The Usa Beef Exported To Eu Is Safe And Should Not Be Banned

It has been a decade since the European Union (EU) issued a 10-year ban of U. S. imported beef treated with hormone additives. The primary reason set by EU was the fact that â€Å"scientific advertisers are convinced the hormone additives in beef are harmful to human health† (James, Barry 1999). Despite the fact that the World Trade Organization (WTO), the international body that regulates international trade policies and laws, ruled out the ban, the EU preferred to defy such ruling.Such a vital economic event posed multi-faceted effects in the international relations of both nations: economic, political, ethical and cultural relations. The main point is not the ban itself, rather, it is the fact that there has been no solid scientific evidences yet established by the EU before it ordered the ban on US hormone-treated beef. In fact, three neutral members of the WTO panel arbitrators ruled that the EU's decade-old ban on the import of hormone-treated beef broke global trade rul es (Thompson, Sharon R.1999 cited in Orr, Rena 2001). This paper will focus on the health safety of hormone-treated beef exported by U. S. to the EU. In this premise, this paper will present facts and figures that will prove the safety claims relative to hormone additives using scientific studies by the representatives of both nations. The events leading up to the ban on the domestic use of hormones in cattle raising and on imports of hormone-treated beef are important in explaining the political longevity of the issue in Europe.In many ways the story begins with the emergence of non-governmental institutions, such as the consumer and environmental groups, together with the rise of the European Parliament, each cutting their political teeth on issues that appeared to resonate with public opinion. The beef-hormone controversy was made to measure for these organizations. Trade concerns were not dominant in the early years, and the disciplines applied by trade rules were in any case we ak.European livestock producers were searching for ways to stimulate growth in cattle, and took eagerly to the use of hormones, but sometimes with inadequate knowledge of the consequences of misuse of such chemicals. Regulatory control sometimes slipped between the cracks, as coordination and harmonization of national regulations progressed haltingly in the European Union. The United States has about 90% of its beef production raised with growth hormones (Paulson, Michael 1999).Growth hormones are injected to cattle for the purpose of enhancing muscle and fat growth and thereby allowing cattle to produce more milk (Bald, Renee and Bill Bigelow 2002). The process is as simple as injecting tiny pellets of these hormones into the ears of the cattle (Jacobs, Paul 1999). Such hormones are approved and permitted to be legally used as per federal laws by ranchers in producing meaty and lean cows (Paulson, Michael 1999).There are generally six types of hormones used in beef production and t hree of these are natural sex hormones- testosterone, progesterone and oestradiol-17 beta (Bald, Renee and Bill Bigelow 2002). In the fact sheet published by Health Canada (2005), hormonal growth promoters are defined and explained as follows: â€Å"Hormonal growth promoters are naturally occurring or synthetic products. They are approved for use in beef cattle. The effect of hormonal growth promoters (HGPs) is to increase lean tissue growth.Fat deposition is reduced and since fat is so energy dense, food conversion efficiency is increased. The result is a healthier product which is produced at a lower cost to the consumer. † The fact sheet also defined the growth hormone somatotropin as â€Å"a naturally occurring substance in both humans and animals. It is responsible for skeletal, organ and cell growth’’ and Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) as â€Å"a synthetic version of the naturally occurring growth hormone somatotropin which is approved for use in the US to increase the production of milk in dairy cattle.† The safety of growth promoters has been confirmed by the Codex Alementarius. Codex Alementarius with FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives recommended minimum daily intake of 17 beta estradiol, progesterone and testosterone but maximum residue limit was not indicated (Orr, Rena 2001). â€Å"This means that the available data on the identity and concentration of residues of the veterinary drug in animal tissues indicate a wide margin of safety for consumption of residues in food when the drug is used according to good practice in the use of veterinary drugs† (ibid).As background information, the Codex program is under the supervision and sponsorship of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization. The said program aims to develop food standards that would fit the requirements or needs of participating nations of which as of 2001 as already 150 nations. Primarily, Codex program ta rgets to minimize non-tariff trade barriers. