Beef Hormones Issue - Research Paper Example

Every year, some 36 million cattle are raised to provide beef for US consumers. Two-thirds of these cattle (about 24 million cows) are given hormonesto help make them grow faster. Although the USDA and FDA claim that the hormones are safe, there is growing concern that hormone residues in meat and in cow manure might be harmful to human health and the environment. (Raloff, 1992) As expert scientists prove, the use of growth hormones in food animals poses a potential risk to consumers’ health because hormones found in meat from these animals can disrupt the consumer’s hormone balance, cause development problems, interfere with the reproductive system and even lead to the cancer development. As a result of these health risks, the European Union has prohibited the import of hormone-treated beef since 1988. However, the United States and Canada continue to use hormones while feeding the cattle. Among them are natural hormones (oestradiol, progesterone and testosterone) and synthetic hormones (melengestrol acetate (MGA), trenbolone acetate, and zeranol. Dairy Cows: recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH)). (In fact, the European Union and Canada have banned the use of rBGH as a result of safety concerns revealed during product testing.) Scientists are also concerned about the impact on the environment of hormone residues that are found in cow manure. “When manure is excreted, these hormones can contaminate surface and groundwater, thereby harming local ecosystems. Aquatic ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to the negative impacts of hormone residues; recent studies have demonstrated that exposure to hormones has a substantial effect on the reproductive capacity and egg production of fish. (European Commissions s Scientific Committee, 1999) Many cattle are fed the same muscle-building androgens—usually testosterone surrogates—that some athletes consume. Other animals receive estrogens, the primary female sex hormones, or progestins, semiandrogenic agents that shut down a females estrus cycle. Progestins fuel meat-building by freeing up resources that would have gone into the reproductive cycle. Before discussing the chronology of the general events in the Beef Hormones Issue we should differ between the naturally occurring hormones and the synthetic ones. Naturally occurring steroid hormones (estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone) are produced in significant quantities throughout the lifetime of every man, woman, and child, and required for the proper physiological functioning and maturation of every mammal. All endogenous steroid hormone products marketed in the U.S. for beef growth-promotion are formulated as implantable pellets and are designed to deliver the hormones at a slow, constant rate when injected subcutaneously under the skin of the animals ear. Numerous scientific studies have demonstrated that, when these drugs are used in accordance with their approved conditions of use, concentrations of the hormones in edible tissues remain within the normal physiological range that has been established for untreated animals of the same age and sex. Because of the slow release of very small amounts of the hormone and a short average half-life (approximately 10 minutes), it has been determined that no pre-slaughter withdrawal time is necessary to protect the public health. Consumers are not at risk from eating food from animals treated with these compounds because the amount of added hormone is negligible compared to the amount normally found in the edible tissues of untreated animals and that are naturally produced by the consumer’s own body. Unlike naturally-occurring steroid hormones, there is no natural production of the synthetic compounds, trenbolone acetate, zeranol, and melengestrol acetate (MGA). These compounds are not metabolized as quickly as the naturally-occurring steroid hormones. Therefore, the FDA required, prior to their approval, extensive toxicological testing in animals to determine safe levels in edible tissues for these compounds. Furthermore, FDA required that the manufacturers demonstrate that the amount of hormone left in each edible tissue after treatment is below the appropriate safe level. For the past 25 years, the United States and the European Union (EU) have been disputing the safety of growth promotants used in cattle. The disagreement over the use of hormones in cattle peaked in 1989 when the EU banned the import of beef from cattle treated with growth promotants, effectively cutting off U.S. exports of beef. The United States has always maintained that U.S. beef from cattle treated with certain approved growth hormones poses no public risk, and therefore, the EU’s hormone ban is unjustified. Numerous scientific studies and evalutions, including those conducted by the EU and CODEX, the international food safety standard setting body, have supported the U.S. position. The battle is one of several food safety disputes between the EU and the U.S., which has turned to the World Trade Organization (WTO) for support. The WTO backed the U.S. and