Effects of Synthetic Hormones on Human Health - Essay Example

and number] in format: 12 May 2002] The use of synthetic hormones on beef cattle has been a long standing "feud" between the United States and the European Union that is ultimately destined for the consumer marketplace. Although continually scientific testing has been done on the extent of the effects of what these hormones have on the human immune and digestive system, with the onset of BSE in England has brought the entire subject of the effects these hormones would have should they actually reach a potentially lethal dose. That situation has, in fact, reared itself in the form of Canadian testing done with far more sophisticated testing which has been available in the last few years that has shown the effects of synthetic hormones in a certain demographic, mostly in the prepubescent female group. The use of synthetic hormones has been linked to the onset of early puberty along with a link to an increase in breast cancer cells in pubescent girls that lead to higher incidents of breast cancer masticizing. This paper will not only review the history of how synthetic hormones are required to be used in a safe manner according to FDA regulations, but also in discussing the US/EU debate issue in how this issue relays to the general public using bipartisan discussion. Effects of Synthetic Hormones on Human Health Since the European Union's ban on products containing beef hormones is not supported by scientific evidence, is detrimental to the United States cattle industry, and is detrimental to the over all economy of the United States, the United States is right in seeking an end to the ban. According to the USDA government website, this is an ongoing issue over the past fifteen years between the US and the EU (European Union). The disagreement itself is over the use of hormones in cattle came to a head in 1989 when the EU effectively banned any U.S. exports of beef to their country that have been treated with growth promotants. The U.S. has retaliated with scientific studies, evaluations (EU and CODEX conducted) have supported the U.S. position. The disagreement may have some merit with respect to independent testing of the effects that the synthetic hormones on a particular demographic community, mainly the increase in the onset of puberty in prepubescent girls along with an increase in the instances of breast cancer in females. The beef hormone issue is not specifically segregated to an increase in molecular alteration of cancer cells as described above, but, the increase in consumer awareness of the beef farmers using synthetic hormones with their cattle and the need to have labeling included stating the use of synthetic hormones. Hormones The hormones that are naturally occurring in every human are required for normal physiological functioning and maturation and three of these hormones in question, estradiol, progesterone and testosterone, are naturally occurring in all humans and food animals. The other three hormones, trenbolone acetate, zeranol and melengestrol acetate (MGA), have been made into a synthetic version in order to mimic the natural occurring hormone versions.1 Safety Records The FDA has conducted thorough research on the effects of growth hormones used on beef cattle since 1950 and had concluded there was no danger posed to human health and they concluded that there is "essentially no difference between beef from animals raised using hormones and those raised without their use." There is a world wide consensus is that these hormones when used according to approved veterinary practices are very safe and the USDA web site advises that this consensus is reflected in the 1984 and 1987 Lamming Committee reports-- the scientific expert group commissioned by the European Community; the 1987 Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Food (CC/RVDF), the Codex Alimentarius Commission; the safety assessments of FDA and comparable institutions in many countries throughout the world; and most recently by the assembly of the world's foremost experts on the subject at the 1995 Scientific Conference convened by the European Commission. The world's scientific community has agreed that estradiol, melengestrol acetate, progesterone, testosterone, trenbolone acetate, and zeranol are safe when used according to label directions in food-producing animals. In order to ensure that hormones are safely used, it is important to ensure that they are administered properly. The FDA regulatory commission only allows the use of hormones in the form of implants. Each implant has a specific procedure adhered to them to ensure proper regulations are followed which means that the implant can only be inserted into the ear which is then discarded during the slaughtering process. This removal during the slaughtering process ensures that the implant apparatus does not enter into the food chain. The implant itself has a hormone that is slowly released into the bloodstream whereby the hormone concentration will remain relatively constant and very low.2 Hormones Put into Perspective The common fact is that many foods that are consumed by humans contain significantly higher levels of hormones than what is found in beef cattle. The hormone levels used in beef cattle are well within the range of what would be found with non-synthetic growth hormones. To put this into perspective on the hormone levels found in many foods, as reported by the USDA, that are consumed by humans include: 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 hen's 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. Chronology of the EU's Hormone Ban According to the USDA government's website, the EU ban has gone as far back as 1981 when the EC Council adopted "Directive 81/602 to prohibit the use of hormones, except for therapeutic purposes, but later postpones action on five hormones pending EC study."3 Based on the findings of the aforementioned study, in 1982, an "interim report by EC Working Group concludes that the three natural hormones would not present any harmful effects to the health of the consumer"4 when used properly as growth promoters in farm animals, but, needed further research