Politics or health indeed?
Another big news for the crisis-struck Lithuanian economy. Russia announced that it will not allow importing milk products from Lithuania. Losing this huge market is a disaster for this big business in Lithuania. The country mainly exports agricultural products. Of course, this news is not analysed in any other way than as an example of certain imperialism. Is it the full story though?
It is often stressed here that in Russia economy and politics are far from independent from each other. Big companies can end up being nationalised for heaven knows what reason. There's no way of excluding the statement that the government does maintain control over the economy. However, the fact that the official reason for forbidding Lithuanian milk export is rarely mentioned. Russian authorities claim that they found antibiotics in these products. A friend of my colleague, working in the milk industry, says that the only way to avoid E's (chemicals) is to use either radiation or antibiotics. I'm not sure what's worse. So Russian authorities have every right to forbid it, and I think Lithuanian authorities should do the same.
Share 
Daiva
Comments
Even if the "embargo" on lithuanian dairy products relies on the confirmed presence of antibiotics (AB) in milk, there is still the possibility of a political reason behind the decision - a plausible excuse for a political move. Just as much as the 2009 Russian-Ukrainian gas dispute was partially justified by a simples past debt.
As for the health safety issue, international standards on tolerance levels provide a reliable answer. Perhaps that friend of your colleague working in the milk industry could provide you with some numbers. If the analysis reveal normal levels of AB or even below-total-embargo levels (I found out this chart trough naturalcheck.com : http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/mi-05-...), I would definetely bet on the political interpretation...
One more thing:
As for the safety of food hygiene methodologies, you said you were not sure wich one was worse: radiation or antibiotics in trying to avoid E's.
It seams that too many people are afraid of these poor E's mainly because of the cryptic labeling system (everytime you eat a orange, you are consuming copious amounts of E300 - that is, natural vitamin C; no danger there and I sure wouldn't avoid it; cf. http://www.food-info.net/uk/e/e300-...).
As for radiation, it's yet another way to prevent contamination and deterioration of food through sterilization, and many people are still afraid of radiation-related technologies because of their misconceptions about radioactivity and radiation itself.
And again, I believe the same principle applies for both cases: if international standards are being observed on food additive levels and food processing norms are being respected, it is perfectely safe to eat.
So wich is worse: E's, AB or radiation? Not using any of them is by far more dangerous. I wouldn't worry about AB, E's or radiation. They are useful and prevent millions from the risk of dying from food poisoning every day.
It seems my first comment isn't showing... I will repeat it and should it show up later, please delete this.
---
Even if the "embargo" on lithuanian dairy products relies on the confirmed presence of antibiotics (AB) in milk, there is still the possibility of a political reason behind the decision - a plausible excuse for a political move. Just as much as the 2009 Russian-Ukrainian gas dispute was partially justified by a simples past debt.
As for the health safety issue, international standards on tolerance levels provide a reliable answer. Perhaps that friend of your colleague working in the milk industry could provide you with some numbers. If the analysis reveal normal levels of AB or even below-total-embargo levels (I found out this chart trough naturalcheck.com : http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/mi-05-...), I would definetely bet on the political interpretation...
I think a fine job was done with the E's - it's compulsory to list them. It could be better of course, for example, it should be compulsory to inform whether soya in soya lecitin was genetically modified. But I would lobby for more information. I think antibiotics and radiation should also be noted down on packaging. Even if it scares people, even if people will avoid them out of pure paranoia, still I think they have a right to know. Maybe they are allergic or on other medication, so it makes sense for them to avoid AB.
I recently saw chocolates claiming they contain no preservatives, but at the same time they contain colour E130... I avoid more or less everything that includes artificial colour - I think it's totally unnecessary.
I completely agree that more information can do no harm. People do have the right to know. The same goes to soy (especially its origin, for soy fields are destroying the Amazon rainforest) and GMO. I for the most part try to avoid excess salt and hidrogenated fat, wich would be impossible without mandatory nutrition information labels.
Also, abuse of AB may lead to resistive strains of bacteria and I think that use of AB as a food preservative should be kept to a minimum or phased out. Consumer choice could do this, in principle.
(By the way: studies show that GM food and derivatives are actually safer than regular food because no one tests no-GMO products as thoroughly. Traditional cross-breeding and embryo sequestration techniques in vegetable cultivars are, in principle, potentially much more dangerous and unpredictable. Everybody is eating these products, though - from simple bread to exotic mid-season weird-shaped tomatoes.)
But what I wanted to say is that knowledge - rather than information alone - should be promoted. Not only as a way of informing people of what they can eat or should avoid, but also as a means to promote healthier habits.
What strikes me as a contradiction is seeing people rightfully worrying about their health and avoiding cellphones and microwave ovens because of fear of cancer and smoking on the beach wearing no sunscreen...
Well, I think that if GMOs kill bees, they can't be good for humans... Which may be scientifically wrong of course, but intuitively powerful.
I agree that there is too much paranoia surrounding the E's. And the sweets I saw are a good example of this.