Beef Hormone Crisis - Essay Example

Beef Hormone Crisis The beef hormone crisis is an example of the unfortunate connection between science and capitalistic intent. In the advent of the majority of scientific breakthroughs, an individual or a corporation stands to profit on a massive scale. Despite the creation of regulatory bodies designed to monitor certain areas of scientific research, protect the environment, and look out for the consumer, evidence suggests that on occasion financial incentives may impose a questionable influence upon such bodies. The European Union has made its opinions on the matter quite clear creating a significant trade dispute with the United States. Recent scientific evidence linking chronic illnesses to artificial hormones in beef has aggravated an already fragile situation. The future implications of what could turn out to be a drastic exploitation of science are uncertain, but should they prove to be negative, someone will have to be held responsible. Experimentation with hormones has been taking place for approximately fifty years. In the early 1980s the potential use for hormones as growth stimulants in cattle were realised: "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" (A Primer On Beef Hormones). Research intensified in attempts to better understand and ultimately put to use potentially revolutionary procedures in hormone administration. Six hormones became the focus of attention for scientists and agriculturalists alike, three of which occur naturally within humans and animals (estradiol, progesterone and testosterone), and three synthetic hormones (trenbolone acetate, zeranol and melengestrol acetate). As early as 1981, Europe's stance concerning hormones became clear as the European Commission (EC) Council "adopts Directive 81/602 to prohibit the use of hormones, except for therapeutic purposes, but later postpones action on five hormones pending EC study" (Chronology of the EU's hormone ban). The United States adopted a more lenient policy towards the use of hormones as growth stimulants, encouraging the use of both naturally occurring and synthetic hormones as growth stimulants. Problems immediately arose as both parties either side of the Atlantic began to realise the financial implications of their differing views. Finding themselves on the raw end of the deal, in September 1986 the United States "raises EC hormone ban in the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade ("Standards Code") of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)", and then early in 1987 "invokes dispute settlement under the Tokyo Round Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade" (Chronology of the EU's hormone ban). Hence a virtual trade war begins. The main results are a European Commission ban on all U.S. meat, and, in retaliation, one hundred percent tariffs on many millions of dollars worth of EC imports. Following the climax of trade disputes between Europe and the U.S., a relatively quiet period ensued leading up to 1993. The greatest significance of this year was perhaps the development and introduction of a new synthetic hormone, "Posilac", otherwise known as bovine somatotropin. According to its manufacturer, "supplementing dairy cows with bovine somatotropin safely enhances milk production and serves as an important tool to help dairy producers improve the efficiency of their operations" (Posilac; Bovine Somatotropin). Quite clearly the financial potential associated with such a product is considerable, and, just a few years after its introduction into the U.S. market, a new series of appeals arose as the United States bombarded the World Trade Organization (WTO) with complaints that Europe was not complying with International trade law. Canada also joined in the protestations summarised in the Iowa Agricultural Review: In 1996 the United States and Canada brought separate but similar complaints to the World Trade Organization (WTO), claiming that the EU regulations were in contradiction with the principles of the WTO agreements. In the summer of 1997, a WTO panel assembled to resolve the U.S. and Canadian disputes concluded that the EU regulations were inconsistent with some articles of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures, which was signed by all WTO members in Marrakech in 1994. (Beghin, 1) Once again, the EU did everything within its power in an attempt to protect its own interests but this time the WTO found that EU imposed regulations were not sufficiently based upon risk assessment. Following arbitration, the EU's last line of defence, the WTO allowed a grace period of fifteen months after which "the EU's regulations were to be consistent with the WTO Agreement on SPS measures" (Beghin, 2). At the end of this fifteen month period the EU proposed an offer of compensation as it would not be able to implement the changes required by the WTO. The United States and Canada were subsequently given licence to impose similar import tariffs to those of the late eighties. A figure of $116.8 million per year was deemed acceptable compensation by the powers that be. Since 1999 the trade dispute has settled down considerably. However, in October of 2003 the U.S. chairman of the Committee on Finance, Senator Chuck Grassley, made a statement suggesting that the United States government are still far from satisfied: I don't see anything new here. The EU is stating that it will continue to keep its ban on U.S. beef imports in place. It now claims that science is on its side in regards to one of the hormones at issue, and I'll leave this one up to the scientists, but given the EU's records with this case, I have my doubts. On the other five hormones involved, the EU has yet to find any scientific evidence that they pose health risks, and it's still keeping them out. The WTO Appellate Body released its report on this case in 1998, and it's about time the EU came into compliance with its obligations under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement of the WTO. The EU's beef ban is hurting U.S. cattle producers, including Iowa producers. Evidence such as this suggests that for now a stalemate has been reached. The EU is showing no signs of changing its stance on the