Canada, which say endocrine risks are slim, and authorized retaliatory tariffs worth $128 million on European farm products last month (CW, July 21, p. 18). Such disputes hinge on each sides interpretation of science, and on their threshold for action. Europe is rapidly lowering its thresholds. "Where scientific evidence is not black and white, policy should err on the side of caution so that there is zero risk to the consumer," says the European Commissions Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating to Public Health (Brussels) in an April 1999 report supporting the beef ban. FDA says available science shows that hormone residues in beef are safe, supporting a Clinton Administration view that the EU is abusing the precautionary principle to protect domestic producers. "The EU ban is not based on sound science and is wholly unjustified," says U.S. agriculture secretary Dan Glickman. FDA says beef hormone residue approximates the bodys natural hormone levels. The EU questions this assertion. Some researchers say that merely declaring hormone exposure safe does not substitute for health effects testing. We will try to analyze these disputes from the European Union’s point of view as well as from the American one. In 1981 Council of the European Union adopted Directive 81/602 to prohibit the use of hormones, except for therapeutic purposes, but later postpones action on five hormones pending EC study. A year later European Commission Working Group concluded that the three natural hormones “would not present any harmful effects to the health of the consumer when used under the appropriate conditions as growth promoters in farm animals” and that further research is necessary on the two synthetic hormones. In December 1985 the EC bans the use of natural hormones (except for therapeutic purposes), bans the use of synthetic hormones, and prohibits imports of animals and of meat from animals to which hormones have been administered, effective no later than January1, 1988. In 1987 United States invoked dispute settlement under the Tokyo Round Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. EC refused to address U.S. concerns during two sessions of bilateral consultation. The EC blocked formation of the technical expert group. Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) decided that levels did not need to be set for the naturally occurring hormones because they were unlikely to pose a hazard to human health. Committee on Veterinary Drugs of the Codex Alimentarius Commission held the same opinion. At the end of 1988 EC banned all U.S. meat. Despite the fact that the U.S. has no hormonal substances approved for use in beef and pork, the Commission indicated that the United States needed a residue testing program for these meats to be in compliance with Directive 81/602/. In 1995 the EU Scientific Conference on Growth Promotion in Meat Production concluded that there is no evidence on health risk from the five hormones approved for use in the United States. The World Trade Organization Panel, Appellate Body, and Arbitrator found later that the studies had not rationally supported the EC import prohibition. However, the European Parliament votes 366 to 0 for a resolution to maintain the ban. The United States made two requests for a WTO panel. Canada requested a panel too. On June 30, 1997 panel reported that “the EU’s ban on the use of hormones to promote the growth of cattle is inconsistent with the EU’s obligations under the SPS Agreement, in that the EU’s ban is not based on science, i.e., on a risk assessment or on the relevant informational standards. In our view, the scientific conclusions reflected in the EC measures in dispute…does not conform to any of the scientific conclusions reached in the evidence referred to by the European Communities”. EU notifies the WTO of its decision to appeal the Panel’s finding. In 1998, the Appellate Body (AB) released its report, firmly upholding Panel findings that the ban was inconsistent with the SPS Agreement and must be brought into conformity with WTO rules. The AB clearly affirms the Panel’s findings that the EU ban was imposed and was maintained without credible evidence to indicate that there are health risks posed by eating U.S. beef from cattle treated with hormones, and despite the fact that most, if not all, of the scientific studies referred to by the European Communities, in respect of the five hormones, involved here, concluded that their use for growth promotional purposes is safe. In March 1998, at the DSB meeting the EU announced only that “it will implement the AB finding in as short as possible, but must wait for the outcome of additional risk assessments. The United States and Canada insisted on a firm deadline for compliance. Because the parties were not able to agree on a “reasonable period of time” for implementation, the EU requested binding arbitration. The arbitrator decides that the EU needs only 15 months to comply. The arbitrators ruling was clear in that the reasonable period of time was provided to bring the measure into compliance and not to conduct studies to demonstrate the consistency