Europeans differ from Americans; that’s not news. They are less willing to take dietary supplements as a matter of daily routine, and more likely to take them to treat an illness (where North American consumers prefer to take prescription drugs).

Europe also tends to lag behind North America where new ingredients or categories are concerned. Generally speaking, an innovation will take roughly five to 10 years to make the jump across the pond. For example, liquid supplements are only now slowly conquering European shelves.

European regulations are partly to blame. Many new ingredients and their claims are rejected or held up by the EU’s novel food, health claim or new drug regulations before they can even enter the marketplace. And once they manage those hurdles, they still have to deal with consumers.

But sometimes it is the other way around. Probiotics, long since a mainstay of European dairy products, traveled a long road before being adopted by American consumers.

In all cases, distrust seems to be the main reason for slow acceptance. A good example of this is food made from or containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). While the U.S. seems relatively laid back about genetic modification, European consumers might almost be called paranoid. A mention of genetic modification on a product label is almost a guarantee it will be avoided, which is why the range of GM products on the European (and especially German) market is very small. Manufacturers are even starting to put a voluntary claim “not genetically modified” on their products to reassure consumers.

The consumer skepticism toward GM is reflected in European regulations. Europe only allows GMOs to be marketed following a strict authorization procedure. All products containing GM ingredients need to have a marketing authorization and a label statement. Once they make it to market, the label statement alone may drive consumers away.

The avoidance of GM foods probably has something to do with the current trend toward natural products and additives—and away from all things artificial. In consumers’ minds, genetic modification is the epitome of “artificialness.”

This relative paranoia toward GMOs was exemplified in a recent decision by the European court that has made some waves. If a beekeeper is situated near a field of GM plants (e.g., during that GMO’s field test), GM pollen may find its way into the honey. If that is the case, and GM pollen is indeed found above a certain amount, then the honey in question needs a marketing authorization for foods containing GM ingredients, and a remark to that effect on the label—that is, if the GMO in question is authorized in Europe in the first place. If it is not, the honey cannot be marketed at all, just like any other product containing GM ingredients from unauthorized GMOs.

By extension, this decision also affects all dietary supplements made from honey, or that contain honey as an ingredient—with possibly far-reaching consequences for the industry. In other words, if a beekeeper exports his honey into the EU, say, as an ingredient for a dietary supplement, it means that the vicinity of a GMO field with GM plants that are not authorized GMOs in the EU could mean the end of his or her business, even if the GM pollen is only brought into the honey by accident.

A small number of European beekeepers banded together to fight this court decision, but since this ruling is in accordance with current regulations, there is little chance of success. It remains to be seen what other legal consequences will occur.