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), on the other hand is an independent international arm composed of experts in food general health and safety issues.It is this international body that focuses on the scientific evaluation of a veterinary drug without consideration of government policies and politics (Orr, Rena 2001). Codex Alementarius with FAO/WHO concluded that the presence of drug residues does not present health concern and does not pose any health risk to humans (JECFA Fifty-second Meeting: Summary and Conclusions, 1999 cited in Orr, Rena 2001). In addition, JECFA concluded that there is no need to establish maximum residue levels for the hormones Estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone because the presence of residues would not present a health concern (ibid).The Lamming Committee convention (1982) and the Scientific Conference on Meat Production (1995) confirmed growth promoters are safe (Galvin, Timothy US Dept of Agriculture, 2000). Timothy Galvin is the Administrator of Foreign Agricultural Service of US Department of Agriculture. In his statement before the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization, Galvin stressed that â€Å"the EU’s ban ignores a body of scientific evidence showing that the growth promotants in question are safe when used in accordance with good animal husbandry practices† (Galvin, 2000).Studies in the last four decades have confirmed that the proper use of these compounds, according to approved registered labels, poses no risk to human or animal health. EU's own Scientific Conference on Growth Promotants held in 1995 reached the same conclusion (BBC News Online, May 13, 1999). In its statement released and published in BBC News Online on May 13, 1999, the United States speakers insist those experts from JECFA, FAO and WHO have already released its reconfirmation on the safety of growth hormones under accepted veterinary pract ice.With this, there should have been no reason to continue with the ban. In addition, they pointed out that â€Å"EU already presented these arguments to an impartial WTO dispute-settlement panel in 1997 and lost and even in its appeal a year after† (ibid). Galvin (2000) also stressed in his statement: â€Å"In each of its decisions, the WTO found that the EU beef hormone ban is not supported by an adequate risk analysis nor is there credible evidence to indicate that there are health risks associated with hormone-treated beef. †The US Food Administration, USDA and WTO and other researchers have concluded that growth hormones are safe if used properly (Lusk, et. al. 2003). Although EU consumers have negative perceptions as to the health hazards of genetically modified foods, of which hormone-treated beef belongs, it should not be a basis for the ban. Perceptions are clearly different from scientifically proven evidences of health risks. According to Bureau of Consumer Unions based in Brussels, EU consumers are demanding â€Å"risk-free† foods because of the phobia they got from past experiences of pesticide contaminated meats (Lusk, et.al. 2003). However, if we are to base on available facts from scientific studies, hormones are unlike pesticides that can pose health hazards when in food. In fact, there are studies that show that hormones are naturally present in infinitesimal amounts in all meat whether implanted or not (Q&A Growth Promoting Hormones, cited in Orr 2001). Aside from this, the National Cattlemen Beef Association (2001) stressed that â€Å"the amount of estrogen in plant-source foods is larger than in meat.A standard serving of potatoes contains 225 nanograms of estrogen while a three-ounce serving of beef from an implanted steer contains 1. 9 nanograms of estrogen. † Published in the Los Angeles Times in April 19, 1999, Paul Jacobs presented the argument of the US government that three of the six hormones used in be ef production are legal as per federal laws and that these are hormones that are naturally in the human system, thus confirming the statement of the National Cattlemen Beef Association as stated above.Ironic to the EU ban, scientific panel organized by the EU agreed with the WTO stand that these hormones are perfectly safe (Jacobs, Paul 1999). Even if 17-beta estradiol has tumor initiating and promoting effects, the substance is freely available over the counter in the United States along with other hormone additives (James, Barry 1999). The human body naturally produces hormones in amounts greater than what is being consumed by eating meat or any food (National Cattlemen Beef Association cited in Orr, Rena 2001).â€Å"What often is not recognized is that the [natural] levels that are found in other animal foods, such as eggs or milk or butter, are substantially higher than those that occur in animal tissue as a result of use of these hormones† (Ellis, Richard cited in Jacobs , Paul 1999). Ellis is the director of scientific research oversight for the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Dan Glickman, the U. S. secretary of agriculture, also insists that â€Å"U. S. beef, whether grown with hormones or not, is absolutely safe, and that EU scientists have consistently failed to come up with proof to the contrary† (Barry, James 1999).EU is also fearful of the effect of rBST hormone, as one of the six hormones being used in cattle production in the US. The said hormone was said to have an effect of increasing the rate of infection in cattle. Although this is true, the infection is not applicable in humans (Bald, Renee and Bill Bigelow 2002). Another fear of the EU consumers and its government is the mutation effects of hormones. Although EU scientists identified at least one commonly used hormone (17 beta estradiol) as complete carcinogen, it was a common mistake to assume that the substance like other hormones causes cell mutation (James, Barry 1999).Su ch hormones are feared as endocrine disrupters which was explained by an American scientist as having an effect in the process of cell development but does not have solid explanation as to how it really works as of this moment (Sonnenschein, Carlos cited in Barry, James 1999). The scientist explained that â€Å"in assessing the risk of endocrine disrupters, therefore, it is necessary to consider their effect not only on individual cells but on the relations among cells.