on two of the synthetic hormones. In June of 1984, the EC Commission proposed amending Directive 81/602 that would allow the use of natural hormones. In October of 1985, the European Parliament adopted a resolution which endorsed a ban on synthetic hormones and rejected the proposed authorization of the three natural hormones except for therapeutic use. Current Statements on Synthetic Hormones As of 2005, the WTO has opened meetings respecting the entire beef hormone dispute and was made public for the first time for parties to discuss the issue in an effort to work toward resolution. The spokesperson for the WTO Panel in the Hormone Dispute, Neena Moorjani, released a statement in August, 3, 2005 respecting The case pits the European Union (EU) against the United States and Canada. In 1998, the WTO panel ruled against the EU's ban on hormone-treated beef, allowing its trading partners to impose sanctions on EU imports to compensate for lost beef trade. In response to the panel's ruling, the EU revised its relevant regulation but kept the ban in place. In 2004, the EU asked the WTO to rule that continued U.S. and Canadian sanctions related to the beef hormone ruling were illegal. (Moorjani, USEAU, 2005) Alfnes, reports through the Agricultural University of Norway, that "Norwegian consumer preference for country of origin and hormone status of beef were investigated and socio-economic segmentation variables identified." (Alfnes, 19) The variables simply measured consumer responses to the type of meats and their quality. It was found that "on average, after domestic beef, consumers preferred beef from neighboring Sweden to beef from more distant countries and beef from developed countries to beef from less developed countries. US hormone-free beef was perceived as good as Irish beef, whereas US hormone-treated beef was perceived as being inferior to Irish and Botswanan beef." (Alfnes, 22) Growth Hormones Domestic Use Contoversy There have been continued discussions on use of growth hormones on the domestic front since the average consumer has become far savvier with respect to health issues and what can cause long-term negative health effects. Lusk and Fox report in the Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics under the auspices of a study that was conducted over consumer demand for mandatory labeling of beef from cattle administered growth hormones or fed genetically modified corn. The study was focused on evaluating consumer demand for two "mandatory labeling programs: a) labeling of beef from cattle administered growth hormones and b) labeling of beef from cattle fed genetically modified corn."(3) Current labeling practices in the United States imposed by the UDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) that administers a certified beef program wherein, under the program beef can be given a specific "certified" label if certain breed or quality characteristics are met. Thirty-five such programs are registered with the AMS. The most notable of these certification programs is Certified Angus Beef (CAB). In general, these certified programs are aimed at providing consumers with information about experience attributes. For example, consumers may not be able to tell whether CAB tastes differently than non-CAB before purchase; however, the CAB label provides information about product quality that can only be ascertained after consumption. In theory, this information reduces search costs for consumers and increases market efficiency. A large reason in the importance of the labeling is evident in consumer's needs to be kept up-to-date on the relevance of how hormones can effect human health is in need of being pursued. A statement by the USDA estimates that as much as 95 percent of all cattle in the US are implanted with growth hormones (Kuchler et al.) and even though scientists at the WHO and FDA concluded that "residues from hormones, when properly administered in both does and method, pose no threat to human health - residues are minuscule compared with the levels of steroid hormones produced naturally in humans." (Kenney and Fallen, 23) What is important in conjuction with this statement is the consumer perception is that a study independently conducted by the Food Marketing Institute found that "when specifically asked, 50 percent of consumers said hormones were a serious hazard. If consumers are aware that much of the beef on the market came from cattle administered growth hormones and no label is present, consumer purchases of beef may be dampened because they may be uncertain of the attributes of the beef they desire to consume." (Lusk and Fox, 3) Unrelated Meat Hormone Issues Tied In The continued dispute and the use of meat hormones is not limited to just the problem of banning hormones is only added to the unfavorable climate in Europe where, although the hormone case is a forefront to the safety of consumer health, but the concerns over BSE (bouvine spongiform encephalopathy) that has the ability to transmit to humans as Creudzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD)5 and as such these two specific health issues and the increased findings of them lay the foundation for the EU to uphold their ban on hormone-fed beef cattle. Although the United States called for the immediate lifting of the ban, the EU has kept this in place while it has conducted its own risk assessment. The justification for the ban, as offered by the EU Commission, offered its own evidence that stated that one of the U.S. approved hormones is a carcinogenic. U.S. trade and veterinary officials rejected this EU evidence by saying they have contradicted numerous scientific studies, including some by their own European scientists, that show "absolutely no human risk associated with consumption of beef from animals treated with growth-promoting hormones". With the backing of the WTO, the U.S. retaliated these EU statements with imposing prohibitive tariffs on $116.8 million of EU agriculture imports.6 Causal Effect of Beef Hormones An independent health coalition website has in fact produced a 28 page audit on the hormone laced Canadian meat poses a serious threat to the public and in particular certain