Hormones Within the Cattle Industry

¶ … hormones within the cattle industry has given rise to numerous concerns over health issues and has led to international debates.

One of the leading activists against the use of hormones in the cattle industry has been Jeremy Rifkin who has authored numerous books, including "Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture," warning the public about the dangers of technology and science (Jeremy pp). In 1977, he established the Foundation on Economic Trends, and during the 1980's, Rifkin was a key figure in the movement to restrict bovine growth hormone as a means of increasing milk yields (Jeremy pp). In his 1992 book, "Beyond Beef," Rifkin describes the cattle culture as an industry driven by efficiency and production. When calves reach just under a year old, they are transported to huge mechanized feedlots to be fattened up and readied for slaughter (Rifkin 12).

There are approximately 42,000 feed lots in the thirteen major cattle-feeding states, of which two hundred of the largest feed nearly half the cattle in the United States (Rifkin 12). Generally, feedlots are a fenced area with a concrete feed trough along one side, and in some of the larger feedlots, thousands of cattle are lined up side by side in cramped quarters (Rifkin 12). To obtain the optimum weight gain in the minimum time, feedlot managers administer a "panoply" of pharmaceuticals to cattle, including growth stimulating hormones and feed additives (Rifkin 12). Moreover, anabolic steroids, in the form of small time-release pellets are implanted in the animals' ears for the purpose of stimulating the cells to synthesize additional protein, adding muscle and fat tissue more rapidly (Rifkin 12). Anabolic steroids improve weight gain by five to twenty percent, feed efficiency by five to twelve percent, and lean meat growth by fifteen to twenty-five percent (Rifkin 12). It is believed that over ninety-five percent of all feedlot raised cattle in the United States are currently being administered growth promoting hormones (Rifkin 12).

The dispute between the European Union and the United States and Canada over the European Union's ban on cattle products produced with the use of growth hormones demonstrates the conflicts between health concerns and the trade system and particularly exemplifies the conflict between balancing the need for precaution and the demands of the public with international trade rules (Trade pp). Although the long-term health effects of eating beef products produced growth hormones are uncertain, the European Union maintains it has the right to ban production and imports of these products (Trade pp). The United States claims that there is no scientific proof that any of these products pose a human health danger, yet the World Trade Organization states that a risk assessment that conforms to its procedures must be undertaken before action can proceed (Trade pp).

Beginning in the 1970's the United State's meat industry began using hormones to improve the growth rate of animals in an effort to conserve time and money (Trade pp). In 1981, the European Union began restricting the use of growth hormones within the Union itself, and also began restricting the import of meat and meat products derived from cattle that had been given hormones (Trade pp). During the past years, the European Union have updated and/or amended its regulations several times, generally to include more hormones, however, for the most part, the regulations have remained the same (Trade pp). The dispute at the World Trade Organization concerns the use of six scientifically approved hormones used for cattle growth promotion, estradiol, melengestrol acetate, progesterone, testosterone, trenbolone acetate, and zeranol (Primer pp). All six of these hormones have been used for decades in the United States and several other countries without negative effects on public health, and according to international scientific consensus, including the European Union's own scientists, these approved and licensed products are safe when used in accordance with good veterinary practice (Primer pp).

In 1995, the international food standards body, Codex Alimentarius Commission, adopted standards accepting residue levels of these hormones in meat, and although there was great controversy and disagreement amid Codex members concerning the issue, Codex adopted the standard by only four votes after, it is claimed, the United States Chair forced a secret ballot, an uncommon Codex practice (Trade pp). This overturned an earlier vote against the United States position and gave the U.S. The needed leverage to initiate World Trade Organization proceedings because the Technical Barriers Trade Agreement, TBT, requires internationally accepted standards must be used where they exist, and the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement, SPS, explicitly refers to Codex for the establishment of international food standards (Trade pp).

In 1996, the United States, subject to strong lobbying from Monsanto, a major producer of genetically modified, GM, seeds, and other farming interest groups, filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization which led to the formation of a Panel (Trade pp). An interesting note is that Micky Kantor, the then United States Trade Representative, was responsible for initiating the action in the WTO and is now a board member of Monsanto (Trade pp). Canada also lodged a complaint and the same Panel was used to adjudicate, reporting in August 1997 a ruling against the European Union on several counts, leading the EU to appeal in September 1997 (Trade pp).