matter the origins of which date back to 1981. Interestingly in his statement Senator Grassley mentions that European scientists are now backing up the EU's position regarding one of the hormones with credible evidence proving that it does in fact result in disease and illness. The Senator quickly dismisses this claim but it is something that requires further investigation. In 1999 European scientists claimed to have discovered evidence linking the hormone "17 beta-oestradiol" directly to serious disease. "On May 3, an official European Union (EU) scientific panel issued a 139-page report which affirmed that at least one of six growth hormones contained in U.S. beef exports and banned by the EU can definitely cause cancer" (Cummins). At face value such a claim is genuinely disturbing. Scientists across the world acknowledge the fact that excessive amounts of hormone residues can lead to cancer but in this particular report suggestions are that minimal amounts can have an extremely harmful effect. The EU panel proposed that all six of the hormones "may cause a variety of health problems including cancer, developmental problems, harm to immune systems and brain disease... Even exposure to small levels of residues in meat and meat products carries risks..." (qtd. in Cummins). If this is indeed true, then the following statement suggests cause for major concern in the future: "Based on conservative estimates, the amount of estradiol in two hamburgers eaten by an eight-year-old boy could increase his hormone levels by 10%" (Cummins). The United States does not value the opinions of these European scientists at all, perhaps justifiably considering the situation of the past twenty years. It is apparent by now that both sides will do anything within their power not to back down, and that may or may not involve the fabrication of certain scientific evidence. In analysing the situation, more important is to question the origins and motives of the EU - U.S. trade dispute. What in fact did the European Commission stand to gain when implementing bans on hormones in 1981 The reality of the matter seems to be that it was merely looking out for the best interests of the everyday consumer, genuinely fearing that hormonal experimentation could lead to unknown negative effects. After all, "According to science, evolution is the self-governing force by which every biological entity is controlled [] Biotechnology has discovered ingenious methods of manipulating genes and organisms in ways that would not occur naturally by evolution" (Evolution in the Hands of Big Business). Standing to lose millions of dollars following a ban on beef, the U.S. had many reasons to oppose Europe's refusal to accept the benefits of hormone experimentation. However, money should never become more important than the health of the consumer, and there are signs that this could have been the case. At this point it is necessary to refer back to the introduction of Monsanto's "Posilac". A revolutionary synthetic hormone capable of greatly increasing milk yield which proved invaluable within the U.S. market. However, questions must be asked concerning the possible negative effects of this particular hormone, perhaps more than any other. In his case study in the economics of unregulated capitalism, Philip Hyams suggests that as a result of scientific innovations linked to capitalistic intent the everyday consumer may become vulnerable: If we accept the premise that capitalist culture is primarily driven by the mass production and marketing of goods and services, a parallel observation can be made, that there exists a contradiction when it comes to capitalist culture protecting the consumer at all costs, especially if this entails loss of ROI by the culture's main drivers, thus paving the way for economic models structured and built upon the economics of unregulated capitalism. (Hyams) Hyams is concerned that when enormous financial influence is exerted upon certain governing bodies their judgments may no longer be aimed toward the best interests of the consumer. Despite their innovative technological advances, Monsanto are not held in high regard by a number of people and organizations. Global Reality has the following to say about the biotechnological giant: Monsanto is one of the biggest, most powerful, most ambitious andcontroversial biotechnology companies on the planet. Monsanto's tactics have repeatedly and regularly raised concerns around the world, on subjects of ethics, greed, and corruption. There are reported to be very close links between Monsanto and the US FDA, who ultimately grant licenses for the use of Monsanto's technologies in the US. An indication of this is in the 'revolving door' policy Monsanto and the FDA share - Many former employees of Monsanto are now working at the FDA, and vice-versa. Of course, this could just be coincidence. Global Reality has also picked up a simple yet disturbing admission from the CEO of the company: "For its part, Monsanto has admitted that no one knows - or can know - what will happen when genetically modified organisms are put directly into the human food chain and are released into the natural environment, as is the case with genetically modified crops" (qtd. in Global Reality). It is well established that no one can know the eventual effects of tampering with nature. Monsanto does not care. With annual sales of more than five billion dollars they are virtually invincible. According to Philip Hyams, Monsanto does however need a little help along the way: "Its influence extends into a plethora of national and international regulatory bodies, governments and dummy consumer protection agencies which help it to promote a wide range of lethal products within the "global village". The main body responsible for monitoring new products is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It is well known that there are connections between Monsanto and the FDA; how deep they run is the subject of much speculation. The mission statement of the FDA reads as follows: The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health. Evidence suggests that for many years the FDA has failed in its mission, especially with regards to Monsanto. On more than one occasion