of a measure already judged to be inconsistent with WTO principles. The reasonable period of time for the EU to come into compliance with the WTO rulings ended on May 13,1999. But Agriculture Secretary of the European Union Dan Glickman announced on the EU’s failure to with WTO rulings on the beef hormone ban. In response to such announcement Timothy J. Galvin, administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture made an announcement at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. “This arbitrary and scientifically unjustified ban on beef has gone on for far too long – for 10 years – and has cost the U.S. beef industry and the U.S. economy both in lost revenue and lost market opportunities. It also threatens to undermine the World Trade Organization and the principles that underlie it, including that such measures must be based on sound science and that WTO members found to be in violation must come into compliance. On three separate occasions – once in 1997 and twice in 1998 – the WTO ruled that the EU’s ban on the use of certain hormones to promote the growth of cattle violated the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement and that the EU had 15 months to come into compliance – and that deadline expires on Thursday. As a WTO member, the EU must adhere to these decisions, just as any WTO member must. In each of its decisions, the WTO found that the EU beef hormone ban "does not conform to any of the scientific conclusions reached in the evidence referred to by the European Communities" and that the ban is without credible evidence to indicate that there are health risks associated with hormone-treated beef. Four decades of studies by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration, and other scientific experts have all confirmed this same fact: proper use of these six hormones [Estradiol, melengestrol acetate, progesterone, testosterone, trenbolone acetate, and zeranol] poses no risk to human or animal health. There is essentially no safety difference between eating beef from animals treated with hormones and those not treated with hormones. Not only have our own scientists found U.S. hormone-treated beef to be safe, but scientists from around the world have agreed that the use of these compounds does not present a health hazard to consumers. When the EU signed on to become a WTO member it agreed to abide by all WTO rules. It is time for the EU to honor its commitments under international agreements. To do anything less is to make a mockery of our world trade system. There are over 800,000 beef cow operations in the United States today, and thousands of additional cattle feeders. The U.S. cattle industry has consistently been among the strongest voices in calling for free trade, fair trade, and the need for the marketplace to function in an open manner. If we are to maintain the faith of these producers in trade agreements both past and future, then we must ensure that the those countries found to have violated their trade obligations are made to comply. U.S. impatience on this matter has been 10 years in the making, and time has run out. On July 12 1999 the World Trade Organization declared that the American Trade was damaged by EU Beef Import Ban. The arbitrators determined the level of suspension to be USD 116,8 million. On July 26, 1999, the DSB authorized the United States to suspend such concessions and the United States proceeded to impose 100 percent ad valorem duties on a list of EU products with an annual trade value of USD 116,8 million. On May 26, 2000 the Office of the United States Trade Representatives (USTR) announced that it was considering changes to that list of EU products. While discussions with the EU to resolve this matter are continuing, no resolution has been achieved yet. On November 3, 2003, the EU notified the WTO of its plans to make permanent the ban on one hormone, oestradiol. On November 8, 2004, the European Communities requested consultations with respect to “the United States’ continued suspension of concessions and other obligations under the covered agreements” in the EC-Hormones dispute. However, several European Union policies continue to create significant barriers to U.S. economic interests. So far, almost all concern about this practice has focused on whether trace residues of these hormones in the meat have human-health consequences. But theres another way that these powerful agents can find their way into people and other animals. A substantial portion of the hormones literally passes through the cattle into their feces and ends up in the environment, where it can get into other food and drinking water. Some scientists say that its time to better manage livestocks hormone-laced waste stream, which has flowed unabated in North America for decades. In the United States some scientists proved in 1970 that the synthetic hormone diethylstilbestrol (DES) given to cattle fostered the development of cancer in daughters of women treated to avoid miscarriages. