At anti-American demonstrations in
Europe, Ronald McDonald has replaced Uncle Sam as the symbol of Yankee hegemony. To the
surprise of the bio-tech and beef industries, Europe is in open revolt against the brave
new millennium of genetically engineered, hormone-treated, industrially produced food. At
the root of the clash are radically different cultural attitudes toward food.
In the
United States, the mass migration to the cities in the mid-1900s effectively severed
people's link to agriculture. Fast, highly processed, and very cheap food became not only
the norm but the ideal. Europeans, on the other hand, are willing to pay more for their
food and to support small farmers and producers. (After visiting France last year, Senator
Bob Kerrey [D-Neb.] complained about the "luxurious affluence" of its small
farmers.)
The United States' insistence on
selling hormone-treated beef in Europe caused these cultural differences to mushroom into
an international food fight. Since the 1950s, the American meat industry has treated
cattle with hormones, both natural and synthetic. Like bodybuilders on steroids, the
cattle put on muscle mass rather than fat, cutting costs to producers by as much as $80
per animal. Other common hormonal treatments regulate fertility and make cows produce more
milk.
The FDA insists that, when properly
used, these hormones pose no risk to humans. Unfortunately, however, it took the agency
until 1979 to ban the synthetic hormone diethylstilbestrol (DES), widely used since the
1950s to bulk up beef, well after the hormone was associated with cancers in humans in the
early '60s. Worldwide, its illegal use continued; in Italy, DES turned up in veal calves
and even baby food, leading to reports of infant girls growing breasts and menstruating.
Partly as a result of the scandal, the European Union banned all growth-promoting hormones
from its members' cattle, and barred all hormone-treated imports in 1989.
The U.S. beef industry says that
this blanket ban has no scientific basis, since the World Health Organization has judged
the use of current growth-promoting hormones to be safe. The United States took the case
to the World Trade
Organization (WTO), which ruled in 1997 that the hormone ban was an illegal trade
barrier.
France and other European nations
refused to give in, however. Last year a European Union scientific committee concluded
that the hormone estradiol causes cancer, and that others"may cause a variety of
health problems including cancer, developmental problems, harm to immune systems, and
brain disease. Even exposure to small levels of residues in meat and meat products carries
risks." These concerns are shared by University of Illinois cancer researcher Dr.
Samuel Epstein. "The question we ought to be asking," he says, "is not why
Europe wonÕt buy our hormone-treated meat, but why we allow beef from hormone-treated
cattle to be sold to American and Canadian consumers."
In retaliation, and with the backing
of the WTO, the United States slapped 100 percent tariffs on a variety of European luxury
imports to the United States, including foie gras, truffles, Roquefort cheese, and Dijon
mustard. Things got worse from there, with French Agriculture Minister Jean Glavny
declaring that the United States" has the worst food in the world." French
farmer José Bové became a national hero last August when he wrecked a McDonaldÕs
restaurant under construction in the town of Millau. European Union spokesperson Nikolaus
van der Pas says that the Europeans would stand firm against U.S. pressure: "The
Americans have said weÕre wrong, and we disagree completely with the Americans."
Cultural attitudes about food and
risk are not easily swayed, either by science or tariff. France also refuses beef from
England, fearing the taint of mad-cow disease. Britain insists that its beef is safe; the
French, says Prime Minister Tony Blair, "have defied the law and science." But
the United States also quietly rejects British beef. Our policy refuses to accept the risk
of mad-cow disease, but accepts the risk of cancer from hormones—and insists that
others do the same. In doing so, it pays homage more to the needs of the U.S. beef
industry than to either science or safety.
