Food and Nutrition - Policies and Issues - Case Study Example

Food and Nutrition - Policies and Issues Table of Contents I. Genetic Modification – The Answer to Global Food Shortages ………….. 3 II. Advantage and Disadvantages of State Control on Food Production and Subsequent Rationing as a Means to a Healthy Diet …….. 4 III. Major Factors that Impacts the Changing Food Habits in U.K. …………... 6 IV. UK Government Nutritional Targets are Both Unrealistic and Unattainable ……………………………………………………………….. 8 V. Ways in which the EU Government could Influence the Available Food in the Supermarket ……………………………………….. 10 References …………………………………………………………………… 12 - 13 Genetic Modification – The Answer to Global Food Shortages The United Kingdom is becoming less self-sufficient in the manufacturing of food. According to Professor Bill McKelvey, head of the Scottish Agricultural College, it is possible for the country to experience food shortages 25 to 50 years from now because of the declining food production. (Adam, 2007) As of 2007, UK is producing only 60% of the total demand for food. The rest of the 40% comes from importation and is continuously increasing. (Adam, 2007) Personally, I am in favour of the use of genetic modification on food. In line with the rapidly growing human population all over the world, genetically modified crops could be the answer to the possibility of a global food shortage in the future. The United Kingdom has limited land resources that can be allocated and use for the production of food. Once the population of UK increases, the demand for land will also increase. The increase in demand for land makes it possible that some portion of the rice field will be converted for the use of other technology. This will eventually result to a shortage of suitable land for the local food production. (Adam, 2007) There are two possible solutions to the allocation of land resources for future food production. Scarcity of land resources for food production can be avoided by taking a portion of the rain forest for farm purposes or to intensify the existing food production with the use of genetic modification. (Adam, 2007) Using the portion of rain forest for food production is not the best option because it could damage the country’s wildlife and forest. Abolishing the rain forest could increase the risks of UK from natural calamity such as landslides and flood. Therefore, genetic engineering applied in food production is the best solution to increasing the supply of food products. Genetically engineered crops will increase food production and help reduce hunger worldwide. Based on the law of supply and demand, once the supply increases more than the demand for food, its prices would eventually decrease. This is possible due to the tight competition that has resulted through globalisation. The purpose of having a cheap cost of food supply is to make these products affordable to families belonging to the lowest level of income. This is the only way that we could prevent global hunger. Even if there is enough food supply in UK, if food items are priced high, there would still be few families that would suffer from hunger. This framework applies to other countries. Aside from increasing the supply of food through this technology, the process could also improve the nutritional value of foods such as its vitamins and the essential amino acid contents that are not sufficient when food is produced the natural way. (Bernama, 2007) The use of chemical fertilizers and insecticides are also avoided in the process of applying genetic engineering on food. Therefore, it is possible that genetically modified food products are more nutritious and is less harmful to our health. Advantage & Disadvantages of State Control on Food Production In 1989, a lot of food poisoning outbreaks has been reported all over the world. Seven years after, radish sprouts contaminated with E. coli affected a lot of Japanese. Particularly the United States and other countries were also affected Salmonella outbreaks associated with raw alfalfa sprouts. Minor cases include food contamination with other bacterial pathogens such as Bacillus cereus and Yersinia enterocolitica. (UK Food Standard Agency, 2007) Due to insufficient self-production of food, UK has been largely dependent on the importation of food products for many years. For this reason, it is very important for the country to have a strict state control over the food production and subsequent rationing as a way to maintain a healthy uncontaminated food supply within the country. To ensure the food safety of the food supply in UK, EU has strengthened its legislation on the circulation of food by imposing a comprehensive food safety, import and market controls. For the local producers and manufacturer of food products, the General Food Law 178/2002 applies. (FFN, 2006) Control authorities enforce this legislation to hold each business operator responsible for the production of safe and legally produced food items. The General Food Hygiene Regulation (GFHR) 852/2004 ensures that all imported foods meet EU or equivalent hygiene standards. (FFN, 2006) For local and imported food items, Labeling Directive 2000/13 such as name of foods, medicinal claims, expiry date, etc. applies. (FFN, 2006) In relation to the advantages of having a state control over the food supply in UK, domestic food producers as well as the international food manufacturers are mandated to pay more attention and follow the industry guides to Good Hygiene Practices in order to prevent microbial contamination of food. This includes the proper handling of foods and having a good hygiene practices when producing, harvesting, packing, and transporting the food products all over the country. (UK Food Standard Agency, 2007) The food producers should solve the issues on other sources of food contamination may come from dirty irrigation water, equipments, and operators. The proper identification or labelling of foods makes it easier for the control authorities to determine and confiscate the batches of food in case of food contaminated by any microbial organisms or are generally considered