† In this ground, EU does not have the reasonable and supported evidence as to fearing the mutation effects of hormone-treated beef especially with humans. â€Å"Lacking proof, the EU can only fall back on observed effects, such as the specific distribution and observed increase of hormone-associated diseases, such as breast cancer and prostate cancer, in many countries of the world that may be caused by hormones and hormone-like substances in the human diet† (ibid).Growth promoting hormones has been use d in the beef industry for decades by countries other than the U. S. The Health Protection Branch of Health Canada approved the use of natural hormones: 17 estradiol, progesterone, testosterone and synthetic hormones as zeranol, trenbolone acetate and melengestrol acetate (Taylor, 1983). The Center for Global Food Issues also has approved the safety of the growth hormones in beef production in relation to human health. There are three factors enumerated and explained by the scientific body.The first factor is the process by which the hormones are administered to the cattle. According to the authors, the doses of hormone implant are specific as to legal and authorized doses per FDA regulations (Avery, Alex and Dennis Avery 2008). The authors also stressed that â€Å"the implant ensures that the hormone is released into the animals’ bloodstream very slowly so that the concentration of the hormone in the animal remains relatively constant and low† (ibid).Here is an intere sting fact stated by the authors: â€Å"Because the ear is discarded at harvest, the implant does not enter the food chain. † There is no way that cattle raisers or producers of hormone-treated beef will administer the hormone in excess of what is required since it will just bring them additional cost for such unnecessary step. This second factor stressed by Avery et. al. (2008) is very significant in proving the cattle raisers were stuck to the limits of hormone dosage and that is economically wise.IN fact, there is very little impact on weight gain when such hormone will be administered beyond required dosage. Avery (et. al. 2008) also stressed that USDA is conducting annual monitoring of hormone administration in cattle to ensure everything is done with proper precautions and safety measures. The third factor is relative to the dosage of hormones administered in cattle and its impact on hormone levels in beef. Even with reference to the natural hormones produced by the hum an body, such dosage is comparatively low level.â€Å"A pound 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 9 million times less than the amount produced by a pregnant woman† (Avery, Alex et. al. 2008). According to JECFA’s calculation, even if a person is consuming one pound of beef and that the amount of hormone in such beef is at the highest level of ingestion amount (50 nanograms of estradiol, it is still less than one-thirtieth of the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of estradiol for a 75 pound child.This is based on the regulatory requirement set by WHO/FAO Expert Committee (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. 1999 cited in Avery, et. al. 2008). In a separate study, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), stated that â€Å"a person would need to eat over 13 pounds of beef from an implanted steer to equal the amount of estradiol naturally found in a s ingle egg and that a glass of milk contains about nine times as much estradiol as a half-pound of beef from an implanted steer† (Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA 1999 cited in Avery et. al. 2008). Avery et. al.(2008) stressed that governing bodies that can prove the safety of hormone treated beef exported by the United States which include The European Agriculture Commission Scientific Conference on Growth Promotion in Meat Production (1995) and Sub-Group of the Veterinary Products Committee of the British Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food (1999). Having been proven of its safety, let us now look into the consumer preferences and awareness as to buying hormone-treated beef produced in the United States. Consumers are actually aware of Genetically Modified Foods (GM Foods) but are still willing to buy them.A survey on US consumers found that concern on the hazards of hormone residues in food ranked average on the list, even below the concerns for contaminants (bact eria and pesticides) (Kramer and Penner, cited in Lusk, et. al. 2003). In a separate study, by the Food Marketing Institute found that only 1% of consumers volunteered to be concerned with hormone residue (Lusk, et. al 2003). Apart from this, 65% of US consumers are aware of biotechnology, 73% of who were willing to buy GM foods while 21% biotechnology as health risk (Hoban, 1996).A survey of EU consumers found that consumer awareness of biotechnology ranged from 55 to 57% in France and the United Kingdom to 91% in Germany. Only 30% of German consumers were willing to buy GM foods whereas 57% viewed biotechnology as a health risk. In France and the United Kingdom, 60 and 63% were willing to buy GM foods with 38 and 39% viewed them as a health risk (Hoban 1996). An experimental auction found that consumers placed more value on the leanness of pork than the use of hormone itself (Lusk, et. al. 2003).A survey of US student consumers found that 70% were unwilling to pay a premium to exc hange a bag of GM corn chips for a bag of non-GM corn chips but 20% were willing to pay at least $. 