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) outlawed veterinary use of DES by the mid-1970s, the provision of other hormones to livestock continued to bother consumers. I’d like to underline that the results ob the researched that were an evidence of the negative impact on people health were nor publicly discovered. We should also realize why farmers use the hormones. The economic incentive for farmers to use the hormones—it can amount to a 40-fold return on their investment—is and will probably fuel the practice for some time. During the 1990-ies European researched were conducted which resulted into the conclusion as to the negative impact of the hormones on aquatic animals. With a European ban on the use of steroid drugs in livestock, why does the EU fund studies on environmental impacts of such use? One answer comes from data amassed by Rainer Stephany of the National Institute of Public Health and the Environment in Bilthoven, the Netherlands. Though Europes beef industry maintains that no steroids are used, the scientist says that his lab and others have demonstrated by analyzing meat samples that the continent hosts an "illegal—black market—use of growth promoters." A "defensible overall estimate for the use of these compounds in the European Union, based on results from annual regulatory residue-testing programs, could be in the range of 5 to 15 percent" of beef cattle, he reported in the proceedings of the Copenhagen conference. Moreover because all such drug treatment in Europe is illegal, illicit users tend to employ whatever is available and affordable. Residues of at least 35 such drugs have been found in meat samples. This complicates screening since an investigator never knows quite what to look for and each assay can cost as much as a cows entire carcass is worth. This situation contrasts sharply with that in the United States, where drug residues in meat invariably consist of one or more of only six FDA-approved growth promoters, he says. Though the EU is clearly concerned about the impacts of livestock steroids, what about U.S. regulators? At the Copenhagen meeting Stephen F. Sundlof, director of FDAs Center for Veterinary Medicine in Rockville, noted that although "it is my role to regulate these substances . . . I was only made aware at this workshop that we may be having some environmental issues to consider." That was nearly 2 years ago. From that time he concluded that the environmental fate of livestock-steroid use "was something that we [at FDA] are definitely concerned about." Each year, U.S. farmers send 30 million head of cattle to feedlots. This is where animals get beefed up on high-protein chow. To enhance the animals production of muscle—that is, meat—livestock producers treat 80 percent of all feedlot cattle with steroid hormones. Some cows get steroids in their feed. Others receive one or more hormones via a controlled-release implant in their ears. Economically, these hormones offer a bonanza. It costs farmers about $1 to $3 per head to treat their livestock with either procedure. Treatment increases animals growth by 20 percent, so each cow in a feedlot typically gains 3 pounds per day, he says. Moreover, for each pound that it gains, it consumes 15 percent less feed than an untreated animal does. This feed efficiency works out to a cost savings of about $40 per head—so you get more protein at a cheaper cost. The Center for Veterinary Medicine at the Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of these hormones because they tend to leave only small concentrations—ones believed to be harmless—in meat. However, the regulators havent considered what effects the hormones might have after being excreted into the environment. I should also make some notes about safety of Canadian beef. A recent audit of Canadas food-inspection system by the European Commission (EC) raises serious questions about the safety of Canadian meat. The audit reveals "very serious deficiencies" in the regulatory framework and documents wide-spread use of cancer-causing hormones, antibiotics and other endocrine disrupting substances in our meat supply. Canadian and European scientists believe that hormone-laced Canadian meat poses a serious threat to the public, particularly vulnerable groups like pregnant women and prepubertal children.(2) Growing scientific evidence highlights the dangers of exposing people to hormones. Hormone residues in meat and meat products can disrupt the natural "endocrine equilibrium" (hormone balance) which exists within everyones body. Any disruption of this equilibrium can result in multiple biological effects with potentially harmful consequences for human health. The EC 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. Scientifically speaking, these risks include neurobiological (endocrine) effects, developmental effects, immunotoxicity, reproductive and immunological effects, genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. Scientists believe that susceptible risk groups, particularly prepubertal children and pregnant women, are put at unnecessary risk by these hormones. Not enough data is available to allow a quantitative estimate of risk for any of the hormones in question. Therefore, because we cant establish safety thresholds, there is