Food is Different in Europe Than in the United States Part 2

Photo by Giuseppe Russo: https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-a-person-s-hand-touching-wheat-grass-2228306/

In Part 1, I discussed the ways that food processing and ingredients, as well as eating habits, tend to be different in Europe as compared to the United States. By choosing simpler foods, keeping portion sizes smaller, and avoiding a lot of the food chemicals that we use in the states, Europeans generally have healthier diets and have fewer problems with diet-related health issues. To a large exent, Americans can shift their eating to more of a European-style diet and get similar health benefits.

In this second part, I’m going to be discussing differences in overall food production between Europe and the U.S. – farming techniques, how livestock is raised, etc., that is largely out of the control of individuals, but by having an awareness of these differences can help bring an understanding of why certain things are the way they are and also why choosing to invest in things like organic produce can be very worthwhile, despite being more expensive.

For better or worse, there appears to be a difference in priorities between Europe and the United States when it comes to food production. In very simple terms, Europeans value food quality somewhat more than quantity, whereas Americans tend to be the opposite – somewhat emphasizing quantity over quality. This is reflected in how crops are grown and how livestock is raised.

For example, GMO (genetically modified) crops are quite common in the United States, and are sometimes the predominant form grown of crops, such as is the case with corn. GMO crops have been manipulated in the lab to have certain characteristics to make them easier (and typically cheaper) to grow. For example, corn and soybeans have been modified to be resistant to glycophosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer, making it easier to control weeds in the fields where these crops are grown.

Typically, GMO crops have a better yield at a lower cost, and therefore are significantly more profitable for the growers. The problem is, we still don’t really know the long-term effects of consuming GMO foods, and even if the foods themselves are safe, the secondary effects of their modifications may not be.

Going back to the example of glycophosate resistance, since the crops can be treated with these chemicals, the chemicals will be on those crops and may not be completely washed off or neutralized before being consumed. While trace amounts of glycophosate are not immediately dangerous to most people, the chemical does have some insidious effects, among which is that it kills certain beneficial microbes in the GI tract and can lead to chronic digestive disorders, inflammation, and other negative health effects.

While GMO foods and crop cultivation are not completely banned throughout Europe, some countries have banned them and they are much more restricted than in the U.S.. Those countries that do allow some GMOs have strict safety standards and may require the foods to be shown to have equivalent nutrient value as their non-GMO counterparts.

The priority of nutrient value is also apparent in the greater diligence of European farmers to follow good crop rotation practices. Crop rotation is the “old school” concept of growing different crops in a given plot of soil so that subsequent crops return nutrients to the soil that were absorbed by the prior crops grown there. This practice is somewhat downgraded as a farming technique in the U.S. in favor of using chemical fertilizers. This leads to actual differences in nutrient content of the crops(which is also true of organically-grown crops in the U.S. as compared to conventionally-grown produce).

One really dramatic example of this is seen in grain-based foods containing gluten. You’re probably at least somewhat aware that many people experience digestive problems, inflammatory responses, and other health problems when they consume gluten-containing foods like bread. Yet, many of those people with gluten sensitivity who have to avoid bread in the U.S. find that they can eat bread in Europe with no problems. So, what’s up with that?

Well, the short version is that gluten contains a protein called gliadin. Gliadin is converted in the body to a chemical called zonulin, which increases gut permeability (“leaky gut”) which allows proteins that have not been fully digested to leak into the blood stream, and that produces an immune response. Wheat grown in soil with relatively high sulfur content has significantly less gliadin. Better use of crop rotation typically leads to higher soil sulfur content; therefore European wheat typically causes fewer problems for people with gluten intolerance.

Livestock production varies greatly too, with American ranchers relying heavily on hormones and antibiotics to overcome the problems of crowding animals into feed lots and feeding them grains, as opposed to the more common pasture-raising of meats in Europe.

There are several other examples of how the priority of food quality over quantity (and profitability) in food production gives Europeans an overall advantage in terms being able to eat a healthy diet. As with food processing, the main concept of European food production can be summed up as simplicity and quality as compared to the mindset in the U.S. that emphasizes quantity, profitability, and convenience.

While there’s problems in terms of legal definition of “organic” and “natural” and other good-sounding food terminology used by food sellers in the U.S., generally shifting towards foods that have been produced using organic farming and hormone and antibiotic-free livestock and farmed fish will significantly minimize the problems in conventionally-produced foods.

Making such a shift does add significantly to one’s grocery bill. On the other hand, reduced health care costs and fewer lost work days will often balance things out quite favorably in the long-run in financial terms, and if you can at all afford it, will most likely pay considerable dividends in terms of quality of life.

Until next time…

George Best, D.C.