In January 1998, the Appellate Body issued a report modifying the Panel's findings, yet still ruling against the European Union ban (Trade pp).

The main reason for the EU ban is fear that the hormones are dangerous and could cause health problems to those who ingest them, however, the ban has proved controversial because of differing opinions on whether the forbidden products are safe for human consumption and also the allowance by the European Union of the hormones into other parts of the food chain (Trade pp). Moreover, according to EU officials, consumers in the EU have expressed a strong preference to eat hormone free meat regardless of its safety (Trade pp). And furthermore, there is an argument for a ban on animal health-husbandry grounds, such as forcing animals to grow faster than they would naturally (Trade pp). Thus, the three central arguments are:

1) The uncertainty or certainty surrounding the science;

2) The legitimacy of EU public demand;

3) Whether the EU ban is discriminatory - i.e. merely an attempt to protect its own farming industry

(Trade pp).

On February 26, 1999, the United States Interagency Task Force on Beef Hormones issued a statement called "A Primer on Beef Hormones" describing the safety standards in use and stating there was no danger to humans (Primer pp). According to the report, three of the hormones in question, estradiol, progesterone and testosterone, are naturally occurring hormones produced by all humans and food animals, while the other three, trenbolone acetate, zeranol and melengestrol acestate, MGA, are synthetic hormones (Primer pp). Trenbolone acetate mimics testosterone, while zeranol mimics estradiol, and melengestrol acestate mimics progesterone (Primer pp). The report states that these six hormones are approved and can be used safely for growth promotion (Primer pp). "A hormone-treated animal gains weight more rapidly, producing a more flavorful and tender product. By reaching market weight sooner, there is a reduction in the cost of beef production. Thus, consumers are provided with a higher quality of meat at lower prices" (Primer pp).

Since the 1950's, the United States Food and Drug Administration, FDA, has been thoroughly researching the effects of growth hormones and it, as well as other scientific experts, have found that there is "essentially no difference between beef from animals raised using hormones and those raised without their use" (Primer pp). In fact, it claims that on all occasions of testing, the six hormones have always been found to pose no measurable or adverse health effects (Primer pp). According to the Primer, there is a "clear world-wide scientific consensus supporting the safety of these approved and licensed hormones when used according to good veterinary practice" (Primer pp). This consensus is reflected in the 1984 and 1987 Lamming Committee reports, consisting of the scientific expert group commissioned by the European Community, the 1987 Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation, the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Food, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the safety assessments of FDA and comparable institutions in many throughout the world, and most recently by the assembly of the world's foremost experts on the subject of the 1995 Scientific Conference convened by the European Commission (Primer pp). The Primer states that the world's scientific community has agreed that estradiol, melengestrol acetate, progesterone, testosterone, trenbolone acetate, and zeranol are safe for food-producing animals when used as per label directions (Primer pp). The United States has an extensive regulatory control system over the use of these hormones that includes comprehensive food safety standards that are based on "sound, internationally-recognized scientific criteria" (Primer pp).

FDA regulations allow the use of hormones only in the form of implants, and each implant contains a specific, legally authorized dosage of the hormone (Primer pp). The implant is inserted into the ear and is discarded at slaughter, thus, it does not enter the human food chain (Primer pp). The hormone in the implant is released into the bloodstream very slowly ensuring the concentration of the hormone remains relatively constant and very low (Primer pp). Moreover, the prescribed dosage is the level "which produces the maximum economic response in the animal -- the law of diminishing returns -- so that there is no economic incentive for a farmer to use additional implants," and ensures that the animals taken to slaughter have normal hormone levels (Primer pp). According to the Primer, beef from a bull contains testosterone levels over ten times higher than the amount in beef from a steer that has received hormones for growth promotion (Primer pp). Therefore, since the European beef market is predominately bull-sourced, while the American meat is steer-sourced, American hormone treated beef generally contains lower levels of hormones than most European beef (Primer pp). Moreover, hormone levels in beef are far less than those found in eggs, and one pint glass of milk from an untreated cow contains about nine times as much estradiol as a 250 gram portion of meat from a steer raised using hormones (Primer pp). A 1996 article in "Contemporary Women's Issues Database" by Terren Ilana Wein suggests that cow's milk may not be good for human consumption (Wein pp). The majority of domestic dairy products contain steroids, antibiotics, and hormones, not to mention the pesticides used in the cow's food (Wein pp). Although BGH, bovine growth hormone, increases milk productivity, it also increases the incidence of mastitis, udder infections, which in turn increases the need for more antibiotics which end up in consumers' milk (Wein pp).

