How are cows treated in France?

Are there high-density feedlots and routine antibiotic and hormone use in industrial French dairies? Maybe I'm naïve, but I imagine the AOC doesn't permit that, but what about the generic "double cream" Brie-like cheese that shows up at Trader Joe's? Anyone know how to find out?

Thanks,
Walt

I think that you can be sure that standard bovine derived products have seen antibiotics and/or hormones. French media and consumers are getting increasingly concerned about food purity, with a particular hatred of anything genetically modified. One would therefore hope that AOC bovine products aimed at niche markets should be free of these chemicals. However, I have been unable to confirm that by doing a rapid search of some AOC specifications (cahiers des charges).

[James Roscoe]

The European disdain for genetically modified food has always struck me as somewhat hypocritical as almost every food on the planet has been genetically modified over the centuries. The ancient Mesoamericans did wonders with maize and potatoes.

The European disdain for genetically modified food has always struck me as somewhat hypocritical as almost every food on the planet has been genetically modified over the centuries. The ancient Mesoamericans did wonders with maize and potatoes.

You're right, James. Domestication of plants or animals is defined by genetic modification.

[James Roscoe]

Jon, maybe someone here could explain the difference between what is done in a Monsanto lab and what is done in a vineyard. When you splice a European vine onto an American rootstock, isn't that genetic modification?

(Sorry for hijacking this thread .)

[David M. Bueker]

Jon, maybe someone here could explain the difference between what is done in a Monsanto lab and what is done in a vineyard. When you splice a European vine onto an American rootstock, isn't that genetic modification?

(Sorry for hijacking this thread .)

Actually it is not because if you remove the upper part of the vine, the grape variety that grows back from the rootstock is the original one which the rootstock came from. Grafting is more like a remora on a shark than genetic modification.

[James Roscoe]

It's still kind of fishy! (I couldn't resist!)

Isn't what the Mesoamericans did to create corn or maize basically genetic modification? How about what was done in central Asia to create all the various varieties of fruit trees? Aren't the laboratories just speeding up a process that has been going on for thousands of years? (Again, I am sorry for the thread drift hijacking )

I believe there is confusion here between plant breeding and domestication vs. genetic modification. Hybridizing and breeding to select for desirable traits in plant species is MUCH different than genetic modification, which quite simply is taking the DNA of a different species and adding that to the genetic structure of a plant to create a desired affect (ex. using fish DNA in tomatoes). Usually this is done for disease or pest resistance (ie Roundup-ready corn). This is NOT the same as natural plant breeding or vine grafting.

[James Roscoe]

I am not sure I appreciate the difference Joy. It may be a difference in degrees, but you are still changing and/or exchanging DNA in both cases as I understand it. In the first case you are doing it in the field and in the second in a laboratory, but both are merely humans playing with "natural order". If the second method is "wrong", why isn't the first?

I am not sure I appreciate the difference Joy. It may be a difference in degrees, but you are still changing and/or exchanging DNA in both cases as I understand it. In the first case you are doing it in the field and in the second in a laboratory, but both are merely humans playing with "natural order". If the second method is "wrong", why isn't the first?

Ah, but you see there is one major factor contributing to the difference here. In the first instance (the field, as you say) – you are talking about something that humans are replicating that happens often in nature without human intervention (cross-pollination by wind, bees, insects, etc of the SAME plant species). The second instance (crossing two or more organisms of DIFFERENT species) can only happen in a laboratory. At least I’m not aware of any naturally occurring fish/tomato hybrids running around!

Or perhaps a better example from the animal world – liken the first to a mixed breed of dog (happens both naturally and human-influenced). This would be much different than trying to create a new organism in a lab – (ex. combining the DNA of an elephant with a oak tree); something that would never occur in nature.

[James Roscoe]

Joy, you are making an assumption here because of man's limited knowledge of how evolution works. All species share some DNA. How do we know how that process works? It just seems a little naive to shun the laboratory modifications unilaterally. It is reminiscent of people who believe the earth was created at 10:00 AM on October 28, 4231 BC. (or whatever date Bishop Usher came up with)

James wrote;
I am not sure I appreciate the difference Joy. It may be a difference in degrees, but you are still changing and/or exchanging DNA in both cases as I understand it. In the first case you are doing it in the field and in the second in a laboratory, but both are merely humans playing with "natural order". If the second method is "wrong", why isn't the first?

In the case of vines, North American species of vines can “naturally” reproduce sexually with European species of vines (hence exchanging DNA). So what’s the difference between sexual reproduction of an American vine and European vine and grafting a scion of a European vine to an American vine rootstock? (Besides what David said).

Salute

It's interesting that most posters here aren't concerned about genetic modification. I think that's true in North America generally, but not in Europe: it's an interesting cultural difference.

The first genetically modified animal product for general consumption is now being reviewed by the FDA. Atlantic salmon have been genetically modified to grow about 10 times faster than normal. Obviously, there's lots of money involved with this new species, although interestingly, it isn't being done by the large corporations. My stance is we should be exceedingly cautious about this technology, and I'd like to see the precautionary principle used here: whoever is responsible for introducing the species should have to prove that its consumption should not harm humans (or other species). Tests are done, of course, but they are quite short-term and experimental, and don't involve 'real world' use, nor do they measure combined or cumulative impacts. But money talks, and companies have been allowed to introduce all kinds of dangerous substances before full testing is done. I don't see that changing now, unless the public demands new laws (as in Europe).

