Recombinant bovine growth hormones and public health concerns

Growth Hormones in our food. They are causing society to become weight and sick

Growth hormones is our food

The population of the modern day society is growing sicker with every year, and what is more dramatic is that the age at which the population develops heart and blood pressure related diseases continues to decrease and affect the youngest of the generations. The reasons for this are complex, to include changes in cooking and eating habits, or a more sedentary life style. According to some scientists however, a contributing factor is also represented by the presence of growth hormones in the food we consume.

There are generically six types of growth hormones and they are mostly used in the raising of cattle. They speed up the process of cow growth and they also increase the production of milk by cow. Since the 1950s through today for instance, this production of milk by cow has more than tripled (Food Service Warehouse).

Out of the six hormones used more commonly, three of them have a natural origin, whereas the other three are artificially developed. In order to increase the production of milk by cow, farmers inject their animals with the recombinant bovine growth hormone, or the recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBGH or rBS). The intense usage of this hormone leads to infections in the udder of the cows, which are treated with antibiotics.

The dairy and beef coming from animals injected with growth hormones (about two thirds of all American cattle) contain residues of both antibiotics as well as growth hormones. The opinions regarding these residues vary.

On the one hand, they are presented as having a negative impact upon the health of the consumers, whereas on the other hand, it is argued that they do not pose any threat for the population. The arguments against the usage of growth hormones link them to increased chances of cancer developing in the consumers, but also other problems, such as an accelerated development of the children.

The parties involved in the dispute include scientists, policy makers and the cattle farms. The farms tend to agree on the non-harmful impacts of growth hormones, but the scientists and the policy makers are less homogenous and reveal different perceptions. At a federal level, the governments in Canada and the United States allow growth hormones to be used, whereas the governments in the member states of the European Union prohibit these hormones from being used on their territory. They also forbid the sale of products coming from hormone injected animals, and such a measure has lead to trade tensions between the two regions. The dispute has yet to be settled by the WTO.

Since the arguments regarding the usage of growth hormones are so different and even conflicting, taking one strict side over the other would be dangerous and unwise. In this order of ideas then, it is recommended for more research to be conducted in order to identify the real implications of using growth hormones. The main requirement for this research is that it be objective and unbiased.

Growth hormones is our food

Issue paper

1. Abstract

The usage of growth hormones in the raising of cattle gives birth to intense controversy. The United States and Canada support these hormones, whereas the European Union bans them. This project promotes the need for further, more detailed and objective research.

2. Problem statement

The United States of America allows its cattle farms to inject their animals with growth hormones, but the usage of these hormones jeopardizes the health of both animals as well as humans. The animals develop an increased risk of infections, which are then treated with antibiotics. The residues from the antibiotics and the growth hormones end up in the meat and dairy products and they pose risks for the well-being of consumers. As numerous forms of cancer are associated with the hormones, the current project urges more objective research to be conducted.

3. Introduction

The modern day society is continually changing. It is ever more dynamic than it has ever been and it undergoes constant processes of transformation. The changes which impact the society are virtually endless, including a changing role of the workplace, changing legislations, changing environmental conditions or the unprecedented evolution of technology.

In this dynamic setting, the lifestyle and eating habits of the population have also changed. The people tend to eat out more and cook less inside the house. This is due to the fact that the struggle for gender equality has materialized in women working more outside the home and having less time to perform the household chores, including cooking. Then, eating out -- more often than not -- refers to the consumption of fast food products. These have a rich flavor and a low cost and they are as such accessible to a large portion of the population. At the same time, people become more sedentary.

Throughout the past recent years, the heath status of the global population has decreased dramatically, as more and more people become consumed by blood pressure and heart diseases. And the age at which these diseases occur tends to decrease; diabetes is for instance more and more common in children.

The changes in the life style of the population are commonly blamed for the decaying health of the people. But aside from these, there are also some elements which add to the health risks. One particular element is represented by the usage of growth hormones in the production of food items.

4. Background

In the 1950s decade, a cow produced an estimated 5,300 pounds of milk per year; today, the typical cow produces over 18,000 pounds of milk within a year. Most of this growth is attributed to the fact that the cows are injected with growth hormones. These hormones allow the cows to not only produce more milk, but also to grow at a faster rate. This materializes in more beef being produced in a shorter amount of time, as well as more milk -- and the subsequent dairy products -- being produced in larger quantities, in a restricted time frame.

The growth hormones are mostly discussed in terms of their increased presence within the raising of cattle, but they can also be recurrent in the raising of chicken or pork, with the same effects. Still, in terms of chicken and pork, there are no officially approved growth hormones being used, meaning as such that -- at least theoretically -- the presence of hormones would be most common in the case of cattle (Food Service Warehouse).

The use of growth hormones in the raising of cattle is as such the most commonly disputed and the center of this dispute is represented by the residues left by the hormones in the meet and dairy products. Both of the sides agree that there are indeed residual matters after the use of growth hormones which remain in both the beef, as well as the dairy products. Still, the differences in opinion rely in that one party argues that these residual matters negatively impact the health of the population, whereas the other party argues that these residual matters are derived from hormones which already appear naturally in the structures of humans and animals, and they as such, do not cause any ill effect (Food Service Warehouse). In such a setting, the dispute over the actual impact and future course of action regarding the growth hormones are still undergoing.

