Smoking and the smoking gun...

Posted February 3, 2003 11:55 PM.

Here's another intriguing article from the New York Times: Ah, Those Principled Europeans. Here's a stripped-down outline of the article in question:

Europeans, GMOs and Smoking:
- Europeans have to make clear when they're selling food that contains genetically modified organisms.
- This is a rebellion against America and high-technology.
- This can be demonstrated still more clearly because Europeans smoke like chimneys.
- Smoking is much more dangerous than eating genetically modified organisms, therefore they must just be doing it to spite the Americans.
Europeans, America and Iraq:
- Europeans are not defying the US for any of the good reasons that do exist (these reasons are not mentioned or explored).
- Europeans are ignoring the fact that young Iraqi people want democracy and wish to escape from the rule of their dictatorial leader.
- In fact, just like with GMOs and smoking, Europeans are just against the war because they are simply against whatever the US wants to do.
- Because Europe wants to constrain the power of the United States they end up inevitably on the morally questionable side of Iraq.
- This is weakness masquerading as moral superiority.

Point-by-point, then. European governments are not the people who put the issue of GM food on the international agenda. In fact many European governments - including the British government - have been traditionally in favour of genetically-modified products. It has been (in order) green activists, some parts of the media and finally the general population that brought this issue to the forefront of politics. They are the ones that campaigned the display of this kind of information. Government had very little to nothing to do with it. Anti-American sentiment has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I've dug around a bit and it does seem to be the case that there is more smoking in Europe than in America. But this difference doesn't seem to be as extreme as the New York Times article suggests. The best place I found for comparative statistics (that also illustrate differences between the member states of the EU) was The World Health Organisations Tobacco Atlas from 2002. While the number of male and female smokers in Europe were generally higher than in the United States, this wasn't uniformly the case and several key European countries had fewer smokers than the US. Particularly interesting were the maps of comparative cigarette consumption [PDF of World-wide Cigarette Consumption]. According to this measure, most European countries are in exactly the same band of smoking intensity as the US and Canada. A few are heavier smokers. A few smoke less. These hardly seem to be figures that one could use to support a systematic theory of European hypocrisy.

So i) the labelling of GMO wasn't done because of America-bashing, but because of green activists and ii) the differences in smoking habits between the EU and the US aren't that dramatic. What we might then go on to point out is that labelling something as a GM crop - although it might conceivably add to the cost of producing foodstuffs - is not necessarily designed to stop people buying it, just to allow consumers to make that choice for themselves. There's an awful lot of stuff that you are required to put on food labels in the EU [EU Food Laws] - from whether a product contains nuts, through to lists of ingredients, through to basic nutritional information. It doesn't necessarily follow that making sure products are labelled with pertinent information makes them sell any less well. Otherwise none of us would buy cheap, high-calorie foodstuffs.

The second half of the article - where the analogy is drawn between European smoking habits and their refusal to give total assent to a war with Iraq - contains some interesting statements, many of which may contain some elements of truth. Clearly - as the article states - there are good reasons for not going to war. There are always good reasons for not going to war - the most significant of which is that people have a tendency to get killed. Secondly it seems entirely likely that there are people in Iraq who wish to depose Saddam Hussein. There were lots of people who wanted to depose him during the last Gulf War, and who in fact rose up against him. And yes - it seems likely that many European countries are uncomfortable with the idea of any country acting unilaterally against another without the assent of the international community. These things are almost certainly true.

But just like with the perceived motivations for European decisions on GMOs and smoking - there are some tenuous logical bridges being built. Firstly a disagreement with unilateral action is not anti-American - it is simply that America is the one contemplating unilateral action - just as it happens to be America that supplies a good proportion of the world's GM food and technology. Secondly, the existence of dissident groups within a country is not necessarily enough reason to suggest deposing its leader, nor is it a guarantee of support should one invade. George Bush Senior tried to persuade the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam Hussein. He succeeded, they did. And they were left exposed when the west withdrew from the region subsequently. Whether they'd be as comfortable to rise up again isn't entirely clear...