I find it amazing that we are willing to use our bodies as 'guinea pigs', especially given the uncertainty about how our industrial lifestyle and food system is affecting our psychological and physiological health. The thread about cancer in the Friends and Fun forum seems relevant here: many scientists suggest that the increase in cancer is also related (along with with other variables) to the chemicals we digest, often without knowing it (e.g., groundwater contaminated with estrogens, heavy metals, etc.). We are all living in a miraculous experiment...

Joy, you are making an assumption here because of man's limited knowledge of how evolution works. All species share some DNA. How do we know how that process works? It just seems a little naive to shun the laboratory modifications unilaterally.

Sorry, James – I’m not making an assumption of evolutionary theory over millions of years. I’m just trying to explain how natural plant breeding (whether wild or domesticated) differs from genetic modification in a laboratory. What is naïve is to assume that something that you imply could have occurred by the process of evolution over millions of years and as many generations is equal to singlehandedly manipulating an organism artificially by altering its genetic makeup over one generation. This is pretty basic genetics here. For example, hybridizing a plant and propagating it over F1, F2, et al generations is much different than introducing a separate species’ DNA into it. I’m sorry, but we don’t see anything like this occurring naturally on earth in the span of a single generation. We may all share something genetically, but this is not what we are addressing here. And this isn’t to “shun” the techniques that you mention – I’m just trying to point out that scientifically we are talking about something very different in each of these methods.

I am not sure I appreciate the difference Joy. It may be a difference in degrees, but you are still changing and/or exchanging DNA in both cases as I understand it. In the first case you are doing it in the field and in the second in a laboratory, but both are merely humans playing with "natural order". If the second method is "wrong", why isn't the first?

There is the law of unintended consequences, James. Genes do not exist in isolation, but rather interact with a dizzying array of proteins, some of which modify the DNA, others of which turn genes "on" and "off." When one inserts a bacterial gene into a plant, one tries as best as possible to anticipate all of the possible interactions that may result, but it is highly unlikely that one can anticipate them all. So, it's a bit of game of Russian Roulette: we don't know all that may result from placing the gene into the plant, but we hope that it's nothing too dire. The question comes down to how much you feel like trusting to luck.

Mark Lipton

I think that you can be sure that standard bovine derived products have seen antibiotics and/or hormones. French media and consumers are getting increasingly concerned about food purity, with a particular hatred of anything genetically modified. One would therefore hope that AOC bovine products aimed at niche markets should be free of these chemicals. However, I have been unable to confirm that by doing a rapid search of some AOC specifications (cahiers des charges).

Not so fast, Tim. As I understand it, the US is one of the few industrialized countries where rBST is given to dairy cows. A quick serarch on wikipedia yields:

The United States is the only developed nation to permit humans to drink milk from cows given artificial growth hormone. Posilac was banned from use in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and most of Europe, by 2000 or earlier.

As far as antibiotics go, I suspect their use is greater in environments where there is intensive dairy farming with the cows fed corn. This would not describe the herds in most places in France making AOC cheese, so it may also be a non-issue. I'm not sure what the official EU take on antibiotic use is, but it is likely to be more regulated than in the US.

[James Roscoe]

I am not sure I appreciate the difference Joy. It may be a difference in degrees, but you are still changing and/or exchanging DNA in both cases as I understand it. In the first case you are doing it in the field and in the second in a laboratory, but both are merely humans playing with "natural order". If the second method is "wrong", why isn't the first?

There is the law of unintended consequences, James. Genes do not exist in isolation, but rather interact with a dizzying array of proteins, some of which modify the DNA, others of which turn genes "on" and "off." When one inserts a bacterial gene into a plant, one tries as best as possible to anticipate all of the possible interactions that may result, but it is highly unlikely that one can anticipate them all. So, it's a bit of game of Russian Roulette: we don't know all that may result from placing the gene into the plant, but we hope that it's nothing too dire. The question comes down to how much you feel like trusting to luck.

Mark Lipton

Mark, as usual you hit the "hit the mark" (okay, it's a bad pun ) but you would have to agree that there are unintended consequences every time man interacts with the environment, whether it is crossbreeding two cows or two species. There are risks in every undertaking. Where would we be if our ancestors didn't take such risks? Would the world be better or worse? I guess it really doesn't matter now. It is only in taking such risks that we can move forward and help our planet. It all comes down to responsibility and I realize that that many people are not comfortable (to put it mildly) leaving that responsibility in the hands of people whose first responsibility is shareholder profits.

Along with the death penalty, obesity, and George W. Bush, it is true that GM food is something the Europeans dislike about America.

In fact, it is difficult to have a disagreement about the subject because so much emotion is involved.

The issue is *very* involved, and it sure doesn't help that the driving force behind the commercial exploitation is a very big, very bad company.
Still, Mosanto's wickedness should not be a reason for eliminating GM food altogether, and the two issues need to be separated.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Along with the death penalty, obesity, and George W. Bush, it is true that GM food is something the Europeans dislike about America.

In fact, it is difficult to have a disagreement about the subject because so much emotion is involved.

The issue is *very* involved, and it sure doesn't help that the driving force behind the commercial exploitation is a very big, very bad company.
Still, Mosanto's wickedness should not be a reason for eliminating GM food altogether, and the two issues need to be separated.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Alex, that's where I also stand. Nevertheless after so much anti-GM brainwashing I doubt whether I would knowingly chose to eat GM food.