Monsanto's products and production techniques have had negative and sometimes fatal effects. For approximately forty years Monsanto "produced poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at two North American facilities [] PCBs are cancer causing carcinogens and a few of their more deadly effects include birth defects, hypertension and destruction of human and animal tissue by osmosis" (Hyams). The repercussions of Monsanto dumping PCBs were, and still are, monumental. They ended up paying compensation of $700 million. Monsanto was also involved in the production of "Agent Orange", a lethal toxin manufactured during the Vietnam War. Monsanto's version contained extremely high levels of dioxin, and therefore when both Monsanto and Dow (another company responsible for the production of "Agent Orange") were ordered to pay out millions of dollars to war veterans who had been poisoned by their own weapons, Monsanto took the brunt of the financial damages. In 1985, Monsanto took over a company that had just started producing "Nutrasweet", a low-calorie replacement for sugar containing Aspartame. Within a short time a range of products linked to "Nutrasweet" appeared on the market. It appeared that the FDA had overlooked the fact that Aspertame is comprised of three genuinely harmful components: aspartic acid, phenylalanine and methanol. To make matters worse, "according to FDA records, Aspartame is responsible for more than 75% of all bad reactions to food additives, reactions which can include seizures and death" (Hyams). So the FDA were fully aware of the negative effects, yet failed to act. They are not fulfilling their promise of "protecting the public health". Returning to the subject of Monsanto's bovine growth hormone, "Posilac", there is a distinct possibility that once again the FDA has failed to pick up on yet another harmful product. According to Robert Cohen, one of many individuals upset with Monsanto's policies, "you will soon be reading a remarkable headline. The genetically engineered bovine growth hormone is dead." Cohen made his prediction in 2003, but in March of 2005 the following appeared in a Monsanto press release: "Today Monsanto is announcing plans to continue gradual increases in the supply of POSILAC to current customers[]As early as June 2005 we will increase supply to customers who request additional POSILAC. We are also creating a wait list for new customers". So certain amounts of the hormone are still available despite claims that Monsanto had run into production difficulties and lied to their customers about the reasons for the shortage. Monsanto will continue to manufacture a variety of controversial products and make vast amounts of money. Indications are that the FDA will continue to allow this to happen, only acting when a situation gets completely out of control and the damage has been done. Whether or not Posilac proves to be as harmful as many predict remains to be seen. Monsanto has no problem tampering with nature's course, or coming up with hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for the consequences. As the beef hormone crisis remains unresolved in what appears to be a stalemate situation, a solution still seems a long way off. The United States insists that there are no proven negative effects of hormone use, while Europe's stance remains virtually unchanged from its original position in 1981 despite unrelenting pressure form the U.S. and the WTO. All things considered, it appears that at this moment in time there are few indications that the use of hormones has negative effects on human health, as long as they are produced and administered in the correct manner. "Hormones do have health consequences and can be carcinogenic at high dosages. Hence, control and producer education on appropriate procedures appear to be essential components of a well-functioning system" (Beghin, 3). Science will continue to play a hugely significant role in the development of society. Improvements in medicines and sanitation are helping to ensure that humans enjoy an improved quality of life. Unfortunately it is extremely difficult for anyone to know where to draw the line as far as biotechnology goes. Currently the United States stands on one side of the metaphorical line and Europe on the other. Driven by its capitalistic nature, the U.S. wishes to reap the financial benefits of science as well as the physical. Europe on the other hand is taking a more precautionary approach perhaps a little more concerned about the health of its consumers. Controversy will continue to surround the beef hormone issue, most likely for several years to come. The true effects of altering nature's natural cause will be revealed at some point in the future. Should they be as negative as many predict, someone will be held responsible, but it will be impossible to make right what could well turn out to be the greatest case of negligence in the history of mankind. Works Cited "Primer on Beef Hormones." FAS Online. 24 Feb. 1994. Foreign Agricultural Service. Feb. 14 2005. "Chronology of the European Union's Hormone Ban." FAS Online. 18 Nov. 2005. Foreign Agricultural Service. Feb. 14 2005. "Posilac; Bovine Somatotropin." Monsanto.com. 2005. Monsanto Corporation. Feb. 14 2005. Beghin, John. "EU-U.S. Beef Hormone Trade Dispute." Iowa Ag Review. Vol. 5 No.3 1999: 1-3. Grassley, Senator Chuck. U.S. Senate Committee on Finance. European Union Announcement On Hormone-Treated Beef. Wednesday 15 Oct. 2003. Cummins, Ronnie and Lilliston, Ben. "Beef Hormones, Irradiation, & Mad Deer: America's Food Safety Crisis Continues." Campaign for Food Safety News. 4 June 1999. "Overview." Evolution in the Hands of Big Business. 1999. Global Reality. Feb. 14 2005. Hyams, Philip. "A Case Study in the Economics of Unregulated Capitalism." Monsanto's Posilac. Newtopia Magazine. Feb. 14 2005 "FDA's Mission Statement." U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Department of Health and Human Services. Feb. 14 2005 Helscher, Thomas. "Monsanto Dairy Industry Affairs." Monsanto Press Release. 24 March 2005. Cohen, Robert. "Monsanto: End of Bovine Growth Hormone Milk rBGH." Blackherbals.com. April 2004. National Health Federation. Feb. 14 2005. Read More