Finally, the logical problem comes down the statement that the Europeans are being forced into morally bankrupt pro-Iraqi positions by their selfish resistance to the American (and British) position. But in fact there are no European leaders who would stand up and defend Saddam Hussein. None. But nor are there many convinced that the proposed invasions would radically improve the situation of people across the world or the lot of the Iraqi people - who (we are reminded) are also victims in this situation. In fact it's the polarising of the debate into "You're either with us or against us" rhetoric from the States and from American media that is pushing Europe more steadily and defiantly in opposition. The sensation that they are being pressured to attack rather than persuaded to attack is - and should be - profoundly discomforting. For if all positions other than the one advocated by the United States come to be perceived as by dint of their opposition intrinsically immoral, then the whole world's in a pretty bloody dangerous space...

Addendum: This article has been discussed by a wide variety of different sites from all sides of the political spectrum. I want to openly deny at this stage an allegiance with either the pro or anti-war lobbies. I have yet to fully make up my mind about the need, the expediency, the pragamatics or the morality of a potential conflict. What I have made up my mind about is that it's too bloody serious an issue to let people sloganeer, to have individuals try and shut down necessary debate or to dismiss opposing viewpoints as the products of selfish, diseased or un-Christian degenerates. Thousands of people are likely to be killed as a result of this action - it's immoral not to agonise over whether it's the right decision or not.

Comments

Please stay on-topic, informative and polite. I reserve the right to remove comments for whatever vague capricious reasons seem reasonable at the time.

About smoking and the labelling of GMOs: one other way of approaching the requirement of labelling is that it empowers the consumer. Leaving aside all arguments that consumers won't choose GMOs anyway (in that case, you have to persuade consumers that GMOs are safe anyway, and should be doing a better job), consumers right now are aware of the risks that smoking entails. The time has gone by of those who smoke without knowledge of its effects. Conversely, unlabelled GMO foods take that choice away from the consumer. In effect, the government is saying that you don't have a choice, that it doesn't matter.

I would much rather that governments and corporations spent their money persuading consumers that GMOs were safe (honestly, mind), than legislating that consumers were to be denied the choice at all. That, if anything, smacks more of a nanny state.

→ Posted by: Dan Hon at February 4, 2003 12:23 AM

GMOs affect not only the person who choose to be affected, but all biodiversity around the specific GMO, including several microorganism, vegetal and animal communities. And, honestly, it's too much lifes being (bad) affected because of so little research, experience and public clarification (and all this unjustified worry). To smoke is a problem of the smoker that affects only other people when in public places, period. I'm in (South) America. I think it's a matter of intelligence, caring, respect and law. It's not a matter of prejudice or anit-this or anti-that. And when I see a well known newspaper like the NYT publishing something like that I wonder if the USA isn't becoming completely neurotic.

Point by point:
+ Europeans, GMOs and Smoking:
1) Europeans are right, this is consciousness, respect and caring for nature and people.
2) Joke.
3) Joke. Offensive one.
4) Bad research. Bad argument.
---
+ Europeans, America and Iraq:
5) This is a war obsessive psyque: why always have to talk about DEFYing?
6) America doesn't have a clue of dictatorial leaderships around the world, they're only momentarily aware of what's going on Iraq now and by the eyes of their one media.
7) Joke.
8) Joke. Complex one.
9) Too much judgement, too much accusing, so little mirroring, so little respect.

→ Posted by: nando at February 4, 2003 1:03 AM

Perhaps it should be mentioned that the Friedman piece linked to is an Op-Ed, not a news story. Quite a different proposition.

→ Posted by: Todd at February 4, 2003 1:22 AM

The best critique of the Friedman op-ed (as others have said, one of his sloppiest yet) is that he's hoisted on his own non-sequitur: his arguments for war in Iraq are coherent, but have nothing to do with the arguments adopted by the Bush administration.

Tom: you devoted far more time and thought to your reply than Friedman did to his piece. (From reading it, the op-ed seems like it was knocked off in an airport departure lounge or hotel room somewhere to meet a tight deadline.) I'm of the Bill Hicks opinion: don't over-analyse it, just say 'piece of shit!' and move on.

