Dioxin is found at higher than normal levels in food originating in Belgium. The result? A government falls and a bill of at least £1.5 billion is slapped on the Belgian economy. Nobody is ill and is unlikely to be at such exposure levels.
Elsewhere, Coca Cola's share price takes a massive hit when the smallest question mark arises over a tiny quantity of their product in Europe. Nobody is ill though some think they are.
In France, some beef cattle are raised with sewage added to their feed. European consumers are outraged yet such practices have probably been carried out for years; in other countries too. Nobody is ill but the French think they are going to be when they tuck into British beef.
At the second millennium's end, this is how consumers react to foods that have sustained them up to now. Risk has plagued what is supposed to be an enjoyable and natural activity: eating.
Take genetically modified food. It just sounds dodgy. Such reactions cannot be dismissed as being simply ill-founded, as they have arisen because of real scandals and carelessness which are driving consumers' attitudes to food and dictating what they buy in a supermarket or choose in a restaurant.
There is a crisis of confidence in food. This is the backdrop against which food production and, increasingly, medicine has to contend with; ironically, it comes at a time of awesome technological and scientific advancement. The overlap between food and medicine occurs because of evidence (more convincing than ever) of the link between diet and disease including cancer.
But the biggest problem as far as food is concerned in Ireland is that we eat too much of it.
With overeating comes obesity. Children have never been so overweight and at the same time inactive - all fuelled by the "good" side of economic boom, and a direct result of the bewildering choice and wonderful developments that come with convenience. Grazing - eating small snacks rather than formal meals - has marked the individualisation of eating, reflected in the consumption of what suits rather than what's best.
Also a factor is technology, which promotes inactivity in children: the car ferries them everywhere. The combination of television, Gameboys, Playstations, computer games and obesity should not be a surprise; nor should indications of advanced heart disease among many thirty-somethings. In a sense we are being programmed for it.
What is surprising is the degree to which poor diet previously dictated by limited economic circumstances has been quickly replaced by bad diet facilitated by prosperity. This is reflected in a British study which concluded children's diet in the 1950s was generally healthier than today. The Medical Research Council found that 1950s four-year-olds, though more susceptible to illness, had higher calcium and iron and much lower sugar intakes. They ate more green vegetables and potatoes. Baked beans account for 25 per cent of vegetable consumption in the 1990s. Drinking habits have dramatically changed with soft drinks and juices easily accounting for the single biggest item consumed in the 1990s on average, 446 grams a day.
The future for nutrition is exciting, says Prof Mike Gibney of Trinity College, Dublin, a member of the EU's scientific steering committee (its most influential expert group on food and medicine).
Treatments will be individually tailored, likewise diets, after determining genetic susceptibility to a particular disease. Moreover, he believes the fear factor will be overcome when consumers are confronted with direct benefits of biotechnology, new foods and genetic information. Also, advances will be tied to food production that will not exacerbate environmental strain on the planet. New nutritious and palatable foods may replace oily fish, rich in good (PUFA) fats, and reduce over-fishing. New protein sources will emerge with little or no threat to land-use.
But there will be one final barrier to overcome: physical inactivity. "If the developed world is content to be physically inactive, then the strategy for optimal nutrition may be dependent on that state, and optimal nutrition for the slob may be more difficult to define than that for the physically active."
We already know that the best diets for prevention and treatment of disorders such as non-insulin dependent diabetes, hypertension and osteoporosis differ between the physically active and inactive. The future, however, will also see a growing trend of people taking "top-up" nutrients in excess of levels normally set to make up a deficiency.
He explains: "The standard textbook tells us a deficiency of folic acid will lead to anaemia. We now believe that intakes of folic acid well above the level required to prevent this will certainly reduce the incidence of neural tube defects, will probably reduce risk of cardiovascular disease and might have some function in reducing risk of certain cancers and even risk of Alzheimer's disease."
But Prof Gibney believes it is "deeply shameful" that, as we enter the new millennium with so many wonderful new concepts of nutrition and health, we do so with an awesome legacy of disease due to basic nutrient deficiency among billions of people in the developing world.
There is every indication they will be left behind as the developed world redefines optimal nutrition for itself. It will be possible to predict "with considerable statistical confidence" the impact on populations of chronic diseases according to particular dietary patterns. "The explosive growth in the science of genetics will inevitably lead to confident predictions at individual level of the role of nutrients in determining disease," he notes. Up to 15 per cent of the population, for example, have a genetic "polymorphism" which means a low-fat diet does not prevent them from being overweight.
Sooner rather than later, the pharmaceutical industry, he says, will develop smart drugs to treat or prevent obesity and other diet-related diseases. There will be better identification of important compounds which, for example, have oestrogen-like properties, are powerful antioxidants (which prevent cancer), lower cholesterol or are anti-inflammatory. Already, we have margarines, engineered by food technologists, enriched in phytosterols which, with habitual use, "can rival the best drugs in lowering cholesterol", he adds. The obvious consequence is that many compounds will be engineered so that enhanced levels can be consumed. Using crops to grow important compounds through "pharming" is imminent. "Genetic engineering will utterly change the nature of our food, enhancing the desirable and eliminating the undesirable."
While this brave new world ought not to be feared, Prof Gibney warns it ought to be planned. The self-interests of nation states will inevitably complicate matters. And no, this "will not replace the pleasure of dining". People will continue to cook and have food as an enjoyable social occasion. With busier lives, and notwithstanding consumption of not-so-healthy foods, people will be consuming more and more highly nutritious, palatable foods that are rapidly prepared - products reflecting lifestyles, medical needs and the advancement of science in the third millennium.