20/oz in exchange (Lusk, et. al. 2003). EU’s ban of US beef for safety reasons is baseless and a clear violation. WTO rules 3 times that the ban on the use of certain hormones to promote growth of cattle violated the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement (Galvin, Timothy, Foreign Agricultural Service, US Department of Agriculture, 2000).Europeans who traditionally get their beef from aging bulls and dairy cows–are sometimes subjected to far higher amounts of natural sex hormones than they would get from U. S. cattle. Americans point out that a slaughtered bull, for example, can have 10 times more natural testosterone in its flesh than a treated steer (Jacobs, Paul, The Los Angeles Times, 1999). Estrogen levels from treated cattle are, on average, 3% higher than the meat from an untreated animal. For testosterone and progesterone, the differences are less than one-te nth of 1% (Ellis, Richard, US Dept.of Agriculture cited in Jacobs, 1999). These evidences of the health safety of hormone-treated beef produced by the United States did not move the EU authorities and did not at all lift the ban. As of this time, there has been no solid scientific evidence yet presented by the EU authorities to justify the decade-long ban. Despite the continuing ban on US beef, the federal government, in cooperation with the USDA and the American livestock producers has been taking all the efforts they could possibly exert in keeping the market alive and growing without the EU market.What the government did was to support the cattle raisers and beef producers in seeking and developing new markets to make it up with the lost EU beef market which is undoubtedly significant to the US beef export. â€Å"As a result, U. S. beef exports represent one of the true success stories in our agricultural trade† (Galvin, 2000). Galvin stated that the United States is now a ble to export more than 80 percent of what is being imported based on volume, and the trade surplus in beef exceeds $1 billion annually. †The bottom line therefore is that the United States should not be wasting its time and resources in appealing to the EU to lift the ban on hormone-treated beef. This is primarily because it has already proven its case on the safety of the products. Secondly, the United States have proven itself able to establish and develop new markets and strategies to cover what is being lost in the ban. Lastly, the United States have all the resources to support the cattle and beef industry as it can with other industries so what it needs to focus now is to help the industry continue to rise. WORKS CITED Avery, Alex and Dennis Avery (2008).The Environmental Safety and Benefits of Growth Enhancing Pharmaceutical Technologies in Beef Production. Retrieved on March 22, 2008 from http://www. thecattlesite. com/articles/1240/the-environmental-safety-and-benefi ts-of-growth-enhancing-pharmaceutical-technologies-in-beef-production Bald, Renee and Bill Bigelow (2002). The Beef Hormone Controversy: Whose Free Trade? Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://www. rethinkingschools. org/publication/rg/RGBeef. shtml Battle over beef hormones. BBC News Online, May 13, 1999. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://news. bbc. co. uk/1/hi/business/the_economy/342310.stm Galvin, Timothy (2000). Statement of Timothy J. Galvin Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service U. S. Department of Agriculture Before the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Washington, D. C. September 25, 2000. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://www. fas. usda. gov/info/speeches/ct092500. html Health Canada (2005). Questions and Answers – Hormonal Growth Promoters. Retrieved on March 22, 2008 from http://www. hc-sc. gc. ca/dhp-mps/vet/faq/growth_hormones_promoters_croissance_hormonaux_ stimulateurs_e. htmlHormones in Cattle. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://www. foodsafetynetwork. ca/en/article-details. php? a=4&c=19&sc=162&id=308 Jacobs, Paul (1999). U. S. , Europe Lock Horns in Beef Hormone Debate. The Los Angeles Times, April 09, 1999. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://www. organicconsumers. org/Toxic/beefhormone. cfm James, Barry (1999). Behind Contested EU Ban, a Scientific Puzzle: Battle to Prove Beef Hormone Risk. The Herald Tribune, October 18, 1999. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://www. iht. com/articles/1999/10/18/snhorm. t. php Lusk, Jayson L. ; Roosen, Jutta ; Fox, John A. (2003).Demand for beef from cattle administered growth hormones of fed genetically modified corn: a comparison of consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://goliath. ecnext. com/coms2/summary_0199-2500157_ITM National Cattlemen Beef Association: Myths & Facts about Beef Production: Hormones and Antibiotics. http://www. beef. org/librfacts/mythfact/mythfact_11. html in Orr, Rena (2001). Growth-promoting Hormones in Cattle. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://www. foodsafetynetwork. ca/en/article-details.php? a=4&c=19&sc=162&id=308 Orr, Rena (2001). Growth-promoting Hormones in Cattle. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://www. foodsafetynetwork. ca/en/article-details. php? a=4&c=19&sc=162&id=308 Paulson, Michael (1999). WTO Case File: The Beef Hormone Case. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, November 22, 1999. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://seattlepi. nwsource. com/national/case22. shtml Q&A Growth Promoting Hormones: Contact: Julie Bousman 202-347-0228 http://hill. beef. org/ft/qagph. htm in Orr, Rena (2001). Growth-promoting Hormones in Cattle. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://www.foodsafetynetwork. ca/en/article-details. php? a=4&c=19&sc=162&id=308 Taylor, W. (1983): Risks Associated with the Exposure of Human Su bjects to Endogenous and Exogenous Anabolic Steroids Anabolics in Animal Production. OIE p 273-287 in Orr, Rena (2001). Growth-promoting Hormones in Cattle. Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http://www. foodsafetynetwork. ca/en/article-details. php? a=4&c=19&sc=162&id=308 Thompson, Sharon R (1999): International Harmonization Issues. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice. Vol 15 No 1, 181-195 in Orr, Rena (2001). Growth-promoting