→ Posted by: nick sweeney at February 4, 2003 5:18 AM

Obviously you're both right, but at the same time it appals me that we don't hold people's spite-filled opinions to the same standards of accuracy that we do news articles. Op-Eds are supposed to be the things that help us make sense of the sea of data that we're confronted with. Innaccuracy like this shouldn't be encouraged or countenanced. Still - it's the last political article I'm doing for a while, so that's something...

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at February 4, 2003 9:05 AM

And, let's not forget that the EU is currently going through the process of implementing some of the most stringent anti-smoking advertising laws we've ever seen; laws that will actually cost large sums of money in industries such as sport.

To be honest, I think the political chasm between the US and Europe are spreading to the point of being irreconcilable - especially when media coverage loves to hype up the atlantic divide. It's a difficult, and dangerous, thing to watch unfold in front of you.

→ Posted by: Bobbie at February 4, 2003 12:12 PM

Tom - Your own analysis is clearly more carefully thought-out than the piece itself - all credit to you. But I'd disagree with your last point in the comments about op-eds' purpose.

Yes - the best ones (IMHO) explain, analyse, argue. But, as with anything in a newspaper, they could also be there to provoke, inflame, outrage or entertain. I suspect this one - given its tone - falls into the latter category, and could be dismissed as being a bit of froth, albeit quite provocative froth.

Or a piece of shit, of course.

Either way, I'm sure the NYT op-ed editors will feel it has achieved its purpose.

→ Posted by: Neil Mc at February 4, 2003 12:14 PM

I still think that people have a responsibility not to spread disinformation or to lie. I wouldn't necessarily want to legislate to stop them doing so, but I think they should be taken to task - shamed even - when they do so.

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at February 4, 2003 12:29 PM

"A responsibility not to spread disinformation or to lie" ... Especially when they regard themselves as highly as the NYT.

It's cheap. Unfortunately it's also effective.

→ Posted by: Bobbie at February 4, 2003 12:43 PM

I sense the author gets things wrong through lack of understanding, research or care, rather than through any deliberate attempt to misinform or smear (that would require a higher level of craft than is on show in the piece to do that). And (Bobbie) it's obviously an important right for writers to make an arse of themselves in public, just as it's a right for the rest of us to pick them up on it.

→ Posted by: Neil Mc at February 4, 2003 2:30 PM

Yes, it was clearly provocation, and could almost be appreciated in its heavy sarcasm if it wasn't published in times like these... and then, one thing is sarcasm, another misinformation and lies, indeed. Tom, your critique is excellent, and so much better informed. Just one very minor point, re: the food labelling for GMO's: I wouldn't say it was mostly "green activists" pushing for those laws on labelling - though you do actually say it's also the people, but "not the governments"... well that's not entirely true, of course the UK is more in favour of GMO's in general than other countries in Europe, but not because of the respective positions on the US policy, it's just that the UK is more in favour of anything to do with biotech (the UK is even the only country in the world, actually, to have approved of genetic manipulation of embryos, which unless I'm mistaken even the US is against).

Basically, the EU has put out directives based on its own principles and regulations in the field of agriculture and foods in general, so on the one hand, yes they took in the concerns of both environmentalists - which includes also Green political parties sitting in Parliaments, not just activists from NGO's or looser groups - and also took in the consumers organizations concerns, as well as motions from many non-environmentalist political forces. But those directives are also a natural consequence of the pattern of laws on foods established by the EU, which started out by regulating a lot of things about health requirements in food processing, even before the GMO issue came up.

Like you say, there's tons of labelling! But it's only fair, because with the mad cow scandals in recent years, and previous lack of controls on the origin and security of foods, on their compliance with health regulations, it's actually a lot more logical to have strict requirements on labelling, at least, within the EU system.

In the US, all beef is local, you don't even need that kind of strict and thorough labelling, you know where it comes from, and if it's imported I believe it also says so very clearly, that's required by the FDA, which is also extremely strict on the kinds of food that can be imported in the US, possibly even stricter than the EU. Point is, if you're eating non-imported 100% American foods, you can be "sure" that what you're eating is ok because it will only be sold after it's checked as compliant to FDA standards. (Aside from the GMO issue, I mean). Whereas in the EU you got 12 and soon-to-be-more countries, with very different standards and regulations and practices of food making prior to the EU laws, so these laws were required.