no means to ascertain the "acceptable daily intake". In the case of the common growth hormone estradiol, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that it is a "complete carcinogen" in that it exerts both tumour initiating and promoting effects. Consumption of hormone-treated beef may cause girls to reach puberty earlier, thus making them more susceptible to breast and other cancers. According to Carlos Sonnenschein, from Tufts University School of Medicine (Boston, MA), "Early onset of puberty with its raging hormones translates into higher risk of breast cancer" and it is "very likely" that hormone residues in North American beef is a contributing factor in the early onset of puberty among girls observed in recent decades. There is no other reason to explain it," stated Sonnenschein. According to Annie Sasco, from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, it makes sense that hormone-treated beef could trigger an earlier onset of puberty. "Even if the risk is small it would be prudent to stop the use of hormones in the cattle industry because there is no offsetting benefit for consumers," Sasco stated. An expert scientific panel to the US National Toxicology Program (a program of the National Institutes of Health) concluded that "all forms" of estrogen be listed as "known cancer-causing agents." This latest recommendation includes "steroidal estrogens" like those used by the beef industry to increase weight-gain in cattle.(Duplisea, 2001) The nine member panel, made up of experts in the fields of toxicology, epidemiology and cancer research, made their recommendation to the U.S. government after a thorough review of 20 years of data. Estrogen, the so-called female hormone, occurs naturally in men and women. Some forms of estrogen, including those used in birth control pills, have long been linked to increased cancer rates and are already classified as "reasonably anticipated to cause cancer". The European audit provides further evidence that the federal government has made a major regulatory shift in the role of government. By shifting from a "precautionary principle" to that of a "risk management" approach (where illness and death are considered "acceptable risks"), food safety regulators now manage the damage instead of preventing harm from happening in the first place. This shift to risk management repudiates lessons learned from the European Mad Cow disaster and from Justice Horace Krevers Inquiry into Canadas Tainted Blood Disaster. To paraphrase Justice Krever, government must regulate in the public interest, not in the interest of the regulated. Despite being warned by its own experts in 1997 of the dangers of hormone residues in beef, the Canadian government ignored taking corrective measures.(11,12) Instead it gagged two of its most knowledgeable veterinary scientists and misled the Canadian public to believe that the European Commissions decision to stop importing Canadian beef was just a "trade dispute." Federal Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief responded to the EC audit by defending the use of animal hormones: "There has never been any scientific proof of any danger," stated Vanclief in a Toronto Star. This is a dangerously misleading statement considering Health Canadas own scientific experts had recommended against approving the use of these hormones on the grounds that they posed a threat to human health. In a speech to the European Union, Prime Minister Chrétien said: "We urge that science-based approaches be taken to determine the degree of risk to the environment or human health posed by certain products".(14) In April 1998, however, when the European Commission formally requested the risk assessment data which Health Canada based its decision to authorize the use of beef hormones, Canada refused the request claiming the data was confidential. So much for a "science-based" approach. From a cattlemans perspective, I would like to note that besides the benefits that would come to the environment from stopping the use of pharmaceutical growth promoters in cattle, we would also have a more tender product to market. An under-reported side effect of the use of growth stimulants is about a 25 percent increase in toughness of the meat. If the beef industry would eliminate growth-enhancing drugs, the market would expand. Many producers have calculated that this increased demand for beef would more than make up economically for less weight gain by untreated cattle. Now I’d like to underline the administrative body that regulates the discussed issue. