_ to our liking.

It's the same sort of argument anti-vaccine nuts use. "We were fine before
vaccines!" No, we weren't. Millions upon millions died of easily preventable,
natural diseases.

> Where is the proof that these processed or genetically engineered foods are
> better?

Try surviving off wild bananas or the wild grasses we bred into wheat and
rice. They're harder to digest, yield less, etc.

> To clarify things, we DID NOT create those foods, we modified them.

And? We're doing that with GMO foods, too. Humanity hasn't yet created even a
single-celled bacterium from scratch, let alone a corn plant.

