14.2.07 – This article is by Andrew Apel

A major conclusion of "The Tolerance of Food Contamination in Europe" (download article) is that the European Union does not regulate food ingredients which, in the US, would be considered "filth." This seems at first to be an impossible conclusion, as it claims proof of a negative. Yet, that is the conclusion, and it's not because these regulations have not yet been found. Rather, it's because the European Union has specifically exempted such ingredients from regulation.

Even after reading the European legislation which exempts "extraneous matter, such as, for example, insect fragments, animal hair, etc." from regulation, it remains difficult to believe. It becomes more understandable, though hardly more palatable, when placed in the context of the trade issues involved. In short, Europe has lowered its food standards in order to lower trade barriers between member nations. Scarcely anything could make this more explicit than the Commission's declaration that trade disturbances based on the Precautionary Principle are problems which Europe must enact laws to prevent. Even so, there is something more explicit: the food regulation designed to address the 'problem of precaution' declares these contaminants are "not food," and therefore, not subject to restrictions on food.

Much of the rhetoric which surrounds the use of engineered crops for food production makes use of the notion of 'contamination,' a theme avidly promoted by activists. It is interesting to consider what would happen if the European Union passed legislation which declared ingredients from engineered crops to be 'contaminants' on a par with insect fragments and animal hair. The result: they would either not be contaminants, and present a mere "quality" issue, or they would be 'not food,' and not subject to food law.

An obvious paradox arises when trade in safe food would flourish in Europe if it were legally defined as 'contaminated.' Likewise, another paradox when trade in food actually 'contaminated' is expressly exempted by food safety legislation. There is yet a third paradox--when the first two paradoxes coexist within the same legal system.

All this can easily be explained in a European system which gives priority to free trade among its member states over food safety and the precautionary principle, and inverts these interests to defend trade interests against outsiders.

This is neatly illustrated by a recent announcement by the Soil Association that it might make "food miles" an element of organic certification. In Britain, the Soil Association confers organic status on foods which meet its standards and can be counted, for practical purposes, as a governmental body. Imports of "organic" food into Britain naturally have the effect of lowering market prices, but a 'food miles' requirement would selectively discriminate against imports. If there were a true consumer-based concern about the impact of travel delays on freshness, the Association would instead consider refusing certification for stale produce. The result of such a measure? Withered produce could retain its "organic" certification, but at a higher price to consumers.

This suggestion by the Soil Association is very much in line with what appears to be a European decision to maximize the benefits of internal trade without regard to consumers. However, this presents a conundrum: if European legislation truly reflects consumer preferences, it invites the conclusion that Europeans would rather eat insect fragments and animal hair than what scientists have shown to be safe--safe to the very limits of their ability to imagine the remotest hazard.

Equally baffling is the silence on these issues of activist groups who claim to represent the interests of consumers. These groups, many of whom are funded by European governments and have access to government deliberations at the highest levels, have dodged the issue of food filth as deftly as European governments. Activist groups are opportunists. They constantly seek issues they can magnify into causes which magnify their political power, and increase the donations which provide their bread and butter. This presents the conundrum all over again: if European activists truly represent consumers, would European consumers truly prefer to eat insect fragments and animal hair, etc., instead of food that scientists have declared safe to the most extreme limits of detection?

The issues of food contamination in Europe are too complex to address in any one paper, but for now, it's at least time to open a transatlantic dialogue on what 'food contamination' truly is.

<<<back