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for ensuring that animal drugs and medicated feeds are safe and effective for animals, and that food from treated animals is safe for humans to eat. Certain steroid hormones have been approved for use at very low concentrations to increase the rate of weight gain and/or improve feed efficiency in beef cattle. No steroid hormones are approved for use in poultry. All of the steroid hormonal growth-promoting drugs are available for over-the-counter purchase in the U.S., and are generally administered by the livestock producer at specific stages of production. Residue levels of these hormones in food have been demonstrated to be safe, as they are well below any level that would have a known effect in humans. An important factor ensuring that hormones are used safely is the way in which they are applied. FDA regulations allow the use of hormones only in the form of implants, which have very specific instructions on proper usage. Each implant contains a specific, legally authorized dosage of the hormone. The implant itself is inserted into the ear, which is discarded at slaughter and does not enter the human food chain. With an implant, the hormone is released into the bloodstream very slowly, so that the concentration of the hormone remains relatively constant and very low. USDA provides educational programs for producers and veterinarians that provide instruction in the proper use of hormones. The hormone levels in beef produced using growth promotants are well within the range of natural levels of these hormones. Beef from a bull (which is not castrated and to which hormones have not been administered) contains testosterone levels over ten times higher than the amount in beef from a steer (which is castrated) that has received hormones for growth promotion. Since the European beef market is predominantly bull-sourced, while American meat is steer-sourced, American hormone-treated beef generally contains lower levels of hormones than most European beef. To put this issue into perspective, it is important to remember that many foods contain significant levels of hormones. The fact is consumers are exposed every day to foods with far higher hormone levels than those found in any beef from animals treated with hormones. For example: - hormone levels (estradiol equivalent) in beef are far less than those found in eggs. A person would need to eat over 6 kilograms of beef from animals treated with these hormones in order to equal the amount of those hormones in one egg. For example, a hens egg (about 50 grams) contains about 45 times as many estradiol equivalents as 250 grams of steer meat raised with this natural hormone; - a one pint glass of milk from an untreated cow contains about 9 times as much estradiol as a 250 gram portion of meat from a steer raised using hormones; - wheat germ and soybean oil contain phytoestrogens at several thousand times higher hormone equivalent concentrations than a serving of beef from a steer raised with growth promotants; - the amounts of estradiol, progesterone and testosterone in animals raised using hormones as growth promotants are extremely low compared with their production in humans. Even a young boy would need to eat more than 7000 grams (about 16 pounds) of beef raised using estradiol daily in order to produce a one percent increase in his production of this hormone. A 500-gram portion of beef raised using estradiol contains approximately 15,000 times less of this hormone than the amount produced daily by the average man, and about nine million times less than the amount produced by a pregnant woman. It must be distinguished whether the ban was caused as a trade protective measure or as a real care for EU citizens. It’s a well-established fact that the use of such powerful hormones for non-therapeutic, non-essential purposes is irresponsible and offers no benefits to the consumer or society, only risk. Public health should come before beef industry profits. Lets do the right thing and ban the use of beef-hormones. Works cited 1. “Assessment of Potential Risks to Human Health from Hormone Residues in Bovine Meat and Meat Products”. European Commissions s Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating To Public Health 30 April 1999 2. “Breast cancer linked to beef.” The Globe and Mail (30 July 1999) 3. Duplisea, Bradford. “The Real Dope on Beef Hormones” Canadian Health Coalition 2001 4. “EU Scientists Confirm Health Risks of Growth Hormones in Meat”. Associated Press: Organic Consumers Association. (23 April 2002). URL: http://www.organicconsumers.org/toxic/hormone042302.cfm 5. Galvin, Timothy J. “Press Conference on the EU Beef Ban Before the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association”. Foreign Agricultural Service U.S. Department of Agriculture National Press Club, Zenger Room.Washington, DCv (10 May 1999). URL: http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/policy/galvin0599.html 6. McLachlan, J.A.. Environmental signaling: What embryos and evolution teach us about endocrine disrupting chemicals.” Endocrine Reviews 22:319 (June 2001) 7. Raloff, Janet. “Hormones: Heres the Beef: environmental concerns reemerge over steroids given to livestock.” Science News. 161.1 ( 5 January 2002). 8. Schiffer, B., A. Daxenberger, et al. “The fate of trenbolone acetate and melengestrol acetate after application as growth promoters in cattle: Environmental studies”. Environmental Health Perspectives 109 (2001) 9. Stephany, R.W. “Hormones in meat: Different approaches in the EU and in the USA” APMIS 109:S357 (2001) 10. “The Real Dope on Beef Hormones”. Canadian Health Coalition. URL: http://www.healthcoalition.ca/hormones.html Read More