I mean, there's a lot of controversy on EU directives even on that, sure, but the labelling itself is possibly the best thing they did. It's really a forced interpretation to see it as "anti-American", and the GMO issue is a matter of consumer choice indeed. Plus, the risks Friedman glides on so slyly... it's not actually true there's "no proven risks" - there's not even enough studies on humans yet! There's a lot of controversy over how GMO crops affect the soil and plants and foods growth themselves, though, based on studies indeed. But that's another matter.

Sorry for lengthy addition. I really appreciated your logical, reasoned distinctions. Very fair too. There'd be a lot of criticism to level at European governments, they have indeed behaved very contradictorily in this issue on Iraq, but there's no need like Friedman does to take it to new levels of xenophobia on entire populations. Seems for some now the "Europeans" are just as collectively despicable an enemy as the "Islamofascists", eh... it's a bit mad, isn't it.

→ Posted by: nickie at February 4, 2003 3:14 PM

... and sorry, I thought the paragraphs would be broken up, eh. I'd have kept it shorter.

Nick Sweeney: true! but it's even better when someone else takes the time to debunk that kind of thing properly.

→ Posted by: nickie at February 4, 2003 3:22 PM

Sorry about that design 'feature' nickie - I get concerned that people lose visual track of who's said what if there are paragraph breaks in at the moment, but I'll go and add a couple manually into your last post to make it sit more easily on the page...

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at February 4, 2003 3:44 PM

wow, thanks, Tom, well beyond the call of duty as they say. I'm too prone to lenghty posts, unfortunately. Oh, and my apologies to you for talking about the EU/UK difference on GMO like... you weren't actually in the UK! I hadn't sussed that out yet.

(by the way, love the design of this site)

→ Posted by: nickie at February 4, 2003 4:00 PM

Good point, Neil: if writers were not allowed to make an arse of ourselves in public, where would any of us be?

When I said cheap and unfortunately effective, I mean that opinion-forming commentary and punditry does not have to rely on facts if it can use commonly-held supposition and conjecture instead (and that exists on the web even moreso than in print). but the NYT considers itself a quality paper, so I'm surprised that they let someone lash off something quite so lame.

(and I think par marks would definitely be good in longer comments, Tom.)

→ Posted by: Bobbie at February 4, 2003 4:43 PM

The whole point of being a newspaper journalist is to get your facts right. If not, what are you getting paid for? You may as well write a novel. On a much smaller scale, the writer of the opinion column in my local paper talks bull every week, completely contradicting the factual articles sharing the page, which infuriates me. It doesn't matter if it's an opinion based piece, if the facts aren't correct then it's just lazy journalsim and shouldn't be printed - because there's always someone out there who's going to believe it and appreciate the ammo.

→ Posted by: Emma at February 4, 2003 7:49 PM

It's not entirely true that newspaper journalists are paid to get their facts right. Subeditors are paid to get journalists' facts right. It's an entire cottage industry built out of the inability of a single person to do their job properly. Columnists are paid to annoy you. Who cares if they get the facts right?

→ Posted by: Bobbie at February 4, 2003 9:39 PM

No! It's immoral to engage in agonizing when it's so clear that war is {wrong|right}.

→ Posted by: mitch at February 5, 2003 8:02 AM

It has come to my attention that the source I initially used for the figures about the numbers of deaths in the Second World War come from a potentially dubious source. The site hitler.org claims to give an "impartial" and "unbiased" view of the Third Reich. Although I have no evidence that its scholarship is anything but solid, the possibility exists that the site might represent, or at the very least be seen to represent, an apologia for the crimes of the Nazi Regime in Germany. So while I'm not in a position to argue with any of the figures they have supplied, I have decided to seek alternative figures from a more widely respected source. I have changed the relevant link within the text of the piece above to reflect this.