as food hazards. All these are necessary to protect and safeguard the health of the nation. The disadvantage of having a strong state control over the food production includes the possibility of ‘lobbying’ between the state authorities and the traditional food producers and growers in order to protect their traditional businesses. (CEO, 2004) Failure to take advantage of the GM technology could result to a lesser food supply than what the country demands. In this case, the prices of food will increase. This will make some food items not affordable to the lower income earners. Today, the use and impacts of genetically modified organisms on the environment is highly regulated by UK government officials. (Shih, 2001) Major Factors that Impacts the Changing Food Habits in U.K. A lot of fast food stores such as Mc Donald’s, KFC, and Wimpy have been widely using television commercials and other forms of advertisement to attract young consumers in patronizing their food products. (Mothering Magazine, 2005) Children are considered as the easiest victims of these advertisements because they are easily attracted to happy-looking packages, entertaining advertisements, and even addictive ingredients that are present in commercial foods. (Mothering Magazine, 2004) For many years, U.K. media and advertisers have played a major influence over the poor state of young children and young adult’s eating habit. Over time, this poor eating habits will have a dramatic impact on the health of the adults in the future. Particularly the obese children will become obese adults. (Mothering Magazine, 2005) Obesity is a serious health problem because it could result to a shorter life expectancy related to high fat, sugar, and salt diet. Therefore, it has to be stopped. Another factor that affects the eating habit of U.K. citizens is the change in lifestyle. ‘Stress’ is considered to be the one of the main causes that affects the lifestyle such as poor eating habits. (BBC News, 2007) Particularly the fast pacing lifestyle we have in the city has led to the changes in the eating patterns of people. The common targets for this kind of scenario are the young office workers because they are required to be punctual upon arriving at the work place. Many are no longer considering the importance of breakfast because of work. Many of the local people are getting used to eating at fast-food restaurants, microwave meals and burgers in place of real cooked food. Increased in labour mobility and longer working hours also make people lose sufficient time for a traditional breakfast. For this reason, a lot of these people rely on ‘on-the-go’ breakfast consumption, fry foods, cereals, dairy products, and fresh fruits. (Pollan, 2007) Some business people are encouraging the use of vending machines where they sell chocolates or canned drinks since there are increasing numbers of individual that prefer to sacrifice proper nutrition with convenience. Also, the tight schedule of today’s business people and office workers, many of them rely on ‘brunch’ – wherein breakfast and lunch are combined into one meal. The use of improved technology in producing ready snacks and meals is also becoming very popular. A lot of these products have become widely available in UK supermarkets. The convenience it brings to many people is one of the main reasons why these products attract consumers of all ages. Due to globalisation, many people are forced to work on a graveyard shift or simple increase the working time over leisure in order to support the financial needs of each family. Since most of these people are already tired from doing office work, they tend to become lazy to cook real food when they get home. The comparatively low prices of eating ready snacks and meal contribute a lot to the increasing demand for ‘no cook’ foods. Government Nutritional Targets are Both Unrealistic and Unattainable UK government’s nutritional targets are both unrealistic and unattainable. Food safety is very crucial to keep the nutritional attainment of the local citizens on a high standard. This major concern can be have been exacerbated by EU consumers’ lack of trust in the government institutions because of the failure of the UK government in handling the BSE crisis. This weakens the public trust in the European food safety institutions. Back in 1990, the UK government did not justify the assurances that the beef supply was safe for consumption. (Western Europe Agriculture and Trade Report, 1990) Specifically the Belgian government’s handling of the dioxin crisis took long delays in informing the public to be aware of the country’s food supply. Since it is very difficult to pay close attention to the role of the government when it comes to maintaining the safety of the food supply, the government’s ability to facilitate transactions on providing food safety depends on its reputation for being able to do so. Repeated discovery that products the government claimed were safe were actually dangerous will damage the government’s reputation. Aside from the safety issues of the food supply, the government should focus on increasing the supply of food products in order to prevent hunger and malnutrition within the country. Increasing the supply of food will push its prices down. This is the only way that everybody could afford to nourish themselves with high quality and nutritious foods. It is not enough to implement a nutritional target when all other social and economic problems that could affect the government’s goal on nutritional target remains unsolved. Some of these problems include lack of education that is considered as a necessary in searching for a job. High unemployment rate is another main factor why some people could not afford to keep feed themselves with good food. Since the supply of foods in the country is limited, many people depend on the importation of foods. This contributes to the high prices of foods available in the country. Since the production of organic foods in the country is limited. Organic grown foods is not enough to feed the entire population of the country. Specifically the government’s strict disapproval