According to a recent audit of Canada's food-inspection system by the European Commission, there are "very serious deficiencies" in the regulatory framework and documents wide-spread use of cancer-causing hormones, antibiotics and other endocrine disrupting substances in Canada's meat supply (Real pp). Both Canadian and European scientists believe that hormone-laced Canadian meat poses a serious threat to the pubic, especially for vulnerable groups such pregnant women and prepubertal children (Real pp). This report come amid growing scientific evidence that highlights the danger of exposing human to hormones (Real pp).

Hormone residues in meat and meat products can disrupt the natural "endocrine equilibrium" which exists within a human body and any disruption of this equilibrium can result in multiple biological effects with potentially harmful consequences for human health (Real pp). The European Commission audit concluded that "in view of the intrinsic properties of hormones and recent scientific findings, Canadian meat consumers are exposed to unnecessary risk from the intake of hormone residues," including neurobiological effects, developmental effects, immunotoxicity, reproductive and immunological effects, genotoxicity and carcinogenicity (Real pp).

However, European fears of growth hormones are somewhat warranted because during the 1980's the dangerous synthetic hormone diethylstilbestrol, or DES, was detected several times in baby food made with veal (Hormone pp). The baby food was manufactured from French cows treated with DES and this reportedly led to various deformities in infants, such as Italian babies growing breasts (Hormone pp). DES was banned in the United States in 1979 due to its link to cancer and birth defects, and the 1980's incidents led several European countries, including France and Belgium, to ban the use of all hormones in cattle (Hormone pp). Those who imposed the EC ban claim that hormones used in U.S. meat causes tumors and genital deformities in children (Hormone pp). Unfortunately, the ban in Europe has led to a black market of hormones available to European farmers, and although most have been proven safe, other contain the harmful, synthetically manufactured DES (Hormone pp). Tests by the U.S. Department of Agriculture have found traces of DES from recent imports of beef from West Germany (Hormone pp). The United States sees the EU ban as a clear case of unfair trade because since the regulation does not set any specific quotas or tariffs, it can be seen as a non-tariff trade barrier, NTB, and universal tests on the hormones have proved them to be safe to consumers (Hormone pp).

Recent figures indicate an increase in U.S. beef exports into the European Union, however, the industry has already lost millions of dollars worth of potential trade, mainly because more than half of all cattle raised in the U.S. are treated with hormones (Hormone pp).

The reason why the controversy over beef hormones is so great is due to the protectionist nature of the ban (Hormone pp). Beef was specifically chosen because the European Union market has historically been very dependent on the import of beef from other regions, including the United States and Brazil, and this is because there is very little profitable grazing land in the EU, and other countries have filled the gap in the beef market by providing a high quality product at a reasonable price (Hormone pp). The BST regulations are not as heavily enforced for pork and poultry products because EU industries could not afford to abide by the regulations themselves and are not dependent on the imports of such products (Hormone pp). Thus, to protect the inefficient beef markets of the European Union, this regulation was crated and has received generous consumer support despite the lack of conclusive evidence (Hormone pp).

In October 2003, the European Commission demanded that the United States and Canada lift their longstanding sanctions against the European Union which were imposed because of a ban on hormone-reared beef deemed illegal by the World Trade Organization (EU pp). This came following the official publication of a new law establishing a permanent ban on one growth hormone, oestradiol 17-beta, and provisional bans on another five substances (EU pp). The ban on meat sold on the EU market lead the United States and Canada to successfully challenge the legality of the prohibition at the World Trade Organization in 1999 (EU pp). However, given the continued ban by the Europeans, the United States and Canada will be reluctant to lift sanctions that their beef industries claim have cost millions of dollars in lost sales each year (EU pp).

For years, scientists have argued that any increase in the level of hormones, above that which occurs naturally in humans, carries a potential risk of carcinogenic effects, therefore, it is the risks associated with "cocktails" of different hormones that are unclear (Battle pp). Although different scientists have differing views, the safety of hormones in beef and other meat products are in question, yet, the dispute cannot be resolved until the United States beef obtains access to the European market (Battle pp). Over four decades of scientific research has found no justification for continuing the European Union's ban, because study after study has confirmed that the proper use of these hormones poses no risk to human or animal health (Battle pp).