There are generically six types of growth hormones used in the raising of cattle. These include the following: Oestradiol, Progesterone, Testosterone, Zeranol, Trenbolone and Melegestrol. Out of these, the first three hormones are naturally occurring and then reproduced, whereas the latter three growth hormones are synthetic. The hormones are used differently, based on the scopes followed by the producer. In order to increase the production of milk, the companies inject the cows with rBGH, or the recombinant bovine growth hormone, which is an artificial growth hormone, obtained through genetic engineering and which has raised controversy since its initial creation (Sustinable Table). The usage of all of these raises serious questions upon the impacts they can generate upon the health of the people.

a) Arguments in favor of growth hormones

The usage of the rBST (recombinant bovine somatotropin, another name for the rBGH) reduces the numbers of cows required to produce a large quantity of milk, decreasing as such the negative impact of dairy firms upon the environment

The usage of growth hormones allows the beef cows to grow by at estimated 15 to 20 per cent higher rate and to also produce a leaner meet than the animals grown in the conventional manner

The existence of residual hormones in the dairy and the meat do not harm the consumers. When these residues exist in the products, they are present in low quantities and do not harm the human body. In the case of the bST, its residues are already dead and go through the digestive system of the consumers.

The studies conducted by researchers have proven the safety in using growth hormones. This argument relies on the existence of over 2,000 studies worldwide about the quality and healthfulness of the milk coming from injected cows and the findings which state that it is not dangerous for human consumption (Food Service Warehouse).

b) Arguments against growth hormones

The growth hormones are unsafe and unhealthy for the cows, the label of the injection revealing over 20 potential risks to the animals, including mastitis, a painful bacterial infection affecting the udder of the cow.

The milk of injected cows has residual hormones 10 times higher than the milk of non-injected cows. Research studies have linked this milk with an increasing risk of breast, colon, prostate and lung cancer in human consumers.

The consumption of products deriving from animals injected with growth hormones causes early maturity in humans. In the 1970s decade, the United States banned DES -- a growth hormone known to cause cancer. Instead of destroying its residues, they sent them to Puerto Rico, where the farmers injected them into their chickens. As a result of consuming the meat, children as young as two had reached full sexual maturity.

Finally, the milk from cows injected with growth hormones might also contain residual antibiotics. The animals injected with bST often incur udder infections, which are treated with antibiotics that will also be present in the milk. If the farmer does not allow a sufficient withdrawal period, the entire supply of milk could be contaminated with the medicine (Food Service Warehouse).

6. Recommendations

The problem with cows injected with growth hormones is more common within the United States and Canada, with the other players in the international community embracing a more prudential approach. In this order of ideas, the general recommendation is for the authorities in the two North American countries to further investigate the matter and to make better informed decisions. The final expectation is for the authorities to forbid all together the use of growth hormones, in an effort to safeguard the health of the population. In this order of ideas, the following pin pointed recommendations are forwarded:

The careful assessment of the studies conducted outside the United States, as well as the studies conducted within the United States; the comparison of the two and the identification of the objectivity of each study. Specifically, at this stage, importance would be placed on the less obvious aspect of the studies, such as the existence of a link between the research center, the scientist, and the beef and dairy producers. The identification of such a relationship would be an automatic red flag.

The creation of its own team of scientists to investigate the concerns raised relative to the safety of the growth hormones. This team would be under the supervision of the government and its main scope would be that of generating objective findings.

The policy makers should move away from the interests of the companies. While this subject is often taboo, the role of the government as a structure of the people, for the people and by the people seems to lose its meaning. In this structure, corporations have intervened to create spectacular profits and to use their financial resources to influence the policy making process (Leonard). In such a setting then, it is necessary for the political structures to move away from the influence of the corporations and to base their decision making processes on objective and unbiased findings, which support the overall well-being of the population.

Overall then, the usage of growth hormones is a controversial matter, with some arguing its benefits, whereas others arguing its shortages. In essence, while the benefits are pertinent to some degree, they are still inferior to the potential of risks they raise. The current paper has strived to maintain a distant position from each argument and has forwarded the need for intensive and thorough study, as well as the reliance on objective research rather than any other source of influence.

References:

Leonard, a., the story of stuff, the Story of Stuff Project, http://www.storyofstuff.org / last accessed on February 21, 2012

McLaughlin, a. 2011, the effects of growth hormones in food, Live Strong, http://www.livestrong.com/article/98816-effects-growth-hormones / last accessed on February 21, 2012

Artificial hormones, Sustainable Table, http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/hormones / last accessed on February 21, 2012

EU scientists confirm health risks of growth hormones in meat, Organic Consumer Association, http://www.organicconsumers.org/toxic/hormone042302.cfm last accessed on February 21, 2012

Serving food with a side of growth hormones, Food Service Warehouse, http://www.foodservicewarehouse.com/education/health-safety/growth-hormones.aspx last accessed on February 21, 2012