on the use of genetically engineered food crops is considered as one of the major factor that limits the supply of food throughout the nation. When the country’s population multiplies more over the next 10 years, the local supply of food would be less than 60% which the country produces now. In the long run, the country has to rely much on the importation of food which could definitely make the prices of food supply very high. This will make a lot of unemployed citizens to be deprived of the foods that are needed in order to attain the nutritional target that is being set by the government. Ways in which the EU Government could Influence the Available Food in the Supermarket The EU consumers are very much concern with the quality and safety of food they buy in supermarkets. For this reason, EU government implemented some policies with regards to the quality and safety of foods that are sold throughout the markets. The strategy that EU government has been using is to focus on restricting some methods of food production such as the use of pesticides, fertilizer, etc. The EU government also focuses on the possibility that genetically engineered plants could result to a wide spread of herbicide-resistant weeds. (Official Journal of the European Communities, 1998) Basically, EU government policies and regulations are designed according to consumer preferences. Consumers in general prefer to buy foods that are not injected with hormones. During the late 1980s, the demand for German calves (beef) began to decline because it was found to carry DES – a carcinogenic growth promotant. A report stated that people who ate meat that are illegally treated and injected with hormones resulted to an outbreak of illness that occurred in Spain. (Western Europe Agriculture and Trade Report, 1990) In relation to this issue, EU government responded immediately by strictly banning the use of hormones in domestic livestock production as well as the importation of meat from cattle that has been treated with hormones. This prevents consumers from purchasing injected foods in supermarkets. According to EU government, the possible effects of growth hormones are not proven over the long-term. Therefore, it has to be subjected to further studies with regards to the safety it brings to foods. Another concern of the consumers is the genetically engineered food crops. Despite the fact that scientists have considered genetically engineered foods to be safe for human consumption, some people still believes that the possibility of placing new genes in plants may result to unforeseen allergens or adverse effects on health. A lot of European consumers fear the possibility of an unknown risks. For this reason, EU government is spending a long time frame on the approval process for testing and cultivation of crops produced with biotechnology including the sale of these products on import and final consumption. (Regulation (EC) 258/97) This prevents supermarkets from patronizing the selling of food products made of biotech ingredients. A lot of food processing companies also eliminates the use of these biotech crops as raw ingredients for their finish food items. Some EU countries have banned the import of genetically modified crops, despite EU approval. (O’Rourke, 2004) Even if imports are allowed, cultivation of genetically engineered crops remains a controversial. In case EU farmers are not allowed to access crop varieties produced with biotechnology, production and trade in the EU will be affected. EU government together with the media is actively releasing news on food supply. This affects the supply and demand of food products in the supermarkets. Since the demand for this type of food production is not so high, supermarkets would rather sell the traditionally grown foods over the genetically engineered food crops. *** End *** References: 1 Adam, D. (2007) ‘GM Crops: Only Intensive Farming will Feed Britain’ April 18, 2007. News Report. Retrieved: April 29, 2007 < http://gmofoodforthought.com/ > 2 BBC News (2007) ‘Modern Life puts Stress on Heart’ April 20, 2007 Retrieved: May 5, 2007 < http://news.bbc.co.uk/ > 3 Bernama (2007) ‘GM Crops: GM Crops could Save World of Food Woes’ April 18, 2007. News Report. Retrieved: April 29, 2007 < http://gmofoodforthought.com/ > 4 CEO (2004) ‘Power Struggle over Biotech in Brussels’ Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), December 2004. Retrieved: April 30, 2007 < http://www.corporateeurope.org/ > 5 Craddock, N. (2006) ‘EU Novel Foods Regulation – Overview and Update’ Neville Craddock Associates. Food Law Consultants in United Kingdom. September 2006 Retrieved: April 30, 2007 < http://www.functionalfoodnet.eu/ > 6 O’Rourke, B. (2004) ‘EU: Lifting of GMO Ban Revives Food-Safety Controversy’ May 20, 2004 Retrieved: May 5, 2007 < http://www.rferl.org/ > 7 FSA (2004) ‘Licensing – The Future of Butcher Shop Licensing in England’ Food Law News in UK. Food Standard Agency. December 15, 2004 Retrieved: April 30, 2007 < http://www.foodlaw.rdg.ac.uk/ > 8 Mothering Magazine (2004) ‘Attracting Your Child to Healthier Food’ December 2004 Retrieved: May 5, 2007 < http://www.mothering.com/ > 9 Mothering Magazine (2005) ‘Children Get Fat Watching TV’ March 2005 Retrieved: May 5, 2007 < http://www.mothering.com/ > 10 Pollan, M. (2007) ‘Michael Pollan’s Rule-of-Thumb Principles of Healthy Eating’ May 2007 Retrieved: May 5, 2007 < http://ginews.blogspot.com/ > 11 EC Regulation 258/97 ‘Concerning Nove Foods and Novel Food Ingredients’ Official Journal of the European Communities. L 43, February 14, 1997. EC No. 258/97, pp. 1 – 7 12 Shih, S. (2001) ‘Regulating the Impacts of Genetically Modified Organisms on the Environment: A UK Perspective’ May 18, 2001 Retrieved: April 30, 2007 < http://www.togg.org.uk/ > 13 UK Food Standard Agency (2007) ‘Risk of Food Poisoning due to the Presence of Human Pathogens in Sprouted Seeds’ Retrieved: April 30, 2007 < http://www.sproutnet.com/ > 14 Western Europe Agriculture and Trade Report (1990) ‘Agriculture and Trade Analysis Division’ Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, November 1990, RS-90-4. Read More