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at February 5, 2003 12:59 PM

Not that this was really the main thrust of the post, but I'd just like to say that the EU directive mandating the labeling of all food items with greater than 0.9% GMO content is a de facto ban on GM foods. This is due to the environment in the EU towards GMO. Various lobbying groups are rabidly against GMO, and have managed to convince the uneducated public that GM is bad, flying in the face of all available scientific evidence.

The terrible thing is that the general populace is content to regurgitate soundbites as fact and really doesn't care to take the time to learn the truth. For example, why should purified vegetable oil be labeled as GM? There's no DNA or protein left in it! Anyway, education is the key, but no one seems to want to be educated...

→ Posted by: Dennis at February 5, 2003 4:20 PM

Dennis, I think most of the issues people have with genetically-modified foods are more to do with anxieties about them being grown in the wild, cross-breeding with other crops, growing out of control or spreading insect resistance and the like to other crops. There are other issues that some consumers have with the particular politics or economics of the companies that patent entire species - but most commonly it's the environmental issues that are the concern. The genetic material of the food in the shops is less the issue than the risks associated with growing it in the first place. And while there are cases cited of allergens from nuts being introduced into other foods by genetic modification, I don't think anyone apart from the most clueless of people believe that by eating genetically modified foods they'll turn into weird hybrid people or anything like that. My personal feeling is that if there are a decent number of people who feel that they have ethical or social or economic objections to buying genetically-modified produce, then they should have the option to refuse to sponsor it. They can only have that option if they are told whether or not it is GM or not.

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at February 5, 2003 5:08 PM

Thanks for a carefully considered, point-by-point analysis of what is ultimately a loose collection of anti-European stereotypes woven into a sometimes amusing narrative. I'd have to agree with Emma, such writers should try their hands at novels instead. Unfortunately, the average reader tends to believe that everything on the page is "news" or "fact" (I'll bite my tongue and leave corporate-owned news media politics out of this), so what you see is Joe Average repeating the editorials as fact without actually looking at the arguments presented, which is all an op-ed piece really does.

Thanks, Tom, for waiting to cast your war vote. I have an opinion on the issue, but I agree... with so many lives at stake on both sides, to cheer mindlessly for or against war is to oversimplify the issue. Choices in which human lives hang in the balances on both sides shouldn't be simple.

→ Posted by: john at February 6, 2003 12:53 AM

In defense of Friedman's comments regarding smoking, while it may be true that smoking in Europe, especially France and Germany, occurs at exactly the same rate as in the U.S. (but couldn't WHO have broken it down by state? the U.S. has states bigger than most european countries - would be a little more accuate IMO), *secondhand smoke* is much more of a problem in Europe than in the US. Friedman perhaps wasn't explicit enough about the differnce between people who smoke and second hand smoke, but I think that was his point, given his comments about needing a chest x-ray. Sure, not labeling GMO foods takes, to some degree, choice away from the purchaser (it *is* possible to find out who uses GMO and avoid those manufacturers, it is just more difficult than having a handy little warning on the can) - but second hand smoke takes that choice away from everyone in the restaurant or movie theater, which is far worse.

I think his point is valid - why get your panties in a bunch about GMOs (which was driven by the media looking for the next "Oh my GOD, your food is going to KILL you!" story more than anything else) when every time you go out to dinner you inhale the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes, which *will* kill you.

Should we go to war? I dunno, I see points on both sides. I don't think that the europeans are being honest about their reasons for avoiding war, any more than the Bushies are being honest. But there is a knee-jerk reaction among the left in the U.S. that tends to side with the europeans no matter what, and I'm not ready to get on the bandwagon.

→ Posted by: tor at February 7, 2003 7:17 PM

Dennis: the labelling is in no way a 'de facto ban on GMO foods', it's just labelling, not a health warning like on cigarettes, which still sell a lot anyway, and make a huge business also for US companies. This is not about US or not US, and has no relation to the war issue - tor: you have a fair point there. There's a tendency to knee-jerk reactions also among the left in Europe to side against the US no matter what. The anti-US position at the political leadership level is only France and Germany really, and its a battle of interests mostly, but most tend to assume it's about ideals.

→ Posted by: nickie at February 9, 2003 9:24 AM

Smoking and the smoking gun...

Comments

Want to add your opinion?