vulnerable groups such as pregnant women and prepubertal children. The EC audit advises that there are unnecessary risks being taken from the intake of hormone residues and "scientifically, these risks include neurobiological (endocrine) effects, developmental effects, immunotoxicity, reproductive and immunological effects, genotoxicity and carcinogenicity and 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 can't 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.7 At most risk is children, from the start of life in the embryo and onwards. The level of hormone activity varies greatly throughout life and in different stages of the human life cycle. Recent scientific observation now suggests that prepubertal "children constitute a high risk population for beef-hormones since the 'endocrine equilibrium' at that age was grossly miscalculated and new, more sensitive and sophisticated tests developed specifically for estradiol have concluded that the actual hormone production rates of children may have been overestimated by a factor of up to 100 fold." (Health Coalition). This transforms into a great risk for children and through the consumption of hormone-treated beef, girls may be caused to reach puberty earlier, thus making them more susceptible to breast and other cancers. It is suggested that the hormone-treated beef is one of those catalysts that trigger an earlier onset of puberty and "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."8 Hormones Used in Beef Estradiol [estradiol benzoate, estradiol beta-17] Estradiol is one of the main ingredients in several controversial beef-hormone "preparations" used in Canada. One of these hormone preparations, Revelor-H, was approved as recently as 1997 against the advice of Health Canada's own scientific experts. According to a European study released in 1999, estradiol-17 beta is "considered a complete carcinogen ... it exerts both tumour-initiating and tumour-promoting effects." Apart from being carcinogenic, Canadian scientists also observed that Revelor-H resulted in a marked reduction of the Thymus gland - which is essential to the normal functioning of the immune system. A damaged immune system can result in a people being unable to defend themselves against common colds, infections or cancers. Progesterone Progesterone is a steroid hormone linked to the implantation of the egg in the uterus and the growth of the embryo and fetus. In laboratory animals, progesterone has been shown to increase the incidence of tumours in the mammary gland, ovary, uterus and vagina. Testosterone [testosterone propionat] Testosterone is the main sex hormone secreted by males and is known to induce tumours in mice and prostate cancer in rats. Trenbolone [trenbolone acetate] Trenbolone is a synthetic androgen having anabolic activity several-fold greater than testosterone. Feeding trenbolone to mice produced pancreatic tumours, liver tumours and hyperplasia. Zeranol Zeranol is a mycoestrogen produced by various species of fusarium moulds. Male mice exposed in utero to zeranol produced testicular abnormalities. Zeranol also caused the development of pituitary gland tumours in mice and the induction of adenomas and carcinomas of the liver in hamsters. Melengestrol acetate [MGA, melengestrol] Melengestrol acetate is the only beef-hormone administered as a feed additive and is a sister compound of Diethylstilbestrol (DES). MGA pellets implanted in female mice caused increased incidence in mammary tumours Conclusion The debate over using beef hormones is not simply a scientifically debated subject, but, is a hotly debated social and consumer issue. One of the largest controversies may be who is behind the idea that hormone-induced beef cattle ban to be lifted. Is this a cattle industry, scientific or consumer backed issue As the ban was imposed during the late 1990s and the subsequent scientific tests completed at that time, it is difficult to predict if the tests completed at that time were strictly to benefit what the cattle industry needed to continue with their exports. After all, cattle exporting from the U.S. to other countries are extremely high in income that is reflective of the GDP for that country. Through the debate and ban being in continual motion, there has been room for continued scientific testing as these tests have become far more sophisticated during the recent years. It is found that there is a danger to certain populations of the community and there is need for concern to be raised. From pregnant women to prepubescent females, there is concern with respect to increases in breast cancer and tumors related to the liver and instances of hyperplasia. The dangers are also not limited to their male counterparts wherein testicular abnormalities can be found. The need to find new methods of enhancing meat flavor and quality can perhaps be accomplished in other methods and ban the use of hormone induced products in order to remove the threat of cancerous or carcinogenic properties. Works Cited The United States Mission to the European Union. "U.S. Hails WTO Decision to Open Meetings in Beef Dispute". 3 Aug, 2005. 24 Apr 2006 from USDA Government.. "The US-EU Hormone Issue". 01 Jan. 1999. 24 Apr 2006 from Alfnes, F. "Stated preferences for imported and hormone-treated beef: application of a mixed logit model". 1999 Jan. 01. European Review of Agricultural Economics. Vol 31 pp 19-37. 24 Apr 2006 from Lusk, J., Fox, J. "Consumer Demand for Mandatory Labeling of Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn". 2002 Apr 01. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 24 Apr 2006 Harahan, C.E. "U.S. European Agricultural Trade: Food Safety and Biotechnology Issues". 2001 Jan 01. CRS Report for Congress (CRS Web). 24 Apr 2006 Health Coalition. "Draft Report of a Mission Carried Out in Canada from 19 September to 29 September 2000 in Order to Evaluate the Control of Residues in Live Animals and Animal Products". 2006 Apr. 24 European Commissions 's Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating To Public Health: Assessment of Potential Risks to Human Health from Hormone Residues in Bovine Meat and Meat Products. 30 Apr. 1999. 24 Apr. 2006 Read More